SW52P1
Un.tdd Stdtes Gtt.o of
Environmental P.'jtpction Sohd Wastu
Agency Washington DC 20460
Solid Waste
&EPA Proposed Hazardous
Waste Regulations
Volume 1
March 12, 1979
San Francisco
California
Transcript
-------
3*.
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on Proposed Rules for Controlling Hazardous Wastes
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Sections 3001 - 3004
Volume I
March 12, 1979, San Francisco, California 94105
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-52p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
This prepublication copy of this transcript does not include
printed matter submitted at the time of the hearing. This material
will be included in the final printing.
II
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
oOo
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED RULES FOR CONTROLLING HAZARDOUS WASTES
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SECTIONS 3001 - 3004
VOLUME^!
Pages 1 - 284
Nevada_Rqom
8.35 a.m.
March 12, 1979
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Repor ted by.
JERRY R. SMYTHE, CSR
(CSR No. 2393)
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X Page
Remarks by PAUL DE FALCO, Regional Administra-
tor, US EPA, Region IX, San Er an c1 sen 3
Remarks by JOHN LEHMAN, US EPA, Washington,
D . C . 4
ROBERT L. BURT, California Manufacturers
Association 19
JAY SNO'A', Texas Department of Water Resources 45
BRUCE BRUBAKER, Diamond Shamrock Corporation 64
ROBERT W. EDSON, Occidental Chemical Company 80
E. JAMES HOUSEBERG, California Fertili/er
Association 88
DAVID BOLTZ, Senior Pollution Control Engineer,
Environmental Quality Control Division,
Belhlehom Steel Corporation, for the
Amt-T J can Iron and Steel Institute 98
KDWARD G. GLADBACH, Civil Engineer, Los Angeles
Der>ar t men t of Yv at er an d Power 119
KEN O1MORROW, Technical Director of Oil and
So 1 vt1 n t R Process Company, A'/.u^a , California 182
JOHN CHADBOURNE, Environmental Manager of
General Portland 110
BENJAMIN JONES, Radiant Corporation. Austin,
Texas 145
W i sc on s a n 152
JAMES MORRISS, Thompson & Knight, Dallas. Texas 165
MICHAEL KERRAN, President, Association of
Petroleum Re-Refiners 186
THOMAS MEICHTRY, IT Corporation, Martinez,
California 202
-------
1 I i? P E X (Con t ' d )
2 ALBERT WELLMAN, Sanitary Engineering Associate,
California North Coast Regional Water Control
3 Board 228
4 NEIL ESTRADA, Vice President-General Manager
Reichhold Chemicals, South San Francisco,
5 California, for Golden Gate Paint and
Coatings Association 23]
6
DAVID STORM, Hazardous Materials Management
7 Section. California Department of Health
Services 243
8
ROBERT STEPHENS, Hazardous Materials Management,
9 Section, California Department of Health
Services 273
10
11
oOo
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
HEAjUNG_PANEL
DOROTHY DARRAH
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chairman
JOHN P. LEHMAN
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HARRY THASK
Desk Officer - Sections 3002, 3003
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
10 ALAN CORSON
Chief, Guidelines Branch (Section 3001)
11 Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
13 AMY SCHAFFER
Office of Enforcement
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
15 ALFRED LINDSEY
Chief, Implementation Branch
15 Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
18 TIM FIELDS
Desk Officer - Section 3004
19 Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
21 JAMES STAHLER
Senior Environmental Engineer
22 Air and Hazardous . aterials Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
23 "
24
25
-------
2 MR. De FALCO: Good morning. My name is
3 Paul De Falco. I am the Regional Administrator for
4 Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
5 I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome
6 you to the Regional Office and particularly to this
7 public hearing on the proposed rules for a compre-
8 hensive Hazardous Waste Program, control over
9 35,000,000 tons of waste produced in the United States
10 each year.
11 This is the last of a series of public
12 hearings on this subject to be held; others having
13 been held in New York, Missouri, Washington, D.C., and
14 Colorado.
15 It is probably unnecessary for me to stress
16 the importance of these hearings and the proposed
17 regulations. You know they are important or you
18 would not be here giving your time to this hearing.
19 Over the past several months, our nation has
20 been shocked by instances of dangerous handling of
21 hazardous waste materials. These cases demonstrate
22 the critical need for controls on the safe handling
23 and disposal of hazardous waste to protect the public
24 health and our environment.
25 We are dealing with Section 3001, 3002, 3003,
-------
1 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
2 of 1976 in these sessions. These regulations, as
3 proposed, define what is a hazardous waste, establishes
4 the responsibilities of generators of hazardous wastes
5 and sets standards for storage, treatment and disposal
6 facilities. These regulations establish the comprc-
7 hensive regulatory structure controlling hazardous
8 waste from the point of generation to its ultimate
9 disposal.
10 Now let us get down to the business of
11 hearing your views. Let me thank you for coming and
12 giving your time and thought to these regulations.
13 Now I would like to introduce your moderator
14 lor these sessions, John Lehman, the Director of tie
15 ; Hazardous Waste Managoment Division. Office ot Solid
16 Waste, EPA. John1?
17 Mtt. LEHMAN. Thank you, Mr. De Falco.
18 On behalf of the EPA, I'd like to welcome
19 you again, in addition to !,Ir . De Falco's welcome, to
20 the public hearing \vhich is being held to discuss
21 the proposed regulations tor the management of
\
22 hazardous v;aste
23 The LPA on December 18, 1978 issued proposed
24 rules under Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the
25 Solid Vv'aste Disposal Act as substantially amended by
-------
1 the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act of 1976,
2 Public Law 94-580. These proposals respectively
3 cover :
4 1. Criteria i'or identifying and listing
5 hazardous waste, identification methods, and a hazard-
6 o u s waste t i s t,
7 2 . Standards applicable to generators of
8 such waste for recordkeeping, labeling, using proper
9 containers, and using a transport manifest; and
10 3. Performance, design, and operating
11 standards for hazardous waste management facilities.
12 These proposals, together with those already
13 published pursuant to Section 3003 on April 28, 1978,
14 Section 3006 on February 1, 1978, Section 3008 on
15 August 4, 1978, and Section 3010 on July 11, 1978 and
16 that of the Department of Transportation pursuant to
17 the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act on May 25,
18 1978, along with Section 3005 regulations dealing with
19 facility permits, c constitute the Hazardous "(Taste
20 Regulatory Program under Subtitle1 C of the Act.
21 EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations
22 for facility permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for
23 State Hazardous Waste Program authorization pursuant
24 lo Section 3006 of the Act with proposals under the
25 \ational Pollutant Dijscharge Elimination Sysi'1
-------
1 required by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the
2 Underground Injection Control Program of the Safe
3 Drinking Water Act.
4 This integration of programs will appear
5 soon as proposed rules under 40 Code of Federal
6 Regulations Parts 122, 123, and 124.
7 This hearing is being held as part of our
8 public participation process in the development of
9 this regulatory program.
10 The panel members who will share the
11 rostrum with me today are, from your left: Harry Trasl
12 Program Manager in our Guidelines Branch of the
13 Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA in Washington
14 Alan Corson, Chief of the Guidelines Branch, Hazardous
15 Waste Management Division, EPA in Washington;
16 Amy Schaffer, Office of Enforcement, EPA Headquarters
17 in Washington; Dorothy Darrah of the Office of
18 General Counsel, EPA Headquarters in Washington;
19 Fred Lindsey, who is Chiei' of our Implementation Brancf
20 m the Hazardous T.'aste Management Division, EPA Head-
21 quarters in Washington; and Jim Stabler, Senior
22 Environmental Engineer of the Air and Hazardous
23 Materials Branch here in Region IX in San Francisco.
24 As noted :n the Federal Register, our
25 planned agenda is to cover comments on Section 3001
-------
1 today, Section 3002 and 3003 tomorrow, and 3004 the
2 following day. Also we have planned an evening sessior
3 tomorrow, covering all four sections. That session
4 is planned primarily for those who cannot attend
5 during the day.
6 The comments received at this hearing, and
7 the other hearings as noted in the Federal Register,
8 together with the comment letters we receive, will be
9 a part of the official docket in this rulemaking
10 process. The comment period closes on March 16 for
11 ! Sections 3001 through 3004.
12 Let me amend that slightly by saying that
13 in today's Federal Register, on the basis of numerous
14 comments, we have extended the comment period for the
15 Extraction Procedure part of 3001; a very limited
16 section, only the Extraction Procedure part of Section
17 3001 until May 15th, 1979. Except for that very
18 narrow section, the remaining parts of the rulemaking,
19 the comment period does close on March 16.
20 If you would like a Federal Register refer-
21 ence of today's Federal Register, it is on Page 13548.
22 This docket may be seen during normal working
23 hours in Room 2111D, Waterside Mall, 401 51 Street,
24 South\vest, Washington, D.C. In addition, vie expect
25 to have transcripts of each hearing within about two
-------
8
1 weeks of the close of the hearing. These transcripts
2 will be available for reading at any of the KPA
3 libraries. A list of these locations is available
4 at the registration table.
5 Vv'ith that as background, I'd like to lay the
6 groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing.
7 The focus of a public hearing is on the;
8 public's response to a regulatory proposal of an Agency
9 or in this case, Agencies, since both EPA and the
10 Department of Transportation are involved.
11 The purpose of this hearing, as announced in
12 the April 28, May 25, and December 18, 1978 Federal
13 Registers, is to solicit comments on the proposed
14 regulations, including any background information used
15 to develop the comment
16 This public hearing is being held not
17 primarily to inform the public nor to defend a proposed
18 regulation, but rather to obtain the public's response
19 to these proposed regulations, and thereafter revise
20 them as may seem appropriate. All major substantive
21 comments made at the hearing \v i 1 1 be addressed during
22 preparation of the final regulation.
23 ! This will not be a formal adjudicatory
24 I h.'-ar.Mg ,v i t h the right to cross-examination The
25 iH>nl). t -, of the nub lie are to uresent their views on the
-------
1 proposed regulation to the panel, and the panel may
2 ask questions of the people presenting statements to
3 clarify any ambiguities in their presentations.
4 Some questions by the panel may be forwarded
5 in writing to the speaker. His response, if received
6 within a week of the close of this hearing, will be
7 included in the transcript. Otherwise, we'll include1
8 it in the docket.
9 The Chairman r e s e r v e s the right t o 1 i mit
10 lengthy questions, discussions or statements. We
11 would ask that those of you who have a prepared
12 statement to make orally to please limit your presen-
13 tat ion to a maximum of 10 minutes so we can get all
14 statements in a reasonable time. If you have a copy
15 of your statement, please submit it to the court
16 reporter located right here in front of the room.
17 Written statements will be accepted at the
18 end of the hearing. If you wish to submit a written
19 rather than an oral statement, please make sure the
20 court reporter has a copy. The written statement.-,
21 v, i 1 1 also be included in their entirety in the record.
22 Persons wishing to make an oral state:merit
23 \\'ho have not made- an advanced request by telephone or
24 in writ ing should i n (J i c a I o their interest on the
25 registration card. II jou have1 not indicated jour
-------
10
1 intent to give a statement and you decide to do so,
2 please return to the registration table, fill out
3 another card, and give it to one of the staff.
4 As we call upon an individual to make a
5 statement, he or she should come up to the lectern,
6 identify himself or herself for the court reporter,
7 and deliver his or her statement.
8 The Chairperson will inquire as to whether
9 the speaker is willing to entertain questions from the
10 panel. The speaker is under no obligation to do so,
11 although within the spirit of this information-sharing
12 hearing it would be of great assistance to the Agency
13 if questions v/ere permitted.
14 Our day's activities, as we currently see
15 them, appear to be like this:
Ig We will break for lunch at about noon or
17 12:15 and reconvene at about 1:45 p.m. Then, depending
18 on our progress, we will either conclude the day's
19 session or break for dinner and reconvene at about
20 7:00 p.m.
21 Phone calls will be posted on the registra-
22 tion table at the entrance. For drinking fountains
23 or restrooms, you should refer to the format which
24 is located behind the reception desk in the sixth
25 floor lobby. There are vending machines for snacks,
-------
11
1 coffee, and soda pop which can be purchased from these
2 machines located on the sixth floor. Again, refer to
3 the format in the sixth floor lobby.
4 Public phones are available in the first
5 floor lobby. If you need to call another Government
6 Agency, you may use the FTS phone located near the
7 entrance to this room. These are the only phones
8 designated for conference use.
9 With regard to messages, EPA's office phones
JO are extremely busy during the day, and we do not have
11 the facilities to take phone messages for people
12 attending conferences in the building.
13 For nearby restaurants, if you will refer
14 to the handout on the back table for a partial
15 listing. For airport bus lines and taxis, that's also
15 listed in the transporation handout in the back of the
17 room. There is a great deal of other information, as
18 you may know already, on the table in the back. That's
19 sort of some of the housekeeping aspects.
20 One other thing is that if you wish to be
21 added to our mailing list for future regulations,
22 draft regulations, or proposed regulations, please
23 leave your business card or name and address on a
24 3-by-5 card at the registration desk.
25 The regulations under discussion at this
-------
12
I hearing are the core elements of a major regulatory
2 program to manage and control the country's hazardous
3 waste from generation to final disposal. The Congress
4 directed this action in the Resource Conversation and
5 Recovery Act of 1976, recognizing that disposal of
6 hazardous waste is a crucial environmental and health
7 problem which must be controlled.
8 In our proposal, we have outlined require-
9 ments which set minimum norms of conduct for those who
10 generate, transport, treat, store, and dispose of
11 hazardous waste.
12 These requirements, we believe, will close
13 the circle of environmental control begun earlier with
14 regulatory control of emissions and discharges of
15 contaminants to air, water, and the oceans.
16 We do not underestimate the complexity and
17 difficulty of our proposed regulations. Rather, they
18 reilect the large amounts of hazardous waste generated
19 and the complexity of the movement of hazardous waste
20 in our diverse society. These regulations will affect
21 a large number o1 industries. Other non-industria 1
22 sources of hazardous waste, such as laboratories and
23 commercial pesticide applicators, as wo 11 as transport-
24 ers of hazardous v. a s t e , will also be included.
25 Virtually overv cla\ the media carries a story on a
-------
13
1 dangerous situation resulting from improper disposal
2 of hazardous waste. The tragedy at. Love Canal in
3 New York state is but one recent example.
4 EPA has information on over 400 cases of the
5 harmful consequences of inadequate hazardous waste
6 management. These cases include incidents of surface
7 and groundwatcr contamination, direct contact poison-
8 ing, various forms of air pollution, and damage from
9 fire and explosions. Nation-wide, half of all drinkinf
10 water is supplied from groundwater sources, and in
H some areas contamination of groundwater resources
12 currently poses a threat to public health.
13 EPA studies of a number of generating
14 industries in 1975 showed that approximately 90 percent
15 of the potentially hazardous waste generated by those
16 industries was managed by practices which were not
17 adequate for protection of human health and the
18 environment.
19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
20 of 1976 was passed to address these problems. Subtitle
21 C of the RCRA establishes a comprehensive program to
22 protect the public health arid environment from
23 improper disposal of hazardous waste. Although the
24 program requirements are to be developed by the Federal
25 Government, the Act provides that States with adequate
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
programs can assume responsibility for regulation of
hazardous waste.
The basic idea of Subtitle C is that the
public health and the environment will be protected
if there is careful monitoring of transportation of
hazardous waste and assurance that such waste is
properly treated, stored, or disposed of either at
the site where it is generated or after it is carried
from that site to a special facility in accordance
with certain standards.
Seven guidelines and regulations are being
developed and either have been or will be proposed, as
noted earlier, under Subtitle C of RCRA to implement
the Hazardous Kfaste Management Program. Subtitle C
creates a management control system which, for those
wastes defined as hazardous, requires a cradle-to-grave
cognizance, including appropriate monitoring, record-
keeping, and reporting throughout the system.
It is also important to note that the
definition of solid wastes in the Act not only
encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges and such but also
other discarded materials, including liquids,
semi-solids and contained gases, with a few exceptions
from both Municipal and industrial sources.
Hazardous wastes, which are a subset of all
-------
15
1 solid wastes and which will be identified by regula-
2 tions proposed under Section 3001, are those which
3 have particularly significant impacts on public health
4 and the environment.
5 Section 3001 is the keystone of Subtitle C.
6 It's purpose is to provide a means for determining
7 whether a waste is hazardous for the purposes of the
8 Act and, therefore, whether it must be managed
9 according to other Subtitle C regulations.
10 Section 3001(b) provides two mechanisms
11 for determining whether a waste is hazardous: A set
12 of characteristics of hazardous waste and a list of
13 particular hazardous wastes. A waste must be managed
14 according to the Subtitle C regulations if it either
15 exhibits any of the characteristics set out in
16 proposed regulation or if it is listed.
17 Also, EPA is directed by Section 3001(a) of
18 the Act to develop criteria for identifying the set
19 of characteristics of hazardous waste and for
20 determining which vastes to list.
21 In this proposed rule which we will discuss
22 here today, EPA sets out those criteria, identifies
23 a set of characteristics of hazardous waste, and
24 establishes a list of particular hazardous wastes.
25 Also, the proposed regulation provides for
-------
13
1 demonstration of non-inclusion in the regulatory
2 program.
3 I'll save a description of the other parts
4 ol the regulations until we cover them at the appointed
5 time. I think it's of interest, though, to say thav
6 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all
7 sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979. However,
8 it is important for the regulated communities to
9 understand that the regulations under Section 3001
10 through 3005 do not take effect until six months after
11 promulgation. That would be approximately June of 1980
12 Thus, there will be a time period after
13 final promulgation during which time public undersland-
14 ing of the regulations can be increased. During this
15 same period, notifications required under Section 3010
16 are to be submitted, and facility permit applications
17 | required under Section 3005 will be distributed for
18 completion by applicants.
19 Vith that as a summary of Subtitle C and
20 the proposed regulations to be considered at today's
21 hearing, I will return to the meeting to the Chairpor-
22 son, Dorothy Darrah.
23 'IS. DARRAH: Thanks, Jack.
24 Lot me lust briefly review t lie procedures
25 agnin. When I call your name, please come up. If you
-------
] 7
1 have one extra copy of your .statement, ii you would
2 Rivo it to our court reporter before you spoak, that
3 would be most helplul. If you have any extra copies
4 and you Hould 1 ike to give them to the panel , give
5 them to me or to Harry and we wil1 distribute them.
6 It you have; only one copy of your statement,
7 we would even appreciate getting it after you speak
8 so the court reporter can Xerox it and give it back
9 to you , just so we can insure accuracy as much as
10 poss ible ,
11 When yon come to the microphone, please state
12 your name and your affiliation and do limit yourself
13 to 10 minutes. I have the official clock up here,
14 which has traveled, the country and still seems to be
15 working, and I will remind you if you are running over.
16 The tirst person this morning will be a
17 representative from the County Ganitation Districts
18 of Los Angeles. Is there someone here from the County
19 Sanitation Districts of I.o.-, Angeles?
20 Okay. There are four people listed from
21 General Portland. Incorporated, in Dallas:
22 Dr. Chadbourne Benjamin Jones, Dr. Anderson, and
23 James M o r r i s s .
24 C< n > !o:i;en . I rltcln' t know you were the
25 audiovisua I people. 'A'ould you speak to me be1 fore vou
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
try and do anything here. These are exhibits. You
have to be willing to give us a copy as soon as you
are finished, and we have to have them numbered and
available for the court reporter.
DR. CHADBOURNE: You are certainly welcome
to have copies of the slides.
MS . DARRAH: Do you have a copy?
DR. CHADBOURNE: We have a backup copy, so
we will leave these with you.
MS. DARRAH: Okay. And you will be limiting
yourselves to 10 minutes total.
DR. CHADBOURNE: No, 10 minutes each.
MS. DARRAH: No. It's not 10 minutes each.
It's 10 minutes for the company,
(Discussion outside the hearing of
t he reporter. )
DR. CHADBOURNE: We have a relatively
comprehensive program which has many aspects. In
addition to introducing our corporation and explaining
why we have our concerns, we have actually data that
we would like to present that shows analyses of dust
which you would be classifying as hazardous. We have
theoretical considerations that describe why there are
problems with the methods proposed
MS. DARRAH: Okay. I can offer you 10
-------
19
1 minutes now if one person wants to speak. If you do
2 want to wait to speak for a longer time and give a
3 longer than 10-minute presentation, you can do so.
4 DR. CHADBOURNE: We have a unified presenta-
5 t ion.
6 MR. MORRISS: Why don't we wait, John?
7 DR. CHADBOURNE: It's difficult to believe
8 that you would take this approach.
9 MS. DARRAH: I am sorry. There are about
10 22 people signed up to speak, and I can't take 40
11 minutes to start with someone else.
12 Mr. Gerald Peabody, Pozzolanic Northwest,
13 Incorporated, Kent, Washington?
14 Gentlemen, you may be in luck. We may get
15 through our list.
Ig Bob Burt , California Manufacturers' Associa-
17 t ion?
18 MR. BURT: Thank you. I am Robert E. Burt
19 of the California Manufacturers' Association. The
20 title of the organization is descriptive. We are a
21 voluntary organization which represents manufacturers
22 in California.
23 In general, we feel that the EPA has taken
24 entirely too broad a view of the definition of
25 hazardous waste, apparently because of an exaggerated
-------
20
1 view of the ''when improperly treated" phrase. I'd
2 like to point out that no matter how you write a
3 regulation it doesn't handle any waste. You need to
4 dedicate resources to do that.
5 If available re sources are spread to cover
6 everything in these regulations, then a truly
7 hazardous waste may very well be overlooked. We regarc
8 most likely as short resources adequate sites and
9 trained personnel.
10 If we have a case-by-case analysis, we are
11 are much more likely to eliminate unnecessary expense.
12 We suggest that it be recognized that, there
13 are various levels of hazard and that priority of
14 effort be given to truly hazardous wastes and thereby
15 get the rigorous treatment that thev need.
16 There are many hazardous wastes that are
17 generated in relatively large steady streams of
18 similar materials, and a treatment designed to handle
19 each of those in turn will greatly reduce costs.
20 With respect to some specific items, first
21 of all in line with the intent of Section 1006 on
22 avoidance of duplication, v, e offer the following:
23 Vi'e find it a simple evasion of the clear
24 intent of the law to regulate, as hazardous waste,
25 materials in the p roc, ess of treatment for discharge in
-------
21
1 a i1 cord with an NPUES permit , The Conp.re.ss cl early
2 excludes the discharge it we If from such regulation,
3 and any rational reading of the law would indicate
4 that such materials are not wastes until discharged.
5 We emphasize the use ol I,tie phrase "other discarded
6 material" in the definition of solid waste, of which
7 hazardous waste is a subset.
8 Yv i I h respect to air emissions, we teel that
9 the OSHA regulations on concentrations for workplace
10 hazard, which are designed to provide safe work
11 environments where there are thousands of hours of
12 individual exposure, present adequate guides for
13 allowable cone entra1 i ons of hazardous materials in the
14 air.
15 Vir t ua1 1y a 1 1 t he app1 ic ab1e 1 oca tions a re
16 workplaces Any emissions which could present a
17 general public hazard are under the mandate of the
18 various Clean Air Act provisions. For these reasons,
19 we see no need whatever for separate RCRA controls or
20 reports on air emissions.
21 Those points are especially important if you
22 look at the issue that you request special comment on,
23 the 100 kilogram per month exemption. We agree with
24 comments by others to the effect that there are
25 substances which <\ould present a great public hazard
-------
22
1 in that quantity.
2 On the other hand, we read the regulation,
3 and I admit that it's difficult to be sure, as
4 requiring gas stations report this quantity of lube
5 waste.
6 Vi'e suggest that the exempt quantities for
7 extremely hazardous wastes be established as necessary
8 (in other words, it might be considerably smaller
9 than 100 kilograms); that a class of less hazardous
10 wastes be established with a 1,000 kilogram per month
11 exemption; and, finally to simplify the process, that
12 the provisions of 250.28 be expanded to cover other
13 wastes greater or lesser and be liberally interpreted
14 in order to allow small generators to contract for all
15 services, including reporting, under the Act and that
16 the contracting entity not be required to develop
17 separate detailed reports for each of its clients
18 being serviced, simply report their names and addresses
19 and the general nature of their waste.
20 Recognizing that there are different
21 categories of hazard, we support the comments of the
22 California Department of Health on this section as
23 applying to the extremely hazardous materials which
24 should receive special attention.
25 Although it's cited, we find no basis in
-------
23
1 Section 3008 for the assertions found in the first
2 paragraph of "Enforcement" on Federal Register,
3 December 18, Page 58954, which we see as a bureau-
4 cratic assertion of omnipotence. For the benefit of
5 those who haven't looked up the citation, that's the
6 notion that it's not necessary to prove the waste is
7 hazardous to have enforcement action. We feel that
8 the EPA very definitely has the burden of proof.
9 We find little basis for the assertion that
10 the identification tests "...are well developed,
11 inexpensive, and recognized by the scientific
12 community." Many were developed by the EPA for these
13 regulations and obviously have not gone through the
14 rigorous process leading to acceptance by the
15 scientific community.
16 Finally, some method more feasible than
17 proving a nebulous negative -- "no damage to the
18 environment" -- should be available to get a material
19 in a given situation removed from the hazardous list.
20 The definition calls for "substantial hazard" or
21 increase in mortality and so forth.
22 We submit that there are many situations
23 where, in general, the substance might properly be
24 classified as hazardous, and yet the immediate
25 quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or
-------
24
1 infectious characteristics in a particulate situation
2 would indicate that the m a t e ria J was not hazardous
3 under the legal definition.
4 We submit that some simpler method than
5 either proving no damage to the environment or a courl
6 challenge should be available to handle such cases
7 That completes my comments on Section 3001.
8 I would be delighted to answer any q u e s 11o ns .
9 MS. DARP.AH : Okay. You have only used about
10 five minutes of your presentation. If you would
11 prefer to go on -- I notice you've got another short
12 section here, we can do that or we; ' d be happy to hear
13 you the next time.
14 MR. BURT : I would be delighted to go ahead
15 and [jnish my comments on the rest of the regulations
16 if you would allow the time.
17 With respect to 3002, essentially the action
18 we recommended under 3001 would handle our comments.
19 With respect to 3004, again 3001 covers the
20 core of what we feel is important. If truly hazardous
21 waste is to be handled, much of this section is
22 fully appropriate. It is not necessary for much of
23 the tonnage which would be so classified under Section
24 3001 .
25 Then getting into detail. 250.43-l(a) is a
-------
1 flat prohibition of a site in an active fault zone.
2 You define an active fault zone as a land a re; a which
3 has a reasonable probability of earthquake land
4 movement which would pe>se a throat to thej environment .
5 No time eir force criteria are given, and "threat to. . .
6 the environment" covers so many possibilities that it
7 is unlikely that there is anywhere in California that
8 we)u 1 d not be so affected. He1 re1 again, a c a se^-by-c j.so
9 analysis based upein the likelihoeui that hazurde>us
10 waste1 uould escape and cause subsfant laS hazarri is
11 necessary.
12 Paragraph 250.13-l(d) forbids a facilits
I !
13 on the 500-year flootplain, unless it would not be '
j
14 inundated. Since the definition of "facility" includes
!
15 all treatment, storage, and elisposal , this moans that i
16 a 1 a r ^ e1 a r c1 a , s ome1 now o c c u p i f^ cl b v m ;i i o r m a n u f a c t u r i n g j
i
17 a n el processing plants, cannot .store- hazardous \\aste
18 I on site?. Case-by-case is oven more1 important here.
19 On-site -storage1 awaiting pickup or treat.nont , including
20 incineration, obviously should ne>t bo t'e>rbidden.
21 Paragraph 250,43-1 providers wheilly
22 unnecessary prose1 r i p t i o n s on hov, incinerators should
23 be run. "roper incinoration of many truly hazardous
24 materials can be a n el is be'ing done with much shorter
25 dwell times and much lower temperatures. Since the
-------
26
1 discussion indicates encouragement for incineration,
2 with which we generally concur, this is scarcely the
3 right direction to go. Extremely high temperatures
4 use more energy directly, they require higher caoital
5 cost, and they make heat recovery more complex.
6 Further, they tend to increase oxides of nitrogen
7 emissions, thus making new air permits more difficult.
8 Case-by-case analysis, based upon the desired emissions
9 to the air, is again appropriate.
10 Paragraph 250.43-l(h) requires location of
11 active portions of a facility 200 feet from property
12 lines. Again, we point out the very broad meaning
13 of the word "facility" and note that many generation
14 locations are not 400 feet in their smallest dimension.
15 So this regulation would forbid on-site temporary
16 storage or treatment, including incineration.
17 Paragraph 250.44(e) and 250.44-l(a), (b),
18 and (c) are specific standards that generally cover
19 the situation of spills are generally inappropriate.
20 'Ve suggest that 250.44-l(c) should be adequate. That
21 calls for compliance with 40 CFR 112, which is the
22 oil and hazardous waste substance pollution prevention
23 requirement. If that doesn't, fit hazardous, we
24 suggest that it be amended so that a person who is
25 concerned about preparing for spills on site has one
-------
27
1 regulation to meet.
2 Numerous other requirements of this group
3 of regulations are obviously intended to apply to a
4 large final disposal site and are wholly inappropriate
5 for temporary on-site storage, handling, treatment,
6 and disposal. Many of these processes must be
7 conducted at each site where waste is generated, and
8 some may be more desirable on site in many situations.
9 The flat prohibition of ignitable and
10 reactive waste for landfill, surface impoundment,
11 basin or landfarm goes much too far. It is obvious
12 that such materials must be carefully handled, but
13 there may often be fully appropriate uses which would
14 be forbidden by this very broad regulation.
15 250.43(i) calls for closure for any part
16 of a facility in compliance. Considering the great
17 complexity and rigorousness of these regulations,
18 we suggest "shall" be replaced by "may be ordered to."
19 250.43-9 provides financial requirements
20 for closure. We suggest that these requirements be
21 waived where it is apparent that the closure costs
22 would be a small part of the net worth of the
23 operator of the facility, remembering again the very
24 broad definition of "facility."
25 As in other sections, some more convenient
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
means than court action should be provided for allowing
variations from these regulations.
Thank you .
MS. DARRAH: Thank \ou. V; i 1 1 you answer
questions for the panel9
MR. BURT- Yes.
MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Burt, the problem with
incineration, I would like to point out one thing and
ask if that helps to solve your problem. It's going
to take me a second here? to find the right piece in
the regulations.
Here it is. There i.-, a problem in that there
is a misprint, and I should point this out and see if
this doesn't make a difference.
Do you have a copy of it up here7
MR. BURT: Yes.
MR. LINDSEY: If you look on Page 59009.
in the upper left-hand corner there vou will see the
note, and that note \.hich savs "Note to ( b ) (. 1 ) and i2)
should be "note to (d)(l) and (2)." What, that is,
then, is a method tor alLowing a variance to the two
second/thousand degree dwell time if it can be shown
that you obtain an equivalent degree of destruction.
Does that solve your problem along those
1 i n e s ?
-------
29
1 MR. BURT : That is our basic problem \\iih
2 that regulation. We; just felt it mandated rather
3 than -- we (eel in many, many cases as short as
4 three-tenths of a second is adequate, arid frequently
5 1400 degrees ts more than enough. As soon as you got
6 to the temperature in the regulation, you call for
7 stainless .steel in many of your incinerators, and YOU
8 call for much more difficult problems of heat
9 recovery. Air-to-air doesn't work.
10 It your intention is to do what we are
11 asking for, a case-by-case analysis, obviously «e
12 have no problem.
13 MR. LINDStY: The; intention is to say,
14 "Look, il you design it to a thousand degrees and
15 two seconds and those other things there, that's fine.
16 If you want to do something different, you have to shov
17 us that you can meet the other requirements. And that
18 would be okay, too." That's the intent.
19 Let me ask you one additional question, if
20 I might.
21 You attack the fault zone provision there.
22 and I would agree that's a difficult thing. It's been
23 a difficult thing for us to try to get a handle on
24 Would you have some suggestion, coming from an area
25 where there is likely to be a problem, on how we might
-------
30
1 rewrite that or in some way perhaps come up with a
2 different approach to locating on or near or whatever
3 we might do with regard to fault zones?
4 MR. HURT: Well, I don't have an easy
5 suggestion. I would say that other than permanent
6 sites -- first of all, you eliminate "facility." It's
7 much too big.
8 Then when you are talking about a permanent
9 disposal site, I would suggest that you do the same
10 essential thing that is done with respect to faults
11 as you do on a dam. You look at the potential
12 movement in the place that your disposal site is
13 located, and you look at the action that that might
14 cause and see if it would cause a substantial hazard.
15 I would feel that, as a generality, the Geologic
16 Survey Criteria that, are used in connection with
17 analyzing a fault zone for a nuclear plant would
18 probably be adequate. But I'd hate to just say that,
19 because a disposal site, for example, that has 30 feet
20 of clay under it I find it difficult to figure out
21 how the earth movement would be so great as to cause
22 much damage, unless there was a slit immediately
23 , adjacent to it at 30 feet or something.
24 So I 'd say it would depend greatly on the
25 actual likelihood that something escapes.
-------
31
1 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. So you would suggest
2 a case-by-case analysis in the event that you were
3 close to or on a fault zone?
4 MR. BURT: Yes, and apply to a final
5 disposal site and/or at least to a site where
6 significant amounts are stored rather than to every
/
7 facility.
8 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. Thank you.
9 MS. SCHAFFER: Mr. Burt, I have a question
10 conerning concerns about the statement we put in the
11 record in the preamble to the regulation regarding
12 enforcement burden of proof.
13 As a point of clarification, we have said
14 that EPA does not need to prove hazard when a waste
15 is listed. We feel that by putting the listing in the
lg regulation, that by listing the waste in the regula-
17 tion, we have already proven that it is hazardous.
13 Do you have an objection to that?
19 MR. BURT: Yes, because the clear intent of
20 the law is to cover a waste if it's hazardous in the
21 concentration and so forth that it's present in. It
22 could very easily be that there is a material which
23 is hazardous but which is present in an insufficient
24 concentration or quantity that it couldn't possibly
25 be hazardous simply because it is such a material.
-------
32
1 I can drink sulfuric acid. I don't want
2 to drink much of it, but I can drink it. Now is that
3 hazardous9 It isn't if it's sufficiently diluted or
4 in small quantities, and the law specifically uses
5 those criteria.
6 So the nere presence of something whose
7 name is listed, as far as we are concerned, does not
8 prima facie make it hazardous. And I hasten to say
9 that 1 am an engineer, not a lawyer. But I have been
10 forced in my life to learn a little law.
11 MS. SCHAFFER: Thank you.
12 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Burt, throughout your
13 remarks you mentioned or support or suggested the use
14 of a case-by-case approach dealing with various wastes
15 I'm a little confused by that, because the entire
16 intent ot the note system in Section 3004 is to do
17 just that.
18 Would you like to comment on why you
19 believe the note system does not provide for a case-by
20 case s y s t e m ?
21 MR. BURT: I agree that the note system is
22 excellent, and it's the right approach. But funda-
23 mentally, as I understand it, to use the note system
24 you have to come up and prove this negative. Back whe
25 I took Logic, proving a negative is not all that easy.
-------
33
1 Either prove a negative, "no damage to the environ-
2 ment," or else prove that it doesn't fit those very
3 broad definitions.
4 I regard that as a step in the right
5 direction. I just don't feel it goes far enough to
6 look at an actual case-by-case situation. ''No damage
7 to the environment" is a very, very broad set of words,
8 and I haven't the vaguest idea how I'd go about proving
9 that.
10 MS. DARRAH: To follow up on that, I think
11 the intent of many of the notes was to ask the seeker
12 of a permit to prove an equivalent degree of control
13 rather than necessarily no damage to the environment.
14 Do you feel that's as difficult?
15 MR. HURT. That would be splendid. That
16 would bo much, much simpler if it was stated as an
17 alternative, not as an additional requirement. Stated
18 as an alternative, then equivalent degree of control,
19 that would eliminate equivalent degree of reduction
20 of hazard to the public or something of that kind.
21 Control frequently can be just required for its own
22 sake.
23 So what I'd like to see is an equivalent
24 degree of reduction of hazard or some similar phrase.
25 I agree you can't write a regulation to tell how to do
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
case-by-case. A regulation has to say what the
criteria are. To me, the criteria should be what
hazard the public is exposed to.
MS. DARRAH: Okay. If you have any specific
suggestions on how that would look in print -- that
could come out slightly vague. Some people might be
unhappy with that. But if you have any suggestions,
I think we would be happy to receive those.
I have one more question. Your comments on
Section 3002, in the second sentence you say, "We see
no rationale for regulation of hazardous waste until
it is actually in the process of disposal."
I take it you were saying here that certain
requirements are unnecessary that we have in Section
3002. Could you tell me to what you were referring?
MR. BURT: I was basically referring there
to the tone throughout of requiring a material to be
reported on when it's going through an actual treat-
ment plant. It strikes me if there is a treatment --
for example, water disposal treatment plant for NPDES
permit, you are reporting on that waste. I was just
reiterating here that, hey, until you actually start
to get rid of it it's in your hands yet, let's not
be reporting it.
I am not getting through.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
MS. DARRAH: I guess I am concerned about
someone who decides to stockpile his or her waste in
the back 40 and, as I understand the logical extension
of what you are saying, that person hasn't decided to
get rid of it yet; therefore, you are saying we should
not have any control of it?
MR. HURT: OKay. We had the same exact
problem when we were trying to agree to language in
California law, and we evolved out language which, in
effect, said that storage ceases to be simple temporary
storage and comes under the provision of the Act when
it's there more than six months. But we don't have
any love of that word, but we agree you just can't
let somebody stack it up and say, "I am storing,"
without it coming under the regulations. Otherwise,
you have a great temptation to do what you just said.
MS. DARRAH: I might also suggest that you
take a look at Section 3002 in the statute, because
we are actually required to promulgate certain
recordkeeping and reporting practices for generators
of hazardous waste by Congress.
Do you want to take a look at that?
IIP.. BUnT : We will argue with Congress at
another t ime.
MS. DARRAH: Okay.
-------
36
1 MR. CORSON: I have a question, Mr. Burt.
2 In several places in your testimony, you
3 talked to the degree of hazard and, in fact, we should
4 have controls for truly hazardous materials. I am
5 wondering if you have any feel for what you consider
6 to be the bottom line, threshhold, the lowest level
7 of hazardous waste we ought to allow in the system
8 and when you have any feel for how, since we took the
9 approach, of structuring the variability in 3004 for
10 management. Do you think we could define these levels
11 in 3001?
12 MR. BURT: Yes. I would indicate that
13 fundamentally a waste is present in a concentration
14 and quantity which would cause immediate possibility
15 of mortality or increased morbidity and so forth be
16 placed in a much more rigorous classification than a
17 waste which could at some point cause damage to the
18 environment, for example.
19 I think that a waste which is in its locatior
20 in a toxic condition certainly needs a lot more close -
21 or an explosive condition certainly needs a lot more
22 look than simply a general waste. Sludge from an
23 asbestos plant, for example, certainly has got to be
24 treated. But they are not the same kind of thing as
25 cyanide waste. I don't think that they should be so
-------
37
1 classed.
2 MR. CORSON: Are you then in your concept
3 including management of that specific waste with its
4 characteristics to provide for its definition as
5 hazardous or not'
6 MR. BURT: Well, at least it's situation.
7 The situation that the waste is in ought to have some
8 bearing on whether it's hazardous or not.
9 If the waste is not in a situation where
10 it's likely to cause hazard or in a quantity or
11 concentration where it's like to cause hazard, it seems
12 to me that -- I agree that it should be regarded as a
13 potential hazard. '^e don't object to the fundamental
14 thrust of 3001 which lists a whole group of things
15 which have a potential hazard. Our problem is there
16 is so much included. Without some way of zeroing in,
17 you are going to be in problems.
18 MR. CORSON: One following question if I
19 may with regard to quantities.
20 How in your concept would you protect for
21 those areas where we are going to a commercial
22 facility where vie might have; an aggregation of lots
23 of small quantities of something? How do we provide
24 for the increase in quantity by the fact that it's
25 coming from many different generators to a single site
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
if the definition back at the generator level is
defined by quantity?
MR. BURT: I think once you got to a site
I don't have a problem. Once I've got it to a site,
I don't have any problem at all with the way the site
is run, being controlled vigorously.
Our problem is the classification of the
thing as hazardous and, therefore, has to be sent to
a site when it really wouldn't be necessary if you
really looked at it.
I have no problems with rigorous control
of what is done at a site. Our problem is what is
classed as hazardous. When the decision is now made,
it must go to a site when it actually in fact is not
necessary.
MR. CORSON : Where does it go if it doesn't
go to a site?
MR. BURT: I should say to a major public
disposal site. You've got all kinds of ways of
detoxifying wastes short of sending them to a dump.
The present procedure in California, at least,
involves a great many wastes being handled at lower
levels of treatment than being sent to a Class 1 dump,
and it seems to us that that's the logical way to do
it .
-------
39
1 We don't have a problem with control of
2 hazard. Our problem is sending everything to a
3 Class 1 dump.
4 MR. CORSON: Do you envision in your concept
5 the breakout of just two levels as California has
6 done, once you are in the hazard system, or do you
7 see --
8 MR. HURT: I don't have a problem with
9 starting off with two levels. I would envision that
10 the case-by-case we are talking about would effectivel
11 create others. In other words, a person showed that
12 in a particular situation a certain level of treatment
13 was adequate that would, in effect, create a different
14 classification for practical purposes. But as long
15 as we are still talking about 3001, I would say yes.
16 One definition of some extremely hazardous level would
17 be much better than simply having everything hazardous
18 and leaving it at that.
19 MR. LINDSEY: I have one more question I
20 would like to explore a little bit.
21 You also discussed the practicality, I guess
22 of the 200-foot buffer zone principle from property
23 lines, and I think you indicated that you thought it
24 wasn't practical or wasn't necessary, perhaps, for
25 storage or treatment facilities.
-------
10
1 I assume you mean incinerators and drug
2 treatment facilities?
3 MR. BURT : Yes. The definition of "faciMty1
4 is very broad, and I just note that there are many
5 properties that are not that big. And technically an
6 incinerator is a treatment facility.
7 MR. LINDSEY: Yes.
8 MR. BURT: You are, in effect, saying that
9 if I don't have property whosenarrowest dimension LS
10 400 feet I can't have an incinerator.
11 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. Let me explore that
12 just a minute.
13 Our thinking of the need for this was that
14 we needed a buffer zone in the event of a problem
15 with regard to explosions where incinerators and
16 things like that are concerned in order to dissipate
17 some of the ill effects.
18 Do you have any thoughts on how we might
19 do that other than through a buffer zone9 In other
20 woi'ds , is there any mechanism that you can think of
21 or any other approach that we couLd use to provide
22 some degree of protection there?
23 .MR. BURT I don' t see any more reason for
24 a bufter zone for the explosion of an incinerator than
25 a buffer /one for the explosion of a boiler. We build
-------
41
1 them so they don't explode. I grant nothing is perfect
2 but we don't plan for incinerators to explode and we
3 don't plan for boilers to explode and we work around
4 both of t hem.
5 I don't see any reason why we should have
6 to have a 200-foot the amount of material that's
7 flowing through an incinerator when it's actually
8 working, if it did explode I wouldn't see any danger
9 to the public from the hazardous material. The only
10 danger to the public would be from the flying
11 fragments. To me, that's not really a hazardous
12 waste disposal problem, although I admit it's hazardouf
13 MR. LINDSEY: There have been some spect aeu-
14 lar explosions and fires, I guess more in the well.
15 thi re have been some in incinerators, too, but more
Ig in the storage area. I guess that's what we are
17 trying to get at.
18 If you have any other thoughts on that,
19 we would appreciate hearing about them.
20 MR. BURT I would defer to the people
I
21 running the ~- my v.-hoJe point all through my comments
22 is when you are talking about a final disposal thing,
23 Class 1 dump we cal1 it, whore there is a lot more
24 reason tor rigor, most of these comments that you
25 have are fully appropriate. But to use thorn blanket
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
to cover everything that's defined as a facility is
not .
So I defer to the people that are trying-
to find space for a Class 1 dump that say, "Look, this
is legal. You are cutting off a 200-foot edge around
us for reasons we don't like."
But I don't know a good answer to that
assertion. But at least when you are dealing with
on-site action it seems to me that many of these
provisions should not apply.
MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
MS. DARRAH : Thank you very much, Mr. Burt.
Wait. Harry?
MR. TRASK : You had some hidden testimony
here on 3002, and you indicated that the provisions
of 250.28 ought to be expanded to cover other wastes,
and you also indicated there ought to be reduced
reporting requirements in doing so.
How would you handle these two degrees of
hazard, the extremely hazardous waste and the less
hazardous waste that you have mentioned? Should that
reduced reporting apply to those equally?
MR. BURT: That was what I mentioned in the
first part, the first suggestion, that the exempt
quantities for extremely hazardous waste be quite small
-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
if necessary. In other words, wastes which truly are
extremely hazardous you might either have a very, very
low exemption, depending on the quantity, depending
on the nature of the waste, and that recommendation
flowed from what came before. It was intended to
simply reduce the reporting burden.
It would seem to us that there would become
a class of persons who will gladly lift the load from
your back if this was feasible. It seemed to me that
a small lab ought to be able to not have to train some
secretary in filling out complex reports, that a small
lab could hire somebody.
MR. TRASK: Could you give an example of
this extremely hazardous waste quantity situation that
you mentioned here?
MR. BURT: Well, I don't remember, but I was
given a copy of the statement by the Department of
Health, which is the reason that I commented about that
there. They gave a couple of examples v/here they
thought 100 kilograms is much too large, and we agree
that if we follow their logic that, yes, that is too
large. Our thought is that it should apply to those
sorts of things.
MR. TRASK: So then we would have in this
extremely hazardous waste category something less than
-------
44
1 100 kilos, and then you would also recommend that we
2 allow a contractor, a contract hauler for example, to
3 pick this up and not report on it7 Is that it?
4 MR. HURT: No. I say that the guy who
5 generates it not report it. The contract hauler shoulc
6 have the job of turning in all necessary reports. He
7 would say the volumes, the nature of the disposal and
8 so forth, and the lab is simply reported as a location.
9 I'm not trying to eliminate all the reports.
10 I gave up on that. I am just trying to get one guy
11 who can make it a major part of his operation and
12 that the small generators be allowed simply to their
13 existence be reported, but they not have to make the
14 reports.
15 MR. TRASK: What you said here was the
16 contract hauler would simply report the names and
17 addresses of the generators with the general nature
18 of the waste?
19 ME. HURT: That was intended to modify the
20 words "separate detailed reports." In other words,
21 I intended that he make his detailed report but he
22 not be required to generate a separate report for each
23 of the entities he is serving.
24 MR. TRASK: He reports the quantities b>
25 hazard?
-------
45
1 MR. BURT : He himself must report all the
2 quantities that he picks up.
3 MR. TRASS: On both categories of hazard?
4 MR. BURT: Yes. But he not be required to
5 generate a separate report for each of these people.
6 You could get some extra space in the St. Louis
7 depository very quickly, I think, if something like
8 that's not done.
9 MR. TRASK: Thank you.
10 MS. DARRAH: Thanks. We appreciate it.
11 MR. BURT: Thank you very much.
12 MS. DARRAII : Mr. Jay Snow, Texas Department
13 of Water Resources?
14 MR. SNOW: Mr. Lehman, are you the chairman
15 of this? I missed the first opening statement. Are
16 we limiting it to Subpart A comments today?
17 MS. DARRAH. Each person or each company
18 representative is limited to 10 minutes today. If you
19 can cover more than your 3001 comments in that 10
20 minutes, you are welcome to do so.
21 MR. SNOW: Okay.
22 MS. DARRAH: Can the people in the back hear
23 the speaker at the podium?
24 SPEAKERS FROM THE FLOOR: No.
25 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
MR. SNOW: Can you hear me now?
SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR: That's better.
MR. SNOW: Good morning. My name is
Jay Snow. I am representing the National Governors'
Association Hazardous Waste Management Task Force,
which is a group of 18 states that are members of the
Subcommittee on Waste Management, which in turn is a
member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
The Subcommittee on Waste Management was
formed shortly after the enactment of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and we have been formed
for nearly two years now and have worked very closely
with the Environmental Protection Agency in providing
some consultations from the state regulatory agency
standpoint on the appropriate approaches that they
could take in developing these hazardous waste
regulat ions.
I have submitted this morning the entire set
of comments and recommendations prepared by the
Hazardous Waste Task Force. The recommendations were
developed by the full task force based on detailed
evaluations of the proposed rules and preliminary
drafts made available to us last fall.
The detailed evaluation was undertaken by
two task groups set up, consisting of six states each,
-------
47
1 to evaluate the Subparts A and B and Subpart D rules
2 respectively.
3 Draft recommendations were considered at our
4 most recent meeting on February 28th and March 1st in
5 Austin, Texas. The recommendations represent the
6 unanimous opinion of the states in attendance, with
7 the exception of recommendations on Sections 250.12
8 and .13 -- that's for Subpart A -- and then Section
9 250.45-2(b)(v) which are majority opinions.
10 I'd like to say, first of all, that the
11 task force as a whole recognizes the amount of effort
12 that's gone into developing these rules. I know
13 firsthand because I have seen it going on for two
14 years, and it's something that I personally recognize
15 as well.
16 I think the extent of public participation
17 which EPA has pursued in developing the rules and the
18 extent to which they have relied on the states for
19 assistance is, as far as I know, unprecedented. And
20 it's to be commended.
21 I don't have a lengthy statement, so I am
22 going to attempt to speak to the Subpart A. I have
23 a prepared statement, and I'd like to touch on the
24 relationship of' Subpart A to the special waste stan-
25 dards . It's really difficult to talk about Subpart A
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
alone, but I think in this one area the Subpart A
criteria are undivorcible, I suppose.
With regard to Subpart A, the task force
is concerned that the proposed criteria for identify-
ing toxic wastes may be overly broad in scope and
result in unncossarily burdensome and expensive
regulation of materials presenting little environmental
hazard. The requirements may impede implementation
and administration of the Subtitle C program by either
EPA or state regulatory agencies by diverting
regulatory emphasis from wastes which present
significant hazards from those that perhaps do not.
With reference to the Subpart A preamble,
it appears that the proposed toxicity criteria of
10 times EPA drinking water standard levels was an
arbitrary choice based upon the assumption of, and I
quote, disposal of the waste in a nonsecure landfill
or dump (one in which there is no functional barrier
which prevents subsurface movement of leachate, for
example a sand or gravel pit) which is situated
directly over a usable aquifer that is the source of
a drinking water, end of quote.
This assumption obviously disregards the
proposed rules for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities published by EPA February 1, 1978.
-------
49
1 Noting that the preamble states that there is no.
2 and I quote, guaranty that such wastes will in fact
3 be delivered to Subtitle D facilities, end ot quote,
4 I would suggest that there is also no guaranty that
5 the transporation control requirements proposed under
6 Subtitle C will be complied with.
7 Based upon this insufficient examination of
8 problems associated with waste materials which would
9 contain Lower contaminant levels, the Task Force
10 recommends that extract levels specified in the
11 criteria be raised to 100 times I"PA drinking water
12 standards, with the suggestion that these levels could
13 be 1(5 we red at a future date by further rulemaking.
14 Expansion of the criteria by further rulemaking should
15 be proposed only after a thorough examination of
16 problems associated with management of wastes that
17 are excluded from the system initially.
18 The Task Force has also recommended an
19 addition to the toxieity criteria to enable direct
20 t o xic11 y testing of wastes, as well as waste extract.
21 Additionally, the Task Force considers the American
22 Society for Testing and Materials' p r o posed m e t h o d
23 of leachating waste1 materials to be superior to the
24 proposed extraction procedure. i.Vo recommended that
25 that one be considered for adoption
-------
50
1 The proposal to designate laboratories,
2 veterinary clinics, and hospitals seems to conflict
3 with the direction of Section 3001 of RCRA, which
4 calls for criteria for identifying the characteristics
5 of hazardous waste and for listing hazardous waste and
6 for regulations identifying the characteristics of and
7 listing particular hazardous waste. I note no
8 reference to a list of sources there. Accordingly,
9 we have recommended that infectious waste be identifiec
10 directly, listed, and the sources be offered as
11 guidance in Note form.
12 I am going to go ahead and read into the
13 record my remarks on the special waste standards,
14 and with the understanding that I am really going to
15 talk about the Subpart A half of it today.
16 ; With regard to the special waste standards,
17 the Subpart D preamble seems to support the view that
18 the Subpart A criteria are likely to identify many
19 waste materials exhibiting low-hazard potentials.
20 The preamble further recognizes that some wastes to
21 be identified may not be, and I quote, amenable to
22 the control techniques developed in Subpart D, end of
23 quote .
24 This is a fundamental problem with the
25 proposed rules, in that the Subpart D standards seem
-------
51
1 to envision control of waste materials that are highly
2 hazardous, while the Subpart A criteria will include
3 | wastes which are not extremely hazardous.
4 The concept of developing separate
5 standards for wastes presenting low-level hazards is
6 viable. However, such standards should be applied
7 uniformly to all wastes exhibiting similar character-
8 istics. Applying such special waste standards to
9 large quantities of such wastes would create a system
10 where one set of standards was applied to certain
11 wastes when in large quantities and other standards
12 being applied to the same wastes in smaller quantities.
13 Thus, generators disposing of wastes off site would
14 in many cases have to pay greater costs for disposal
15 at a commercial Subtitle C facility.
16 We have recommended that standards establish-
17 ed in Subpart D should be uniform for wastes with
18 similar characteristics. Also, that the term
19 "quantity" as used in the definition of hazardous
20 waste is a reasonable consideration in identifying
21 waste in Subpart A and/or establishing Subpart D
22 standards, as long as the standards are uniformly
23 applied to wastes with similar characteristics.
24 For example, standards established for
25 utility waste should also apply to management of the
-------
52
1 same wastes generated from nonutility activities and
2 to wastes with similar or perhaps equivalent
3 characteristics generated by any other activity.
4 Further, application of the standards could be limited
5 to activities where such wastes are in quantities that
6 create a significant environmental hazard. In this
7 regard, quantity criteria should consider the type of
8 hazard and the activity to be regulated.
9 With regard to our comments on the Subpart A
10 infectious waste criteria, the Subpart D standards
11 as proposed seem overly stringent. The vast majority
12 of these wastes would permit development of separate
13 land disposal standards in line with the Subtitle D
14 criteria, if not excluded from Subpart A entirely.
15 That's the end of my prepared statement for
16 today. I would be glad to answer any questions.
17 MS. DARRAII: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Snow.
18 MR. CORSON : One question, Mr. Snow, at
19 least one to start.
20 You indicated in your statement that you
21 would recommend, I believe you said, an alternate of
22 measuring the direct toxicity of wastes as an alternate
23 to looking at the extract. I am wondering whether in
24 your written comments you have expanded that to
25 indicate what levels you think night be appropriate.
-------
53
1 MR. SNOW: Yes, we have. As far as
2 discussing this particular recommendation with any
3 level of competence, I am going to have to decline.
4 The recommendation ts exactly like this,
5 Alan: Add to Section 250.12 a Subparagraph B which
6 states, "Any waste which exhibits a calculated human
7 LD50 of less than 800 milligrams per kilogram, using
8 direct test method."
9 This level is, I believe, used in the Note
10 for the demonstration of noninclusion procedure,
11 whereby if an extract from a waste exhibits these
12 toxicity levels or less than that, it would be not
13 included in the SubtatLe C system.
14 But I am an engineer, not a chemist, and
15 I get mixed up verj quickly in this LD50 business.
16 But I would offer to get you with the people who
17 developed the recommendation and discuss it at greater
18 length, and I could have responses to any questions
19 you care to give me prepared and transmitted for the
20 record if you'd like.
21 MR. CORSON : Yes, I'd like that very much.
22 I'd like to follow up with one more comment.
23 In your recollection as Chairman, I believe, of one of
24 those subcommittees, or the whole committee, do you
25 know whether those calculations were restricted to
-------
54
1 single constituent or whether they looked at some
2 calculated effective toxicity of the waste as a result
3 of some combination of the relative toxicities of
4 constitutents of the waste?
5 MR. SNOW: No, I don't know. I believe the
6 gist of the recommendation is to allow lor direct
7 testing of waste toxicity by direct ingestion to teat
8 samples. Okay?
9 MR. CORSON: Yes.
10 MR. SNOW: I found that, as well as direct
11 testing of extract, is often less expensive than
12 quantitative and qualitative analysis of the
13 corresponding literature search to determine their
14 toxic values and the addition that's necessary. Be
15 have had many companies that have submitted direct
16 toxicity tests to my office which is very useful.
17 MR. CORSON: That's the point I was trying-
18 to get to. The constituent thing can be very
19 expensive.
20 MR. TRASK: Jay, you mentioned a comment,
21 and I think it was sort of in passing, that there
22 was no guaranty that transporation controls will be
23 complied with. I also noted that you are not listed
24 to testify to 3003, so I will not explore it here.
25 Do you have any specific suggestions or
-------
55
1 recommendations on what we ought to do so that they
2 will be complied with?
3 MR. SNOW: Enforce your rules.
4 MR. TRASK: Well, I assumed that since you
5 were commenting on the regulations you had ideas on
6 how we might change the regulations so that people
7 would be more forced to comply with them. Enforcement
8 is a separate sort of thing; isn't it?
9 What do you do in Texas to insure that rules
10 are complied with?
11 MR. SNOW: We enforce our rules.
12 MR. TRASK: That's all there is; no magic
13 word you can put in the rules to insure that?
14 MR. SNOW: Not really.
15 MR. TRASK: All right.
16 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Snow, first of all, could
17 I get a clarification from you, Jay?
18 MR. SNOW: Yes.
19 MR. LEHMAN: This material that you have
20 submitted here, is this Jntended to be in the public
21 hearing record today, or was this your submission
22 to the docket?
23 MR. SNOW. That's my submission to the docket
24 MR. LEHMAN. Okay.
25 MR. SNOW: It is n package of Subparts A, B,
-------
1 and D comments and recommendations, and that's the
2 who 1e thing.
3 MR. LEHMAN- All right. We will accept it,
4 then, this particular package that I have h ar e as
5 your submission to the docket.
6 MR. SNOW : Fine .
7 MR. LEHMAN: All right. I wanted to query
8 you on one point. You mentioned in your testimony
9 concerning the standard for toxioitv in 3001 that the
10 criteria of 10 times EPA drinking water standard level?
11 was an arbitrary choice -- I am reading from your
12 testimony here based on the assumptions and so on
13 and so on. And then a little later you said that your
14 Hazardous Waste Management Task Force Committee
15 recommended that that particular standard be changed
16 to 100 times the EPA drinking water level .
17 I am wondering do you have some basis for
18 recommending the 100 times drinking water standard that
19 is any less arbitrary than picking 10^ In other words.
20 do you have any data that would indicate that 100 time;-
21 drinking water level is more appropriate than a 10
22 times level?
23 MR. SNOW: Mo. and I think that's an
24 important point that we are trying to make. We don't
25 have extensive data on indicating the quantities, the
-------
57
1 aggregate quantities of waste materials that would be
2 included in the system depending on the level of
3 drinking water standards that one would select. But
4 I am also not aware of any that EPA has presented,
5 and that is simply the point we are trying to make.
6 The 100 times drinking water standard levels grew
7 out of the Task Force meeting held in Austin, but
8 also last September we held a meeting here in San
9 Francisco. There are a number of -- of course, all
10 the members of the Task Force, the working members,
11 are representatives of State regulatory agencies
12 primarily, and there are a number of chemists that
13 sit on the Task Force.
14 This was just a recommendation that was
15 developed with the idea that, based upon the experience
16 of the Task Force members, they felt that this level
17 would be a good place to start. It would identify
18 materials warranting the controls that are proposed in
19 Subpart, D and Subparts B and C.
20 In view of the fact that there have been no
21 accurate predictions made, because I don't believe
22 they can be made at this point without actually
23 establishing the criteria and implementing the plan,
24 the 100 times levels criteria would be preferable
25 initially.
-------
1 I have reviewed a number of studies, I
2 believe even some that EPA has had performed, surveys
3 so to speak. To my recollection, they seem to have
4 all used different criteria for identifying the waste
5 that they are surveying, a different criteria for
6 surveying, quote, hazardous wastes. Some of them
7 include waste waters. That would really not be
8 pertinent in the Subtitle C containment program. So
9 that's about it.
10 MR. LEHMAN: Just a followup question on
11 that.
12 Am I understanding you to say that if a
13 waste is not designated as hazardous let's assume
14 you had the 100 times drinking water standard which
15 is less encompassing than 10 times that all wastes
16 that do not meet that standard would be outside of
17 any control system?
18 MR. SNOW: No.
19 MR. LEHMAN: Or are you suggesting that
20 there would be two levels of control: One that any
21 waste that is above 100 times drinking water standards
22 has some degree of control; anything above 10 times
23 the drinking water standards has a more stringent
24 control? Is that what you had in mind with this
25 comment or not?
-------
59
1 , MR. SNOW: Yes, that is. There would be
2 two levels of control.
3 MR. LEHMAN: Two levels of control?
4 MR. SNOW: But your question, as you pose
5 it to me, is really what I understood the rationale
6 to say that was stated in the preamble. It seemed
7 to assume, and I believe this is a direct quote from
8 the preamble, that the considerations that are used
9 in setting these toxicity criteria included an
10 assumption that waste would be subject to disposal
11 I'd better read this correctly. Quote, disposal
12 waste in a nonsecure landfill or dump, one in which
13 there is no functional barrier which prevents the
14 subsurface movement of leachate like a sand or gravel
15 pit which is situated directly over a usable aquifer
15 that is a source of drinking water, end of quote.
17 I mean that subject seems to ignore the
lg impending regulations under Subpart D, which I believe
19 preclude that sort of situation existing. Understand-
20 ably, any waste that is not subjected to Subtitle C
21 controls as hazardous waste would, by default, I
22 suppose, be nonhazardous waste, subject to Federal
23 regulations for classifying solid waste disposal
24 facilities that were proposed last February 1.
25 So I don't see any way a solid waste under
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
the law can legally he disposed of in a situation as
referred to in the preamble.
MR. LEHMAN: Thank you.
MR. LINDSEY: Jay, you indicated that the
Task Force preferred the ASTM extraction procedure
to ours. Why was that? Was it methodology or Hardware
or the fact that the ASTM envisions using water rather
than an acid medium as a leachant or what?
MR. SKOV,': This is another recommendation
which I am pretty much relying on the task force
members who have the expertise in this area.
From what I know from the results of our
meeting; in Austin, the opinion of the members was that
based upon what they had seen about the ASTM procedure,
what their technical staffs in the State programs
had their evaluations <> f it, is that based on the
available evidence and experience of the members the
ASTM procedure would be expected to produce more
accurate and more consistent results and has been
more adequately verified.
MR. LINDSEY: Okay. One other question.
Y o u talked to infectious waste, and I guess
you mentioned two different points. In one case you
said you felt the infectious waste should be identified
directly as opposed -- I need a clarification here.
-------
61
1 What do you mean by ''directly"9 As I am sure you are
2 aware, the way we do it is by source.
3 MR. SNOW- Right.
4 MR. LINDSEY: And that's not directly. What
5 do you mean by "directly" as opposed to by "source"9
6 MR. SNOW- Well, your regulation seems to
7 identify geographic location or a set of geographic
8 locations and facilities which produce hazardous
9 wastes. All the waste coming from these facililies
10 would be hazardous.
11 ME. LINDSEY: Yes.
12 MR. SNOW- Then, on the other hand, your
13 appendix information allows these to be not considered
14 hazardous it they exhibit certain properties. ''/ell.
15 I think that basically what we are trying to say is
16 that seems a little backwards. We want you to
17 identify the waste, not the source. Often the source
18 has a guidance to those who are to be regulated and
19 other regulatory agencies as to where these wastes
20 are to be found. I think the listing mechanism that
21 the law calls for is probably the appropriate authoritj
22 in 3001 to rely on for these wastes. List them out .
23 im. LIXDSEY: Okay. You also --
24 MR. STOW: Our recommendation, by the way,
25 has offered a suggestion.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
MR. LINDSEY: Oh, has it? Okay. Good.
That will help, I am sure.
Then you also went on and you felt that
the Subpart D regulations were not appropriate to
these kinds of wastes. What would you envision there;
that we would write a different set of regulations for
infectious waste disposal?
MR. SNOW: Perhaps a different set of
standards.
MR. LINDSEY: In other words, you are not
saying take infectious waste out of the system, but
you are saying that the Subpart Q regulations don't
adequately address that? Or what are they; too
stringent or just inappropriate or what in your
opini on?
MR. SNOW: Well, let me say this --
MR. LINDSEY: Rather than get into that in
detail here, do your written comments get into that,
Jay?
MR. SNOW: Yes, it does. I was going to
reference them in answer to your question.
MR. LINDSEY: Rather than look it up, maybe
we can do that.
MR. SNOW: It seems that some of the wastes
or many of the wastes that the rule would identify in
-------
63
1 a sweeping fashion are wastes that probably are being
2 and certainly can be effectively managed in accordance
3 with existing health codes and sanitary practices.
4 I think we tend to forget the meaning of the word
5 "sanitary" when it's used as a modifier with the term
6 "landfill."
7 Most biological agents, once buried, would
8 not present any serious ongoing hazard from the
9 infectious standpoint that I know of. I believe that
10 there are wastes, certainly things such as biological
11 warfare agents and this sort of thing, which the
12 Subtitle C system is probably inadequate to handle.
13 I certainly hope we don't have many of these wastes
14 left anywhere, but certainly any materials that present
15 that degree of hazard to release infection upon the
16 public should be controlled very carefully.
17 The point of the matter is that many of the
18 wastes, including those that are listed, produced from
19 the facilities that are listed as sources can be
20 safely taken care of at the normal sanitary landfill
21 operation that would be compliant with the Subpart D
22 rules, I think, if that's indeed where they go.
23 MR. LIND3EY: Okay.
24 MS. DARRAH : Thank you very much.
25 Mr. B. H. Brubaker, Diamond Shamrock Company?
-------
64
1 MR. BRUBAKER: My name is Bruce Brubaker,
2 and I am speaking today on behalf of my employer,
3 Diamond Shamrock Corporation.
4 We support, in part, the regulatory scheme
5 proposed by the EPA to accomplish the mandates of
6 Section 3001 of RCP.A . Although, as expected, our
7 comments today address some of those areas where \\e
8 disagree, we would like to begin by commending the
9 Office of Solid V.'aste for prior, and hopefully
10 continuing, evaluation of all perspectives relative
11 to Subtitle C regulatory development.
12 Proposed Section 250.10(d)(l) (LV) would
13 require annual testing of a waste previously tested
14 and shown not to be hazardous. Adoption of this
15 section would needlessly tie up testing capacity.
16 We be]leve that a more appropriate approach
17 would require retesting of a ^-aste to determine if it
18 should be categorized as hazardous only if a signifi-
19 cant change in raw materials or processes occur that
20 would change the nature of the waste
21 The ultimate issue permeating regulations
22 implementing Section 3001 of RCRA is the scope of
23 materials that will be classified as hazardous. The
24 EPA must bear in mind, while addressing this question
25 that the amount of space available for disposal ot
-------
65
1 hazardous wastes is a finite natural resource deserving
2 as much protection as any other limited commodity.
3 Too loose a definition of hazardous wastes may result
4 in some future problems of contamination, but too
5 restrictive a definition will result in totally
6 undermining any benefit of the law.
7 It is self-evident that the EPA cannot
8 instantaneously stop production of hazardous wastes.
9 Regulations must, therefore, reasonably address the
10 demarcation of control.
11 Of particular concern in this regard is the
12 proposed extraction procedure to determine toxicity.
13 Vv'e believe that this test does not represent actual
14 disposal conditions, and testing results will have
15 no bearing on the real question of hazardousness.
16 For example, extraction at a pII o 1 5 may
17 have bearing on the issue if disposal wi11 be in an
18 acidic facj lity. The;re are, however, wastes eontain-
19 ing an acid ex tract able component that is not soluble
20 or only marginally soluble in a n e u t r a] or alkaline
21 situation. If disposal of such wastes has and will
22 be at a facility tnat has no possibility of being
23 acidic, we fail to see the need to define hazard based
24 upon such an inappropriate test.
25 We recommend that the extractant used in the
-------
66
proposed test be specified to be either groundwater
in the disposal facility area or a buffered solution
of the same pH as that groundwater. The benefits of
this approach are two-fold: One, the wastes classified
as hazardous will be so classified on a realistic
basis; and, two, wastes that might be hazardous in
a given situation v/ill not be disposed of in a
facility where conditions exist that potentiate the
hazard. The practical result of this approach would
10 be to assure that, potentially hazardous wastes will
11 be disposed of in the facilities least likely to
12 manifest the harm.
13 Proposed Section 250.15 seems to provide
14 that only those wastes identified as hazardous under
15 Section 250.14 can be demonstrated not to be hazardous.
16 We believe that any waste classified as hazardous
17 should be subject to this demonstration, and the
18 regulation should so state.
19 Further, we believe that categories of
20 wastes identified as hazardous should be subject to
21 a categorical showing that a particular process type or
22 waste treatment renders the entire category
23 nonhazardous, thus eliminating the need for further
24 testing.
25 With your indulgence, I'd like to go ahead
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
and go to Section 3004 so I can get back to 15 degrees
in Cleveland.
Disposal facilities existing before
issuance of the proposed regulations implementing
Section 3004 of RCRA cannot be relocated to an area
meeting the standards proposed. Of the disposal
facilities owned and operated by Diamond Shamrock
Corporation, only one-fifth meet any one of the
proposed site selection standards that are beyond the
power of the Corporation to change. By that I mean
things like the 500-year floodplain, five feet above
historic high water table.
None of our facilities, to the best of our
knowledge, pass all of these site selection standards.
Many of these facilities that fail to meet the
indicated criteria were built and installed in order
to comply with other regulations promulgated by the
EPA or State agencies and received express or implied
approval from those agencies.
!Ve believe, also, that the stringent
requirements of the proposed rules herein discussed
will severely reduce the number of new facilities that
can or will be constructed to receive hazardous
wastes. If regulations governing existing facilities
are adopted as proposed, the reduction in disposal
-------
68
1 capacity will be devastating to the chemical industry.
2 Since the EPA cannot by fiat instantaneously
3 stop production of hazardous wastes, it follows that
4 there must be some mechanism for disposing of these1
5 wastes. In our opinion, there is only one answer to
6 this question: Existing facilities must be exempt
7 from those sating criteria over which they have no
8 control.
9 EPA has ample authority, under Section 7003,
10 to remedy problems that develop on a case-by-case
11 basis. Without our proposed modification in the
12 regulations, it is very conceivable that the whole
13 regulatory framework relative to hazardous wastes wil 1
14 come Lo a grinding halt.
15 Proposed Section 250.43-9 would require
16 owners and operators of facilities to establish two
17 trust funds. The structure of these trusts is
18 extremely vague.
19 In our written comments, we have addressed
20 what we consider to be major legal issues relative
21 to the law of trusts that are not addressed by the
22 proposed regulation. In particular, we question
23 whether the trust funds required comply vith laws and
24 judicial determination relative to the establishment
25 and functioning of trusts.
-------
69
1 The financial responsibility requirements
2 also require insurance be secured bv the owner or
3 operator of the facility. Employees of my company
4 asked the following; question, though worded different-
5 ly, at two prior hearings: Is the $5 million coverage
6 for sudden and accidental occurrences required for
7 each facility or for each owner where more than one
8 facility is owned17 Unfortunately, we received both
9 possible answers.
10 Since there appears to be some confusion on
11 this point, we request that the LPA publish clarifica-
12 tion. From our point of view, this issue is very
13 important since, on the one hand we would need
14 $15 million in coverage, but on the other up to
15 $295 million.
16 The Agency has adopted a policy providing
17 "notes" following some sections of the regulations
18 to, it would appear, provide some flexibility in
19 subjecting; disposal facilities to rigorous standards.
20 Since no objective standards are given for
21 the use of these "notes," we are reluctant to base
22 any necessary decisions relative to site selection,
23 performance standards, and that sort of thing on the
24 probability of the; "note" standard applying.
25 Since we believe existing facilitie , should
-------
70
1 be exempted, the "notes" should be restyled as
2 variance provisions applicable to new facilities and
3 should stipulate the objective requirements
4 necessary to secure such variances.
5 Thank you.
6 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
7 questions from the panel?
8 MR. BRUBAKER: I will attempt to.
9 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
10 MR. LINDSEY: You talked about the location
11 criteria. I've got a question, but first of all I'd
12 like to ask you well, let me just proceed.
13 The location criteria, you indicated if
14 strictly enforced, would cause all of your existing
15 facilities to be closed. You didn't say it in that
16 many words, but that's what you meant; is that right?
17 i MR. BRUBAKER: Well, the things I looked
18 at when I made that statement were the 500-year
19 floodplain -- the site selection criteria specifical-
20 ly the five feet above high water table, and the
21 type of liner, the criteria for the liner.
22 Arguably, we could dig up some facilities
23 and put a new liner in, but from a practical point of
24 view and making an economic determination for a compan
25 obviously that's almost out of the question in most
-------
71
1 cases.
2 If you have a 40-acre lake, you certainly
3 can't put a new liner in.
4 MR. LINDSEY: Are you going to submit more
5 detailed
6 MR. BRUBAKER: We have extremely detailed --
7 MR. LINDSEY: All right. If you would, I
8 would hope, in those detailed comments if you could
9 give us specifics on that. As we consider this
10 further, it's specific information along those lines
11 concerning specific kinds of facilities that would
12 help us really to determine what we should do.
13 Second of all, and you mentioned this at
14 the very end about the "notes," the "notes" are
15 intended to essentially be a variance procedure. I
16 wouldn't want to call it that. I think I would rather
17 call it a procedure which we can make a case-by-case
18 determination where things do not seem to fit the
19 hard and fast design regulations.
20 In these cases like the floodplain issue,
21 does not the variance there give you the option, for
22 example, of building dikes around the perimeter?
23 MR. BRUBAKER: Obviously, I didn't address
24 all of the issues that are in our written comments.
25 One of the major things is that I went to five Federal
-------
72
1 agencies in person in Washington requesting informa-
2 tion on floodplains . As a result of that, I found
3 out that nobody in the country, as far as I have teen
4 able to determine, even under threat of filing an
5 FOI , was able to give me information except on a
6 specific case-by-case basis, and then not necessarily
7 in all instances.
8 For instance, in Houston the Corps of
9 Engineers intends to have the information available
10 somewhere two to five years from now. That certainly
11 doesn't help us now.
12 I don't understand why the Agency went to
13 500 years when the.; difference between 100 years and
14 500 years is not that great, and 100 years is clearly
15 established in precedent.
16 MB. LINDSEY: I can't remember the reference
17 myself, but we do know what agency it is that has
18 ! maps available.
19 MR. BRUBAKER- HUD supposedly, I believe.
20 MR. LINDSEY: Somebody does.
21 MR. BRUBAKER: But they told me specifically
22 and 1 told them I intended to file an FOI petition,
23 and they told me their answer would be the same: It's
24 not available except for a limited area in certain
25 urban parts of the country.
-------
73
1 MR. LINDSEY: You are going back today,
2 right?
3 MR. BRUBAKER: No. I am going bar,.; tomorrow.
4 Tomorrow I give a speech on TSCA.
5 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Field' will be here later
6 today, and I think he can provide vou with the
7 contact that he used. He has them. He has this
8 information in the offi- c.
9 MR. BRUB'iKER I don't want to lead you to
10 believe that no maps are available. What I am tellinp
11 you is there are maps for certain portions of the
12 country that, are available, but it's very limited.
13 MR. CORSON: Two areas of question,
14 Mr. Brubaker.
15 First, when you made the reference to
16 annual testing under 250. 10(d ) (1 ) (iv ) , I want to make
17 sure you are aware that we addressed that testing
18 from two categories- One, those which are listed,
19 which we are handling in this fashion, in essence
20 asking that we inspect for annual demonstration, and
21 then, in general, those which are not listed which
22 fail .he characteristics require the testing or the
23 roevaluation by the generator only where there has
24 been some change.
25 I just vv ;ui t to make sure that you recogiuze
-------
74
1 that we did have that categorization, and I am asking
2 you whether you feel that our requesting testing for
3 listed waste should be the same as the other only
4 when the change occurred?
5 MR. BRUBAKER: Yes, I do think that. Lei;
6 me clarify a little bit something else, too.
7 I believe your intent on the delisting and
8 on the categorical listing is the same that I have
9 suggested. It simply, to me, does not read clearly
10 and succinctly that that is what you intend. In this
11 same instance, I think that you intended what I
12 suppose you said, but I'd like it said a little more
13 clearly.
14 MR. CORSON : That was my second question
15 area. The intent of this comment period for listing
16 waste is that when you can show us with information
17 that a category does not belong to be listed that that
18 difference might then result in a function of the
19 comment, you would see that difference in the promulga
20 tion. The intent of the proposed 250.15 is to allow
21 for the individual demonstration of noninclusion.
22 A categorical thing could easily occur also based on
23 your comments.
24 Is that the whole gist of your point when
25 you offered to apply 250.15 to --
-------
75
1 MR. BRUBAKER: The citation in the Federal
2 Register specifically says those things found in
3 Section 250.14. What I would like to see is 250.13
4 and also things voluntarily declared hazardous
5 referenced in the regulation.
6 MR. CORSON: I guess our point is that
7 something is defined by 250.13, since that's a genera-
8 tion responsibility. If it's not hazardous, he would
9 never treat it as such. It would never be in the
10 system.
11 What you are asking for is something that
12 resembles a certificate of good health. In other
13 words, somebody could provide data on this waste that
14 says he has tested it against all the Characteristics,
15 submit that data, and then I guess ask for a statement
16 that it does not meet those. Is that what you are --
17 MR. BRUBAKER: That's essentially what I am
18 asking, yes.
19 MR. LEHMAN- Mr. Brubaker , part of your
20 commentary concerns existing facilities which cannot
21 meet the proposed standards due to factors beyond your
22 control, and I believe you said -- this is what I want
23 to clarify -- that we should exempt existing
24 facilities which cannot meet standards due to factors
25 beyond your control.
-------
76
1 Let me just get this clarified. Do you mean
2 that we should exempt that standard, or is it your
3 recommendation that just because you can't meet one
4 standard you are exempted from the entire control
5 system?
6 MR. BRUBAKER: I think my point is this:
7 For instance, in the Houston area we have several
8 existing disposal facilities, treatment-type facilitie;
9 that obviously are going to be within the 500-year
10 f3oodplain. There has been no experience of any
11 problems with any of our facilities. They are built
12 in such a manner that we don't foresee any problems.
13 By imposing the 500-year floodplain criteria, once
14 you get through the interim area and into a permit
15 issuing situation, we obviously can't meet the
16 criteria. What do we do but close it down? That,
17 frankly to me, doesn't make much sense. If you have
18 a. facility that can't move, that does not meet one of
19 the criteria, that money can't change.
20 I'm not asking you to exempt things like
21 putting up fences for security; simply the things that
22 can't be changed. It seems to me logical to exclude
23 those sites from coverage of that specific criteria.
24 MR. LEHMAN: That was my point. Your commen
25 seemed to imply that we should exempt the entire
-------
77
1 facility from all control if it could not meet one
2 standard.
3 MR. BRUBAKER- No. The only things that I
4 was addressing were the things beyond the control of
5 the company.
6 MR. CORSON: One last question, Mr. Brubaker.
7 In your testimony, you were advocating an
8 extraction procedure with either a groundwater pH
9 whatever, and you cited two benefits: First, waste
10 that is classified as hazardous will be so classified
11 on a realistic basis; and, number two, waste that
12 might be hazardous in a given situation will not be
13 disposed of in a facility where conditions exist
14 that potentiate that hazard.
15 I am wondering, as a followup and if you
15 include this in your comments, what are the control
17 mechanisms that we would use to assure that waste
18 would not be disposed of in a facility where a
19 condition would potentiate that hazard? How do we
20 go about doing that? What system would bring those
21 wastes in our control system?
22 MR. BRUBAKER: My function in my company is
23 that of attorney. I deal with the businessmen and
24 see what kind of practical, pragmatic judgments they
25 make.
-------
78
1 The issue, I think, is that businessmen are
2 going to do what they feel it is necessary to do to
3 comply with the regulation. They don't want to toe
4 bothered with having to make a decision saying, "Well,
5 if we don't do this, EPA may say it's all right."
6 They'd rather say, "Let's do it so there is no
7 question." I think that's true of most big companies
8 today.
9 The specific thing that I am addressing
10 there is raised in our comments. It deals with an
11 area of particular concern to my company, which I
12 would rather not go into in other than generalities
13 right now.
14 I will tell you that if you take, for
15 instance, the metallics that are listed in the
16 extraction procedure, in an acid situation they will
17 be extracted to a far greater extent than they would
18 have been in an alkaline situation.
19 I think what I am proposing to you as an
20 alternative here says that not only do we look at
21 the potential hazard of the waste, but we also look
22 at where it's going so that in that situation where
23 you have metallic components of a waste that are
24 extractable under an acidic condition industry would
25 then be forced because of economic reasons to take tha
-------
79
1 waste, segregate it and dispose of it alone in a
2 facility where they can guaranty that it would remain
3 alkaline, i.e., in a 1imestone-type of situation,
4 any alkaline-type of situation, so that there is
5 absolutely no chance, no matter how much acid rain
6 you get, no matter what happens, of its becoming
7 acidic and, therefore, allowing the metal to be
8 leached.
9 MR. CORSON: Can I just gather from that
10 that in your proposal and comments you have described
11 whatever that mechanism is for guarantying that these
12 wastes will not then be in that kind of facility?
13 MR. BRUBAKER: Frankly, I don't think you
14 need any more guaranty than that, because if you come
15 in and test the facility at that time, after the
16 industry has disposed of a nonalkaline extractable
17 waste in an alkaline facility, you come in and inspect
18 that facility, determine that it is either neutral
19 or acidic, you immediately, in my opinion, have a
20 violation of the law.
21 MR. CORSON: Thank you.
22 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
23 We will recess for 10 minutes. We will
24 reconvene at 10:40.
25 Would Mr. Houseberg and a representative
-------
80
1 from General Portland speak to me during the break,
2 please.
3 (Short recess.)
4 MS. DARRAH : Mr. Robert W. Edson, Occidental
5 Chemical Company?
6 MR. EDSON: My name is Bob Edson. I am
7 the Technical Services Manager for Occidental Chemical
8 Company located in Lathrop, California, Western
9 Division.
10 Occidental's facility in Lathrop is
11 engaged in the production of chemical fertilizers,
12 ammonium phosphate, phosphoric acid, and ammonia.
13 During the production of phosphoric acid, a coproduct
14 is also produced, which is gypsum. All of the gypsum
15 produced at our Lathrop, California facility is sold
16 as a product and is not stored as a waste.
17 The essence of what we are requesting frorr
18 the EPA is that the material that is sold as an
19 agricultural product not be regulated as a waste.
20 In trying to get a proper perspective on
21 the problem, I have just a little demonstration that
22 I'd like to make just to show you the relative
23 radioactivity of the material that we are talking
24 about. If you go through any home, you can find a
25 number of materials that are radioactive. I don't
-------
81
1 know if you can hear this thing, but this happens to
2 be a wristwatch that I have worn for 20 years. And
3 background radiation in this room is about relatively
4 small. Here is a Col eman lantern mantle. Here is a
5 little powdery d:sh. And this is some of that waste
6 material, or rather some of the radioactive gypsum.
7 I don't mean to prove anything by that.
8 The only point I am making is that this material has
9 i a very, very low level of radioactivity. Yes, in fact
10 , it does have some radium 226 in it, but not nearly
11 as much as you can find in a number of household
12 items and items like mj wristwatch.
13 In California and other parts of the
14 country, gypsum is sold as a soil treatment to promote
15 drainage of clay soils, correct pH of t'he soil in
16 alkaline soils, and to improve the sodium/calcium
17 ratio which allows the soil to drain. We have a lot
18 of clay soil in California. We treat it with gypsum,
19 and it drains better and gives good farmland out of
20 what is otherwise poor farmland.
21 The regulation as proposed would essentially
22 stop the use of this material in California agriculture
23 because the farmers just couldn't possibly afford to
24 comply with the regulations imposed of operating a
25 waste disposal site. The paperwork and the fencing an
-------
82
1 all these type of things would just be economically
2 impossible for the farmers to do it. So then, instead
3 of selling all of this gypsum as a soil treatment,
4 why it would have to be then handled as a waste.
5 In California, approximately 885,000 tons
6 of this material are sold annually for soil treatment.
7 Of this 885,000 tons, 570,000 are coproduct gypsum
8 from phosphoric acid manufacture, 35,000 tons are
9 coproduct from hydrofluoric manufacture, and 280,000
10 tons are mined because we don ' t even have enough from
11 the coproduct phosphoric acid manufactured.
12 The typical application of this gypsum is
13 about three or four tons per acre, and they'll do this
14 about every three or four years. At these application
15 rates, there is just no foreseeable radiation hazard
16 to anyone. Furthermore, radium sulfate, which is the
17 form the radium does exist in in this material, is
18 extremely insoluble. There is no danger of leaching
19 into surface or groundwater because it's very, very
20 insoluble.
21 Most gypsum coproduct from manufacture of
22 phosphoric acid is stacked in large piles. In Florida
23 where they cannot sell the gypsum, that's what they
24 have to do with it. However, we would ask that a
25 clear distinction be made between material that is
-------
83
1 stacked and stored and material that is used as a
2 coproduct in agriculture. Since there is a need for
3 this gypsum treatment in California and in some other
4 areas of the country, we feel that use of this
5 material is in keeping with the RCRA with the idea
6 that we want to reuse materials and conserve material
7 and energy resources. Therefore, we recommend that
8 when gypsum is used for agricultural purposes it
9 should not be regulated as a waste but be treated as
10 any other agricultural product.
11 We propose a suggested addition to 250.46-3
12 would be to add a Paragraph (d) as follows:
13 "The treatment, storage and disposition
14 of gypsum produced during the manufacture
15 of wet process phosphoric acid is not
16 subject to the regulations listed in
17 250.46-3(a) when it is sold as a product to
18 treat soil for agricultural purposes. The
19 only requirement for use of this material
20 for agricultural purposes is that a statemen
21 be made on the bill of sale that the materia
22 is to be used as a soil conditioner or
23 nutrient . "
24 That's the extent of what I had to present.
25 Are there any questions?
-------
84
1 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Edson, looking over your
2 suggested paragraph, I see nothing in there which
3 addresses the basic problem which you addressed a
4 little; earlier , namely, making a distinction between
5 gypsum which is sold versus gypsum which is piled up.
6 In other words, your only criterion here is that it
7 be sold.
8 One of the problems we have is that -- not
9 only in the gypsum case but in a number of other
10 manufacturing processes, one of the main problems
11 here is the by-product materials which are supposedly
12 raw materials at some future time for which there is
13 no market at this moment or where storage may go on
14 for years and years before a market develops.
15 Do you have any comment about how we can
lg make that distinction?
17 MR. EDSON. I think that in the case, for
ig instance, in Florida where it is stored and stacked
ig some is also sold for soil conditioner in peanuts
2o and things of this sort. This would provide that
21 the material that was sold not be treated as a waste
22 but that the material that was stored as a waste would
23 be. And it would just amount to making a notation
24 on the bill of sale that this is going to somebody's
25 peanut farm for agricultural purposes.
-------
85
1 MR. LEHMAN: It I may follow up on that.
2 In other words, you are saying that you would have
3 no objection to applying the storage standards to
4 material which is in fact stored7
5 MR. EDSON : That's correct.
6 MR. LEHMAN: Even before it's sold? In
7 other words, the act of selling is what removed it
8 from the system. Is that what your point is?
9 MR. EDSON: Well, I think that you would
10 have to -- that it, would be fair to consider the
11 essence of the situation. In California, all the
12 material is sold, period. But, granted, during the
13 harvesting and production of the material you have
14 storage piles, but it is all sold.
15 In places where it is not all sold, then
16 material not sold would be treated as a waste material
17 and a material that was sold would not be treated so.
18 MR. LEHMAN: Could I just follow up a little
19 bit more.
20 In California where the material is all sold,
21 what is the normal residence time in storage from the
22 time it's produced until the time it's actually sold9
23 MR. FDSON Probably a year, because of the
24 seasonal application.
25 MR. LINDSEY: Does the radioactivity of these
-------
86
1 materials vary from place to place substantially?
2 MR. EDSON: Yes, but not a great deal. The
3 radioactivity of the material that is produced from
4 rock that comes from central Florida is roughly twice
5 of that that comes from north Florida. Most of the
6 material that's used in California comes from north
7 Florida. But even at twice, it's very low, as you
8 can see, in radioactivity.
9 MR. LINDSEY: I gather that stuff --
10 MR. EDSON: When you apply one ton to an
11 acre, you have diluted it by a factor of about 1,000.
12 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. That material is
13 representative of the kind of thing you get; right?
14 MR. EDSON: Yes. This came out of our
15 plant.
16 MR. LINDSEY: As you may realize, under
17 250.15, there is a mechanism for getting specific
18 wastes delisted.
19 MR. EDSON: Yes.
20 MR. LINDSEY: Would that material that you
21 have there in the bag be delistable under those
22
23 MR. EDSON: No. This material has
24 approximately 13 picocuries of radium 226. Your
25 criteria lists five.
-------
87
1 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
2 MR. EDSON: If in fact you were to build
3 your home right on top of a pile of this material,
4 yes, you would have over a 100-year period of time
5 enough radiation to perhaps show something. But
6 nobody builds a home on top of a pile of this stuff.
7 Furthermore, if it's used for agricultural
8 purposes, it's so greatly diluted that it would no
9 longer create a hazard.
10 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. What's the half-life
11 of this material; do you know?
12 MR. EDSON: 1600 years.
13 MR. LINDSEY: Further, I did see ponds of
14 this material one time -- not at your facilities;
15 somewhere else -- and at the time, the place where
15 I happened to come across this material, it was
17 extremely acid. They used an acid slurry, an acidic
18 liquid slurry, to move the stuff into the ponds, and
19 thus it was very acid. Is this common; do you know?
20 MR. EDSON: Yes. It is used in the treatmenl
21 of alkaline soil because it has an acid characteristic
22 that helps neutralize the soil.
23 MR. LINDSEY: So the acid content of this
24 material in other words, it would leach very acidic
25 right? No' Yes? Or do you know?
-------
88
1 MR. EDSON : If you have a large pile of -. t ,
2 it would leach acid. If it's applied to soil for
3 soil conditioner, why it would be very, very dilute
4 and certainly wouldn't affect the: soil.
5 MR. LINDSEY: Is the aciditv useful in that
6 sense?
7 MR. EDSON: Yes.
8 MR. LINDSEY: Is that the reason --
9 MR. EDSON: That's part of the reason for
10 its use .
11 MR. LINDSEY: To bring down the pH of
12 alkaline soils?
13 MR. EDSON- Yes. It improves the calcium/
14 sodium ratio so that the soil becomes porous. It
15 will leach -- it will not leach, but it will allow
16 water to drain through it so that the plants will get
17 their roots wet.
18 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
19 MS. DARRAII: Thank you very much.
20 Mr. E. James Houseberg, California
21 Fertilizer Association?
22 MR. HOUSKBERG: Hearing officer, panelists.
23 First, I have had word from the next speaker listed
24 on the program, Myrlen Kelly, that due to conditions
25 beyond his control he was unable to be at the meeting
-------
89
1 today and he asked whether or not I would read his
2 statement into the record. I would like to do that
3 at this time.
4 Mr. Kelly is Manager of Environmental
5 Affairs for Valley Nitrogen Producers, Incorporated.
6 and they go under the symbol of VNP.
7 Valley Nitrogen Producers is a wholly
8 farmer-owned cooperative organized for the purpose
9 of producing and distributing fertilizers and other
10 commodities necessary for successful farming operation
11 in California. Since I960, VNP's product line has
12 included phosphoric acid and phosphatic gypsum, which
13 is a coproduct of the phosphoric acid manufacturing
14 process.
15 During the past 18 years, ail of Valley
16 Nitrogen Producers' phosphatic gypsum has been sold
17 as an agricultural mineral. The popularity of this
18 product comes largely from its ability to correct a
19 problem inherent in our San Joaquin Valley .soils.
20 These soils are characterized by an imbalance in the
21 calcium/sodium ratio. As a result, untreated soils
22 are slow to dry, difficult to work, and resistant to
23 the penetration of irrigation water. Controlled
24 applications of gypsum provide calcuim which acts
25 chemically to replace some of the sodium. Following a
-------
1
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
leaching step to remove the soluble sodium salt formed
in the reaction, the treated soils exhibit the
enhanced productive capacity which has made the
San Joaquin Valley an agricultural showplace.
A number of benefits accrue from the
remedial application of phosphatic gypsum. Primary
among these is the establishment and maintenance of
a high level of soil productivity.
Another important aspect of this use is
that California gypsum producers do not accumulate
large gypsum stacks, as Bob just indicated to you,
which would otherwise occupy many acres of productive
lands and possibly pose potential air and water
contamination problems.
Finally, California phosphoric acid
producers operate under a severe handicap due to the
expense involved in importing phosphate rock from
Florida, which is the main source of supply, or the
western states. Incidentally, Valley Nitrogen
Producers obtain their phosphate rock from Idaho.
The revenues derived from gypsum sales partially
offset this expense and are an economic necessity if
a phosphoric acid production capability is to be
maintained in California. There aren't many plants
producing it.
-------
91
1 VNP submits that the manner in which its
2 phosphatic gypsum is utilized effectively removes it
3 from consideration as a waste material. Section 1004
4 (27) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
5 of 1976 defines the term "solid waste" as follows:
6 "The term 'solid waste' means any garbage, refuse,
7 sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply
8 treatment plant, or air pollution control facility,
9 and other discarded material. . ."
10 The discussion previously presented gives,
11 I think, incontrovertible evidence that phosphatic
12 gypsum, when employed as a soil amendment, is a useful
13 and valuable commodity and can in no reasonable sense
14 be considered as a discarded material.
15 The EPA proposes to classify phosphatic
16 gypsum as a hazardous waste, which is a subset of
17 | solid waste, because it contains radium 226 in
18 ! concentrations exceeding five picocuries per gram,
19 the cutoff level for noninclusion in the hazardous
20 waste system according to Section 250.15(a)(5 ) (i ) .
21 When the gypsum is incorporated in the soil as a
22 remedial treatment for sodium imbalance, the attenua-
23 tion of its radioactivity is such that the impact of
24 this characteristic becomes insignificant. I think
25 Bob Edson's demonstration has well proven that point.
-------
1 Calculations supporting this statement are included
2 in the appendix attached to this statement. It is
3 all scientifically prepared. I prefer not to read it,
4 but it will be given to the reporter.
5 Valley Nitrogen Producers submits that the
6 described beneficial application of phosphatic
7 gypsum illustrates, in the truest sense, the spirit
8 and intent of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
9 Act. Should the EPA persist in indiscriminately
10 labeling all phosphatic gypsum as a hazardous waste,
11 subject to the attendant proposed regulations, the
12 existing market for this product would disappear.
13 VNP's Earmer customers would not be willing or able
14 to cope with the administrative, the monitoring, and
15 the security provisions which would then apply to
16 users of this material. EPA would thus find itself,
17 I think, in the unenviable position, in this instance,
18 of creating the very type of problem that it is
19 attempting to solve.
20 VNP suggests, therefore, that Part 250,
21 Subpart A, Section 250.10(d)(2) be amended to include
22 a new provision as follows:
23 "Gypsum from phosphoric acid production
24 which is sold for use as an agricultural
25 mineral is not subject to the regulations of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
this part."
VNP has participated in the development of
! written comments submitted to the EPA by The
Fertilizer Institute based in Washington, D.C., and
expresses its support and endorsement of those
comments as well as the statement presented by
Occidental Chemical Company, Bob Edson just having
finished his statement.
And he wishes to thank you for this oppor-
tunity to make his comments.
I have just the one copy. I will give it to
the recorder L f that's the desire of the Chair.
MR. DARRAH: Yes, please.
MR. HOUSEBERG- My comments will be briet.
My name is Jim Houseberg, and I am the General Manager
of the California Fertilizer Association, officing in
Sacramento, California.
The Association is actively supported by o v e
100 concerns which manufacture, formulate, and/or
distribute commercial fertilizers, and its membership
accounts for over 95 percent of the total fertilizer
distributed in California.
The membership also represents the operators
of the California companies producing phosphoric acid
and phosphatic gypsum.
-------
94
1 My purpose in appearing here today is quite
2 simple, and that is to support the positions taken
3 by Occidental, Bob Edson's statement, and by Myrlen
4 Kelly, whose statement I presented to you, regarding
5 the subject at today's hearing.
6 Additionally, the California Fertilizer
7 Association endorses the statements previously
8 submitted by The Fertilizer Institute in Washington,
9 D.C. There were a number of hearings. I am referring
10 particularly to the February 20th hearing in
11 Washington wherein they set forth additional reasons
12 for the inappropriateness of the EPA to include
13 phosphatic gypsum as a "hazardous" material in Section
14 3001 of their proposed regulations.
15 Phosphatic gypsum is an agricultural
16 mineral used primarily to correct undesirable
17 characteristics in soil. It has a lot of properties
18 which make it very desirable and very useful in
19 irrigated agriculture, and its use is accountable
20 today for the high agriculture production which makes
21 this state's agriculture production historically great
22 'Ve call it a micronut r i ent , and it's used primarily
23 by the farmers to assist them in breaking up heavy
24 soil particles -- you have all seen them as you have
25 traveled around and to make the soil more"fiable,"
-------
95
1 which is a term used to mean more workable, thereby
2 permitting improved water and air penetration into
3 the soi1.
4 No evidence has come to our attention that
5 phosphatic gypsum is a harmful mineral.
6 Economically, the manufacture, distribution,
7 and use of gypsum is of utmost importance to the
8 economy of California and the nation as a whole.
9 Approximately 600,000 tons of gypsum derived as a
10 by-product from the manufacture of phosphoric acid
11 is used in California alone. When added to the other
12 sources, the total usage is closer to 900,000 tons
13 annually in California. Nationally, EPA's own
14 estimates tells us that over 400 million metric tons
15 are produced annually.
16 Should it's continued use be blocked, the
17 adverse economic ramifications would be tremendous.
18 Just put your mind at work: Loss of payroll, loss
19 of factories, loss of transportation facilities, loss
20 of agriculture, and loss to the consumers to name a
21 few.
22 Our members could be forced to drop this
23 highly desirable and useful product line.
24 It is our recommendation, first, that EPA
25 delete the inclusion of waste gypsum from phosphoric
-------
96
1 acid production from its proposed listing that's
2 SIC Listing 2874 -- of hazardous materials. Or, as
3 an alternative, insert in the proper location in the
4 proposed regulations an exemption for phosphoric
5 acid derived gypsum which is used for agricultural
6 purposes.
7 Thank you for the privilege of permitting
8 me to speak.
9 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Thank you. Will you
10 answer questions from the panel?
11 MR. HOUSEBERG. I am not a technician, but
12 togetner with myself and Bob Edson we will try. Okay7
13 MS. DARRAH- Okay.
14 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Houseberg, part of your
15 commentary gets right to the heart of this whole
16 thing when you said that you have no evidence of any
17 public health or environmental damage from the
18 agricultural use of waste gypsum. I believe that s
19 what you said.
20 MR. HOUSEBERG: Yes. I said that, and "hat
21 is a correct statement.
22 MR. LEHMAN: I'd like to probe that a little
23 if I might.
24 Does that mean that you have had some sort
25 of a data-gathering program, or does that just imply
-------
97
1 that nothing has come to your attention that shows
2 that there is a problem? In other words, are you
3 actively searching to find out whether there is a
4 problem, or are vou just saying
5 MR. HOUSEBERG: Research has been done.
6 Documentation could be provided. I have one formula
7 with me here that I mentioned during my statement.
8 I prefer not to go into it because I am not a
9 technician. I can show you the formula and show you
10 the results of other studies that have come to our
11 attention which, to us, means there is no harmful
12 effect.
13 MR. LEHMAN- The best thing would be if you
14 could submit that sort of information to the record.
15 MR. HOUSEBERG: That will be done.
16 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. TRASK- Tf I might follow that just a
18 little bit. Does that data include --
19 MS. DARRAH: Harry, speak up, please.
20 MR. TRASK: Does that data include the
21 total quantities applied to, say, an acre of land in
22 the San Joaquin Valley? You indicated gypsum was
23 responsible for its being such a great agricultural
24 area.
25 MR. HOUSEBERG: That is true, yes.
-------
98
1 MR. TRASK: Is there some estimate as to
2 how many tons would have been applied to a single
3 acre?
4 MR. HOUSEBERG: I don't possess that
5 knowledge, but I could get it for you.
6 Basically -- I think Mr. Edson said it,
7 too it's spread about three to four tons over an
8 acre, and this is only done on a periodic rotational
9 basis every three to four years.
10 MR. TRASK: Every three to four years,
11 three to four tons; so that averages one ton per acre
12 per year?
13 MR. HOUSEBERG: Yes, which I think would
14 be a de minimus amount.
15 MR. TRASK: So we could have, upwards of
16 50 I don't know how long the San Joaquin Valley
17 has been in production. More than 50 years, I guess?
18 MR. HOUSEBERG: I would think so.
19 MR. TRASK: Okay.
20 I MS. DARRAH: Okay. Thank you very much
21 Mr. Houseberg.
22 Mr. David Boltz, Bethlehem Steel Corporation
23 for the American Iron and Steel Institute?
24 MR. BOLTZ: My name is David Boltz, and I
25 am Senior Pollution Control Engineer in the
-------
99
1 Environmental Quality Control Division, Bethlehem
2 Steel Corporation. I appear here today on behalf
3 of the American Iron and Steel Institute, a trade
4 organization whose 63 domestic member companies
5 account for 92 percent of the nation's steel producing
6 capability.
7 AISI's Task Group on Solid Waste Management
8 | has carefully reviewed the regulations proposed by
9 EPA on December 18, 1973, pursuant to Subtitle C of
10 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We have
11 concluded that several sections of the regulations
12 are inconsistent with EPA's concern about the
13 consequences of a regulation program so broad and
14 stringent as to shut down most of the hazardous
15 waste facilities currently available, and thereby
16 fail to properly control the most hazardous of wastes.
17 In our opinion, the only way to avoid the
18 shutdown or serious overloading of existing hazardous
19 waste facilities and assure that adequate facilities
20 are available for the most hazardous wastes is to
21 establish a plan for phasing in the requirements of
22 Subtitle C.
23 The preamble mentions phasing as a major
24 program issue, but the proposed regulations don't
25 show a serious interest in using the concept. This is
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
especially evident in Subpart A by EPA's insistence
on using a worst case disposal scenario; that is,
codisposal of industrial and municipal wastes in a
nonsecure landfill or dump situated directly over a
usable aquifer that is a source of drinking water.
In Subpart D, EPA has ignored a prime
opportunity for phasing by proposing the same
standards for both new and existing landfills and by
failing to recognize degrees of hazard in wastes that
are landfilled.
At this point, I'd like to discuss several
sections of the preamble and proposed regulations
and indicate where we feel changes are necessary.
Additional comments and specific recommendations for
changes will be submitted by letter by the end of the
w e e k .
In the preamble, EPA expresses concern for
adequate hazardous waste management capacity as the
Subtitle C program develops. One way of controlliig
the impact on existing facilities and phasing
implementation of the Act is to start out with a more
realistic test protocol for the toxicity determination
Accordingly, we recommend that, EPA's initial
hazardous waste regulations recognize the fact that
most industrial wastes are not codisposed with
-------
101
1 municipal solid waste and allow the use of distilled
2 water as the leach fluid in the extraction procedure.
3 A stronger fluid should be used only if data become
4 available to justify its use and if EPA can demonstrate
5 that disposal facilities are or will be available to
6 accommodate the increased volume of wastes requiring
7 such facilities.
8 At another section of the preamble, the
9 three criteria used for refining the candidate set
10 of hazardous waste characteristics are described. One
11 of these criteria is that "A reliable identification
12 or test method for the presence of the characteristic
13 is available." A few paragraphs later the statement
14 is made that "The characteristics that EPA plans to
15 use immediately are relatively straightforward, the
16 tests are well developed, inexpensive, and recognized
17 by the scientific community..."
18 We find it incredible that EPA claims their
19 extraction procedure is a reliable, we 11-developed
20 identification method recognized by the scientific
21 community. In fact, the scientific community became
22 aware of the full details of the extraction procedure
23 only when it appeared in these proposed regulations
24 on December 19, 1978. We know that as of January 30,
25
-------
102
1 1979 even EPA did not know the reliability of the
2 extraction procedure. During a meeting of ASTM
3 Subcommittee D-19.12 on that date, an EPA representa-
4 tive orally admitted that EPA had not yet even signed
5 a contract with a consultant to perform a precision
6 study on the extraction procedure.
7 Furthermore, the extraction procedure as
8 described is not completely workable. In our
9 experience with the proposed filtration method describ-
10 ed in Section 250.13(d)(2), the step which calls for
11 inverting the filter unit and replacing the filter
12 pads would result in the reservoir contents being
13 spilled. After several conversations with EPA
14 personnel about this problem, we were told that this
15 procedure would be rewritten to correct the methodology
16 and that a notice would soon appear in the Federal
17 Register regarding this matter.
18 Tests have also shown that the mixer blades
19 in the extractor produced by Associated Design and
20 Manufacturing Company of Alexandria, Virginia, tend
21 to bind when performing tests with granular materials.
22 We cite EPA's lack of knowledge about the
23 reliability of the extraction procedure and the
24 problems with the filtration method and the extractor
25 to emphasize the point that the proposed extraction
-------
103
1 procedure is simply a prototype test. The time
2 constraints confronting EPA for promulgating these
3 regulations cannot be used to justify the proposal
4 of an unproven test method for this critical portion
5 of the regulation under Section 3001, the section
6 EPA refers to as the keystone of Subtitle C.
7 We are pleased that EPA plans to extend the
8 comment period on the toxic waste portion of Subpart
9 A for submission of laboratory test data and additiona
10 comments on the extraction procedure. AISI member
11 companies are in the process of completing an
12 extraction study on a number of steel industry wastes
13 and will submit data and pertinent comments as soon
14 as possible.
15 With regard to the characteristics of
16 ignitable wastes, the preamble to Subpart A states
17 that "The objective of the ignitability characteristic
18 is to identify waste which presents fire hazard due
19 to being ignitable under routine waste disposal and
20 storage conditions." However, EPA has not included
21 this qualification in the proposed regulation under
22 Section 2 5 0.13(a).
23 As presently worded, this section could be
24 cited as the basis for classifying hot, solidified
25 slag as a hazardous waste, since all slags retain
-------
104
1 considerable heat from refining operations prior to
2 ultimate disposal or storage. We do not believe
3 that Congress intended that common materials such
4 as slags be considered as hazardous wastes on the
5 basis of retained heat.
6 We are also concerned about the definition
7 of reactive wastes, described in Section 250.13(c ) (1) .
8 In particular, Section 250.13(c ) (1) (i ) is overly
9 stringent in that it would classify a waste as
10 hazardous if it generates any amount of toxic gases,
11 vapors, or fumes, however small or fleeting, when
12 mixed with water or exposed to mild acidic or basic
13 conditions.
14 Without some quantitative or qualitative
15 consideration of the volume of gas liable to be
16 generated, this section of the proposed regulation
17 will needlessly force millions of tons of solid waste
18 to be classified as a hazardous waste. For example,
19 when blast furnace slag is cooled or quenched with
20 water, small amounts of hydrogen sulfide are
21 liberated, but we know of no instance where this re-
22 lease of gas has ever posed a threat to human health.
23 In 1977 over 24 million tons of blast
24 furnace slag were produced by domestic companies.
25 A large proportion of this slag could, under this
-------
105
I provision, be classified as a hazardous waste. Again,
2 we don't believe this was envisioned by Congress in
3 writing Subtitle C of RCRA.
4 Section 250.13(d)(l) appears to imply that
5 the determination of whether a solid waste is a
6 hazardous waste will be based on a single analysis
7 of the extract obtained from a single application oi
8 the extraction procedure to a single representative
9 sample of the waste.
10 In view of the heterogeneous nature of
11 waste materials, EPA should allow a waste generator
12 the latitude of performing a number of tests on a
13 representative sample and using standard data analysis
14 procedures on the data before comparing the results
15 with EPA's threshhold values.
16 Furthermore, the table containing the
17 threshhold values for determining whether the leachate
18 from a given waste is hazardous doesn't take into
19 consideration any uncertainty in the accuracy of
20 analytical measurements.
21 In this regard, we recommend that EPA
22 incorporate into this table a data acceptance screen
23 similar to the one developed by EPA's Environmental
24 Monitoring and Support Laboratory in 1975. A report
25 of that work states that the screen provides a
-------
106
1 calculator of acceptance for a single analysis and
2 average analyses for given permit illustrations.
3 To illustrate the applicability of the
4 data acceptance screen, the report notes that when
5 a daily permit limitation for arsenic is 150 microgram
6 per liter the daily value must be above 266.8 micro-
7 grams per liter before one can have 99.5 percent
8 confidence that the value is actually in violation.
9 We believe that a screen of this type is readily
10 adaptable to the threshhold value in the table in
11 Section 250.13(d)(1).
12 In general, we are very concerned about
13 the proposed Subpart D Standards, in that they
14 apparently apply equally to all hazardous wastes,
15 without regard to degree of hazard. We believe that
16 this is a classic example of overregulation. There
17 is no justifiable reason to apply the same disposal
18 standards to a wastewater treatment sludge which barel
19 fails the toxicity screening test and a highly-
20 flammable organic waste, for example.
21 In addition, the standards apparently apply
22 equally to both existing and new facilities, so all
23 facilities would have to conform to the requirements
24 for the most hazardous v/i"4"-
25 Furthermore, the preamble notes that "If
-------
107
1 an existing facility cannot be modified to conform
2 to applicable standards, it will have to close."
3 We fear that it will not be practicable or possible
4 to upgrade many existing on-site facilities,
5 particularly landfills, operated by private industry.
6 Such facilities would be forced to close, thereby
7 increasing the burden on commercial facilities.
8 In our opinion, the primary thrust of
9 Section 3004 of RCRA is to promote regulations
10 establishing such performance standards "as may be
11 necessary to protect human health and the environment.1
12 In view of this directive, it seems incumbent upon
13 EPA to write its initial hazardous waste regulations
14 in such a way as to avoid jeopardizing the availability
15 of hazardous waste landfill sites for the most
16 hazardous wastes.
17 Section 3004 does not preclude the
18 establishment of less stringent standards for
19 existing facilities compared with new facilities or
20 the recognition that disposal requirements should be
21 commensurate with the potential hazard associated with
22 a given waste.
23 In a lighter vein, we call your attention to
24 the fact that a literal interpretation of the
25 parenthetical example in Section 250.43-2(c) could
-------
108
1 require that facilities in New York City use both
2 English and French on their warning signs, since
3 the city is located in a state bordering Canada.
4 Finally, as EPA is preparing to embark on
5 a massive new regulatory program, I'd like the panel
6 to be aware of a statement by the Council on Wage and
7 Price Stability in their December, 1976 "Catalog
8 of Federal Regulations Affecting the Iron and Steel
9 In dust ry":
10 "If the trend in regulatory intervent lor
11 proceeds at the pace of the past 10 years,
12 there is no doubt in our minds that the
13 American Steel Industry will become
14 increasingly unwilling and unable to invest
15 in new, job-creating plants and equipment.
16 That is clearly not the desired result of
17 either the regulations or the regulators,
18 and indeed no single regulation could have
19 that effect. But when each and every
20 regulation, rule and directive is aggregated
21 when each and every hoop and hurdle is put
22 in one arena, the impact is far more perva-
23 sive and overwhelming than the creators
24 of any single regulation can imagine. It is
25 truly a case where the whole is far greater
-------
109
1 than the sum of the parts."
2 In view of the very difficult economic
3 and financial circumstances in which the steel industr
4 finds itself -- some of it caused by the necessity
5 of complying with a host of burdensome governmental
6 requirements -- it is particularly important that
7 additional and very likely massive regulatory burdens
8 not be imposed without a careful assessment of the
9 potential economic consequences.
10 In this regard, we have reviewed EPA ' s
11 draft Economic Impact Analysis of the Subtitle C
12 Regulations and will be submitting written comments
13 on those sections of concern to the steel industry.
14 On behalf of the American Iron and Steel
15 Institute, I thank you for this opportunity to express
16 our major concerns with the proposed Subtitle C
17 regulat ions.
18 MS. DARRAH- Thank you. Will you attempt
19 to answer questions from the panel?
20 MR. BOLTZ: Yes.
21 MS. DARRAH: Thanks.
22 MR. TRASR: Mr. Boltz, in your statement,
23 you indicated that most industrial wastes are not
24 codisposed with Municipal solid waste. Are there
25 some data which show that to be the case, or is that
-------
110
1 merely an observation of this Task Force of the Iron
2 and Steel Institute?
3 MR. BOLTZ: It's primarily based on
4 observation of those of us who work daily with the
5 plants and disposing of waste materials, and we have
6 made application to all the State regulatory agencies
7 for permits for our own waste materials. There is
8 very little of it that goes off site. The bulk of
9 our wastes are large volume materials, and so a very
10 large percentage of it stays right there because of
11 transportation costs. And also, when steel plants
12 are located, we design in areas for waste disposal.
13 That's not to say that some of our wastes are not
14 disposed of by contractor, but most of them are not.
15 MR. TRASK: When you say most industrial
16 waste, you are meaning most iron and steel waste?
17 ' MR. BOLTZ: That's the area I can speak
18 ' most authoritatively on. I think EPA quotes that
19 regulation in a general sense.
20 MR. LINDSEY: Just one point I'd like to
21 explore a little bit further.
22 Toward the end of your statement, you talked
23 about disposal standards should recognize and be
24 based upon, presumably, the degree of hazard. The
25 Note system which we put together in Section 3004 is
-------
Ill
1 designed basically to permit or allow a waste site
2 specific evaluation where that seems to be in order.
3 Do I gather that you feel we haven't gone
4 far enough in that, or are you suggesting some wholly
5 new and different approach away from that to accomp-
6 lish this?
7 MR. BOLTZ : No, you've got it correctly.
8 We don't think it's gone far enough. In our
9 experience v/ith obtaining permits, permit writers
10 tend to be very conservative in the exemptions that
H they allow. We fear that unless you make some
12 explicit statement in the regulations to differentiate
13 between -- or that they should treat existing sites
14 different from new sites or they must specifically
15 take into account the degree of hazard and site
16 specific conditions that it just won't happen.
17 The Note appears to be some words that were
18 well-intentioned, but we just don't think they'll
19 amount to much when it comes to writing the permit
20 system.
21 MR. LINDSEY: Your problem is, then, that
22 you feel that the people who are actually granting
23 the permit simply won't use them?
24 MR. BOLTZ: Won't use them perhaps in the
25 spirit that you might have intended them, that is
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right, without some more specific language.
MR. LINDSEY. Okay. You are going to make
more extensive written submissions?
MR. BOLTZ- Oh, yes.
MR. LINDSEY: Are you going --
MR. BOLTZ' 15 minutes isn't long to say
what you want.
MR. LINDSEY: Are you going into some detail
about how we should rewrite some of these things?
MR. BOLTZ: Yes, we have some suggestions.
MR. LINDSEY- Fine.
MR. CORSON: A couple of questions, Dave.
You recommended early on the use of
distilled water as a leach fluid. While I understand
your concern about our using a relative worst case,
do you feel we should use distilled water regardless
of the type of groundwater or the type of rainfall
that may occur in an area where the disposal operation
is taking place?
MR. BOLTZ: I understand the problem that
you have in writing the Section 3001 regulations.
We've talked several times over the past couple years
about the constraints that you have in writing the
Section 3001 regs, and we are not necessarily propos-
ing that the Section 3001 screening test take into
-------
113
1 account the groundwater characteristics all over the
2 country. We would like to see you, though, start
3 out with distilled water and get progressively more
4 stringent as the need arises.
5 As you determine, after the 90-day period
6 where all of us have to report to you what our
7 hazardous wastes really are under the lists or what
8 the characteristics are after we run the tests,
9 take it by steps. We are saying don't try to solve
10 the whole waste problem until you have the data on
11 what will be covered in a reasonable first-stage
12 implementation.
13 So we'd like to see you start out with the
14 distilled water term.
15 MR. CORSON: One other question. You did
16 cite in your presentation the data acceptance screen.
17 I guess I am wondering if it's AISI's position that
18 we should only put forth values in which we have a
19 99.5 percent confidence or whether you think that some
20 other level is appropriate with our concerns for
21 protecting the environment.
22 MR- BOLTZ: In citing the letter, that was
23 actually a report of some EPA work. The example there
24 was used of 99.5 percent confidence. I think we are
25 proposing that you seriously incorporate the concept,
-------
114
1 not necessarily 99.5 percent. One sigma or two sigma
2 might be adequate, but at least recognize the fact
3 that when you analyze one sample there are some
4 inaccuracies involved that any analytical chemist
5 will be readily able to talk about.
6 MR. CORSON: In that same vein, there are
7 some spots throughout your testimony where you indi-
8 cated some additional words on our part; like the idea
9 of multiple tests of several samples and possibly so-ne
10 concern with where we measure the temperature of the
11 slag, when in its process.
12 It would help us if in your written
13 comments you could provide us with some language
14 which at least in AISI's ooint of view would be
15 appropriate for their wastes.
16 MR- BOLTZ: We hope that our written
17 comments will speak to that, and you will just have
18 to read them and decide for yourself whether we have
19 gotten specific enough.
20 MR. CORSOH: One last area that I think
21 Harry started with to follow up.
22 There were some comments throughout which
23 kind of talk to or imply at least levels of hazard.
24 I am wondering whether you or AISI has a position as
25 to how many levels and as to what the levels might be.
-------
115
1 MR. BOLTZ: We are not ready to suggest
2 any kind of a cutoff point to separate something
3 extremely hazardous from hazardous to nonhazardous .
4 My illustration is just to point out to you that one
5 of the things we have a lot of is wastewater
6 treatment plant sludge. This material is produced
7 from our wastewater treatment plants that are required
8 by FWPCA, and as those requirements become more
9 stringent the volume of sludge just goes up almost
10 exponentially. And we have done some preliminary
11 testing that indicates that according to the proposed
12 regulations a lot of that sludge might be hazardous
13 on the basis of missing one metal by 50 percent of the
14 value .
15 We just feel that some kind of recognition
16 has to be placed on that kind of a waste as opposed
17 to a. waste, say, from our coke plant that has a lot
18 of coal tar residue or a flammable waste or something
19 like that. The place where you draw the line, I guess
20 could be arbitrary. We are just suggesting that you
21 take this into consideration in promulgating the final
22 regulations, and I think we recognize how difficult
23 it is to draw the line.
24 MR. CORSON: One last question.
25 Is it AISI's position that this must be done
-------
116
1 in Section 3001, or do you feel that it might be
2 acceptable if we had a further definition in 3004
3 which would allow for subsets based on specific
4 characteristics of management requirement standards
5 specific to the waste and its hazard?
6 MR. BOLTZ : I think that if you start out
7 in 3001 with a realistic test -- I am talking about
8 the toxicity determination right now; start out in
9 a sense walking before you run -- that it would be
10 possible to allow for degrees of hazard in the Section
11 3004 regulations. We are not quarreling about that
12 right now.
13 MR. CORSON: All right.
14 MS. DARRAH: I have one question.
15 On the bottom of Page 6, you say, "Section
16 3004 does not preclude the establishment of less
17 | stringent standards for existing facilities compared
18 with new facilities..."
19 i I wonder how it is if we find that a certain
20 requirement is necessary or may be necessary to
21 protect human health and the environment and we do,
22 for example, have a Note associated with that, if
23 we say this is necessary to protect human health and
24 the environment for new facilities how can we say
25 it's not necessary to protect human health and the
-------
117
1 environment for existing facilities? I don't quite
2 understand that.
3 MR. BOLTZ : I think our whole point in
4 providing this comment is to try to impress upon EPA
5 the need for site; specific consideration. We fully
6 understand the need to protect human health and the
7 environment, but in the case of existing landfills,
8 for example, and we use that example of a facility
9 because that's the one we have the most of. As one
10 of the earlier speakers said, these landfills, we
11 have them at all of our major plants. They are where
12 they are because the plants happen to be where they
13 are, and many steel plants are located on tidewater
14 for various good reasons. And so, we could find our-
15 selves in trouble because of perhaps being located
16 in wet land or 500-year floodplain or any one of a
17 number of other conditions.
18 But if after a site inspection and perhaps
19 monitoring wells, results of monitoring around the
20 periphery of the site, it can be shown that there is
21 no danger to human health and the environment because
22 of a facility that's located where it is and treating
23 and disposing of the kinds of hazardous wastes that
24 are produced at that plant, we feel that the permit
25 writer should be given the authority to make
-------
118
1 exceptions from the very rigorous standards that are
2 in the currently proposed regulations, again on a
3 case-by-case basis.
4 MS. DARRAH: Are there more places in the
5 3004 standards where you would want to see Notes or
6 some sort of variance procedure? I mean would that
7 not answer your concern in this area?
8 MR. BOLTZ : If the Notes were made a little
9 bit more binding on the part of permit writers. Of
10 course, we have yet to see the standards under 3005,
11 and you appreciate that puts us at a bit of a
12 disadvantage in commenting on what you say in 3004
13 and how you are going to reference the Notes and what
14 you are going to require or how you would require that
15 they be used.
16 MS. DARRAH- Okay.
17 MR. BOLTZ: The whole Note concept, as you
18 certainly appreciate, is new to all of us who are
19 in the regulated community. Until we have some
20 experience with it and we know just how those Notes
21 will be treated compared with numbered portions of
22 the regulations, we are at a bit of a disadvantage.
23 MS. DARRAU. Okay. But you do agree that
24 it's possible that some sort of variance procedure
25 rather than, for example, two separate sets of
-------
119
1 regulations for new and existing facilities would be
2 possible?
3 MR. BOLTZ: If it's written in such a way
4 that the permit writer obviously knows that he has
5 the latitude to consider specific conditions, I think
6 we would be a lot happier than we are now.
7 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Thank you very much.
8 Mr. Francis C. Wilson, II, for the
9 Independent Petroleum Association of America? Is
10 Francis Wilson here?
11 Mr. E.G. Gladbach, Los Angeles Department
12 of Water and Power?
13 MR. GLADBACH: Good morning. My name is
14 Edward G. Gladbach. I am employed as a Civil Engineer
15 with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
16 There I am responsible for the Power System's Water
17 and Quality and Solid Waste Matters Programs.
18 As you perhaps know, the Department of Water
19 and Power is a Municipally-owned utility, serving
20 water and electricity to the city of Los Angeles,
21 On the power side of things, we generate
22 most of our own electricity. That is around 5500
23 megawatts, and most of that is produced in fossil
24 fuel power plants. Fossil Cue] power plants produce
25 a tremendous anount of solid waste.
-------
120
1 Today I would like to express the genera]
2 concern which we have regarding the proposed regula-
3 tions for implementing Section 3001 of the Resource
4 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
5 We believe that the impact resulting from
6 the implementation of the Resource Conservation anc
7 Recovery Act could be even greater than that impact
8 which resulted from the Clean Water Act regulations.
9 This concern and the possible expenditures of major
10 funds for the control of solid wastes, without the
11 attendant improvement in the environment, causes us
12 to express our concerns today and in our forthcoming
13 written comments, which you will receive by the end
14 of this week.
15 In reviewing the objectives of the Act, I
15 focus on No. 4 which states, "...regulating the
17 treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal of
18 hazardous wastes which have adverse effects on health
19 and the environment." I request that you keep this
20 in mind as I continue with my statement today.
21 Our basic' concerns have to do with the
22 possible classifying of utility wastes as hazardous
23 based upon a single test, and if determined to be
24 hazardous, the lack of adequate distinction between
25 those wastes which are barely hazardous and other
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
wastes which are extremely hazardous. It is hard to
conceive how more than one, perhaps two, waste
streams, either liquid or solid, from a fossil-fueled
power plant could be considered even barely hazardous.
Waste material from power plants has been used for
years as fill to construct roadways, as aggregate in
concrete, as an additive in cement products, in land
reclamation, and many others.
We recognize that perhaps you don't have
all of the answers. I think you have a tremendous
task in having written the regulations. You have
certainly had limited time and perhaps limited staif.
We are also aware that over the next several months
you will be conducting your own multi-million dollar
field studies in order to determine what action is
necessary to protect the environment from power plant
wastes.
It is our contention that these wastes are
nonhazardous. We therefore recommend that you exempt
power plant wastes, at least until your studies have
been completed.
One may ask how we got into this situation
of having our waste possibly classified as hazardous.
The answer to that is the extraction procedure which
-------
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
has been established as the criterion for determining
whether or not a waste is hazardous.
I cannot see the validity of a single test
to be the sole criterion for determining whether or
not the material is indeed hazardous. This is
especially true when considering the impact that the
failure to pass such a test will impose upon generator;
of major quantities of solid waste, such as the
Department of Water and Power and other utilities.
In addition to the extraction procedure, I believe we
should also look at the history of such wastes, what
the assimilation of those wastes is in the ground,
and other similar parameters.
I have received a copy of letters from the
scientific community which have been highly critical
of the extraction procedure. One such letter was
written by G. Fred Lee of the Colorado State Universit
Professor Lee is a Professor of Environmental Chemistr
with nearly 20 years of experience relating to factors
which affect the release of contaminants from solids.
Professor Lee criticized the failure of
many specific features of the extraction procedure and
in general believes it to be arbitrary and will prove
to be inappropriate. He states, "There is absolutely
no way the EPA, ASTM, or other groups can develop a
-------
123
1 single leaching test such as that proposed which can
2 make this type of assessment. The approach that must
3 be used is a case-by-case approach to the particular
4 situation of concern."
5 He goes on to point out that a single
6 test "...could readily cause the expenditure of
7 millions of US dollars in the name of pollution
8 control with little or no improvement to environmental
9 quality." Moreover, he believes that "...in some
10 instances, the arbitrarily developed test could,
11 because of alternative methods of disposal, create
12 more environmental harm than if no test had been used
13 and the solid waste had simply been dumped out on the
14 ground . "
15 If I can digress here for one minute. The
16 thing that was brought up by a speaker earlier this
17 morning, the number of good waste sites are limited,
18 too. I think we have to look at that as a resource.
19 The American Society for Testing Materials
20 Subcommittee D-19.12 had a special task group to
21 review the proposed EP. They contend that the EP
22 "... is an unscientific approach ..." and "... not
23 technically suitable for the type of toxicity tests
24 which EPA contemplated." The Subcommittee continues,
25 "Of primary concern in this situation is the fact that
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
many wastes may bo declared hazardous even though
there is little or no danger from the wastes when
disposed in their present manner."
I understand that even your original
contractor concluded that a single test was an unsound
approach toward classifying industrial wastes.
It seems to me there are many materials
occurring naturally in this country that would fail the
EP and, technically abused and then wasted, would have
to be disposed of in a hazardous landfill. I have
even heard rumors that concrete has failed the EP.
I appreciate your concerns over hazardous
materials in general and support your efforts when
discussing facilities for the disposal of materials
which are really and truly very hazardous. What's
hard for me to accept is when materials such as flyash,
which has been used in society for years without
known incidents, could all at once be classified as
a hazardous material.
I think in hazardous wastes, like in base-
ball, you have some analogies. In baseball, you have
the Major Leagues, its farm system; you've got the
college, high school and Little League. It's true
that my son is a Little League baseball player, and I
would call him a baseball player. But in no way
-------
125
1 would I consider him a Willie Mays, Pete Rose, or
2 Rod Carew.
3 The same thing exists in the hazardous
4 waste category. Waste materials from a power plant ,
5 if they are determined to be hazardous, are in a
6 completely different league than the dioxanes or
7 other hazardous materials. I cannot foresee the need,
8 if power plant wastes are determined to be hazardous,
9 that they are to be controlled in the same degree
10 that the latter would be controlled in.
11 We agree with ASTM's statements: "The
12 issues of undue economic impact and citizen unrest
13 are too significant to allow that we condone such an
14 arbitrary approach by Government. The probability of
15 overclassifying wastes is not an acceptable risk,
16 when rational alternatives can be developed."
17 I might add here, too, that even Russell Train
18 when he was Administrator of EPA recogni'zed the need
19 for various degrees of hazardous waste, its treatment,
20 and disposal.
21 Again, our main concerns stem from the fact
22 that a single test will determine whether or not a
23 waste is hazardous, and if hazardous there is little
24 consideration given as to how hazardous the waste trulj
25 is.
-------
126
1 We commend you for your recognition that
2 at least some of the power plant wastes and I might
3 point out its very difficult to distinguish between
4 3004 and 3001. At least some of the power plant
5 wastes are less hazardous by your proposal for a
6 special utility waste category. I believe that the
7 above discussion indicates that there are varying
8 degrees of hazardousness which warrants different
9 levels of care if determined to be hazardous.
10 We recommend that all utility wastes be
11 included in the special category if they are found
12 to be hazardous and that the method of determination
13 for being hazardous be technically supportable. Tiis
14 determination should consider the composition of tie
15 materials, its interaction with other materials which
16 it will contact, and its history.
17 I appreciate the opportunity to give you
18 my comments.
19 I have one other thing based on a comment
20 earlier this morning when I think -- the second from
21 the end -- was commenting about reusing materials as
22 it being -- distinguishing at which point it is a
23 resource versus a waste. I would suggest that you
24 not include the definition of "sold" in that. I would
25 like to see it kept as a resource, because some of
-------
127
1 this thing is not sold. I would hate to see the
2 selling or the passage of money be the determining
3 factor. Thank you.
4 MS. DARRAH : Okay. Thank you. Will you
5 answer questions for us?
6 MR. GLADBACH: I will try.
7 MR. CORSON: Let me start with the back
8 end.
9 Just by way of clarification, the regulations
10 as we have written them, the combination of 3001 and
11 3004, utility wastes only if they are hazardous are
12 a special waste. If they are not, they are totally
13 out of the system, the Subtitle C system.
14 MR. GLADBACH: That's not the way I
15 interpret it. Is that the way you are interpreting
16 it? That's the question.
17 MR. CORSON: That's the way we thought we
18 had written it.
19 MR. GLADBACH: Let me express my understand-
20 ing of it. You classified which wastes were in a
21 special category. That does not include all the
22 waste.
23 Was it your assumption that those not
24 listed are indeed not hazardous?
25 MR. CORSON: What we have written, and I
-------
128
1 guess I can't pass judgment on how we wrote it, did
2 indicate that on the utility waste that the treatment,
3 storage, disposal, et cetera and which is determined
4 to be a hazardous waste under 250.13. So it is only
5 those utility wastes which are hazardous that are
6 special. The others must merely meet Subtitle D.
7 MR. GLADBACH: But then somewhere in there
8 you list the specific wastes which come under 46-2.
9 MR. CORSON: Fortunately, I guess we
10 thought, we would list those which when hazardous are
11 special and that we can't help it that people have
12 misinterpreted it.
13 MR. GLADBACH: The reason I bring it up is
14 the number of wastes you have listed is a very small
15 ', percent.
16 MR. LIMDSEY. Can I jump in here, because
17 I think there is a lack of communication'?
18 MR. GLADBACH: Yes.
19 MR. LINDSEY: What you are referring to
20 with respect to listing is under 250.46-2 where ws
21 list the materials which are covered as special
22 waste if they are hazardous.
23 MR. GLADBACH: Right.
24 MR. LINDSEY. That's limited to flue gas
25 sulfunzation waste and bottom ash waste and flyash
-------
129
1 waste. If you have other materials which come out of
2 a power plant, which you probably do I don't know,
3 cutting oils or whatever it may be -- and those are
4 also hazardous, they are not subject to the utility
5 waste. They are subject to the regular disposal.
6 SIR. GLADBACH: That was my understanding.
7 MR. CORSON: Those are not listed.
8 MR. GLADBACH: Those are not listed, no.
9 MR. LINDSEY: They would not be listed, but
10 they also may be hazardous in addition to these.
11 MR. GLADBACH: Right. What I am asking is
12 they all be included under the special category. I'm
13 glad you clarified that.
14 MR. CORSON: One other question, if I may.
15 You did cite several people, G. Fred Lee,
16 ASTM, our contractor. My understanding of most of
17 those comments that we received really dealt with
18 those people objecting to or indicating that they
19 felt no one test would replicate a given disposal
20 situation. Perhaps from their point of view thev
21 felt some need for a site specific definition of
22 hazardous waste.
23 I am vondering if that's the position that
24 you are taking or whether you feel we should K0 site
25 specific for an extraction procedure or whether you
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
just feel that there might be some other way we
could define waste on an independent basis as hazardou:
MR. GLADBACH: There's all types of site
specific procedures. You can get down to the
individual site itself. I realize the administrative
burden that imposes on you, the States, but I think
we need something to get more specific than a single
test for the entire country and the entire raft of
hazardous wastes. So what I am saying is yes, we
need something more site specific.
MR. CORSON: Yours would more involve some
aspect of the management technique; right?
MR. GLADBACH: Right. And I think that's
a very critical factor of it; especially, too, if you
go back to RCRA and the long legislative history that
it had, I think it recognized the need that there is
a threat but also the threat is really -- I mean part
of the threat involves the management or mismanagement
of waste.
MR. CORSON: I am just wondering, if you
are submitting additional written comments, whether
or not those written comments might include the
techniques that might be used to categorize different
management levels as a function of waste characteris-
tics.
-------
131
1 MR. GLADBACH: I am not sure they go into
2 much detail on that.
3 MR. TRASK: Mr. Gladbach, you indicated in
4 your statement that there ought to be a classification
5 of hazards for materials such as dioxanes, and then
6 you added in your comment that you called it truly
7 hazardous.
8 MR. GLADBACH: Well --
9 MR. TRASK: Do you have other --
10 MR. GLADBACH: No. No.
11 MR. TRASK: Do you have other materials
12 that ought to be called truly hazardous?
13 MR. GLADBACH: I think that's only because
14 the press that the public has received. I'm not
15 a chemist, so I can't name all of them.
16 But my point was that I was trying to
17 emphasize that materials from a power plant have
18 been used to benefit society for years without known
19 incidents, and yet all at once they run a risk of
20 being hazardous. I think something is wrong. If
21 they are going to be classified as hazardous, we have
22 to treat those in the same way as you treat other
23 very hazardous materials.
24 MR. TRASK: That's what I am trying to get
25 at. What are some of those other truly hazardous
-------
132
1 mater ials?
2 MR. GLADBACH: I really wouldn't want to go
3 on record
4 MR. TRASK: Are you suggesting that the
5 publicity ought to be a characteristic of these
6 wastes?
7 MR. GLADBACH: No. I think you would
8 agree, too, that there are certain things, and it's
9 very subjective, I agree -- I don't want to go on
10 record as listing other industries' materials as
11 hazardous .
12 MS. DARRAH: Okay. No more questions.
13 Thank you.
14 Mr. Ken O'Morrow, Oil and Solvents Process
15 Company9
16 MR. O'MORROW: I am Ken O'Morrow, Technical
17 Director of Oil and Solvents Process Company which
18 is located in Azusa, California. Azusa is about
19 25 miles east of Los Angeles.
20 Oil and Solvent is often referred to as
21 OSCO. We have been in business for 44 years, 24
22 at our present location.
23 I'd like to provide some information about
24 our operation which should indicate the unique
25 position held by a solvent reclaimer and how we view
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 3 3
the proposed regulations.
We reclaim almost all common solvents,
including aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons, key-
tones, esters, and so forth. These are generally
flammable solvents or combustible solvents. We also
reclaim nonflammable solvents, like chlorinated
solvents or solvents commonly known as freons.
Basically, the solvents we reclaim are used in some
type of cleaning process or degreasing process.
We operate three stills 24 hours a day in
our plant. We receive products from all kinds oi
sources. We have perhaps 10,000 gallons a day brought
in by waste haulers. We receive dirty solvents from
our customers. Wo have a lot of customers that bring
solvents in, and we also pick them up in vacuum tanks.
Ye make all kinds of blends, and these blends contain
about 70 percent reclaimed solvents. We have a
modern laboratory which is very wel1 staffed . In a
normal day, we will run about 150 to 200 samples on
our gas chromatographs. Also, we will make 50 to 100
lab distillations to determine exactly where we can
use reclaimed solvents to best advantage.
Our sales people are especially trained to
be able to evaluate dirty solvents, and much of their
efforts are spent in educating our customers nnd
-------
134
1 potential customers on the merits of solvent reclaim-
2 ing. On a daily basis and at conventions and other
3 meetings and in our advertising, our sales effort is
4 directed toward solvent recovery and to its benefits
5 to the customer and to the environment.
6 OSCO has had an important role in waste
7 management. We estimate that we have brought into our
8 plant over 100,000,000 gallons of material which
9 would have otherwise have been a waste disposal
10 problem had it not been for our efforts.
11 We believe the Government agencies involved
12 do not really appreciate the significance of the
13 contribution to waste management offered by solvent
14 reel aimers.
15 Some of the problems facing the solvent
16 reclaimers are the result of a difference in the
17 impact of one Governmental agency's rules versus
18 another agency's rules or regulations. Fire Depart-
19 ments, landfills, the State Department of Health and
20 many other agencies refer customers to us and
21 encourage our expanding so we can accommodate their
22 wastes. Even Air Quality Management Districts and
23 the EPA refer customers to us and praise our efforts.
24 The confusion begins when you experience
25 all the controls of the Air Quality Management
-------
135
1 Districts and especially when you want to expand
2 and you are faced with a New Source Review Rule.
3 This rule, of course, affects your whole facility,
4 not just a new piece of equipment.
5 03CO would like to add a new type still
6 which would increase our capacity and efficiency.
7 To utilize this, we need more tanks for both dirty
8 and clean solvents. With this expansion, we could
9 accommodate each year another 2,000,000 gallons or
10 more of waste solvents which are otherwise going to
11 be evaporated into the air, dumped down a sewer, or
12 perhaps taken to a landfill. To expand, we have to
13 comply with the New Source Review Rule.
14 Does OSCO receive any special consideration
15 because of the 2,000,000 gallons we will prevent from
16 becoming a waste disposal problem? No, not at all,
17 If anything, we will be the focus for additionally
18 closer surveillance and enforcement of rules and
19 regulations.
20 It may not be possible to meet the economic
21 burden of this rule. Common sense would suggest
22 that there is something wrong with a rule which
23 prevents the very thing it is supposed to promote.
24 Why not make provisions in a rule to encourage
25 reclaimers? Why not trade a few gallons emissions
-------
136
1 from our plant or from one plant in order to save
2 2,000,000 gallons within the general area? In
3 addition to saving the pollution involved, the
4 reclaimed solvent which is conserved can be; used over
5 and over again.
6 Assume that we install a still and the
i
7 other equipment required to enable us to process the
8 additional 2,000,000 gallons of waste mentioned
9 above. We have calculated the total amount of
10 additional emissions used in the same manner as that
11 utilized by the engineers of the South Coast Air
12 Quality Management District. Based on 250 working
13 days per year, we would recycle approximately 72,000
14 pounds per day. Of this amount, about 54,000 pounds
15 would be reusable solvents after distillation. We
16 would recover perhaps 1300 pounds of reusable paint
17 and perhaps 700 pounds of reusable oil. We would
18 dispose of about 15,500 pounds of still bottoms in
19 a landfill. Only about 340 pounds total emissions
20 would be released to the atmosphere from our plant.
21 This is out of the 72,000 pounds of waste solvents
22 processed each day. This is less than one half of
23 one percent.
24 We are facing a worldwide shortage of crude
25 oil. and many petroleum products are in short supply.
-------
137
1 Prices are going up on many of the same new solvents
2 that are being discarded as waste materials.
3 The EPA can fulfill the intent of Congress
when it passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 by declaring that solvent reclaimers are
exempt from the New Source Review Rule. This is
clearly in the public interest and would be an
exercise of common sense, which thankfully seems to
9 be an innovative approach to problem solving
10 utilized by EPA personnel.
11 Thank you.
12 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
13 questions from the panel?
14 MR. 0'MORROW: Yes, I will.
15 MS. DARRAH: Okay. I had one question.
16 First of all, I will state that you are
17 not speaking to the people who would have anything
18 to do with exempting you from the New Source Review
19 Rule.
20 MR. O'MORROff: I realize that, but I wanted
21 to be on public record. The EPA does have the
22 authority. The EPA is cited, along with 1 he ARB, in
23 the New Source Review Rules that are being suggested
24 by both the ARB and the Air Quality Management
District. If I were to try to get special
-------
138
1 consideration, I would have to get it from the EPA
2 and the ARB.
3 MS. DARRAH: Sure. I just wanted to make
4 it clear that that is something; that's separate from
5 these particular hazardous waste regulations.
6 MR. 0'MORROW: I realize that, but you are
7 going to pass these regulations. The State of
8 California has passed regulations which are promoting
9 recycling, promoting conservation of energy, and
10 promoting the safe and proper handling of hazardous
11 wastes. I could handle more wastes if I were able
12 to expand.
13 MS. DARRAH: Okay. I understand your
14 concerns, sir. I just wanted to clarify that.
15 MR. 0'MORROW: I meant it does involve you
16 people whether you want to address it or not.
17 MS. DARRAH: Sure. Okay.
18 I have a question on your internal
19 procedures. You did give us some idea of your lab
20 facilities and how you relate to your customers,
21 and I just wondered for our purposes how you decide
22 what wastes, if any, to accept or reject and whether
23 \ru have your customers do any testing before you
24 wil] Inndle the waste or whether you do all the
25 testing yourself.
-------
139
1 MR. 0'MORROW: Basically, we do all the
2 testing. However, we do make it clear through our
3 salesmen and through any contact we have with a
4 customer by phone or by other reference that we do
5 not take radioactive waste and we do not take cyanides
6 and certain other very hazardous wastes.
7 MS. DARRAH : Okay. But other than that you
8 accept most?
9 MR. 0'MORROW: Yes, we do. As a matter of
10 fact, we have gone out of our way to accept waste
11 in order to be an asset to the people who run the
12 landfills. When we are referred -- when customers
13 are referred to us by any of the Government agencies
14 that I mentioned, if we are at a break-even point
15 and sometimes a little below we will take the solvent
16 rather than having it go to the landfill.
17 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Do you know or could
18 you find out for us or give me an idea of what an
19 average cost of doing the testing on a sample of,
20 for example, a dirty solvent would be? I don't know
21 whether one gas chromatograph is what you would use
22 or --
23 MR. O'MORROW: No. A gas chromatograph is
24 a wonderful piece of equipment, but you can't put a
25 sample in and have them come out of a loudspeaker and
-------
140
I tell you what's in it. You have to have a lot of
2 experience and a lot of files to indicate the
3 difference between, say, acetone or toluene or some
4 other solvent. The problem is that when you have
5 dirty solvents a great number of them are mixtures.
6 When you have mixtures, then it takes a consideraole
7 amount of testing in order to determine the content
8 of t he solvent.
9 I would say that if we were forced to
10 determine specifically what is in the solvent it
11 would cost between $300 and $400 per sample.
12 MS. DARRAH: Okay. No more questions.
13 Thank you very much.
14 MR. 0'MORROW: Thank you.
15 MS. DARRAH: We will recess for lunch and
Ig reconvene at 1:45 p.m.
17 (Luncheon recess.)
18 MS. DARPAH: Mr. Jack Boley, Texas Oil and
19 Gas Corporation? Is Jack Boley here?
20 Mr. Thomas Meichtry, IT Environmental
21 Corporation?
22 You are on. Okay. We are calling the four
23 gentlemen from General Portland, Incorporated, in
24 Dallas, Texas, who will give us their presentation.
25 DR. CHADBOURNE: Good afternoon. I am
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
John Chadbourne, and I presently serve as Environmen-
tal Manager of General Portland. I have a Ph.D. in
Environmental Engineering from the University of
Florida, and I want you all to know that I am really
pleased to have the opportunity to finally get our
chance to give you our show. We have put a lot of
work into this, and we think we've got some signifi-
cant things that you will all be interested in.
As Environmental Manager for General
Portland, I am responsible for advising and directing
the operational personnel in their compliance with
environmental obligations, including solid waste
disposal.
This afternoon we have this slide presenta-
tion, and as you can see I'll be introducing the cast
of characters. Each of my associates has some
important points that he'd like to make, so we request
that you hold your questions until the end of the
presentation.
We plan to show that the proposed regula-
tions are not appropriate based upon laboratory and
field data, theoretical considerations, and legal
argumen ts.
I'd like to begin with a little bit of
background information about our company. Our
-------
142
1 corporate offices are located in Dallas, Texas.
2 General Portland is one of the largest manufacturers
3 of cement in the country, with eight plants in five
4 states and a ninth plant under construction. Our
5 annual capacity is approximately 5.8 million tons,
6 with 75 percent of the cement produced in the rapidly
7 growing states of California, Florida, and Texas.
8 We recognize our responsibility to the
9 public to insure that our activities do not introduce
10 harmful substances into the environment, but we also
11 have a responsibility to guaranty the public a
12 continued supply of cement.
13 Most of our kilns are the older, wet-process
14 type. Additional operating costs can cause premature
15 closing of these marginal plants, further aggravating
16 the present cement shortage.
17 We have carefully evaluated the proposed
18 RCRA rules to determine their potential impact on
19 the disposal of kiln dust, which is the principal
20 waste generated by our industry. General Portland
21 sincerely believes that there are serious problems
22 with the proposed regulations and that substantial
23 further revisions must be made.
24 I would now like to talk a little bit about
25 our primary waste, kiln dust. Kiln dust is
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
principally alkaline and alkaline oxides, such as
calcium oxide. It is collected in electrostatic
precipitators orbaghouses and is a solid waste under
Section 1004 unless it can be reused in a way which
does not constitute disposal.
The cement industry has worked diligently
in recent years to convert kiln dust into cement.
However, in spite of our efforts, General Portland
continues to dispose of approximately 500,000 tons
of kiln dust each year. Kiln dust is not a listed
hazardous waste. However, the application of the
proposed waste criteria could result in dust from a
particular plant being classified as hazardous.
Kiln dust has been specifically categorized
as potentially hazardous under Section 3004. In the
78-year history of our company, there has never been
any indication that this material represents a hazard
to the public or to the workers at our plants.
So what do we do with excess kiln dust?
Several methods are used to dispose of this material.
Wet disposal systems use a water slurry to transport
the solid material. At a disposal site, the solids
settle out and the water is recirculated, acting only
as a transportation medium. This type of disposal
minimizes fugitive dust concerns and results in a
-------
]44
1 firmly packed matrix.
2 Alternatively, many plants use dry disposal
3 methods whereby the kiln dust is hauled in covered
4 trucks to a suitable landfill site. Both off-site
5 and on-site disposal are used, but in most cases
6 kiln dust is placed in mono landfills.
^ Exceptions to this practice generally
8 involve uses such as highway fill material,
9 agricultural land spreading, and waste stabilization
10 which EPA currently views as constituting disposal.
11 RCRA is a complex oroblem. The issues
12 involved are very complicated, as reflected in the
13 report entit led"Background Study on the Development
14 of a Standard Leaching Test," which was prepared at
15 the University of Wisconsin.
16 It is particularly disturbing to us at
17 General Portland, and I think to the scientific
18 community at large, that the EPA has almost totally
19 disregarded this $150,000 study which they sponsored.
20 I agree with Mr. B o11 z who stated earlier this
21 morning or who expressed his shock and concern that
22 the following statement was included in the preamble
23 to these proposed regulations. And this is a quote.
24 "The characteristics," referring to test procedures,
25 "that EPA plans to use immediately are relatively
-------
145
1 straightforward, the tests are well developed,
2 inexpensive, and recognized by the scientific
3 com in unity."
4 Vhi1< the tests may be inexpensive, the
5 economic or public health consequences of misclassify-
6 ing waste can be extremely costly. V.'e are prepared
7 to list the suggestions made in this study but would
8 prefer to do so in response to questions following
9 our presentation.
10 General Portland believes that a regulatory
11 scheme can be developed which fully complies with the
12 requirements of RCRA, while recognizing the complexity
13 of this problem. We intend to show that the proposed
14 extraction procedure should not be applied to kiln
15 dust and that other revisions should be made in the
16 proposed regulations.
17 Mr. Benjamin Jones will now present data
18 describing test results on kiln dust.
19 MR. JONES: My name is Benjamin Jones.
20 and I work for the Radiant Corporation in Austin,
21 Texas. I have a B.S. Degree in Chemistry and have
22 worked for Radiant for approximately five years and
23 am currently the group leader in the Solid Waste
24 Department in the Inorganic Chemistry Division.
25 We have been retained to design and conduct
-------
146
1 a research program to accomplish the following three
2 objectives: One, determine the RCRA classification
3 of cement kiln dust; and then to determine the
4 appropriateness of the extraction procedure for
5 evaluating the toxicity of cement kiln dusts; and,
6 finally, to develop realistic extracting conditions
7 which are representative of typical disposal
8 conditions for cement kiln dust.
9 In order to accomplish these three
10 objectives, we employed the following experimental
11 approach this is basically an abbreviated approach;
12 it is actually more involved than this, but these are
13 the things that I am going to cover in the discussion
14 today: One, we characterize cement kiln dust for
15 both major and trace elements; follow that by
16 characterizing the disposal pond water of one of their
17 plants which the kiln dust is in equilibrium with;
18 we apply the RCRA EP to cement kiln dust to determine
19 how well it will evaluate or predict the disposal
20 pond water conditions; and then we apply a modified
21 extraction procedure, using only deionized water; and,
22 finally, we studied the effect of pH on the extraction
23 or leachability of cement kiln dust, since the major
24 difference in these two procedures is the pH of the
25 extracting conditions.
-------
147
1 Okay. The major species in cement kiln
2 dust -- this is an analysis of a typical kiln dust
3 of General Portland. It happens to be their Dallas
4 plant's kiln dust, and it's, in general, representa-
5 tive of what's produced by their eight plants. You
6 see here that the basic component is calcium, and a
7 large portion of that calcium that is present in the
8 kiln dust is present as calcium oxide. You find
9 other compounds of silica, sulfur, potassium,
10 aluminum, iron, sodium, and magnesium.
11 Cement kiln dust also contains trace
12 elements which are the same trace elements that you
13 find in natural soils. The concentrations, of course,
14 are different. Some of these are the eight record
15 trace elements that are currently listed for
16 evaluation of toxicity. We have related these
17 concentrations -- and this should be micrograms per
18 gram instead of Mg per gram. We have related these
19 concentrations to RCRA by assuming that all of these
20 trace elements would be extracted in the extraction
21 process.
22 We find that of these eight elements
23 barium and silver were significantly below the RCRA
24 limit, even if they were completely extracted. The
25 other six elements were above or approximately equal
-------
148
1 to the RCRA limit.
2 Next we analyzed three different samples
3 of a kiln dust from their Dallas plant here again for
4 these six elements, and we have also listed the
5 equilibrium pH. In this case, the kiln dust contains
6 sufficient alkalinity due to the calcium oxide that
7 it can completely buffer the large amount of acidic
8 acid that's recommended in the extraction procedure.
9 So you see here varying equilibrium pH's, ranging
10 from 8.8 to 11.4.
11 Of these six elements, only selenium in
12 two out of three cases -- and this is kiln dust
13 taken from one kiln and not different kilns. But
14 only with selenium did it fail. The rest of the
15 elements were below the limits here, and you notice
16 here that there appears to be some correlation between
17 the pH and the concentration of selemium.
18 The next thing we did was conduct a test
19 with the same kiln dust, adding different amounts
20 of acidic acid to simulate to a certain extent -- a
21 certain extent had the dust had different alkalinities
22 'Ye find here that -- here is the equilibrium
23 pH after 24 hours, ranging anywhere from 12 to 4. In
24 order to get below 8.8, we had to add more acidic
25 acid than was required currently by the RCRA technique
-------
149
1 You see here the equilibrium concentration of
2 selenium in milligrams per liter. I think the RCRA
3 limit is .1, I believe, for selenium.
4 You sec here that the selenium concentration
5 decreases as the pH increases. I might say at this
6 time that the equilibrium pH in the disposal pond
7 that this kiln dust is disposed of is approximately
8 12. So you are down here in this region, which is
9 below .1.
10 I We also looked at lead, too, to see the
11 relationship that lead had with pH. We found that
12 basically the lead concentration decreases with pH,
13 and you find here the RCRA limit for- lead is about
14 .5 at this level here. So any pH's above 6 you find
15 that you are above the limit. Of course with this
16 one, since we are around 8.8 to 11, \ve are below
17 the limit. Of interest here, though, is that as you
18 get out here to pH 12 we found that there was an
19 increase in lead concentration, although the maximum
20 concentration we found was still below the limit.
21 The point here that I am trying to make is
22 that with the extraction procedure as it currently
23 stands you fa!I within this region right here, which
24 has a minimum concentration of lead. So even as it
25 stands now it's not, a worse case situation, because
-------
150
1 if you get over here with the pH of the pond you
2 actually get a higher lead concentration than would
3 be predicted by the current extraction procedure.
4 As John pointed out, kiln dust is typically
5 disposed of in a mono landfill situation. It's an
6 inorganic alkaline material. It's not an organic
7 acidic material. And so, right here we have compared
8 the results of the composite EP which uses acidic
9 acid with a composite which we used only deionized
10 water. And then we compared this with the actual
11 concentration of the various trace elements we found
12 in the water that's used to sluice the kiln dust to
13 the disposal site, which is now compared to RCRA .
14 You see here that there is a significant difference
15 in the pH which we received or had with the acidic
16 acid as compared with the deionized water compared
17 with the pond water.
18 We have alread sho\vn the significant effect
19 that pH can have on the results you get, which then
20 shows well, we have here the extracting environment
21 In the RCRA EP, basically you extract the inorganic
22 alkaline material in an organic acidic environment;
23 whereas in reality it'd be disposed of in an inorganic
24 alkaline condition. The use of deionized water more
25 closely simulates the inorganic alkaline material and
-------
151
1 would give you results which more closely approximated
2 actual disposal conditions.
3 I'd just like to now reiterate some of the
4 main points that I presented here.
5 In conclusion, I think the data that we
6 showed shows that some kiln dust may be inappropriate-
7 ly classified toxic by proposed RCRA methodology.
8 By that I mean the use of acidic acid produced a
9 concentration of selenium of .35, which is about
10 three and a half times the limit of .1 for selenium;
11 whereas in reality the pond itself had only about
12 .01 or .02, which was just slightly above drinking
13 water standards. So we have inappropriately classi-
14 fied the cement kiln dust as toxic if you use the
15 classification or the limits established in the
16 proposed RCRA standards.
17 We also found out that the RCRA KP can
18 inappropriately evalute the toxicity of cement kiln
19 dusts -- well, excuse me. The RCRA EP is inappropriati
20 in evaluating the toxicity of cement kiln dusts
21 basically because you are extracting in conditions
22 which is not disposed of in actuality.
23 Thirdly, the RCRA EP may inappropriately
24 classify would-be toxic materials as nonhazardous.
25 This was demonstrated to a certain extent by the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
effect of the RCRA EP giving you conditions which
would minimize the extraction or Teachability of a
material which would be leachable in an alkaline
environment.
Finally, deionixced water is a more appro-
priate extracting solution for evaluating cement
kiln dusts, in my opinion, primarily tiere because
the cement kiln dust is an alkaline inorganic
material, has a very high buffering capacity capable
of neutralizing any acid that it might be exposed
to over a long period of time in a mono landfill
s 11uation.
Thank you. I think Marc Anderson now from
the University of Wisconsin is going to discuss sone
of the theoretical aspects.
DR. ANDERSON- My name is Marc Anderson.
I am Assistant Professor of Water Chemistry at the
University of Wisconsin in Madison. I am here tucltiy
because I have some expertise in the area of
heterogeneous equilibrium, and I think those words
will become clear in niv following remarks.
I am also, because of my research interests,
particularly concerned about the movement of trace
toxic contaminants in the environment. I am a
concerned environmental scientist. As a water chemist
-------
153
1 I am concerned about the possibility that we may
2 pollute groundwater aquifers. In addition to being
3 here representing General Portland, I would like you
4 to know that I am, above all, a concerned environmen-
5 tal scientist.
6 In addition to my research interests at
7 the University of Wisconsin, I was also involved in
8 a background study for the development of the
9 standard leaching test. Because of that familiarity ,
10 I realize that we are dealing with a very complex.
11 complicated problem that may not have an easy
12 solution. We will talk about that in a little bit.
13 Particularly, though, today I am going to
14 address the problems of inorganic solids and their
15 equilibrium with solutions. I am not going to discuss
16 the problems of organ!cs. That would even further
17 complicate the matter.
18 By way of a brief outline today, what I'd
19 like to do is, firstly, I'd like to describe
20 heterogeneous equilibrium because I think that with
21 heterogeneous equilibrium we can explain the
22 processes that Biff Jones has just suggested, and it
23 is also the process that we are trying to model in
24 this particular extraction procedure.
25 Secondly, I'd like to show how the concepts
-------
154
1 that we learned in equilibrium heterogenous processes
2 can be used to show that the EP lest is neither a
3 worst case nor a conservative test.
4 And, lastly, because of my affiliation with
5 Professor Bob Ham, who was a principal investigator
6 on the background study and because of my research
7 in that area, I'd like to express some general
8 comments that I have concerning the extraction
9 procedure.
10 As I said before, my area of expertise is
11 in heterogeneous processes. Indeed, that's what we
12 are trying to model. We are trying to model the
13 equilibrium between solids in a landfill and the
14 solutions that contact them. Potentially, these
15 materials might be then available to pollute ground-
16 waters.
17 I'd like now to address my comments to
18 hetergeneous equilibrium. But before I can do that,
19 because we are talking about a technical subject
20 and not all of you are familiar with what I am going
21 to be talking about, I'd like to introduce my own
22 cast of characters.
23 Particularly, my cast of characters includes
24 a crystal, major ions, and minor ions in solution.
25 Over here, I am suggesting that my crystal
-------
155
1 is composed of these major ions in the solution.
2 Also in solution, we have these trace guys here that
3 swim around. They also can be in equilibrium with
4 solid surfaces.
5 The broad classification of this phenomena
6 is called heterogeneous equilibrium; that is, the
7 reaction between solids, the components of solids --
8 namely, the major components and those minor
9 components that sit on solid surfaces -- and their
10 equilibrium with dissolved solutions.
11 So we have some little "I's" swimming
12 around in solution, big "I's" in solution, big
13 "I's" in the crystal, little "I's" on the surface
14 of the solid. That is the broad class of hetero-
15 geneous equilibrium.
16 And now we have two subheadings. First of
17 all, we have solubility reactions. These solubility
18 reactions are reactions between the solid crystal
19 and these major ions in solution. An example of that
20 particular process is the solid calcium hydroxide.
21 It is in equilibrium with calcium ions and hydroxide
22 ions in solution. And thermodynamically we can
23 predict, given any particular pH, what the dissolved
24 concentration of calcium ions would be, provided that
25 this was a stable solid.
-------
156
1 This is an example of a solubility reaction,
2 and I would suggest that solubility reactions of
3 major ions control the integrity of these crystalline
4 solids in the environment in landfills.
5 Another subheading of heterogeneous
6 equilibrium reactions is adsorption reactions. These
7 are particularly important for those trace ions in
8 the environment that we are concerned about; namely,
9 lead, cadmium, mercury, copper, selenium, arsenic,
10 boron, et cetera. These little guys are adsorbed on
11 the solid surfaces, whose integrity are maintained
12 by the concentration of major ions in the solution.
13 So long as the integrity of the solid is preserved,
14 these guys are happy.
15 Now there will be some trace ions in the
16 solution, but they will also be able to effectively
17 adsorb on some solid surfaces, depending on pH, ionic
18 strength, and surface charge. I'm not going to tal<
19 about all those complexities at this particular time.
20 Now let's look at our problem here. We
21 are dealing, as Biff Jones suggested and also
22 John Chadbourne, with basically an alkaline earth
23 oxide. Particularly, the major component is calcium
24 oxide, 41 percent.
25 What happens when we put calcium oxide in
-------
157
1 solution? We have a hydrolysis reaction. It reacts
2 with water, forming calcium hydroxide. This then
3 produces calcium ions and hydroxide ions in solution.
4 So long as the pH is high, the solid surface is
5 present.
6 Now, on the other hand, if we look at the
7 stability of calcium hydroxide, or in this particular
8 case kiln dust, as a function of pH, in this case
9 decreasing pH, we see that the integrity of the solid
10 is destroyed as wo decrease the pH. Indeed, that's
11 what the EP test tries to model. As we try to think
12 about a worst case and we try to decrease the pl-I
13 and we lose the stability of the solid, it dissolves
14 away.
15 Let's return to our cast of characters here
16 and clarify the situation.
17 As Biff suggested, in a kiln dust pond the
18 pH is 12. Everybody is happy. The selenium' guys
19 here that he referred to are on the surface of the
20 solid. They are happy. They are also a little bit
21 in the solution, but not very much, as we saw before.
22 There's also some calcium hydroxide species in
23 solution.
24 Now let's drop the pH. If we drop the pH
25 to 8, the surface is disintegrating. The guys don't
-------
158
1 know where to go. They are hanging on for their
2 dear life.
3 If we drop the pH a little further,
4 illustrated by the red pH 4 here, we've got nothing
5 left. Now we are dealing with these guys totally in
6 so Lution.
^ Okay. So much for hetergeneous equilibrium.
8 What I'd like to now do is to show how these
9 principles can suggest that the EP test is not
10 necessarily a worst case nor a conservative test.
11 In this particular case, I'm showing the
12 concentration of dissolved metal in equilibrium with
13 hydrous oxide surfaces as a function of pH. Let's;
14 presume that we have a standard to meet. Okay. Let's
15 suppose that that standard is ten to the minus six.
16 So we have a straight line across here at ten to the
17 minus six. And let's suppose we are dealing with
18 cadmium and mercury hydroxide.
19 If the resulting pH from the EP test is,
20 let's say, seven and a half, then my mercury hydroxide
21 is at its point of minimum solubility. It would pass
22 the test, but the other lead hydroxide would fail the
23 test.
24 On the other hand, if it turned out that
25 the extraction procedure resulted in a pH designated
-------
159
1 here on number 4 of about six, the reverse would be
2 true. In this case, the other hydroxide would be at
3 its point of minimum stability, and the mercury would
4 be exceeding the standard.
5 In one case, we have a worst case for one
6 and not for the other. Indeed, only in the case
7 where we have an extremely high pH or an extremely low
8 pH would we have a conservative test. These are
9 solubility reactions.
10 Okay. Let's take now adsorption reactions,
11 those guys on the surfaces. Now the EP test tries
12 to perform an aggressive acidic test, which is good
13 because it would effectively release -- now I'm
14 plotting the amount of adsorbed cations as a function
15 of pH. This presumes that the integrity of the solid
16 is preserved. It's not being destroyed.
17 Let's take flyash, for instance. This is a
18 perfect example of flyash. Let's take Montana ash.
19 I'm not going to get into the eastern coals. In
20 Montana ash, at low pH what we have here is that
21 cations would be effectively released. Okay. Not
22 very much adsorption. All of these would be in
23 solution.
24 However, at low pH, if you are an arsenic
25 producer and arsenic is on the surface of flyash, this
-------
160
1 would come through with flying colors because
2 arsenic is effectively adsorbed at low pH. This has
3 to do with surface charges, but I'm not going to get
4 into that. But that's what we see with flyash,
5 exactly what we see. So at low pH, we release
6 cations, adsorb anions. At high pH, we do the
7 opposite. In high pH conditions, we release anions,
8 adsorb cations.
9 Again, only in the case where you had two
10 extremes, and you'd have to do both, would you have
11 a worst case or conservative test.
12 The most important point here is rarely do
13 you have extremes in the environment, and the reason
14 for that is that solids buffer the pH . By ''buffer,"
15 I mean they control the pH.
16 As Biff pointed out, the equilibrium pH
17 on kiln dust ponds is alkaline, pH 12. Flyash,
18 Montana flyash, is also alkaline. Solids, when
19 placed in mono landfills, equilibrate principally
20 v. ith the water and control the pH even under some
21 carbonated conditions.
22 Okay. That brings me to my final remarks.
23 Since 1 am one of the principal investigators in the
24 development of the background study of the standard
25 leaching test, and I would like to point out to ysu
-------
161
1 that little, if any, resemblance exists between our
2 testing procedure that we came up with and the current
3 test, I would like to address the concerns that I
4 have with respect to the EP test.
5 What does the test model? Indeed, I have
6 used the word "model" here. Some of you don't know
7 exactiy what I moan by "model." I don't know if any
8 of us really know what the EP test is trying to model
9 or if "mode]" is the correct word.
10 I think what we have in mind here is we'd
11 like to see what types of materials can leach out in
12 these solids.
13 Now if we are trying to model anything --
14 I'd like to address the question of what's the eluant.
15 What are we choosing as the eluant. The EP test is
16 assuming acidic acid. I assume that they are trying
17 to model particular Municipal landfills, because in
18 model disposal techniques I would not get acidic acid.
19 Okay. Now if indeed I am trying to model
20 Municipal landfills, as we have pointed out in our
21 remarks and also as Fred Lee pointed out in his
22 letter addressed to the EPA, you would most likely
23 try to also model redox behavior. It's difficult.
24 It's damn difficult to do, but you'd like to do it
25 because those hvdrous oxide surfaces that I have been
-------
162
1 talking about, iron hydroxide is one example of that.
2 And in a landfill, iron hydroxide is extremely
3 important. As we lower the ell , and that's the
4 oxidation potential, or we reduce the amount of oxygen
5 in that system, iron hydroxide is destabilized. That
6 solid surface is just like taking the pH and dropping
7 it down to 2. It's gone. eH has the same effect
8 as pH in this particular case. We release iron to
9 solution and we destabilize solids and we release
10 other dissolved components. So you'd like to model
11 redox behavior as well if you are trying to model
12 Municipal landfills.
13 If you are trying to model mono landfills,
14 you wouldn't want to use acidic acid at all. You'd
15 probably want to use distilled deionized water.
16 Let's talk about aggressiveness. I have
17 already showed that the EP test is not necessarily
18 an aggressive test, and I point out that in some
19 cases it might be, but it's not always. That's not
20 the only component that can be -- pH is not the only
21 aggressive component. We can talk about ionic
22 strength effects. Obviously, we can talk about
23 eH effects. We can talk about complexation effects
24 and a lot of other parameters. So, this is a
25 difficult subject, aggressiveness. So I don't think
-------
163
1 necessarily dropping the pH is any meaning of
2 aggressiveness.
3 What's being measured? We are dealing with
4 a test that has only one data point in time. We don't
5 have an ability in this particular test to measure
6 secondary affects. Suppose we put this in solution.
7 If we put this material in solution and we form a
8 new solid surface, as often we do, that new solid
9 surface can effectively adsorb other anions or
10 cations than the original surface did. We do not in
11 one testing procedure pick up secondary affects.
12 All right. Now what about the concept of
13 maximum concentration and maximum release? You need
14 to do sequential testing procedures, varying the solid
15 or the liquid to pick up maximum concentration and
16 maximum release. We have only one data point, and you
17 cannot do that in this particular case.
18 I think the worst problem here is the
19 problem of kinetics. We haven't spoke at any particu-
20 lar time here -- well, I take that back. There was
21 one suggestion that we had half lives of 1600 years.
22 So we have talked about time frames. But we don't
23 know how long these things leach out. We haven't
24 talked about the problem of kinetics. Yes, a material
25 may leach out into the environment. But what if it
-------
164
1 bleeds out over the next 50 billion years? There
2 coulr! be maybe a million prams that could be potenti-
3 ally leached out, but maybe distributed over that
4 period of time it's all right. So ve haven't really
5 talked about the problems of kinetics.
6 So I suggest that, in conclusion, I think
7 we are dealing with a very complicated, as I said
8 , complex problem. I am all for a simplistic test.
9 I realize that the background study was about yea
10 | thick and difficult to interpret. It's a difficult
11 concept. 'i'e are dealing with a difficult problem,
12 a test for all wastes.
13 I suggest that we cannot apply one test
14 to determine hazardness. We might use that one test
15 as a screening test but not as a classification test.
16 If we are going to use this test on hulk material,
17 major wastes that are disposed of in mono landfills
18 I suggest we use distilled deionized water.
19 But the most important point that I'd like
20 to get across is that we need to consider, if we
21 are going to talk about all wastes, case-by-case
22 situations.
23 A11 right. With that in mind, I'd like to
24 introduce our last speaker, Jim Morriss, who will
25 talk about our conclusions and, lastly and most
-------
165
1 importantly, our recommendations.
2 MR. MORRISS: My name is James Morriss, and
3 I am an attorney. I am with the lav/ firm of Thompson
4 & Knight in Dallas, Texas, and I represent General
5 For 11 and.
6 As John Chadbourne has discussed, General
7 Portland is very concerned about the kiln dust
8 problem and the possibility that kiln dust might be,
9 as we feel inappropriately, classified as a hazardous
10 was t e .
11 Both Biff Jones and Yarc Anderson have
12 set out the technical basis for what we think are
13 needed revisions in the EP procedure.
14 Toxicity for kiln dust would be determined
15 under the prooosed EP procedure, and EPA acknowledges
16 that this is designed to simulate a Municipal landfill
17 environment. Rut at the same time we've pointed out
18 throughout those comments that that is not the
19 environment that's present in the vast majority of
20 disposal sites for kiln dust. Rather, kiln dust is
21 disposed of in a homogeneous mono landfill, it's an
22 alkaline waste, not an acidic v, as t e .
23 So Biff and !!arc have established through
24 their technical data and leaching fundamentals that
25 the EP test proposed by LPA bears no re 1 a11onshiD to
-------
166
1 kiln dust disposal.
2 Further, contrary to EPA's purported
3 rationalization for that test, it's not a worst case
4 test in all instances.
5 My objective is to present suggested
6 revisions for the regulations.
7 First and foremost, and this is the one
8 that I think, of course, applies to us, is that the
9 toxicity of large volume wastes disposed in mono
10 landfills should be evaluated using distilled
11 deionized water as the eluant in batch test. That is
12 the only eluant of choice that bears any relationship
13 to the disposal environment when the waste itself
14 dictates the leachate.
15 Secondly, and this has been touched on
16 throughout the comments today, a hazardous waste
17 criteria should be truly viewed as screening tools,
18 not screening mechanisms as EPA suggested, using
19 3004 to mitigate the effects of overclassification.
20 A generator should be permitted to utilize comprehen-
21 sive scientific tests to evaluate the hazard potential
22 of the waste.
23 Again, the burden would be on the generator
24 to show that his waste, through recognized scientific
25 procedures, is not hazardous in any environment.
-------
167
1 Another class, though, could be developed
2 for the generator-disposer. A generator-disposer
3 would be one like General Portland, where that waste
4 generated is placed by the generator in a disposal
5 site. There the generator, in testing the waste,
6 should be permitted to consider the characteristics
7 or the nature of the disposal environment, because
8 a certain waste may be innocuous in a particular
9 disposal environment.
10 We are going to detail these comments and
11 suggest additional comments in our written comments.
12 Finally, I think what we have hit upon here
13 is that the EP procedure is generally inadequate, as
14 well as inadequate for modeling these large volume
15 wastes. So perhaps a better eluant or a better test,
16 as Marc suggested, or perhaps a site specific test
17 is going to have to be developed for evaluating the
18 waste placed in heterogeneous disposal environments.
19 Now the concept of viewing kiln dust as
20 unique is nothing new to EPA. It's been suggested tha
21 under Section 3004 that kiln dust is a special waste;
22 that if it is first hazardous, then EPA will apply
23 less stringent disposal requirements to that waste
24 until further study can be developed or conducted.
25 General Portland suggests that this
-------
168
1 uniqueness should be recognized under Section 3001,
2 and rather than trying to first classify it in a
3 broadbrush approach consider the uniqueness, classify
4 it as it truly is in the controlled environment of
5 the mono landfill.
6 I have just a few comments about two other
7 | portions of the -- one other portion of 3001 and one
8 portion of 3004.
9 Under 3001, corrosivity applies to aqueous
10 waste. As noted earlier, kiln dust is not a liquid
11 waste. As generated and as ultimately disposed, it
12 is a solid. ''Jell, not solid loosely but a firm, hard
13 matrix. Let's use that torn.
14 Unfortunately, the language in the commen-
15 tary preceding 3004 causes some confusion for our
16 industry, in that EPA notes alkalinity as a poten:,ial
17 1 hazard of the substance. This confusing reference,
i
18 we feel, should be eliminated.
19 Addressing, finally, the Subtitle C -- what
20 we have called the Subtitle C - Subtitle D interface,
21 it surprised me this morning to hear Mr. Corson
22 mention that if you weren't hazardous then you'd be
23 subject merely to those requirements under Subtitle D
24 which, as you know, are the regulations for all solid
25 waste, nunhazardous solid waste.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
Well, lor our particular waste, as a special
waste, as a hazardous waste, we would be subiect to
siting restrictions apolying only to new locations.
Existing locations would be exxempted. This is not
the case, however, under Subtitle D. So this
inconsistency needs to be resolved, because you can
see the difficulty: A particular location, a
particular plant night be forced to acquiesce to
monitoring wells and other requirements, except a
hazardous waste classification, merely to avoid being
subject to a citizens' suit as being in violation of
Federal law.
In conclusion, the goals of RCRA must be
achieved. We have no qualms with that statement.
However, they must be done in a sensible and cost-
effective manner. What is administratively expedient
is not always the best approach, and this particular
statement is very well evidenced by the case of kiln
dust presented here today.
The use of the proposed extraction procedure
to determine the toxicity of the waste is not
defensible. Be have outlined what we believe to be
a proper approach, and that is the use of deionized
water as the eluant in the batch test. Other
necessary changes have also been noted.
-------
170
1 We hope that these comments, together with
2 our written comments to be submitted by the end of the
3 | week, will help EPA in making the necessary revisions
4 : to these regulations.
5 All four of us stand ready to answer any
6 questions that you might have. Thank you very much.
7 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
8 Are there any questions? In responding
9 to questions, if you would identify yourself by last
10 name, that would help the court reporter.
11 MR. LINDSEY: While everybody else is
12 thinking, I'll start off here.
13 You mentioned that I forget the context
14 exactly, but in any event the generator-disposal
15 combination needs to be specific. I think you were
16 speaking with regard to Section 3001. I think that's
17 what we were trying to do under Section 3004, and
18 with the Notes there was to provide the opportunity
19 for a waste disposal concept combination to be
20 addressed,
21 Apparently you don't think the Note system
22 would do the job or you would rather see it all done
23 under 3001 or what?
24 MR. MORRISS: I think it's a combination of
25 both. To accept one or the other wouldn't be a proper
-------
171
1 explanation of the problem because, as it's been
2 pointed out, it is a complex problem. But for
3 certain waste, where a generator is also a disposer,
4 it's a large volume waste, it's placed in a mono
5 landfill, these are the wastes that can best be
6 singled out, we feel, for unique treatment. They
7 have already been singled out for unique treatment.
8 By "unique" I don't mean special favors. I just
9 mean a recognition of the reality of the disposal
10 environment.
11 MR. LINDSEY: In other words, you feel for
12 certain kinds of waste we should have specific
13 regulations?
14 MR. MORRISS: You already have that under
15 3004.
16 MR. LINDSEY: As you understand, it's only
17 because we don't have enough information on the
18 particular waste.
19 MR. MORRISS: I understand.
20 MR. LINDSEY: Let me follow on that, then.
21 You indicated right at the start, somebody
22 did -- the first fellow -- that you felt that the
23 regulations would cost millions for cement kiln dust
24 apparently and might lead to the closing of wet kilns.
25 Are we talking now about the special
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
172
regulations, or are we talking about --
DP,. CIIADBOURNE No. I feel you may have
read a little into those comments that I made. I
mentioned that we generate and dispose of approximate-
ly 500,000 tons of kiln dust each year right now; that
many of our wet process facilities are marginally
cost-competitive at this time. It doesn't take very
much to push them over the brink. If you add require-
ments for well samples, if you add additional
constraints, a few million dollars at one plant would
certainly be enough to say, ''That plant's only good
for another five or possibly ten years at the mosi: . "
We can't just justify the return on our investment.
We cannot put another $5 million into this facility.
It would be better to close it prematurely, close it
three or four years early and construct a new facility
And that's our real concern, that the additional costs
which we don't believe are justified, may very well
result in premature closings and exacerbating the
already chronic cement shortage.
MR. LINDSEY: What of the specific special
waste standards are likely to cost, as you point out,
millions? We are talking about a couple of -- we are
talking about some testing and drilling a few wells
and running a few samples on wells and waste and on
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
173
keeping some records. Our understanding is that that
won't cost very much.
MR. MORRISS: I think it's easy at this
point to minimize the effect of the proposed regula-
tions. But at the same time, if we were to go on
from here and just acquiesce to what we feel is an
inappropriate hazardous waste classification mechanism.
later on there will be further requirements.
MR. LINDSEY: Okay. So it's not the current
r e g u1 a 13o n s that are
MR. MOPRISS: We are not say ins: that either.
I think -- you say these are minina], but EPA is
under a charge to develop cost-effective regulations,
a charge both from their own Administrator and a
charge from President. If you are going to take the
position that a little bit of cost isn't bad oven if
it's unnecessary , vv ell, do liars add up.
DR. CIIADBOURNE I think you s-eriouslv
underestimate the cost of well sampling programs.
Hiring consultants I o study the hydrology to determine
where those samples should be placed, studying the
groundwater flows, determining where your upstream
wells should be, determining where your downstream
wells should be, how frequently you should sample,
what the seasonal effects would be, and in fact there
-------
174
1 is no reason to even begin the well sampling program.
2 You can see before you begin that the water in this
3 pond is so low in all these trace constituents that
4 there is no realistic potential for contamination of
5 the groundwaters.
6 On the other hand, EP says too much
7 selenium, I am sorry, you are hazardous, put in the
8 welIs.
9 MR. LINDSEY: Are you submitting written
10 comments as well?
11 MR. MORRISS: Yes, we are, which will also
12 outline a suggested method of implementing the changes
13 we suggest,
14 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. But is there in there
15 ' information on, for example, either a theoretical
16 I pond or disposal site that you have which would
17 indicate what you feel the costs are going to be under
18 these special regulations?
19 MR. MORRISS: The cost of complying with
20 the special regulations9
21 MR. LINDSEY: Yes. We would be interested
22 in seeing that.
23 MR. MORRIGS: We can furnish that. It's not
24 in our comments at the present time, but if it's not
25 in the docket before the end of the week we can
-------
175
1 furnish it at a later time.
2 MR. LINDSEY: Can we do that?
3 MR. MORRISS: I know it can't technically
4 be considered, but we can still furnish it to you.
5 MR. CORSON: I have a couple questions.
6 One, I am just wondering in the general
7 comments that were made, I think both by you, Jim,
8 in closing and by Marc earlier in his comments, there
9 probably are some conditions that you would use as a
10 pretest to determine which wastes should be tested
11 which way. Since you did indicate in one case that
12 maybe we should even be going toward a basic
13 solution for determining the release of certain types
14 of contaminants versus acidic on the other end, are
15 you suggesting that there should be a pretest to
16 determine which test we use, or is it just mono or
17 hetero as the crossover point?
18 MR. MORRISS: I think Marc can best field
19 that, but as a prelude I think what we are saying is
20 that to assume in these large volume waste cases that
21 some condition exists, alkaline in the case of an
22 acid waste or an acidic condition in the case of an
23 alkaline waste, it doesn't really exist is what we
24 are pointing out.
25 i think Marc should handle the question as
-------
176
1 to whether or not we are suggesting- that you do it
2 both ways.
3 DR. ANDERSON: That's a difficult question,
4 Alan. It turns out that the reason I suggested a
5 screening test, because I know you'd like to come
6 up with one test that could be applied in a simplistic
' fashion, one test that every laboratory could use, it
8 may be a batch test and it may be only one day old.
9 That would simply be a screening test, but I suggest
10 that even that test nay even give you sort of an
11 artificial result. It may give you a high or a low
12 number, depending on the particular waste in mind.
13 I don't think that we can deal with these
14 complicated systems. I sat down at a meeting at
15 DOE, a task force meeting at the Department of
16 Energy. There was about 25 scientists there, and we
17 grappled with these questions. They vere proposing
18 things that we had already done in the development
19 of the background study.
20 I think that this would only have to be
21 one screening test with distilled deionized water.
22 if you got a certain value and it looked like the
23 waste was going to be hazardous, then you would go and
24 sav, "Okay. It looks like this waste is going to be
25 hazardous. Let's go to further testing."
-------
177
I Where are you going to out this material,
2 though? That's a very important Dart. I think you
3 need to consider both the landfill and the waste and
4 the e1uan t. You need to consider those three com-
5 ponents. What's the waste in equilibrium with9 What
6 type of landfill are you putting it in1? What is the
7 waste? You have to consider all three.
8 It's a very technical, difficult problem
9 that has to be dealt with on a vaste-specif:c case.
10 It's not an easy answer.
11 MR. MORRISS: I think that what we are also
12 submitting, though, for this particular waste mav
13 be an easier answer.
14 MR. CORSOM: You also suggested, I think in
15 your concluding comments, because you were kind
16 enough to also extend your thoughts to the total \\aste
17 disposal problem, you indicated a need for an
18 appropriate eluant for heterogeneous waste.
19 Again looking for simple answers, I am
20 wondering whether you have any approach as to how
21 one would determine for a particular waste or for a
22 heterogeneous waste disposal site how one makes a
23 determination as to the eluant? Is it for the waste9
24 is it for the site? Is it for the site at day one.
25 or is it the site as you anticipate it after 20 years
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
178
of taking heterogeneous waste?
DR. ANDERSON: Okay. My feeling in answer-
ing that question would be to take the Wisconsin
test, in spite of its difficulties, and run the thing
backwards. That is to say, run all of the eluants
that we have in mind. We have an acidic eluant,
a basic eluant, a redox control, and an acidic acid-
type of eluant. If you run that system and there's
also two different types of extracting procedures, a
maximum concentration and maximum release step. If
you run that thing in reverse, you then get an idea
of what type of waste material you have and where you
might try to dispose of it.
I think in the particular case of kiln dust
the simple answer is if you would dispose of it in
a mono landfill and you equilibrate it with rainwater,
the best case is just a distilled deionized leaching
solution. As we have shown here, it's totally
represent ative.
But that may not be the case for another
solid that we might consider. Certainly, it's not
the case for a basically organic emulsion, for
instance. We have only been talking, by the way,
about solids. We haven't talked about organic
emulsions. Then we get into other problems. It's a.
-------
179
1 tremendously complex problem.
2 I don't know if I have answered your
3 question.. But, boy, to answer these things with just
4 simple one liners is -- I can't do it. I can't stand
5 here as a reputable scientist and say I have an answer
6 for you in my back pocket. I simply don't.
7 MR. LEHMAN: I have a couple questions.
8 Is 100 percent of your waste disposed of
9 on site, or does any of it go off site?
10 DR. CHADBOURNE: As I mentioned in my
11 comments, it's disposed of on site and off site.
12 For instance, if you have a cement plant
13 located in the city, it may have originally been
14 located out in the country. But with your urban
15 areas growing the way they are, you may run out of
16 real estate in a big hurry. Somebody may want to buy
17 that property. As a matter of fact, that's happened
18 to us on several occasions. And so, you have to
19 resort to carrying it off site. That's where you
20 get into hauling it in covered trucks and bringing
21 it to another disposal site.
22 But in most instances it's disposed of in
23 a mono landfill. The exception, of course, being
24 agricultural land spreading which, by the way, kiln
25 dust is great for acid soils. We have heard this
-------
180
1 morning how gypsum is good for soil conditioning where
2 you have alkaline soils. Kiln dust has turned out to
3 be just great stutf where you've got acid soils.
4 As a matter of fact, we got complaints up
5 in Paulding, Ohio when we were required to put an
6 electrostatic precipitator on our kiln systems. It's
7 a plant that's way out in the country, and they have
8 acid soils. The farmers are now complaining that
9 they have to buy a lot of line that they never had
10 to buy before in order to get the crops.
11 So to answer your question, though, it
12 can be disposed of off site. Sometimes it is disposed
13 under heterogeneous conditions. But ordinarily it
14 goes into a mono landfill because of the quantities
15 that are generated.
16 MR. LEHMAN: If that's the case, to follow
17 that up, how can you say that the extract procedure
18 test ought to be based on mono conditions, because
19 you never know for sure where it's going to go.
20 MP . :iORRIS3- I think your entire regulatory
21 structure under RCRA is dependent upon voluntary
22 compliance and good faith compliance on the part of
23 the industry to run the appropriate test and then
24 notify the agency of the test results.
25 The same thing can be done to address this
-------
181
1 problem. If the test is specified for a generator-
2 disposer who places his waste in a mono landfill only
3 specified for that situation, then if he doesn't run
4 that test, he fails to run the other one, he is in
5 violation of Federal law just as if he would have
6 been had he not run any test.
7 MR. I.F.HMAN: You mentioned that at these
8 mono landfills you have slurries that transport the
9 waste and it sets up and that the alkalinity factor
10 is -- what did you say? -- about 12 of that material9
11 DR. CHADBOUUSK pr> 12.
12 MR. Li:ii:iAN: pli of 12. Then you also
13 mentioned how expensive it mif-'nt be to put in ground-
14 water monitors.
15 I am wondering, given the alkalinity and the
16 pH of that waste do you do any groundwater nonitoring
17 now and do you find any iinoact of that riaterial on the
18 grouridwator , not in terns of the Teaching,of heavy
19 metals but ,] u s I in the pH of the gr oun dw a t e r ?
20 DP . CHADBOURNE. >Ve do have some information
21 on one particular pond which LS located in a limestone
22 aquifer where there i:, quite a lot of flow and which
23 could be conceivably a direct drinking water supply
24 for a major city. Naturally, we have been very
25 concerned about the potential pH intrusion in the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
groundwater, whether that may represent a real
concern, and we have drilled wells and collected
certain data and tried to determine how much pH
intrusion we do have. It's very difficult to evaluate
the data.
As I mentioned, it's not as easy or as
inexpensive as it may sound. But our preliminary
findings are that a short distance from the disposal
pond the pH has dropped off to near normal levels
which, by the way, are elevated anyway because it's
a limestone aquifer. The pH tends to be about 8,
8.5 anyway. The pH in the pond liquor in that
particular location is about 10 rather than 12.
It has a different alkaline character. So the pH
goes from 10 to 8.8 or 8.5 a short distance from the
facility. We don't have a lot of data. We don't have
a thorough study, but we are interested in it and
looking at it.
MR. LEHMAN: Would you be willing to supply
the data to us.
MR. MORRISS: I don't think we would be at
this point because it's so preliminary. But we have
been working with Alan throughout the development oi
the draft regulations and there has been quite a bit
of exchange between our industry and Alan and as we
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
183
get final results better regulations will depend on
us working with you on it.
DR. CHADBOURNE: pH is not a toxicant
under the present proposed regs. I know it's a
secondary Safe Drinking Water Act contaminant, but
pH in and of itself -- we would prefer to study this
problem very carefully rather than to provide
information at this time. With the preliminary re-
sults that we have, we have no idea what kind of
conclusions you might come to if you reviewed it.
And we would prefer to review it carefully ourselves
and lay out our studies in a little more detail before
we make it available to you.
MR. MORRISS: I think, John, Mr. Lehman
was referring particularly to their comment for
soliciting additional information on corrosivity,
is that correct?
MR. LEHMAN: Yes.
MR. MORRISS: We recognize that. Just right
now, we don't have any final data.
DR. ANDERSON: Can I say one other thing
to answer your question? Let me answer a little bit
more precisely your question concerning what you would
try to use as an eluant for determining this
equilibrium process.
-------
184
1 Let's take a couple cases that we have seen
2 today. Let's take the gypsum as one fellow talked
3 about in soils, and let's take the kiln dust. Let's
4 even take flyash. Let's take flyash from western
5 coal and flyash from eastern coal, the particularly
6 good examples of acidic and basic solids.
7 The gypsum is an acidic solid. If you put
8 it in an alkaline pH, it would dissolve and release
9 trace metals to solutions that were adsorbed on that
10 solid. If you put kiln dust in an acidic environment,
11 it dissolves. So you need to know v/hat type of
12 solid, whether you've got an alkaline or basic sol 3d,
13 that you are dealing with. You may have a neutral
14 solid, in which case you are going to put it in a
15 neutral landfill.
16 But in the case of flyash from western coal,
17 there is an example of an alkaline solid. If you put
18 it in an acidic leaching solution Like the KP test,
19 you release a lot of cadmium and mercury. But you
20 adsorb a lot of arsenic and phosphorous and selenium.
21 In the case of eastern coal , the reverse1
22 is true. That's very acidic. Because of the sulfur
23 content, that's a very acidic solid. So if you put
24 that in a basic solution, then you release trace
25 metals there. If you put it in an acidic environment,
-------
185
1 you wouldn't release very much. But the adsorbed
2 species would be d i f f er en t.
3 Okay. So if you know something about the
4 solid, you can make a decision.
5 "R. CORSOK: That's why, I guess. I asked
6 the question whether you are advocating some sort of
7 a measurement of aciditv or alkalinity or pH of the --
8 DR. ANDERSON: I think that would be a good
9 starting point, is to determine the vicissity or
10 acidity of the solid itself. And then where are YOU
11 going to put it9
12 MR. CORSON: I guess my question, Though
13 is -- I understood the comment on the chart that I
14 think Jim ended up with which talked about -- I
15 thought he was talking about heterogeneous waste
16 sites.
17 Now I am wondering how you affect the
18 individual things that go into that site which is
19 neither now a mono-alkaline or mono-acidic waste1?
20 I thought that that's where you were
21 suggesting in your concluding comments you need an
22 appropriate eluant. f am wondering if your written
23 comments will address how you determine an appropriate
24 eluant.
25 MR. MORRISS: I think at least for us we
-------
186
1 don't put a lot of waste in that environment, so we
2 don't have a lot of data on it ourselves.
3 I think Marc has been involved in a very
4 detailed study that has been designed specifically
5 to answer in part, at least, the question you pose.
6 That might be a good starting point.
7 DR. ANDERSON: I think you know about that
8 study.
9 MR. CORSON: All right.
10 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Thank you.
11 Michael Kerran, Association of Petroleum
12 Re-refiners?
13 MR. KERRAN: Madam Chairman, I am
14 Michael Kerran, President of the Association of
15 Petroleum Re-refiners. I am also Vice President of
16 Double Eagle Refining Company, a re-refining facility
17 in Oklahoma City.
18 I want to thank you for the opportunity
19 to appear here today to discuss the Association of
20 Petroleum Re-refiners -- APR's -- views concerning
21 the Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regula-
22 tions as published in the Federal Register on December
23 18, 1978.
24 These comments reflect the input from our
25 members across the nation. The APR represents those
-------
187
1 companies, essentially businesses, that have the
2 capacity and that are actively engaged in the process
3 of re-refining waste oils of various types.
4 Our association recognizes the monumental
5 effort of EPA in formulating these hazardous waste
6 regulations. The proposed regulations represent
7 substantial progress toward a sensible regulatory
8 structure of resource conservation and recovery.
9 However, the proposed regulations have certain
10 inconsistencies that we feel must be resolved in order
11 to effectively fulfill the intent of RCRA.
12 As we understand the regulations, we
13 applaud the concept of EPA to eliminate from the
14 controls of Section 3004 those facilities involved
15 in recycling, reclaiming, or re-refining a hazardous
16 waste to a product that is substantially equivalent
17 to the virgin product it replaces, whether or not the
18 hazardous waste treated is listed in Section 3001 as
19 a hazardous waste or it is considered "other discarded
20 materials."
21 The example given by EPA on Page 58950 of
22 the Federal Register dated December 18, 1978, clearly
23 defines this intent. I quote the Federal Register:
24 "...used solvents sent to a solvent
25 reclaiming facility would not be considered
-------
188
1 a discarded material, and therefore, would
2 not be considered a solid waste or a
3 hazardous waste. Consequently, this solvent
4 reclaiming facility would not be subject
5 to Section 3004 Controls nor would it
6 require a RCRA permit. However, a solvent
7 reclaimer would be a generator subject to
8 Section 3002 Regulations if his waste is
9 hazardous."
10 This example is expressed even though used
11 solvents are specifically listed in the hazardous
12 waste list under Section 3001, Section 250.14.
13 We enthusiastically endorse the direction
14 that EPA is taking in this area. By this action,
15 EPA has recognized and encouraged the recovery of a
16 hazardous waste to a product that is substantially
17 equivalent to the virgin product it replaces.
18 However, we feel further clarification is
19 necessary to insure as much waste as possible is
20 recycled, reclaimed, or re-refined. To provide
21 adequate controls over the hazardous wastes that
22 are treated by a recycler, reclaimer, or re-refiner,
23 we suggest that until a hazardous waste reaches a
24 process facility the waste still be subject to the
25 regulations and should be manifested. Only when it
-------
189
1 arrives at the facility does it drop the distinction
2 as a hazardous waste.
3 For the first time, we in the re-refininp
4 industry, which are not new to resource recovery,
5 find a Federal agency is encouraging the recycling of
6 hazardous waste material. This attitude is consistent
7 with the objectives of RCRA; that is, the identifica-
8 tion and controlling of hazardous waste in correlation
9 with pollution abatement and the greater utilization
10 of our natural resources through recovery and reuse.
11 >Ve foel that this action is essential on
12 tho part of EPA to provide the necessar}; climate for
13 our industry to survive and fulfill its objective
14 of returning discarded waste material into a viable
15 resource that can be used over and over again.
16 EPA has from time to time in the proposed
17 regulations singled out waste oil for special
18 treatment because of its unique characteristics.
19 Indeed, waste lubricating oils must be singled out tor
20 special treatment to insure that they are conserved
21 for their highest level of reuse.
22 For this accomplishment, we feel it is
23 necessary for EPA to develop a definition of
24 "re-refin ing." As a suggestion, we submit that the
25 definition of ''rej-r e f i ning" should be: "The1 use of
-------
190
1 petroleum refining techniques on waste oils to produce
2 lube stocks that are substantially equivalent in
3 quality to lube stocks produced from virgin crudes.
4 Techniques may include a combination of distillation,
5 acid, caustic, solvent, hydrogen treating and other
6 physical or chemical treatments."
7 It is important to keep in mind that the
8 purpose of re-refining is the conservation of
9 petroleum lubricants, our most vital natural resource.
10 Any means of recycling that does not return waste
11 oil to the equivalent of its virgin state should
12 come under the purview of Section 3004 as a treatment
13 facility.
14 There are those who advocate the recycling
15 of waste lubricating oils by other means than
16 re-refining. The two most predominant other methods
17 of disposal discussed are road oiling and incinera-
18 tion. The EPA in New Jersey addressed the issue of
19 road oiling and found that only approximately 1
20 percent of the oil that was applied to a road remained
21 on the road surface. The remainder of the waste oil
22 was found to have left the road surface and contamin-
23 ated the environment. Clearly, road oiling should
24 be banned as a method of disposal.
25 Generally, incineration of waste oil occurs
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
191
without any processing of the waste oil. APR suggests
EPA set specific standards for the incineration of
waste oil. Waste oil can be processed to render it
no more hazardous when burned than virgin fuel oil.
The indiscriminate burning of raw waste oil has been
found by EPA to have serious environmental conse-
quences and possible threats to human health.
APR believes that the EPA should fix
maximum levels for contamination of waste oil that
has been processed for use as a fuel oil. These
levels must cover the lead content as well as sulfur,
phosphorous, zinc, and other metals.
APR enthusiastically supports the specific
inclusion of both waste lubricating oils and waste
hydraulic and cutting oil as a hazardous waste under
Section 250.14(a). As EPA has recognized, the im-
prudent dumping of waste oil together with road
oiling is a major cause of environmental and water
pollution.
However, \ve feel the present language is
too limited. The category should be simplified to
read "waste oil and previously used oil." This would
encompass all forms of waste hydraulic, lubricating,
cutting, crankcase, and industrial oils. The present
language is confusing and seems to imply that items
-------
192
1 not specifically mentioned, such as waste from
2 highly compounded industrial grinding or broaching
3 oils, are excluded. Yet, the heavy additive package
4 in such oils may make the related waste more
5 hazardous than the waste oils presently included.
6 The definition as suggested will simplify
7 the task of identification and should eliminate the
8 possibility of any attempt ol using special names to
9 avoid liaving a particular waste categorized as
10 hazardous. The procedures of Section 250.15 are
11 available to generators to demonstrate n o n i n c 1 u s i > n
12 ''f any specific waste oil stream.
13 In Section 3004 of the pronosert regulations,
14 K FA has failed to consider the degree of hazard
15 involved and the necessary distinction between
16 treatment or storage; facilities and permanent disoosal
17 sites, such as a landfill. There is no justification
18 for aoplying the same standards to a treatment or
19 storage facility as to a permanent disposal site.
20 The recordkeeping, financial, closure and r> o s t - c 1 < > s u r e
21 requirements do not appear t o b e c omp a 11b1e wi t h
22 both a treatment or storage facility and a permanent
23 dis D o sal site.
24 'A' i t h respect to treatment of disposal
25 facilities of low hazard waste, APR submits some 3f
-------
193
1 the more stringent requirements are inflationary in
2 the treatment and/or storage of those wastes. Our
3 recommendation is F.PA make a preater distinction
4 between treatment or storage facilities and permanent
5 disposal sites.
6 A recent major oi ) company ;mb1icat ion
7 stated, "Between now and 1990 the United States will
8 need 520,000 new oil and gas wells, 17 additional
9 refineries, 206 large coal in i n e s and much more if
10 the energy demands are to be met." Part ot tins
11 enormous demand of energy can be obtained from the
12 materials we are currently discarding- as v.aste.
13 Through proper re-re fining techniques
14 we can greater utilitze our most valuable natural
15 resource, petroleum lubricants. T h i s is one of 1 Ii e
16 primary objectives of RCRA. EPA has addressed this
17 objective bv their example of the solxent reclaimer
18 as discussed earlier.
19 Although it is apparent re-refiners that
20 produce, from waste oil, lube stocks that are
21 substantially equivalent in quality to lube stocks
22 produced from virgin crudes are exempt from the
23 regulations of Section 3004 APR has a number of
24 comments on specific sections ol the regulations.
25 And it is our hope that they will pro\e helpful to
-------
194
1 EPA in understanding the impact of these regulations
2 on treatment facilities and transporters.
3 We have endeavored to cover just the
4 highlights of the proposed regulations in our oral
5 testimony. However, we are submitting both our oral
6 comments and specific detailed comments concernins
7 the regulations for the record.
8 MS. DARPAH: Thank you, Mr. Kerran. We
9 appreciate your summarizing your comments for us.
10 Will you answer questions from the panel?
11 MR. KERRAN: I will try.
12 MR. TRASK: You mentioned that the used
13 oil -- I gather you meant a used oil is a hazardous
14 waste -- should be manifested until it reaches ths
15 facility and then drop its distinction as a hazardous
16 waste. Should it also be subject to the other
17 generator requirements
18 MR. KERRAN: Yes, sir.
19 MR. TRASK: -- like recordkeeping, reporting
20 et cetera?
21 MR. KERRAN: Yes, sir. We feel it should.
22 Otherwise, the lack of control and knowledge where
23 the product originates or ends could be astronomical.
24 MR. TRASK: So, then, it should be subject
25 to all of the administrative requirements of the
-------
195
1 generators.
2 What about transporters; should transporters
3 also be required to act as if they had a hazardous
4 waste aboard?
5 MR. KERRAN: Yes, sir, we feel they should.
6 MR. TRASK Then the facility would sign
7 the manifest, acknowledging receipt as if it were
8 a hazardous waste facility; is that correct?
9 MR. KERRAN: That would be correct, yes,
10 sir.
11 ! MR. TRASK: Okay Thank you.
12 MR. LEHMAN: I was going to follow up on
13 that. One of the reasons we didn't put in a manifest
14 is that the law says that a manifest is to be used
15 for the transport of materials from a generator to a
16 permitted hazardous waste facility, and if the
17 facility is not permitted under RCRA and doesn't have
18 an ID code number and so forth and so on for which
19 the manifest system is developed, then you have a
20 little dichotomy. So it strikes me that in order
21 to carry out the system that you are proposing that
22 waste oil re-refining facilities would have to at
23 least get some type of hazardous waste facility
24 permit in order to legally satisfy the statute, which
25 says a manifest is used in that way.
-------
196
1 Do you think your member companies would
2 be willing to do that?
3 MR . KEP.RAN' I think some type of permit
4 system, yes, would be necessary. I don't think our
5 association would be in favor of completing the full
6 controls of Section 3004, but some type of process or
7 permitting system would be necessary.
8 VR . LEH'IAN- Well, at least an identifica-
9 tion code is assigned or something like that9
10 MR. KERRAN: Yes, sir.
11 MR. LEHMAN: I had another question.
12 You suggested a different wording for the
13 listing of waste oil; namely, "waste oil and previous-
14 Iv used oil" in place of what we had there; namely
15 lube oil, hydraulic, cutting and so on.
I
16 HP.. KERRAN. Yes, sir.
17 MR. LEHMAN: One of the problems we had in
18 listing oil was to try to make a distinction between
19 mineral-based oils and animal-based oils or vegetable-
20 based oils. They can all be used oils.
21 The definition that you have said here
22 does seem to take into account that type of thing
23 Would you care to comment on how you might be able
24 to get that distinction into your suggested
25 definition?
-------
197
1 MR. KERRAN: Frankly, we did not consider
2 animal-based oils, but we are primarily concerned
3 with the recycling of petroleum lubricants.
4 Maybe the definition could be modified to
5 "waste oil and previously used petroleum oil."
6 MR. LEHMAN: Okay.
7 MR. KERRAN: Maybe that will eliminate
8 that problem.
9 MR. LINDSEY: To follow up on what
10 Mr. Trask and Mr. Lehman were talking about with
11 regard to manifesting and so forth, one of our
12 problems here was how we could write the regulations
13 so that we would get out of the system all the
14 probably hundreds of millions of tons of legitimate
15 by-products. By "legitimate," I mean by-products
16 which are never disposed of but are always a by-
17 product but may not be the prime product of an
18 operation. And I am sure with very little thinking
19 we can think of tons of these things real easy.
20 Yet, we get back into the system a variety
21 of other things, such as waste oil solvents which
22 are sometimes disposed of. In the end. one of the
23 solutions or partial solutions which we chose was
24 this approach: That if a material is in fact
25 recycled, it is not in the system. That sei"i<-d to be
-------
198
1 the way to draw the line.
2 I wonder how we -- if, for example, we were
3 to add solvents or waste oil back into the system,
4 even if it goes to a reclaimer, how we would be
5 able to write the thing so that we wouldn't be getting
6 into the system toil and a variety of other kinds of
7 materials that we really don't want or have any
8 need to control; chemical intermediates and things
9 like this which are by-products.
10 Do you have any thoughts on that further,
11 or would you simply make it specific for waste oil?
12 Would that be the way we would do it?
13 MR. KERRAN: That is the way that we would
14 propose to do it, yes, sir.
15 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. You also suggested that
16 we have specific standards for the burning of waste
17 oil. I think you mentioned that we should set levels
18 for lead, sulfur, phosphorous, and zinc maybe, among
19 others.
20 Do you have any suggestions for what those
21 levels might be?
22 ?!R. KERRAN: I think EPA has proposed cr
23 at least certainly discussed the proposed standard
24 for lead emissions for burning of fuel oil would be
25 8 micrograms per cubic meter.
-------
199
MR. LEHMAN: That was in a preliminary
2 version you must have seen.
3 MR. KERRAN: Yes.
MR. LINDSEY: The way it's set up now,
anyone who burns waste oil would have to get a permit
to do so. What you are saying is that we should go
back to an approach, which we did at one time
consider, which would set some sort of a standard,
and then if the waste oil met that standard there
1Q would be no permitting or no further controls. Is
.. that --
MR- KERRAN: If the waste oil was processed
., to meet that standard, yes, sir. Waste oil can, in
.. fact, be processed to, I think, burn as cleanly as
15 virgin fuel oil.
., MR. LINDSEY: Would an approach be possibly
ID
.- that we would mandate that the waste oil, before it's
burned, be the equivalent to virgin oil in, say, all
.
characteristics; or would that not be necessary?
_ MR. KERRAN: I haven't seen the MBS ' s draft
on their substantial equivalency, but they have
22 addressed that subject of waste oil being substantial-
03 1 y equivalent to fuel oil being burned.
24 MR. FIELDS: To follow up on Fred's
question, are you saying, then, that once the material
-------
200
1 is cleaned up, once the waste oil is cleaned up to
2 this degree, you would no longer be in the regulatory
3 system? Burning would be out of RCRA's control,
4 then; is that what you are saying?
5 MR. KERRAN: I would think so. To the
6 extent that the regulations approach and discuss the
7 commercial product section, that if any recycled
8 material can be proven to be no more a threat to
9 human health and the environment than the virgin
10 product it replaces, it should not be in there any
11 more than the virgin product would be.
12 MR. FIELDS: Okay. You favor a virgin
13 product standard rather than a commercial product
14 standard for waste oil?
15 MR. KERRAN: Yes.
16 MR. FIELDS: So you are not really talking
17 about an incineration standard; you are talking aoout
18 I a treatment standard, processing the waste oil to
19 clean it up so that it poses no greater hazard than
20 virgin materials'?
21 MR. KERRAN: I don't think you can have
22 one without the other.
23 MR. FIELDS: Incineration would no longer
24 be under RCRA's control under your scheme. You are
25 saving clean the waste oil up; right9
-------
201
1 MR. KERRAN. If the waste oil can be shown
2 to burn as cleanly as virgin fuel oil, yes, sir.
3 MR. FIELDS: The incineration portion
4 would not be covered under P.CRA under your scheme,
5 :s that what you are saying?
6 MR. KERRAN: If the waste oil is processed
7 where it does not pose any greater threat than the
8 virgin oil.
9 MR. FIELDS- Okay.
10 MR. LEHMAN : Mr. Kerran , I want to just
11 clarify something if I might with you.
12 At one point in your testimony, you were
13 talking about the distinction between treatment of
14 storage facilities and permanent disposal sites, such
15 as landfills, and you made the statement that
16 recordkeeping, financial closure and post-closure
17 requirements do not appear to be compatible with both
18 a treatment or storage facility and permanent disposal
19 site.
20 Maybe you are reading something into the
21 regulations that's not there. Our intent was that
22 treatment and storage facilities, by definition, would
23 not have any post-closure requirements.
24 MR. KERRAN: Maybe that was a misinterpreta-
25 tion that we had when we read the proposed regulations
-------
202
1 We were concerned on that subject, obviously
2 erroneously, that since a treatment or storage
3 facility, unlike a landfill that has a predetermined
4 termination -- there's so many things that are just
5 not compatible with the treatment or storage facility
6 in what we read.
7 MR. LEHMAN: Well, are these addressed more
8 fully in your statement?
9 MR. KERRAN: Yes, sir, in the written
10 statement which is attached.
11 MR. LEHMAN: Let's not go into that now.
12 Thank you.
13 MS. DARRAH: I guess that's all. Thank you
14 very much.
15 MR. KERRAN: Thank you.
16 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Thomas Meichtry, IT
17 Environmental Corporation?
18 MR. MEICHTRY: Thank you. My name is
19 Tom Meichtry with IT Corporation. We appreciate the
20 opportunity to appear before you today.
21 We have worked with your committee through-
22 out the last couple years in developing these draft
23 regulations, and for the most part we would like to
24 commend the Agency for the progress thus far. We do
25 still have some specific comments we would like to
-------
203
1 make, however. The area of financial responsibility
2 I would like to defer till Wednesday when
3 Barney Simonson, our Vice President, will be here when
4 he will comment on that area.
5 Overall, we believe that strong regulations
6 and enforcement is necessary in the matter of
7 hazardous waste management and control, and in this
8 regard we have consistently supported legislation at
9 the State and Federal level that responsibly deal
10 with this problem. We would like to give the follow-
11 ing testimony on some specific areas.
12 The first area that I would like to comment
13 on deals with the comments on the supplementary
14 information prior to the regulations themselves, in
15 which the statement is made that first priority for
16 permitting will be to off-site disposal facilities
17 and new facilities, and this is as opposed to on-site
18 facilities and existing facilities.
19 Our comment is that it appears to be
20 somewhat discriminatory to regulate one segment of
21 the disposal operators -- namely, the off-site
22 operators -- nationwide while others are given up to
23 five years of an interim period where they would be
24 subject only to a limited set of requirements. We
25 have concerns from a couple of areas.
-------
204
1 We have seen it demonstrated that there are
2 as many technically sound off-site disposal facilities
3 as there are on-site, and as such the off-site
4 disposers would be open to more frequent inspection
5 and public scrutiny than the nonregulated segment
6 during this period.
7 We would advocate a uniform application of
8 the regulations be given nationwide. One reason for
9 this, and it's kind of in a backwards way, is that
10 if the capacity off site is jeopardized by being first
11 on the regulatory process we may find ourselves in a
12 position where we have overregulated legitimate
13 facilities. People in that business find themselves
14 in a position where they can't economically conform,
15 close down, and then the next wave of enforcement
16 comes to on site. And the volumes that then must be
17 handled would be more than the facilities can handle
18 off site.
19 So what we are saying is let's go uniformly
20 from region to region or whatever and not trap our-
21 selves in the position where we may force closure
22 of facilities that otherwise would not have to have
23 been closed down.
24 As a side to that, obviously if there are
25 areas where immediate jeopardy requires it, we would
-------
205
1 advocate, regardless of off site or on site or
2 whatever name, that EPA go ahead and take whatever
3 action is necessary to correct situations.
4 Another area that we wish to comment on and
5 that the gentleman previously was commenting on is
6 the area where certain wastes are excluded from
7 regulation because they are called reclaimable or are
8 considered not to be discarded. While we agree with
9 the concept of reclaiming and ourselves reclaim and
10 market about 7,000,000 gallons a year of waste oils,
11 we disagree with the philosophy of not regulating
12 these materials. We urge that all hazardous materials
13 be regulated. Too many examoles have occurred where
14 waste products destined for reclaiming ended up in the
15 wrong place and have thus caused irreparable damage
16 to human health and the environment.
17 Again, we strongly urge that these materials
18 be regulated and tracked, even though they may be
19 legitimately reclaimed.
20 Likewise, we strongly disagree with the
21 exclusion for generators with less than 100 kilograms
22 per month of material. Extremely hazardous materials,
23 such as cyanide, dioxins, and PCB, should have a very
24 tight control, and the exclusion does not make any sens
25 'Vo urge that the EPA adopt a classification
-------
206
1 system based on degree of hazard. Perhaps then small
2 quantities could be excluded if they do not fall in
3 the extremely hazardous category.
4 In a related vein, we do not understand
5 why EPA has refused, at least to this point, to
6 designate waste by degree of hazard. As facility
7 operators, we are quite concerned that without
8 proper identification logic we will be overwhelmed
9 with quantities of wastes that could otherwise go
10 to sites with less stringent requirements than our
11 Class 1 facilities. We have operated in California
12 quite rationally with a two-step hazard classification
13 system for years, and we urge the EPA to adopt a
14 similar approach for a national program.
15 The classification system used in California
16 recognizes hazardous wastes and extremely hazardous
17 wastes. The latter cannot be transported or disposed
18 of without advance written approval from the State
19 Department of Health Services. The system works well
20 and keeps tight control over small quantities of
21 wastes that would otherwise become somewhat obscure
22 in the system. It makes the generator, transporter,
23 and processing or disposal facility operator much
24 more aware of the potential hazard for these specific
25 wastes.
-------
207
1 Another area that we wish to comment on is
2 the implementation of the Federal program by the
3 states. Individual states should be allowed to
4 implement more stringent regulations than those of
5 the Federal Government, especially if they are
6 already in effect. I'm not sure that that has been
7 excluded or not, but we did want to comment on that
8 because there was some testimony given back in
9 Washington over one state that had some concern
10 kind of in the reverse.
11 Regarding the section dealing with the
12 identification and testing of materials to determine
13 whether or not they are hazardous, we are concerned
14 with the cost of implementation. In Washington,
15 D.C., at the February 23rd hearings, an Environmental
16 Engineer with the Association of American Railroads
17 testified that a full analysis would cost approximate-
18 ly $6,000 per sample. He was told by the EPA panel
19 at that time that this seemed much too high and that
20 the EP estimates were only about $390 per sample.
21 This approach seems still somewhat
22 irresponsible on the part of EPA. The low cost of
23 $390 given by EPA estimates at that time is actually
24 more costly than if the material were actually gone
25 ahead and disposed of as a hazardous material. So
-------
238
1 what, in essence, is being advocated is a generator
2 simply call everything hazardous and handle it
3 accordingly, because the testing requirements to
4 prove otherwise are actually more costJy than
5 disposing of the waste at a Class 1 facility. We
6 urge that less costly testing procedures be offered
7 by EPA.
8 I am going to comment on Section 3002 at
9 this point. Is that appropriate?
10 MS. DARRAH: It is. You have about a
11 minute and a half left.
12 VR. MEICHTRY: Okay. Very briefly, then,
13 the manifests that have been indicated in the draft
14 regulations, we would urge that more complete mani-
15 fests be used, similar to those used in California
16 that have more information that is valuable to all of
17 those people involved an the management of these
18 wastes.
19 Another area -- well, why don't I end my
20 comment there. I have prepared written testimony
21 that I will submit that covers the other sections,
22 3003 and 3004 if you have a time constraint.
23 MS. DARRAH: If you want to try and
24 summarise it in a minute or two --
25 MR. MEICHTRY: I don't think I can.
-------
209
1 MS. PARRAH -- we will be happy -- okay.
2 We will certainly accept it for the transcript.
3 MR. 4'ETCHTRY: Okay..
4 MS. DARRAII: Will you accept questions from
5 the panel?
6 IIR. MFICHTFY: Certainly.
7 HE. LINDSFY: Starting off with the permit
8 priority situation which you discussed with regard
9 to on-site facilities, I guess I just should talk
10 a little bit about the policy we intend to follow.
11 This is all policy and not a regulation, of course.
12 That is, facilities that have NPDFS permits, on-site
13 facilities, will receive further permits when their
14 priority comes up. In other words, when they are
15 reissued with their NPDES permits.
16 With regard to off-site facilities, one of
17 the reasons why we want to give priority to that
18 group of people is that our understanding from your
19 industry is that it would help to have the -- it would
20 help to obtain -- for the facilities to obtain
21 financing, capital, to expand if in fact they did have
22 in their hand the final permit which said that they --
23 it's essentially a blessing, if you will, from the
24 Government. And this would help with the financing.
25 That's one of the reasons why we chose to
-------
210
1 give priority to that category, in order to help
2 obtaining capital. Not so?
3 MR. MEICHTRY: Perhaps I can comment on
4 that, Al.
5 We currently deal with about 40 agencies
6 and receive permits from anywhere from 12 to 15, and
7 quite frankly one more permit in hand isn't going to
8 help our financing one way or the other. We have aM
9 the necessary State permits now.
10 As we understand it, the entire Federal
11 program is administered by the State agencies anywa>.
12 MR. LINDSEY: In California, that would be
13 correct.
14 MR. MEICHTRY: Right.
15 ! MR. LINDSEY: I'm talking about for
16 facilities in states which basically don't have an
17 ongoing operation.
18 MR. MEICHTRY: Well, perhaps in some states
19 where there's very little requirements now, that may
20 be a valid argument. Speaking from our perspective,
21 it would not affect us in that way, and it probably
22 would affect us in the way that I have described.
23 MR. LEHMAM: I had a question on a
24 recommendation you made with respect to 3001, I believ
25 it was, or perhaps it was 3002. But you were urging
-------
211
1 us to adopt a two-step hazardous waste classification
2 system similar to what California has.
3 Mr. Meichtry, my understanding is that,
4 while there is a two-step hazardous waste classifica-
5 tion system in terms of classifying or defining, there
6 are no differences in the technical requirements for
7 the facilities to deal with those different classes.
8 Is that correct?
9 MR. MEICHTRY: There are differences in the
10 way the material is handled and in the technical
11 capabilities of the sites. And this comes in, I
12 guess, a different way from what you might think.
13 Number one, in the transportation, there is
14 a very distinct difference in the management of the
15 waste, and yet prior to any movement the State has
16 to give authorization to, number one, identify the
17 transporter and then the disposal site. From that
18 point where the regulation comes in, I guess or
19 not "regulation," but difference is that in the
I
20 producer of the waste, the generator screens the
21 people much more heavily than he would for what he
22 might consider not an extremely hazardous waste. In
23 other words, when he has to get rid of an extremely
24 hazardous waste, he looks that much harder at the
25 people involved. So it keys that part of the process.
-------
212
1 MR. LEHMAN: But just to follow up on that,
2 so I understand it, the'State of California in this
3 system does not necessarily apply a different
4 standard for disposal to these different classes?
5 MR. MEICHTRY- Yes, they do.
6 MR. LEHMAN: They do?
7 MR. MEICHTRY: Yes. Some of them are
8 required to be processed. Some of them cannot be
9 disposed of within the state by conventional methocs.
10 Water-reactive materials are an example.
11 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Well, that's a ban out
12 of one type of facility?
13 MR. MEICHTRY: No. It's statewide.
14 MR. LEHMAN: No. I mean statewide, but as
15 far as -- that's a ban. Okay. It's not a different
16 level of a standard, unless --
17 MR. MEICHTRY: No, it's not a ban.
18 MR. LEHMAN: -- you want to say it's a
19 zero standard.
20 MR. MEICHTRY: It's not a ban, because the
21 materials can be handled if the proper facilities
22 are found which are available for small quantities
23 of highly or extremely hazardous waste that can be
24 handled. But until the State is guaranteed that they,
25 number one, are going to be transported correctly and
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
213
handled correctly they will not let the generator
move that material, which we feel is a valid way to
approach the problem.
MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Let me think about that.
Let me just pursue it so I get it right.
The basic point that I'm trying to find out
is previous speakers have stated that we ought to
have a two-step or a three-step or a five-step
hazardous waste classification system, and then
associated with each class -- I'm talking about within
the hazardous waste category, not a Class 1, 2, or 3
facility like California.
MR. MT.ICHTRY No.
MR. LFHMAN. Associated with each of those
classes, have a difCerent set of technic al standards
for treatment, for storage, for disposal. Now what
I am trying to find out is under the two-step
California system are there different treatments for
storage and dis p o s a 1 standards for those two classes?
MR. ME1CHTRY. Are you talking strictly
about land disposal or, in fact, how they are
ultimately handled''
MR. LEHMAN: Let's start with land disposal.
"'IR . MEICHTRY: Okav . For land disposal
between hazardous and extremely hazardous, probably
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
214
not .
MR. LEHMAN: They are handled the same?
MR. MEICHTRY: In other words, they go to a
Class 1 facility. They are handled similarly at
all Class 1 facilities if they are disposed of on the
land .
Within the Class 1 facility, they may be
handled in a variety of v/ays. There may be four
different methods to handle waste within the Class 1
facility, not including treatment. I'm just talking
about land disposal.
Then you move into the next tier, which is
treatment, and there you get into a whole variety o:°
methods. We have over a dozen methods, depending on
the type of waste. And again, depending on the type
of waste, if the facilities are not available you
actually go ahead and design and build new facilities.
MR. LEHMAN: What I am driving at is does
the State of California have a different set of
treatment standards for very hazardous waste than they
have for regular hazardous waste?
MR. MEICHTRY: Yes.
MR. LEHMAN: The written standards are
different'
?.JH. MEICHTRY: No. The answer is they
-------
215
1 cannot be disposed of in traditional Class 1 methods.
2 Okay. So your analysis, is there a ban on disposal,
3 it may be semantics. I don't know, but the point
4 is --
5 MR. LEHMAN: I'm really getting wrapped up
6 here.
7 MR. MEICHTRY: They have to be treated
8 differently, and by going to this extremely hazardous
9 classification they get that specialized care that is
10 required of them. They maybe have to transport it
H on a separate vehicle; you know, go to a special
12 destruction facility and this type of thing.
13 So I guess what we are advocating- is we
14 not treat all hazardous wastes the same because there
15 are truly some that should be handled and watched
Ig more closely than others.
17 MR. FIELDS: Mr. Meichtry, I think in your
18 statement you mentioned that you felt recycled
19 materials should be regulated.
20 J'R. MEICHTRY: Which materials'
21 MR. FIELDS: Recycled materials, waste oil ,
22 et cetera. Could you be more specific in terms of
23 3004, for example? When you say "regulated," what
24 do you mean, exactly?
25 MR. X'EICHTRY: Okay. What we are concerned
-------
216
1 about is the tracking system, not breakdown. Primar:-
2 ly the manifest.
3 MR. FIELDS. So you are not talking about
4 the recordkeeping, financial responsibilities, and
5 those kinds of things?
6 MR. MEICHTRY: If it winds up -- if then-
7 is a legitimate recycler involved, we think that he
8 should not follow the same requirements that are set
9 down under 3004. Okay. It's not, a land disoosal
10 site. Is that -- are we --
11 MR. FIELDS: But he is treating waste in
12 your scheme. You are going to regulate it and it's
13 going to be a waste material that he is treating.
14 Are you saying the regulation stops once he accepts
15 that naterial?
16 MR. MEICHTRY- I am saying 0004 regulation
17 would stop. He certainly has not been stopped beinp
18 regulated by other agencies.
19 MR. FIELDS: So once he receives that
20 material that he is going to recycle, he won't lie
21 regulated by 3004 anymore?
22 MB. MFIC'HTRY- 1 would not think so. If
23 it's going into waste oil re-re fining, i/ he doesn't
24 meet his specifications for remanufacturing that oil,
25 for instance, he's not going to sell any. Therefore,
-------
217
1 he will have a waste again that now will become
2 reregulated by P.CRA . There is that break point in
3 there.
4 Wo feel, number one, that it should be
5 tracked all the way to his facility, and, number two,
6 if he in fact reclaims it and markets it and it's
7 nontoxic in the marketplace, then he's covered by
8 many other regulations other than the 300-1.
9 im. L1NDSEY: Can I follow up on that1?
10 As I discussed briefly with l
-------
218
1 to go anywhere else from Point A to Point B. But Lf
2 it's by truck transportation you would consider
3 regulating it, especially if it's any great distance.
4 So the transportation kind of becomes the key.
5 f.:S . SCHAFFER. As a followup to that, the
6 way that the regulations are written now if a waste
7 is not covered by the manifest system and it is
8 considered a hazardous material it is still covered
9 by the hazardous material transportation regulations
10 under DOT. Do you think that there is not enough
11 control using the bills of lading and the requirements
12 that are in the DOT regs for materials that are going
13 to reclaimers such that we should require a manifest
14 and require just basically more paperwork for
15 recycled, reclaimed wastes?
16 MR. MEICHTRY: Hopefully, we wouldn't
17 create more paperwork. Maybe we could integrate the
18 two forms. In many cases, a material can truly be
19 handled for a reclaimer that he has handled several
20 times before. But for some reason or other, and it
21 happens quite frequently, this particular time the
22 material has too many contaminants, it has sludge
23 deposits in it, you name it and it happens, and he
24 couldn't handle it this time. So he says, "Thanks
25 for sending it, but I can't take it."
-------
219
1 So now the transporter that took the waste,
2 he was headed this direction, finds out -- he shows
3 up and finds out he can't handle it. He already now
4 has a negative cash flow going into that project,
5 and for him to turn around and take it to a disposal
6 site and pay more to get rid of it, he has even more
7 negative cash flow involved. So he has a tremendous
8 incentive to do something else with it.
9 If that material were tracked all the way
10 through, somebody would find out. In a lot of cases
11 we read about, that's exactly the situation that
12 occurred. He may have had all the good intentions
13 in the world to recycle several hundred drums of
14 something but just couldn't put the deal together,
15 and so it wound up in a back lot or a warehouse or
16 someplace else.
17 MS. SCHAFFER: Thank you.
18 MR. TRASK: If I might follow on with this
19 manifest thing just a little bit.
20 You stated in your statement that there
21 ought to be more information on the manifest, and
22 I think you said somewhat like the California situa-
23 tion. Could you give some examples of exactly what
24 you have in mind there, and could you also perhaps
25 compare it with the DOT shipping paper requirements
-------
220
1 and how much more there would need to be?
2 MR. MEICIITRY: Well, I can compare the
3 proposed manifest in hero in the -- I don't know
4 where it is. If you lay them next to each other,
5 there's much more usable information, I guess is
6 the best way to put it, with the manifests we now
7 use in the state. This information is usable to
8 the generator, the transporter, and the disposai site
9 operator. V/hether it's useful to a regulatory agency
10 or not, I don't know. And that's really not our
11 concern. It certainly would be nice if it all fit,
12 but our concern is that we as day-to-day operators
13 have the correct information.
14 I1R . TRASK : Can you describe the kinds of
15 information? What are we lacking is what I am trying
16 to get at.
17 MR. MEICHTRY: Maybe I can do that with you
18 privately by comparing the two. It's hard to do it
19 for a full panel.
20 MS. DARRAH: Are you submitting written
21 comments with that information?
22 MR. MEICHTRY: Yes, we are. I'll submit a
23 copy of the manifest along with that and can certainly
24 go through and compare the two and show the
25 deficiencies in what has been proposed here.
-------
1 MS . DARP.AH : Okay.
2 MR . TF.ASK : In another instance, you paid
3 that there should be a separate hazard category ! i ke
4 an ultrahazard or extremely hazard category. You
5 mentioned cyanide, dioxins, and DCB's as possible
6 candidates for that ultra category. Do you have
7 others, and are you addressing that in your statement
8 as 'vel 1?
9 m. ?:T-,l(MiTSY : Not specifically. There are
10 several others, and they have been identified in t h<-
11 California regulations. People from the s i a t e !)<->;<"'
12 i are inueh more qualified to sp.--ak to this. Sn^r i f ' i .1 I
13 Iv, I could iiic'ludo those.
14 "'H . VRAfUC It -, ou ine[ude those in you'
15 statement, we would Hppreciat» that.
16 ;J3. "'aCKTP.Y- Cortainly.
17 MP. . T R A S X P e r h a p s also the b a sis i o r
18 )'nc 1 ud ' a p; those as to why those are inc!u c If there
23 If 1 hc-v haven't alreadv done it, I'll see v>hnt [ c;,.u
I
24 do addi ( i on a 1 1 y . j
25 :,;p , CORSO^T: One area you merit! >ned JM v-,. .
-------
222
1 testimony concerns the cost of implementation. You
2 referenced some of the cost you at least heard of
3 from Vlashi ngton . I am wondering, if we were to
4 follow the California system, which as I understand
5 it starts with looking at a particular list of wastes
6 and analysis for concentration and then a formula of
7 sorts and determine the hazard rating of a waste,
8 how you compute the cost of that sort of system as;
9 opposed to the screening test we have proposed. How
10 much do you think it costs to test a waste in
11 California, looking at the 700 and some odd things
12 that may be there and cause a waste to be defined as
13 hazardous?
14 MR. MEICHTRY: I don't know what it would
15 cost .
16 Let me maybe back up a little bit and ask
17 a question. And that is, the way that I read the
18 regulations, is that this test would perhaps have to
19 be performed each time or any time that a producer
20 thought he would not -- a particular load would not
21 be hazardous. Is that correct or not?
22 MS. DARRAH: Al, do you want to clarify
23 the testing that's required?
24 MR. CORSON: What we have stated in our
25 regulations is that if your waste is listed, it is
-------
223
1 hazardous. It provides a means for a generator to
2 demonstrate that his waste does not belong by
3 specifying certain tests.
If, on the other hand, his waste is not
listed, a generator is required to do an evaluation
as to whether or not his waste is defined by any of
the characteristics that are defined: Ignitabi1ity,
corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity. If he
does not change his process nor his input materials,
we accept that initial evaluation against those
11 characteristics.
12 MR. MEICHTRY: So what you are saying is
13 it's kind of a one-time --
14 MR. CORSO'V: It's kind of a one-shot deal.
15 MR. MEICHTRY: Unless he changes his
16 process or materials9
17 MR. CORSON: Yes, if he changes his process
18 or input materials.
19 MS. DARRAH Can I clarify something while
20 iye are on this?
21 I take it this misunderstanding was the
22 reason for your comment that the $390 testing cost
23 was more expensive than the disposal itself?
24 MR. MEICIITRY: If a producer had to go
through that every time, yes.
-------
9
10
224
I'S. DARRAH Okay. f was surprised none oi
the other people were getting at that.
MR. COUSON: That was next.
MR. I'EICHTRY: So mavbe that eliminates that
'R . DA'IRAH: Okay.
"' !J MR. "riCUTRY- I'm not a producer, but I
jl
8 |l a.n concernec' about receiving n lot of Material that.
i la be receiving.
MR . CORSON. I gather that in part -- ag.ain. j
I i-'ios^ this is in re: spouse to a question that Harry i
i
',,; || j.s.'e.[ There's quit'1 a bit of information that you |
'i '<
*} I n^oti as a treatment, storage, and disposal facilily j
14 | wlii i h you are ;;e I Ling an t oma t i c a] 1 v by nature o i
15 I i'ie California lav; ivhich requires more detailed in for
16 ' nia i ion about t'-ie cnernical composition of a waste
tli ;i n \ve are proposing in our national standards. i
18 11 a; a. l her bv your conments that you 'iro advocating c ^ a r.
19
20
24
25 |
thai, kind of i n f ovnat ion nigiil be very desirable lor
the '."i004 person to have.
I am i'onderin!; ivli^ t ;ior you are ad voc a t i r <-
iaal, flie 500A ;)erson aet it b\' nature' oJ cue regula-
tion as ooDosed to the contractual oporai ion betwf'en j
the :;002 and the 3004 peoole.
fill. I'^llCHrRY What we have found is that.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
24
25
225
even though a lot of that information is provided
on the manifest, we are required to go through
substantial testing to verify it. Oftentimes the
manifest is set up and reported in such a way that
it's a range of material or material within a range
of concentration. And for us the range is not really
tliat useiul. so wo go back through and perform a
uunber of tests Th i s comes at no charge to the
customer on each direct load, but it's built into our
disposal rate overall.
So 1 guess what I am saying is we test
much more stringently just to process the waste than
what would be required to identify the material as
Hazardous in (.he first place.
MR. TRASK: Then do I understand from that
comment that the information, the additional informa-
tion, you wanted on the manifest would not relate to
the .specific chemical composition of the waste?
KB. UEICIITRY: No. It's very important,
berau.sc> that tells us where to start looking. We
could in no way begin an exploration analysis on each
load. 1 r, ' s very important to us to know the
23 I constituents because that tells us where to look and
i
what to test lor. So it probably saves 90 percent
right off the bat in just time and effort in our
-------
226
1 chemical analysis.
2 MR. TRASK: Then you are suggesting
3 shifting some of the testing burden onto the genera-
4 tor; is that what you are saying?
5 MR. MEICHTRY: Onto the generator, yes.
6 But, again as I indicated, each load -- the generator
7 doesn't have the capability to test each load and
8 give us the specific information that we need. He
9 can give us a range, and that's about as good a job
10 as he can be expected to do, because his lab usually
11 is not involved when the load is picked up. It's
12 coming from a tank or lagoon or something. He knows
13 more or less what was put into that tank, but tor
14 each load that's pulled out we know the range. We
15 know where to look, but we rely on our analysis for
16 the specific data.
17 MR. CORSON: Just one other further area.
18 Does the California system apply equally
19 to on-site versus off-site waste management?
20 MR. MEICHTRY: It's beginning to. This
21 year, I believe, is the first year that it's being
22 implemented for on-site.
23 MR. CORSON: Then it would require, if it
24 is on-site, the same level of detail in terms of
25 composition of what is going into the site and so on?
-------
227
1 MR. MEICHTRY: I believe so.
2 MS. DARRAII : Okay. Thank you very much for
3 your comments.
4 I have five people who have asked to speak
5 today who are not on the list. I have called every-
6 one's name who had preregistered at least once.
7 At the end of all the comments, I will go through
8 the list again and read the names of the peonle who
9 have not responded.
10 But I will now read the names of the five
11 people who are yet to testify in the order in which
12 I am going to call them after an announcement and
13 a break .
14 They are Albert Wellman, Neil Estrada,
15 Dr. David Storm, Tibaldo Canez, and Dr. Robert
16 Stephens.
17 Fred has an announcement, and then we will
18 take a 10-minute break and reconvene at 4:05.
19 MR. LINDSEY: The State and National
20 representatives who are expecting to attend a meeting
21 : tonight on the ADP System and on the State authoriza-
22 tion procedure, that meeting will be held in this
23 room at 7:00 o'clock, assuming this gets over by
24 then.
25 If this doesn't get over by then, it will
-------
228
1 start immediately after it's over.
2 MS. DARRAH: Okay. See you in 10 minutes.
3 (Short recess.)
4 MS. DARRAH: Albert Wellman, California
5 Regional Water Quality Control Board9
6 MR. WELL'IAN: My name is Albert Wei] man.
7 I am a sanitary engineering associate on the staff
8 of the Californinia North Coast Regional Water
9 Control Board. My work involves waste disposal
10 practices incident to the application of sapstain
11 control chemicals to newly manufactured lumber.
12 One of the most commonly encountered ac:i\e
13 ingredients in sapstain control chemical formulations,
14 pentachloropheno1, was cited by the California
15 Department of Fish and Game as the second highest
16 cause of fish poisoning incidents caused by
17 pesticides used in or near California waters for 1961
18 to 1976.
19 Appendices to the proposed rules identiiv
20 as hazardous wastes this compound in both its actLve
21 form, pentachlorophenol, and its commonly encountered
22 soluble form, sodium pentachlorophenate. in veiw
23 of the ubiquitous nature of sodium and the compara-
24 tively simple pH solubility properties of penta-
25 chlorophenol , this dual listing might, appear
-------
229
1 redundant. However, my office has encountered
2 enforcement action evasion attempts based upon an
3 alleged difference between the two compounds. If
4 such evasion were successful, one might expect to
5 encounter pentachlorophenate formulated and marketed
6 with another monovalent cation, such as potassium,
7 to circumvent control by the regulations as proposed.
8 Most of the sapstain control chemical
9 formulations which I have encountered list "other
10 ch1orophenol s" as active ingredients. These are
11 usually precursors to pentachlorophenol which
12 are produced as bv-products during the successive
13 chlorination of phenol. Three of these precursors --
14 2-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-
15 trion1orophenol -- are listed in Appendix V of the
16 proposed rules. An obvious omission, however, is
17 2 , 3 , 4 , 6~tetrachloropheno1 . Tetrachlorophenol is
18 sufficiently active biologically to be( listed as a
19 principal active ingredient of at least one sapstain
20 control chemical formulation. V/e have used this
21 formulation to estimate u 96-hour LC50 for raanboe
22 trout fry of 14 oarts per billion tetrachlorophenol.
23 These other chlorinated phenols could also
24 be encountered as chlorophenates in wastes, and
25 consideration might be given Lo specific listing as
-------
230
1 such in Appendix V.
2 In summary, I v/ish to suggest that the
3 appendices used for identification of hazardous wastes
4 should be modified to include tetrachlorophenol a.id
5 the phenates of the listed phenols either without
6 reference to any specific citation or with all readily
7 soluble cations.
8 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Will you accept
9 questions from the panel?
10 MR. BELLMAN: I certainly will. However,
11 I would hasten to mention at this point that most
12 of my experience is with sawmills, and I have little
13 experience with the sort of regulations which have
14 been the subject of most of the questions posed
15 recently.
16 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
17 Very clear. Thank you.
18 I haven't mentioned here, I did mention
19 in Denver and people seemed to appreciate it, that
20 if you do want to make positive comments about the
21 regulations or support anything we have done I will
22 give you additional time over and above your 10
23 minutes. So you might want to consider that in the
24 next couple days' comments.
25 The next person is Neil Estrada, Reichho Id
-------
231
1 Chemicals, it looks like here.
2 MR. ESTRADA: My name is Neil Estrada.
3 I am Vice President-General Manager of Reichhold
4 Chemicals in South San Francisco. I am not appearing
5 on behalf of my company, although v/e are concerned
6 about this matter of discussion today. Rather, I
7 am appearing on behalf of the Golden Gate Paint and
8 Coatings Association, which is the local Bay Area
9 Chapter of the National Paint and Coatings Association
10 There are some 25 or so of these around the
11 country. This is an association, both local and
12 national, that consists of a majority of the paint
13 manufacturing companies in the country, and in the
14 California area there are almost 200 paint manufactur-
15 ers. So it's a significant industry in our particular
16 economy.
17 More to the point, it's a very significant
18 industry with respect to its function, which is,
19 namely, that of, first of all, protecting the various
20 surfaces that paints are applied to and, secondarily,
21 of making them aesthetically pleasing. The protective
22 function, however, is the vital one, the one that
23 everybody takes for granted, since you normally
24 buy paint for appearance rather than the fact it is
25 going to protect your house, car, or whatever.
-------
232
I do not have written details on mv
1
2 presentation. However, they will be provided by the
3 end of this week.
4 The Association, both locally and na11orally
5 is a cooperative, nonprofit-type of organization.
6 Obviously, it has the function of furthering the
7 interests of that industry, the paint industry.
8 Paint is a somewhat complex material. It
9 involves not only inorganic materials, such as
10 pigments like titanium dioxide, lead chromate,
11 materials of this type; it also involves a great
12 many organic compounds , including solvents which are
13 fugitive in the application and development of the
14 paint function. So we introduce a new factor bevond
15 I some of those discussions here todav of the organic,
i
16 componen t.
17 Paint is at the present time and especially
18 in California rather stringently regulated. We are
19i not allowed to use certain compounds. In California,
20 we are being told to reduce the use of organic
21 volatile components to a rather marked degree. The
22 industry has for the most part worked with Government
23 agencies in trying to develop what we consider
24 workable, efficient regulations that will prevent
25 undue costs with no benefits. We try and keep the
-------
1 members of the industry advised of their position i
2 with respect to regulations. ",','e in general do wor1; i
I
3 v;ith regulator*/ bodies at the pr o I iir inary stage. j
i
t
4 Tbo Indus try has on occasion been in !
I
5 litigation v,T 11 h some of the national p r o u p s on i t e n s |
t
6 that they felt were critical to the survival of I he 1
7 industry and to the people that the iu d u s try s e r ve s. j
(
8 We've won some, and we've lost some. i
9 Mv remarks today wilI have to be rather
10 general because the documentation i.-, detailed. Some j
;
11 of it's chemical, some of it's physical, sor,->e of it's j
12 even financial.
13 One of the thinps that concerns us locally,
14 because we have to deal with the shortage, is \vo
15 don't have very nu>ny suitable sites for disposal
16 Vf'c see this becoming even more stringent in the future
17 if the present regulations on RCRA go forward as thc\
18 seem to be proposed. The possibility of losing tho
19 few sites thai v e have would ore;ite a cjreat burden on
20 t h e i n d u s t r y .
21 This political aspect of disposal silos LS,
22 I think, recognized by the EPA. They havi certainly
23 betn told about it nany times. It's not directly the
24 responsibility of EPA to provide disposal sites, 'out
25 I think that if vou are go in ft to rr-stric materials
-------
234
1 to disposal in controlled sites that there would, by
2 implication, be some responsibility to provide a
3 better means than exist in the present oolitical and
4 environmental atmosphere that exists in the country
5 at this t ime.
6 Unless our industry and all industries in
7 their own way are given some relief in this matter,
8 we see two possible outcomes: One, some evasion of
9 the regulations that would otherwise be met because
10 of the economic burden; and the other would be
11 enhanced costs to the eventual user, which includes
12 al1 o f us here.
13 I speak for the group as a whole and
14 personally as well. We have no argument with the
15 RCRA philosophy. Our concern is not so much the
16 part from the cradle on through its transmission to
17 a large extent to the grave. We think the grave
18 aspect is not adequate . We do have some concern about
19 the intervening stages, however.
20 Paints are defined in the proposed rules
21 as -- that is, certain wastes from paints are defined
22 as being hazardous. Specifically, to mention the
23 detail, paint wastes such as used rags, slops, latex
24 sludge, spent solvent. I recognize most of these.
25 I don't know what the technical definition for slops
-------
235
1 is. We do know that used rags are a factor. Many
2 paint companies recycle their used rags, and keeping
3 track of this sort of thing on a daily, weekly,
4 monthly basis might be a little awkward.
5 And then it goes on in the immediately
6 following phrase to say "water-based paint wastes."
7 I don't really understand the distinction between
8 latex sludge, which typically comes from the produc-
9 tion not only of latex but of latex paint, and water-
10 base paint wastes. Essentially, all of the wastes
11 of the sort we are talking about on a water face are
12 latex.
13 Because of the rather wide variety of
14 materials that paint companies must handle, their
15 wastes, while recognized as being hazardous when they
16 contain solvents or hazardous when they contain cer-
17 i tain pigments such as lead pigments which are
18 readily extractable with acidic acid, these wastes
19 are difficult to analyze.
20 The paint company is characterized by a
21 lot of companies, the major companies comprising some
22 80 percent of the production. But there are still a
23 lot of very small paint companies, down to two- or
24 three-men operations, who do not have the capability
25 or the expertise to do the analytical work called for
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
235
in some of these suggested rules. The burden on them
of trying Lo get this done commercially would be
rather significant and, we would argue, would not
particularly help the recovery of resources.
One of the things that occurs to me that
represents something of a contradiction is that under
the definition of toxic materials I find that
extraction in the proposed method, which has been
challenged here rather forcefully, mercury is allowed
! at the level of .02 milligrams per liter. In the
11 | particular community that our plant runs its opera-
12
13
14
15
16
I tion, mercury is allowed at the amount of one milli-
gram per liter in our wastewater. One of the batt'es
) that the paint industry won was to allow the inclusion
of mercury preservatives in latex paint. It seems
i a little difficult to limit mercury to such a low
i
17 I! level or to any level if you are allowed to us it
|l
18 j by other legislation. V.'e feel that some consideration
19 i should be given to this particular what's the
20 i word? Well, I am at an impasse. It's a contradiction
21 ! ~Ve would agree with several of the commerts
22 | made earlier that the methods of analysis for toxic
23 i material, the definition at least, is probably not
24
25
i a good one. In the context of our sludges, frankl-y
i I don't know what the results of running such a test
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
237
would be in general. But we know we have handled
certain toxic materials, including pentachlorophenol,
in certain kinds of paints. We have lead pigments.
We have some mercury involved. We use barium
compounds for specific purposes. We use things like
cobalt, which is a bad material in certain conditions
but in the paint sense is vital if you are going to
get the thing to dry. We do know that the disposal
of latex sludge will become more of a problem to the
paint industry in the future in California, and to
some extent probably in other states.
The local California regulation advocated
by CARB and adopted by the significant Air Pollution
Management Districts or Air Quality Management
Districts restricts the amount of solvent to be used
in paint starting in .September of this year and going
on for about three nore years. This, as I mentioned.
will increase the amount of latex sludge. In general,
latex sludge is not toxic in the sense called for
by the definition of "extraction," with the possible
exception of this mercury question. But I know from
other aspects that latex, per se, can be toxic if you
i use n t! i f ferent test. If you use the test that is
normally used on \».astewater coming out of a sewage
i
j treatment plant, the toxicity of TI.MoO latex wastes
-------
238
1 and sludges could be highly toxic under those
2 condit ions.
3 We further feel that at least for the
4 industry I'm speaking for, the painting industry,
5 the level of 100 kilograms per month is both too
6 little and too much. I think that the classification
7 | of a hazard would imply -- and classification has been
8 I discussed here. The classification of a hazard wotld
9 imnly different levels allowed for different indus-
10 tries or given applications. We do feel that, in
11 general, the higher level that the EPA has considered
12 and has asked for comments on might be more generally
13 acceptable. We do know that there are wastes of the
14 cyanide, and in our case such things as diazocyan ates,
15 which should not be tolerated even at the 100 kilogram
16 per month level unless adequate treatment is provided.
17 This, in brief, is some of the points that
18 we would like to have considered. The detailed
19 discussion of the paint industry's position and the
20 local group here in the Ray Area will be given in
21 written form.
22 I would only urge that in this area, as in
23 some other Government areas, that the regulations
24 finally adopted be practical in the sense that they
25 are applicable to and usable by industry, because the
-------
239
1 industry will basically bear the brunt of this kind
2 of regulation. In a reasonable way, we see no
3 problem. But some of the points that have been
4 raised by others here and that I have raised do give
5 us certain concern.
6 MS. DARRAH : Thank you, Mr. Estrada. Would
7 you answer questions for us?
8 MR. ESTRADA: Yes.
9 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
10 MR. FIELDS: Mr. Estrada, in your statement,
11 you indicated that you were already stringently
12 regulated by the State of California now and you felt
13 that there were going to be even fewer sites in the
14 future as a result of the implementation of these
15 Subtitle C regulations we are discussing today.
16 I was wondering if you can generally
17 indicate in what aspects these regulations are more
18 stringent than the California regs. Are you talking
19 about the operating design procedures or the
20 administrative requirements or what?
21 MR. ESTRADA: I think that the argument
22 would be that we have a limited number of sites
23 currently available for disposal of what we consider
24 hazardous wastes in the paint industry. If you put
25 forward some of the financial and other requirements
-------
1 that are indicated in the rules and if community
2 activity is generated because of open meetings,
3 discussions, we can see some of these sites being
4 closed. We know that some of them are terminal as
5 far as known life goes already.
!
6 If this happens, then we are being
7 constricted even further, economically if nothing
8 I else. True, we can ship to Nevada or someplace like
i i
9 this, but this puts an unnecessary burden, we think,
10| on any industry to be forced to transport wastes
11 I over unduly long distances.
|
12j MR. FIELDS: So you are talking about the
13 j administrative and financial requirements?
14 MR. ESTBAPA That might well generate
15 fewer si tes.
16 MR. FIELDS: Okay.
17 MR. TRASK: You indicated that the 300
18 kilogram per month conditional exclusion was both
19 too little and too much, and I gather it was too
20 Little in the case of some kinds of wastes where vou
21 go to a thousand kilograms per month, and even then
22 you said something about diazocyanate wastes.
23 MR. FSTRADA: Yes.
24 }*R. TP.ASK Do you have a quantity in mind
25 I there that would fit your concern about this hundred
-------
241
1 kilos'?
2 'TR. ESTPAP/s : Sell, I used d i azocy a na t e
3 a s a r a t h e r toxic, n c t i v e c he mic a 1 . There are others
4 that might v, e 1 ] tit in the same category. It would
5 seem only sensible to take some account of the nature
6 or the degree of toxirity of materials. This is
7 something that doesn't seem to be too well addressed
8 in the present rules.
9 Whether you classify it in two levels as
10 California does, and I think the industry currently
11 operates reasonably well under California regulations.
12 the paint industry does, that is one approach. But
13 it doesn't make any sense to a chemist, and I happen
14 to be trained in that discipline, to equate the
15 t o x i c i t y of c ya n i d e or d i a zo c y a n a t e with a h a z a r d
16 that might be encountered in disposing of several
17 hundred bags that had once contained a little 1 e: a d
18 pigment or drums that have contained some small
19 amount -- have a residue of some small anount oJ an
20 organic material such as an amin or something like
21 this that can have negative effects.
22 MR. TRASK : Do you have some other examples
23 of these extrer.ely hazardous wastes like diazocya-
24 nates?
25 MR. p.PTRADA: Well, a fair number of the
-------
242
1 chemicals used. Mecurials that are used to protect
2 latex paint are about the only things that are found
3 to be suitable for that are in themselves quite
4 toxic. So that would be an example. Some of the
5 raw materials used by paint makers. Pentachlorophenol
6 is a toxic material. That's why it is used. As it
7 turns out in the state of California, it's highly
8 regulated as a commercial poison. I think the
9 handling of that as a material of commerce is well
10 regulated. The disposal of wastes might be something
11 different.
12 MR. TRASK: Are any of these currently
13 i handled in this extremely hazardous category we have
14 referred to here today in the state of California?
15 Do you have to get a special permit in order to --
16 MR. ESTRADA: I am not familiar with the
17 extremely hazardous category that the State of
18 California has. The wastes that we generate are
19 Class 1, just ordinary hazardous. You can't speak
20 of something as being ordinarily hazardous. It's a
21 confusion in terms. This is the criticism, I think,
22 of not recognizing some degree of hazard.
23 MR. TRASK: Okay.
24 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
25 MR. ESTRADA: Thank you.
-------
243
1 MS. DARRAH: Dr. David Storm, State of
2 California.
3 DR. STORM: Thank you very much for the
4 opportunity to speak today on the proposed EPA
5 regulat ions.
6 I will concentrate largely on 3001 this
7 afternoon, and I do want to point out before I begin
8 that there are many things in the EPA regulations
9 that we do like but, due to the time constraints,
10 unfortunately I will have to concentrate on some of
11 the concerns we have instead.
12 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Would you state your
13 name and affiliation for the record, please?
14 DR. STROM: I am sorry. I am David Storm,
15 Hazardous Materials Management Section, California
16 Department of Health Services. We administer the
17 Hazardous Waste Control Program in California.
18 The staff of the California Department of
19 Health Services, Hazardous Materials Management
20 Section, has reviewed the proposed Federal regulations
21 on the identification and listing of hazardous wastes.
22 And we have submitted detailed written comments.
23 Today I will provide a brief summary of those written
24 comments.
25 Many of the regulations that we have
-------
244
1 provided to EPA on the proposed criteria we already
2 do enforce or use in the state of California, so we
3 do have some experience involved in the using and
4 enforcement of an identification system for hazardous
5 wastes.
6 In regard to corrosive wastes, it is
7 recommended that the definition of corrosive wastes
8 be expanded to include damage to living: tissue. Th is
9 is the traditional approach to defining corrosivity
10 and injury to persons through direct contact to
11 corrosive wastes is a real and all too common a
12 problem in their management. We would recommend that
13 the DOT skin corrosion test 49 CFR be used to
14 define corrosive wastes.
15 In regard to the pH definition of corrosive
16 wastes, it should not be limited to aqueous wastes
17 only. The wet or dry state of a waste is in the
18 environment is a very unpredictable and fleeting
19 condition, especially if the waste is not properly
20 managed to insure that it remains in its deposit
21 on the ground. Thus, if a dry or nonaqueous waste
22 when mixed with water produces a corrosive solution,
23 it should be considered corrosive. This would be
24 consistent with EPA's approach to defining toxic
25 wastes. That is, if a waste can produce a corrosive
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
245
extract which could become available to the environ-
ment, it should be called corrosive.
We are very concerned that EPA has chosen
to define toxic wastes only in terms of oral toxicity
hazards which may be posed to persons via drinking
water. Such an approach, we feel, does not adequately
define hazardous wastes. The general definition of
hazardous wastes in PL 94-580 does not place
emphasis on drinking water hazards nor water quality.
Long- and short-term inhalation hazards
o o s e d b v the v a n o r s an d d u s t s o f hazardous w a s t e s
are very real, as demonstrated by the very often
mentioned Love Canal incident and approximately 20
acute inhalation incidents that we nave provided in
some of our written comments.
Setting airborne limits on substances at
hazardous waste facilities as proposed in Gubpart
C is r e a 1 1 5 no; adequate, as it presumes that
criteria based mi vater quality and oral toxicity
would channel al 1 wastes posing such vapor and
aerosol hazards into controlled and monitored
facilities. Wastes of a specific hazard category,
however, cannot be reasonably identified and regulated
according to that, hazard unless they are defined
through criteria which address that hazard. In our
-------
246
1 written comments, we provide an approach to definirg
2 inhalation hazards.
3 I'll speak just very briefly on the
4 extraction procedure, because Dr. Stephens of our
5 section will talk about that in more detail. But I
6 will say just a few brief statements.
7 We have concerns with the extraction
8 procedure because we feel that so much importance
9 should not be placed o,n such a single test. Toxic
10 waste should not be defined only in terms of its
11 potential to produce a toxic extract but also in
12 terms of its inherent toxic properties. A relatively
13 mild, 24-hour extraction procedure cannot predict
14 the long-term behavior of a waste exposed possibly
15 for years or decades to a leaching environment. Our
16 knowledge is presently too meager on the factors that
17 affect leachabi1ity, such as weathering, freeze-thaw
18 phenomena, biological alteration, redox reactions,
19 complexing agents in leachates, and the comingling
20 of different wastes to commit an entire rational
21 hazardous waste program to one unproven test.
22 I just got bitten by a mosquito. He
23 didn't like what I said, I guess.
24 The proposed toxicity definition makes no
25 reference to nor addresses one-phase liquid solutions.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
247
If these wastes are to be tested directly for
contaminant levels in Section 250.13(d) and for the
mutagenicity, bioaccumulative and toxicity properties,
it should be explicitly stated in the regulations.
Also, we would recommend that the conditions
and cases for determining when the EP is required
should be clearly set forth. That is, does a liquid
have to contain one-tenth percent, one percent, 10
percent, or 90 percent solids before it's subjected to
the leaching test.
The dilution procedures as presently
described for the EP are not really equitable, as
they could result in a one-phase solution which
normally would be called toxic because of toxic
contaminants in the solution, not being called
hazardous if a solid phase is present. This is
because on close examination of the dilution procedure
you see that the solid is removed, extracted, the
extracts are diluted, that diluted extract is then
recombined with the liquid. The overall effect is
diluting the original solution. If not too much
toxic material leached from that solid, you can result
in a nontoxic liquid from an originally toxic
solution.
The hazardous waste lists we do support.
-------
?48
We do believe that's a rational approach. We've used
that approach in California for about five years now,
and I think most persons in the -.vaste /iianasement
industry do agree that the lists ot toxic substances
and hazardous substances and hazardous wastes are
very helpful in managing thorn.
But we believe that i.hert-1 is need for some
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 ;
8
9 .
10 tive, and oral toxicity tests are required only on
il !| wastes listed in Section 250.14. We don't believe
12
13
t
i
;4| We do recommend that these lisfn aie aot all-inclusive
15
16
II
17 || be added at the boRinning of Section 250.14 to
i|
18 11 clan f v this:
one or more of (he cnarncterisL10s or
19 J! 'Any waste not i IK ted but \\ h L c h has
20
21 properties as determined by the tests
j!
22 ! described in Secl-ion 250.15 ^hall be j
i i
23 considered ha'^.j. ruo u» . '
24 T h e r (>f e r e n c e t o s h i p r> i n t? labels in t h r e e
25 of the last four '. as tea aescnbed in Section 2 5 0.14 (a)
-------
1 is contusing. _OOT Joes not address the shipping
2 names for dilute riixtures, so how does one know wien
3 the- DOT shipping names are applicable17
4 Likewise, it is not clear when o. waste is
5 shipped using a "pesticide" or "priority pollutant"
6 I labei. It appears fiat a Citch-22 situation does
I
"1 I exist. A hazardous ua.ste should not be defined in |
| i
8* terms oi the required shipping name. It should be |
9 t h e other w a y a r o u n d. |
I
1
10 In regard to the actua I en tries on 1 he j
11 list, our written comments recommend several other
i
12 | additions to Section 250.14 fa) and (h) so that they j
13 represent a better cross section of the nation's \
14 ' i ndu s t r le s .
15 For example, we recommend for Section
16 250.1'l(b) that several other SIC industries are
17 represented, and in our written comments that we have
18 mailed to EPA we include qui-te a bit of support
19 documentation taken from California Haz.ardeas
20 Uaste Manifests to support their inclusion on the
21 list.
22 In regard to the lists of toxic substancts
23 in Appendices III, iV, and \, we recommend that these
24 lists be cons 1id a t e d into one single hazardous
25 subs t a. net; list. "ir-is would certainlv be no re
-------
250
1 efficient and, I think, less confusing to the reader,
2 In regard to the testing protocols, it is
3 not clear why the LD50 concentration criteria in
4 Section 250.15(a)(6 ) (iii) are limited to organic
5 chemicals. This limit should apply to all toxic
6 substances, organic and inorganic. Dilute solutions
7 of many toxic metal compounds and toxic ions will
8 otherwise not be addressed.
9 In conclusion, for 3001 we recommend, first
10 of all, the corrosivity also address living tissue
11 damage; that there be a direct aquatic toxicity test
12 on a solution, emulsion, suspension or dispersion of
13 the waste itself; a direct acute oral toxicity test
14 or a calculation on the waste itself; an inhalation
15 test or an inhalation toxicity calculation on the
16 waste to estimate vapor and aerosol hazards; a total
17 concentration limit for selected mutagenicic,
18 bioaccumulative, and persistent substances in addition
19 to the proposed extraction limits; and, finally,
20 the entire Subpart we feel does need some better
21 organization to make it flow a little more smoothly
22 and to prove its understandabi1ity.
23 Unfortunately, there's not enough time to
24 go into any detail here but, again, we have provided
25 recommendations on that in our written comments.
-------
251
1 Briefly, in Subpart B in regard to genera-
2 tors, we would reiterate what Mr. Meichtry said from
3 IT that we do recommend that composition data are
4 required on the manifest. This is necessary, I think,
5 in today's modern, complex society. Waste handlers,
6 waste haulers, the regulatory agencies must have
7 this kind of information to adequately control and
8 manage hazardous wastes. I think that the common
9 name approach is an outmoded concept, and we must
10 attempt to modernize hazardous waste control.
11 I also think that the -- not the letter of
12 the law, the spirit of the law certainly addresses
13 this in RCRA in Subtitle C, Section 3002A, which
14 said that the regulations shall address the require-
15 ments on generators to provide chemical composition
16 data to the persons who are managing the waste. I
17 do not see those regulations in the proposed drafts.
18 Finally, I'll speak briefly on the 100-
19 kilogram limit. We don't support a general across-the
20 board limit or exclusion limit for hazardous wastes.
21 We think that for certain highly toxic, highly
22 dangerous explosive, corrosive, flammable wastes
23 this is not appropriate. In California, we don't
24 recognize it. And it has come out, I think, a number
25 of times that we do have a written permit system for
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
252
extremely hazardous wastes,, and we do not recognize
a lower limit for those types of wastes.
I think I've said everything.
MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
questions for the panel?
DR. STORM: Yes.
MS. DAHRAIT: Okay.
MR. LEHMAN: Dr. Storm, I believe at one
point you indicated that you felt that the test for
genetic activity, bioaccumulat ion , and so on should
be included as part of the definition of hazardous
waste. In other words, instead of being used merely
to get off a list, they ought to be used as part of
a definition itself.
'Vhat I'm trying to drive at is: We have
a fairly limited toxicity characteristic, and then
we have indicated in the advanced notice of proposed
rulemaklng. which was amended to these proposed
regulations, that we intend to go further and provide
more characteristics along those lines later on. I
gathered from your remarks you feel that we ought to
do that now rather than going through this APR process
Is that the general thrust of what you ore trying to
say?
DR. STORM: Your question is in regard tc
-------
253
1 the recommendation to set limits in the wastes for
2 those substances?
3 MR. LEHMAN: No. This was -- maybe I
4 misunderstood it, but I thought that you were basical-
5 ly suggesting that rather than using the characteris-
6 tics or rather than the testing methods in Section
1 250.15 to get off the list that you should also use
8 it as a general characteristic to be included as a
9 hazardous waste. You were recommending that the
10 lists, as stated, bo considered to be just examples,
11 as I understood it.
12 DR. STORM. Yes, because I think if the
13 tests are limited only to those wastes a lot of
14 wastes are going to be missed.
15 MR. LEHMAN: That's the point I am trying
16 to drive at. I am trying to make sure I understand
17 you correctly.
18 r>R. STORM: Yes. That's our main concern.
19 1 have no serious, I guess, quarrel with the tests.
20 What I am concerned with is that there are a large
21 number oi industries that we know generate hazardous
22 wastes which are not on that list.
23 Perhaps I can turn it around with a question
24 because this is something that I have wondered. Is
25 that list meant to be all-inclusive, or are wastes not
-------
254
1 listed also subjected to those tests listed at the
2 end of the lists?
3 MR. LEHMAN: No. Well, let's just, for
4 clarification of our discussion, say that the
5 structure of Section 3001 is that there are four
6 criteria listed: Inflammable, corrosive, reactive,
7 and toxic associated with extraction procedures.
8 That's Section 250.13.
9 Section 250.14 is a number of special
10 listings. Either you meet one of those four
11 characteristics or you are listed, then you are a
12 hazardous waste.
13 But Section 250.15 says that if you are
14 listed because of something besides what was there
15 under Section 250.13 then this gives you a way to
16 get off the list.
17 What I am trying to get at is it strikes
18 me that what you were recommending to us is that you
19 were saying you want us to move those tests from
20 Section 250.15 to Section 250.13?
21 DR. STORM: That's basically what I am
22 recommending, yes.
23 MR. LEHMAN: What we are trying to say is
24 in the APR that we impose here -- we imply we didn't
25 feel we had enough information to do that at this
-------
255
1 t ime.
2 DR. STORM: I would think that if there is
3 knowledge by a producer that a waste contains a
4 potentially mutagenic or carcinogenic substance he
5 should be required to do that test, whether it's
6 listed or not, though. I think it should be based
7 on the generator's knowledge of what's in the waste.
8 Ultimately, it has to go back to the generator knowing
9 what's probably in his waste. That's something that's
10 awfully hard to enforce, but it's an approach we
11 have taken in California, that the responsibility
12 for deciding what's in the waste and deciding what
13 kinds of tests have to be done is largely on the
14 shoulders of the generator. If later we find that
15 it's not -- his waste hasn't been adequately
16 represented or tested, then he is responsible.
17 But, again, I think that we can't rely on
18 all-inclusive lists to channel wastes in the testing
19 procedures.
20 -MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Can I move on and talk
21 about another point, and it's related to what you just
22 said in a wav.
23 You indicated that you felt that the
24 generator ought to include composition data on the
25 manifest
-------
256
1 DR. STORM: Yes.
2 MR. LEHMAN: -- more so than what the
Federal criteria for the manifest appears to be. The
4 question I had concerns the issue of confidentiality
5 of the type of information. We have had testimony
6j in previous hearings that there is a great reluctance
7 on the part of many manufacturers or generators o i.
waste to be very explicit about the characteristics
9J of their wastes, particularly in a manifest which is
10 I sort of generally going through commerce and are
t
11 available to a lot of people.
12 j Do you care to comment on that? Have you
13 had anv experience of people claiming confidentiality
14 I for that?
15 jj DR. STORM. Not claiming confidentiality.
16 |
i
17 I
18 i
j
I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I wouldn't be frank if I claimed that our manifest
was working 100 percent efficient at this point. We
have had it in effect now about four years, and when
it started out we had a terrible time getting
| producers to provide composition data. That is
improving year by year as we get back to more and
nore of them. V/e are scrutinizing each manifest
now as our staff increases. Manifest-by-manifast
we are contacting producers and asking them to update
their information and data, and it is improving. I
-------
257
1 can think of maybe two or three incidents where I
2 have seen a manifest written on which "confidential"
3 or "proprietary'' has been written across the
4 components section.
5 I guess I would say no, it hasn't been a
6 serious problem. There has been a legal decision,
7 though, by our Oiiice of Legal Services that any
8 information which ties a waste producer in with a
9 waste composition is proprietary. So we cannot, for
10 example, make available to people the composition of
11 a specific industry's waste composition. All infor-
12 mation is public information on the manifest except
13 the name of the waste producer.
14 J:R. LINDSEY: Following on that a little
15 bit, David, if we might. Both you and !'r . Meichtry
16 indicated that you feel it's very important to have
17 waste composition information on the manifest as
18 opposed to the approach we have, which will be a
19 waste identification that is by type or what have you.
20 Of what real benefit is that information,
21 a benefit to whom, and under what circumstances
22 is that additional composition information used?
23 DR. STORM: Okay. First of all, the way
24 it's integrated into our hazardous waste regulations,
25 it's very beneficial because we do have the list
-------
258
1 approach. A waste manager, whether he is a truck
2 driver or a man at the gate of a disposal site or
3 perhaps somebody who's confronted with an accident
4 on the highway, if he has the manifest with
5 composition data indicated he can go to our list
6 to see if the substance is listed. Usually it is
7 He can look to see what the hazard assignment is to
8 that substance and evaluate what type of hazards
9 are associated with that waste, and that aids in
10 emergency actions. It aids in deciding how to manage
11 the waste, how to treat it, how to dispose of it.
12 Our general response, as I said, of the
13 Waste Management Industry is that that composition
14 data does help and it does provide guidance to the
15 disposal site operators on how to manage the waste.
16 It's also very valuable to us because it aids us
17 in planning for the program. We are getting into a
18 research recovery program now, and this composition
19 data does help us very much in deciding or estimating
20 at least the potential recyclability of any of the
21 wastes that are being handled now.
22 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
23 MR. FIELDS: I have one question. I didn't
24 quite understand your concept of your inherent
25 toxicity tests. How would that work? Is that
-------
259
1 something you say would be in addition to the
2 extraction procedure in 3001 now?
3 DR. STORM: Yes. This is something we've
already put together in our criteria system, our
waste testing document.
° Basically, we have taken a step-wise
' procedure through which a waste producer would take
° his waste to evaluate it, and the first step is to
look at the inherent toxicity properties of the waste
10 itself. We have calculations which the waste
11 producer can go through if he can find the toxicity
12 data in literature and give an estimate of the oral
13 and inhalation toxicity of the waste.
It's crude, admittedly, but it gives an
15 indication as to whether that waste should be subject
16 to more detailed tests.
17 We do have a leachate test in addition to
18 that. We believe a leachate test is important. Don't
misunderstand me when I was critical of a leachate
20 test, but we believe it's a parallel analysis. If
21 a material is leachable from a waste, we feel that
22 that does increase the hazard to the environment.
23 MR. FIELDS: If you run this inherent
toxicity test, if it's toxic based on that, do you
still do the leachate test? Is it either/or, or is it
-------
260
1 both?
2 DR. STOR;': At any point at which the
3 material fails the testing procedure, it can stop at
4 that, Y/e wouldn't require exhaustive testing clear
5 to the end if the waste has failed maybe one of the
6 first one or two steps.
7 MR. FIELDS: So in your concept, the
8 leachate test inay not be required?
9 DR. STOR.V: It might not be required, bat
10 it's pretty close to the beginning of the whole
11 procedure.
12 MR. CORSON: Dr. Storm, with the approach
13 that you have taken, I am wondering whether the
14 reaction you have had from the industry in terms of
15 the ability of analytic labs to meet the demands that
16 might be envisioned by the regulations that you have,
17 which are somewhat more stringent as you have
18 described them than we have, and I am also wondering
19 if you have put together any data on the economics
20 of all this evaluation, including the testing.
21 DR. STORM: No, we haven't at this point.
22 There are some firms that are having their waste
23 tested at this point, and I guess I have to adroit
24 that everybody is going through a state of transition
25 here in trying to decide what types of laboratory
-------
261
1 capability are available. There are some labs
2 available in California for these types of tests,
3 and they have conducted leachate tests, aquatic
4 toxicity tests, and there is one lab in the area.
5 that has gone through a good part of the whole
6 procedure.
7 So they are available, but I think that they
8 are highly limited. I think we are going to see
9 quite an outcropping of laboratories now across the
10 country that do these tests.
11 I think one thing we are concerned about
12 is they are able to do them professionally, and we
13 are going to get into a laboratory certification
14 program. But, no, I don't have any cost data.
15 MR. CORSON: Let me ask one other question
16 to make sure I understand it correctly.
17 As I read your regulations or the approach
18 you are taking now, at each step you stop at that
19 point, with tho exception if the waste is hazardous,
20 before going to the next step to provide further
21 data by either testing or further computations if
22 the waste is not hazardous?
23 DR. STORM- That's right.
24 MR. CORSON: Okay.
25 MR. TRASK: Dave, you indicated a Catch-22
-------
262
1 situation, I think you called it, with the labels
2 and the DOT nomenclature system. Can you explain
3 what your problem is there? I'm not sure I understood
4 it.
5 DR. STORM: As I understand it, in the
6 lists it has several -- I think the last four wastes
7 listed in the first list it mentions -- I don't
8 remember the exact wording now, but an example, I
9 think, was spilled materials or something to that
10 effect.
11 MR. TRASK: Spilled clean up.
12 DR. STORM: Yes, which would normally be
13 labeled according to either DOT shipping label
14 requirements or normally shipped by the priority
15 pollutants or pesticides. It's not clear to me. I
16 don't know what that means.
17 It seems to me that waste is being defined
18 in terms of how it has to be labeled. It seems that
19 the labeling should be determined by whether the
20 waste is hazardous or not. It seems to be the cart
21 before the horse, so to speak.
22 MR. TRASK: Well, I gather, then, that it
23 isn't clear to you what we meant by the nomenclature
24 system across-the-board?
25 DR. STOR"!: No, it's not clear.
i
-------
263
1 MR. TRASK : For example, if we wanted to
2 call it a waste green gunk and green gunk is on the
3 DOT list, then --
4 DR. STORM: Okay. An example would be an
5 antimony tartarate, which I think is on the DOT list.
6 Does that mean it has to be 100 percent that? V'hat
7 about a one percent antimony solution? Does the DOT
8 require a label for one percent or 100 percent parts
9 per million of that compound? If it doesn't, how is
10 it labeled? Does that mean it's not hazardous or
11 it's not subject to the test?
12 That's what I was getting at, I think. I
13 don't think that the DOT shipping requirements
14 address a lot of the waste situations that we are
15 going to be confronted with.
16 MR. TRASK: Okay. That's a problem.
17 MR. LEHMAN: Dr. Storm, a number of
ig commentors have suggested that we have a definition
19 based on the degree of hazard and have cited the
20 California system where you have a dual system, as
21 I understand it.
22 Could you briefly describe just how that
23 system works, and perhaps you could comment also on
24 the degree to which these varying levels that are
25 : defined in different ways are carried through into the
-------
264
1 actual management requirements?
2 DR. STORM: Okay. Yes. This cat egor izg.t ion
3 thing can get complicated. We have restricted it to
4 two categories, or basically three as somebody
5 pointed out: Nonhazardous, hazardous, and extremely
6 hazardous.
7 Getting in any more detail than that, I
8 think, does get extremely complicated. We have avoid-
9 edit.
10 As far as the extremely hazardous category,
11 this is the category of hazardous waste which we
12 feel requires special handling because they are
13 generally much more dangerous than the regular
14 hazardous waste streams. There is a general prose
15 definition of extremely hazardous in our regulations.
16 I wouldn't attempt to repeat the exact wording, but
17 it says something to the effect that the waste may
18 cause serious bodily harm to persons due to exposure.
19 : The extremely hazardous category is meant to address
20 I only human hazards, hazards to human health and not
21 hazards to the environment in general.
22 !'-*e have several ways of selecting hazardous
23 or extremely hazardous wastes. First of all, we have
24 the acute criteria. If a waste has, for example,
25 an oral LD50 of 50 milligrams or less, it's called an
-------
1 extremely hazardous waste. If it's an OSHA-regulated
2 carcinogen or contains an OSHA-regulated carcinogen,
3 it would be called an extremely hazardous waste. If
4 it is a wat er- r e ac t i ve waste, which we just recently
5 put on the list, it would be extremely hazardous.
6 And we are also developing a list of special wastes
7 which kind of gets into the environmental areas,
8 wastes which are very toxic and at the same time very
9 bioaccumulative or very persistent in the environment
10 and have presented serious environmental and human
11 health problems in the past. These would include
12 things like dioxin, PCS's, PPB's , et cetera.
13 What the extremely hazardous classification
14 does to a waste is that it requires, as was explained
15 previously, a written permit for that waste
16 management. That waste cannot leave the producer's
17 facility without a permit from the Department, and
18 what gets the whole mechanism going is that the
19 generator of an extremely hazardous waste writes us
20 a letter, laying out exactly what he wants to do with
21 the waste, how much of it there is, what it is, what
22 the concentrations of extremely hazardous substances
23 are in the waste, who's going to be transporting it,
24 and to which possible disposal site it's going to be
25 going, how it's packaged, and if they are requesting
-------
266
1 a one-year blanket permit, approximate frequencies
2 of disposal.
3 We then look at that permit, review it.
4 If we are satisfied that it's acceptable, we will
5 go ahead and write the permit. If we have some
6 question about it, we may require a modification of
7 that plan before we issue the permit.
8 Examples of restrictions we put on
9 extremely hazardous wastes are container]zation,
10 certain kinds of extremely hazardous waste we don't
11 allow to be delivered or disposed of in bulk and, say,
12 for examole, spread on the land. We don't allow open
13 dumping of cyanide waste. We don't allow open
14 dumping of most extremely hazardous waste because
15 of their high toxicities and potential for exposure
16 to humans if they are handled in a bulk situation.
17 We'd prefer to see them destroyed or treated such as
18 cyanide waste, and that capability is becoming more
19 and more available in the state.
20 Hydrofluoric acid waste, we generally,
21 again, prefer neutralization. If they can't be
22 neutralized, they must be buried in sealed, lined
23 drums or containers, on one-way containers, and not
24 opened or poured into ditches or dumps or ponds or
25 this sort of thing.
-------
267
1 We will usually require such modifications,
2 if it's not included in the permit, in the permit,
3 spelling out that the disposal is allowed as long as
4 it's done according to those procedures that we lay
5 out in the permit. And then carbon copies of the
6 permit are sent to all persons involved.
7 MR. LEHMAN: Dr. Storm, you've mentioned
8 several, let's say, limitations if you will on a
9 waste once it's been found to be extremely hazardous
10 as opposed to the other categories. But it appears
11 that this is all handled on sort of a case-by-case
12 basis.
13 I am wondering if you have any written
14 standards that are, let's say, different for the
15 management of hazardous wastes or extremely hazardous
16 wastes? This is what we were trying to get at this
17 afternoon.
18 DR. STORM: There are some minimal
19 standards in our regulations, performance standards.
20 One of them is the open well, the application of
21 extremely hazardous wastes, I think, on the working
22 face of a landfill where there is a great chance of
23 containers being opened and turned around and the
24 general public being exposed to those types of
25 wastes.
-------
268
1 There's standards in regard to the illegal
2 disposal or emergency disposal if it's a spill or
3 something of an extremely hazardous waste. It's
required that disposal of an extremely hazardous
waste in an emergency is allowed, but we have to be
" informed of it very soon after it occurs. If it turns
' out that we are not happy with the way that that
waste was disposed in the emergency situation, the
regulation states specifically that we may go in to
10 require removal of that waste material.
11 MR. LEHMAN: Are there explicitly different
12 standards for landfilling, for example, for the
13 two different classes of waste?
14 DR. STORM: No detailed standards, no. fie
address that on a case-by-case basis through the
permitting procedure.
17 MR. LEHMAN: Nothing like just, for
18 example, five feet of clay is good enough for
19 hazardous but you need 10 feet of clay if it's very
20 hazardous?
21 DR. STORM: Nothing like that. I guess our
22 main concern with extremely hazardous is in the
23 operation and handling aspects. They all go to
Class 1 sites in California or 2-1 sites, hazardous
25 and extremely hazardous, and often end up in the same
-------
269
1 burial cells.
2 As far as the Health Department is
3 concerned, it is largely a matter of making sure it
4 gets from the point of generation to the point of
5 ultimate disposal, buried and covered so nobody is
6 harmed or endangered in the management process.
7 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Thank you.
8 DF. STORM. Because the sites themselves
9 are relatively secure, and once it's there, hopefully,
10 it won't escape.
11 MR. LEHMAN: 1 don't want to belabor this,
12 but I have one other point.
13 Your description of the extremely hazardous
14 category indicated that other than \vater-reactive
15 carcinogens, other new ones like persistent or
16 bioaccumulative, that the main thrust of the extremely
17 hazardous category is based on an acute LD50, oral
18 LD50?
19 DR. STORM: That's the main selection
20 process for selecting new wastes or new substances.
21 Now the water reactive is another one, but
22 the OSHA list is pretty fixed, unless they have
23 changed their regulations. Once we have established
24 a list of super bioaecumu1 ative persisent toxic
25 substances, that'll be relatively fixed. So the only
-------
270
1 ongoing selection criteria would be the LD50. Also,
2 we have acute inhalation LC50 and dermal LD50.
3 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. But the upshot of all
4 of this is somewhere you have published a list of
5 specific chemicals that --
6 DR. STORM: Yes, in our regulations.
7 MR. LEHMAN: -- that have these characteris-
8 tics that you are talking about?
9 i DR. STORM: Yas. The four or so -- the
10 three, I guess, that I mentioned.
11 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Now I am a generator of
12 a waste. I understand you have some six to 800
13 chemicals listed in the extremely hazardous category;
14 is that right?
15 DR. STORM: No. There's between seven and
16 800 in our example lists of hazardous waste, part of
17 which -- I'm not sure now. It's several hundred of
18 those that are extremely hazardous substances.
19 MR. LEHMAN: Let's say several hundred,
20 then. .
21 DR. STORM: Yes.
22 MR. LEHMAN: Is the implication that I
23 as a generator have got to test my waste for 200
24 chemicals to see whether they are present or whether
25 thev are absent9
-------
271
1 DR. STORM: No. Again, this goes back to
2 the responsibility of the generator to generally
3 know what's in his waste. I think in a case of
4 extremely hazardous waste we are not looking at trace
5 amounts of material. We are looking at five percent
6 hydrofluoric acid, 10 percent cadmium, 100 percent
7 of a carcinogen. In those cases, a producer, if he
8 is at all competent, knows that material is in the
9 waste.
10 MR. LEHMAN: Do you have a lower concentra-
11 tion cutoff point at which you no longer consider it
12 to be extremely hazardous?
13 DR. STOPM: Yes. We have taken the same
14 approach in our evaluation system for defining
15 extremely hazardous wastes. Again, the calculation
16 approach, combined with the animal testing approach.
17 So if a waste contains one of these extremely toxic
18 substances on the list, the producer, if he doesn't
19 want the waste classified as extremely hazardous,
20 would then go through the calculations. If they
21 indicate that it may be extremely hazardous, the
22 next step would be actually animal testing.
23 Normally, though, I suspect, frankly, this
24 isn't going to be done too often because it's a
25 matter of getting- away from a written permit. If
-------
272
1 everything is done on the up and up, it's relatively
2 easy to get if it's handled by a competent hauler
3 and going to a good site.
4 MR. LEHMAN: Could you explain just a little
5j bit more for my benefit what you mean by doing the
6 calculations? Is there some sort of concentration
7 limit you are reaching for here"7
8 DR. STORM: Yes. Basically, we've come ua --
9 and I think we have sent all of this to FPA. The
10 j straightforward calculations, if you know the
11 concentration of a toxic substance in a waste, you
12 can calculate roughly what the toxicity of the overall
13 waste mixture would be. We do assume an acUlitivity
14! of toxic substances, which you can argue both for
|
15 or against. If the calculation approach is used,
16 we are very conservative there and could require a
17 ten-fold safety factor. So that if the waste through
18 that calculation shows that it has a certain toxicity,
19 LD50, with a ten-fold safety factor thrown in, the
20 animal test would have to be done, or, again, it's
21 called hazardous in lieu of the animal test. It's
22 a fairly straightforward test based on the concentra-
23 tion of the LD50 of the substance.
24 MR. LEHAMA.'T : In order to do the calcula-
25 tion, you assume that you already know "/hat the
-------
273
1 concentration of the various constituents is?
2 DR. STORM: That's right.
3 ?i?, . LEHMAN: That means you have to test it?
4 DR. STOR?1 . You have to analyze it.
5 MR. T.EIP'AN- Okay.
6 MS. DAREAH : Okay. We very much appreciate
7 your time.
8 DR. STORM: Thank you.
9 MS. DAP.RAH . We are going to give the court
10 reporter and a]] of us five minutes to stand up and
11 jump around. There are two more people left, and I
12 apologize to them for keeping them so long. But we
13 would rather continue rather than breaking for dinner.
14 So we will recess for five minutes and
15 reconvene at 5:30.
16 (Short recess . )
17 MS. DAP.RAH: Is Mr. Tibaldo Canez here1?
18 Mr. Canez?
19 Okay. vVe will see if he comes back
20 tomorrow. Is Dr. Robert Stephens here?
21 DR. STEPHENS: fly name is Robert Stephens.
22 I'm with the Hazardous Materials Management Section,
23 California Department of Health Services.
24 I'll make some very brief comments to sum
25 up the day -- or finish off the day. I'm not going
-------
274
1 to sum up the day. My comments are going to be
2 rather specific, as indicated by Dave Storm who spoke
3 just before me.
4 Much has been said today about the
5 advisability of the use of an extract procedure in
6 the evaluation of hazardous properties of a waste.
7 We in California have had considerable concern about
8 how information from a single aqueous leachate test
9 might be used in a test process. An aqueous solution
10 does relate in some real fashion to the potential
11 for environmental and public health impact, and it
12 must be considered somewhere in the decision process.
13 Considerable amount can be said about other
14 vectors of environmental impact through vapor phase,
15 ' particulate transport, direct contact, and many others
16 that I could name. However, addressing specifically
17 the concern of aqueous solubility and how that might
18 relate to leachability and soil transport is what
19 I'd like to address.
20 Is there a simple test which does adequately
21 model or at least give useful information on how
22 specific wastes might behave? Our position in
23 California is that while extraction leachate testing -
24 excuse me. I have to read my scribblings here -- is
25 that while extractions or leachate tests are not yet
-------
275
1 so highly developed that all subsequent testing
2 decisions on the hazardous nature are dependent upon
3 these tests, such information is necessary and quite
4 valuable. The question is how to do it and with
5 what kinds of solutions.
6 What does model adequately in environmental
7 leaching solution, not necessarily the most common
8 leaching solution but in our opinion the most stress-
9 ful leaching solution a potentially toxic waste might
10 encounter? Consider what the extraction procedure
11 is designed to do. One takes a waste which does
12 contain the toxic substance or substances. If it
13 didn't contain a toxic substance or substances, it
14 would not be subjected to the test in the first place,
15 and on the basis of this single test delcare it not
16 hazardous even though it does contain a hazardous
17 substance.
18 In this light and in the light of the
19 uncertainty of the model test , it is proper for
20 regulatory agencies, vie feel, to err on the side of
21 safety, although not excessively so. It is also in
22 this light that we feel that the EPA extraction
23 procedure, based on acidic acid, is too weak an
24 extraction procedure to be used and is not too
25 stringent as has been discussed earlier.
-------
276
1 The extraction procedure is primarily
2 designed and really has meaning with respect to toxic
3 inorganics. In other words, primarily metals,
4 toxic metals. Such metals in a landfill or any
5 disposal situation could be confronted with a
6 bewildering array of solubilizinp agents and
7 solubilizing conditions. These will include mineral
8 acids, caustics, organics, chelating acids, and
9 biological action. As a result, a model extraction
10 procedure must somehow reflect this situation.
11 We therefore would suggest, number one, the
12 adoption of a more stringent extraction procedure
13 following the lines of that which we have recommended
14 in California, which is based on a citric acid buffer
15 solution. We feel that citric acid is a much better
16 toxic metal solubilizing agent modeling those
17 polydentate acids and other leaching components which
18 a toxic metal in a solid waste might encounter in the
19 natural environment.
20 In comparative studies in our departmental
21 laboratories, we have found that solid wastes, includ-
22 ing sludges from a wide variety of industries,
23 including so-named fixed or stabilized wastes, that
24 the extracabi1ity of toxic metal is much greater in
25 a citric acid system than an acidic acid system
-------
277
1 proposed under Section 3001.
2 In addition, it has been our experience --
3 this is just as an aside -- and the experience of
4 collaborating laboratories across the country that
5 minor adjustments in pH extracting acid concentrations
6 that the resultant toxic metal concentrations may
7 vary orders of magnitude.
8 Number two, we would recommend the
9 extension of the test period beyond -- I'm not even
10 sure where it finally \vinds out -- between 24 and
11 48 hours, but the extension of the extraction test
12 procedure beyond a limited time. It is well document-
13 ed in the literature that solubility of metals in
14 solids is not a linear function of time and that
15 certain metals in soecific m a t r i c: e s experience
16 induction periods of days or even weeks. This has
17 been borne out in our laboratory with a variety of
18 wastes.
19 In California, we recommend a 30-day
20 extraction procedure and are considering extending
21 this period for certain specific wastes. T,Ve are
22 reminded that this extraction procedure is trying to
23 model long-term pollution potential of solid wastes.
24 That's all I have to say.
25 ?:$ . DARRAH Okay. Thanks. Vill you answer
quest i (> n s '<"
-------
278
1 DR. STEPHENS: Yes.
2 MR. LINDSEY: Bob, are these -- in other
3 words, you say you are recommending buffered citric
4 acid and a 30-day time frame. Is this approach in
5 use now within --
6 DR. STEPHENS: Yes, it is.
7 MR. LINDSEY: I mean this is required in
8 California at this point in time?
9 DR. STEPHENS; It's not regulation now. We
10 have published this as a recommended procedure, and
11 it is in the process now of going through the
12 regulatory process of becoming -- well, it's uncertain
13 actually, where it's going to wind up as an official
14 state publication recommended by the regulations or
15 whether it will actually appear in the regulation or
16 what the status will be.
17 It is in use now by a variety of laboratorie
18 in candidate industries, and it will become a more
19 official document sometime in the next months.
20 ME. LINDSEY: Do you have any feel or does
21 California have any feel for how much additional waste
22 will be brought into your control system as a resul";
23 of going to such an approach?
24 DR. STEPHENS: Well, that's a comparative
25 question, and we are going on the basis of our
-------
279
1 criteria, which are different from yours. And it's
2 a -- if the question relates to the extraction
3 procedure, our extraction procedure and our criteria
4 and your extraction procedure and our criteria --
5 see, there are two variables here. Okay? We have
6 different criteria than you, and we have a different
7 extraction procedure than you. And that's a
8 difficult thing to ball park just standing up here.
9 Suffice it to say that on certain waste
10 sludges which we have examined, some of which have
11 included the flyash materials that have been
12 discussed today, that under the exposure of a buffered
13 citric acid certain of the particularly first row
14 toxic transmission metals may wind up in a concentra-
15 tion of one or two orders of magnitude higher under
16 a citric acid buffer than an acidic acid extraction.
17 There are other fixed wastes which gave
18 relatively low concentrations below our hazardous
19 waste criteria under an acidic acid buffer solution
20 which essentially totally dissolved in citric acid.
21 Citric acid is not a. terribly aggressive solubi 1 a zing
22 agent. It is pretty good for toxic heavy metals.
23 The other reason that citric acid was
24 actually chosen is that it's tolerated very well by
25 fish and one can, through a simple dilution procedure,
-------
280
1 take your extractant solution with a citric acid
2 buffer in it and test it directly on fish for fish
3 toxicity.
4 MR, LEHMAN: Bob, you mentioned that you
5 were not abJe to answer Fred Lindsay's question a
6 minute ago about the relative amount of waste that
might come into the control system because not onlj
8 the extraction procedure is different but aJso your
9 criteria. In other words, where you draw the line
10 between hazardous and nonhazardous is different.
11 As you know, our extraction procedure is
12 linked to the EPA's interim primary drinking water
13 standards through a model -- or we are allowing 10
14 times the drinking, water standards.
I
15 What is the criterion, once you have done
16 the California extraction,using citric acid? Now
17 I that you have that eluant and you have analyzed it,
18 what do you use as a determination as to where that
19 line is between hazardous and nonhazardous? In other
20 words, if you don't use some kind of drinking water
21 standard, what do you use?
22 DP. STTlPHKriS : Well, first of all, I Think
23 as Dave indicated earlier we have a parallel system
24 on the basis of a total threshhold concentration and
25 an extraction procedure. And you car) fail or pass
-------
281
1 either one. \ n d the concentrations on the basis of
2 the extract ant aro based on a variety of things
3 because there aren't drinking wafer standards for
4 all the materials that are included in the list.
5 Let's see. Dave, we use drinking water
6 standards and what other standards are used? There's
7 a variety of different benchmarks with a built-in
8 factor.
9 Then there is a ten-fold safety factor
10 on the basis of the total threshhold concentration.
11 There is the criteria for the extractant and then
12 the criteria for the total threshhold, which is an
13 order of magnitude higher above that in the solid.
14 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. CORSON: T have a question, Bob.
16 I think you referred earlier in your
17 comments to the fact you either had done or were
18 doing some sort of a collaborative test program with
19 other laboratories. I am wondering- what your -- or
20 if I am misreading, whether you have done such -- I
21 think you are running extraction procedures with
22 several laboratories. What sort of results
23 DR. STEPHENS: I am afraid I used
24 "collaborative labs" loosely there. The only
25 collaborative activites involving leachate is actually
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
282
on the EPA study. We were one of the round robin
labs that used the EPA leachate test. This is in
discussions with various labs which are trying to
do leachate tests and are trying to develop leachate
tests, not only EPA's but their own.
My whole point in bringing that out was
that -- and it makes us uncomfortable also with a
leachate test and then regulating on a number which
is accrued from that leachate test is that it's
extremely difficult to reproduce results in the
leachate system, in that the solubility of candidate
toxic elements out of waste is so dependent on so
many different things and it varies greatly within
orders of magnitude with minor changes in pH. This is
the experience which we have shared with other
laboratories which are struggling v;ith the problem
of a. standardized extraction procedure, and this is
also the term "collaborative lab" is used loosely
in terms that there are labs in California which,
under our regulatory auspices, are using our
leachate procedure, and we are getting a lot of
feedback results back from them. That's hardly a
collaborative lab. They are doing that procedure,
and they are also doing the acidic acid procedure.
MR. CORSON: As far as they have gone, are
-------
283
1 you finding, within the state now, theirs are any
2 worse or any better?
3 DR. STEPHENS: I'm not sure I understand
4 the quest ion.
5 MR. CORSOK: Well, from the point of view
6 are you finding anything unique about your procedure
7 which is giving you better repeatability to which
8 you are aware are happening in these external test
9 procedures?
10 DR. STEPHENS: No. I think the difference
II is not in the repeatability, because they are
12 basically similar procedures, other than the fact
13 that ours is a much longer term procedure and ours
14 uses a different extraction solution which is more
15 aggressive than the acidic acid solution. Those are
16 basically the same, so it doesn't necessarily reflect
17 repeatability.
18 Certainly, as Fred asked, there will be
19 some quantitatively larger number of wastes which
20 will come under our regulations because we use the
21 citric acid procedure and we do not use the acidic
22 acid procedure, and I cannot quantify that.
23 MS. DARRAH: Given that this is a 30-day
24 test, do you know how much labs are charging customers
25 to perform it?
-------
284
1 DR. STEPHENS: No, I don't know that. We
2 have tried to ask that question, and nobody's come
3 up with that number. I don't suspect it's going to
4 be excessive, because even though it's 30 days it's
5 not really manpower-intensive. Most of the time it's
6 just sitting. There are basically six samples drawn
7 over the 30-day period, a standard set of analyses
8 which are run -- well, I shouldn't say "standard
9 set of analyses." A set of analyses which are run
10 on those six samples. You are really talking about
11 six sets of analyses over a period of time.
12 MS. DARRAH : Have you in your written
13 comments submitted to us an outline of this procedure?
14 DR. STEPHENS: I haven't in the written
15 comments, but that procedure has been submitted to
16 EPA several times.
17 MS. DARP.AH : Okay. I guess we have no mere
18 questions. Thank you.
19 Is there anyone else who wants to offer us
20 comments on Section 3001 today?
21 All right. I will end this session of our
22 Subtitle C hearings. We will reconvene tomorrow
23 morning at 8:30 in this room.
24 (Whereupon, the hearing recessed at 5:45
25 o'clockp.m.)
-------
California
Manufacturers Association
Spokesman /or California Industry .
923 - 12th Street - P 0 Box 1138 Sacramento, California 95805 916/441-5420
March 9, 1979
COMMENTS BY ROBERT E. BURT ON PROPOSED RCRA REGULATIONS - MARCH 12-14, 1979
Section 3001
We feel that the EPA has taken entirely too broad a
view of the definition of hazardous waste, primarily because of
an exaggerated emphasis upon the "when improperly treated..."
portion of the definition. No matter how rigorously a regulation
is written, it does not handle a single particle of waste. That
must be done by dedication of resources (many of them in short
supply) to the task. If the available resources are spread so
thin as to cover the vast tonnage of waste which this regulation
makes hazardous, then truly hazardous materials will not get their
proper attention. The available trained personnel and disposal
sites are resources especially likely to be overwhelmed. Case-by-
case analysis can greatly reduce the need for unnecessary expense
if different levels of hazard are recognized.
Suggestion Recognize that there are various levels of hazard.
Then priority of effort can be assigned to the most hazardous
and the degree of rigor in treatment can be made to fit the
need. Since many hazardous wastes are generated in very large
quantities of substantially similar materials, the savings from
such a course of action would be tremendous.
Other_Pgints
A. In line with the intent of Section 1006, on avoidance of
duplication, we offer the following:
1. We find it a simple evasion of the clear intent of the law
to regulate, as hazardous waste, materials in the process of
treatment for discharge in accord with an NPDES permit. The
Congress cleai-ly excludes the discharge itself from such regula-
tion and any rational reading of the law would indicate that such
materials are not wastes _un_til discharged. We emphasize the use
of the phrase "other discarded material" in the definition of
solid waste, of which hazardous waste is a sub-set.
-------
Proposed RCRA Regulations-
Comments by Robert E. Burt
Page 2
2. With respect to air emissions, we feel that the OSHA regula-
tions on concentrations for workplace hazard, designed to provide
safe work environments where there are thousands of hours of in-
dividual exposure , present adequate guides for allowable concen-
trations of hazardous materials in the air. Virtually all the
applicable locations are workplaces: dumps, treatment works, and
collection sites. Any emissions which could present a general
public hazard are under the mandate of the various Clean Air Act
provisions. For these reasons, we see no need whatever for sepa-
rate RCRA controls or reports of any air emissions.
B. The foregoing points are especially important with respec- to
the 100 Kg/month exemption issue. We agree with comments by others
to the effect that there are substances which would present a
great public hazard in that quantity. On the other hand, we read
the regulation as requiring reporting by gas stations with this
monthly quantity of lube oil waste. We suggest: 1) that the exempt
quantities for extremely hazardous wastes be established as
necessary; 2) tEatT'a class of less hazardous wastes be established
with a 1000 Kg/month exemption and 3) that the provisions of
250.28 be expanded to cover other wastes greater Or lessor
and be liberally interpreted in order to allow small generators
to contract for all services, including reporting, under the act
and that the contracting entity not be required to develop separate
detailed reports for each of its clients being serviced, but simp-
ly report their names and addresses, with general nature of wastes.
C. Recognizing that there are different categories of hazard, we
support the comments of the California Department of Health o~i this
section as applying to the extremely hazardous materials whici
should receive special attention.
D. Although it is cited, we find no basis in Sec. 3008 for the
assertions found in the first paragraph of "Enforcement" on FR
page 58954, which we see as a bureaucratic assertion of omni-
potence. We feel that the EPA very definitely has a burden of
proof that a waste is hazardous if it brings an~enforcement action
of the sort mentioned.
E. We find little basis for the assertion that the identification
tests "are well developed, inexpensive, and recognized by the
scientific community." Many were developed by the EPA for these
regulations and obviously have not gone through the rigorous
process leading to acceptance by the scientific community.
-------
Proposed RCRA Regulations-
Comments by Robert E. Burt
Page 3
F. Some method more feasible than proving a nebulous negative
("no damage to the environment") should be available to get
a material in a given situation removed from the hazardous list.
The definition calls for "substantial" hazard or increase in
mortality, etc. We submit that there are many situations where
in general, the substance might properly be classified as
hazardous and yet the immediate "quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics" in a particular
situation would indicate that the material was not hazardous under
the legal definition. We submit that some simpler method than
either proving"no damage to the environment"or a court challenge
should be available to handle such cases.
Section 3002
Our comments under Section 3001 lead directly to those for this
section. We see no rationale for regulation of hazardous waste
until it is actually in the process of disposal. Further, we feel
that the appropriate control of air and water emissions is found
in the laws which govern them. Otherwise, implementation of our
comments with respect to Section 3001, would handle our problems
with Section 3002.
Section 3004
General Here again, our comments on Section 3001 cover the bulk
of our comments here. If truly hazardous waste is to be handled,
much of this section is fully appropriate. It is not necessary
for much of the tonnage which would be so classified under Section
3001 as written. RCRA reporting and controls are also inappro-
priate for waste streams handled and reported under the air and
water laws.
Other Comment
A. Par. 250.43-1 (a) is a flat prohibition of a site in an active
fault zone. Par. 250.4Kb) (2) essentially defines an active
fault zone as a land area which has a reasonable probability of
earthquake land movement which would pose a threat to the envir-
onment. No time or force criteria are given, and "threat to...the
environment" covers so many possibilities that it is unlikely that
there is anywhere in California that would not be so affected.
-------
Proposed RCRA Regulations-
Comments by Robert E. Hurt
Page 4
Here again, a case-by-case analysis, based upon the likelihood
that hazardous waste would escape and "cause substantial hazard"
is necessary.
B. Par. 250.43-1(d) forbids a facility on the 500-year flocd
plain, unless it would not be inundated. Since "facility" in-
cludes all treatment, storage, and disposal, this means that a
Largje area, some now occupied by major manufacturing and pro-
cessing plants, cannot store hazardous waste on-site. Case-by-
case is even more important here. On-site storage awaiting pick
up or treatment (including incineration) obviously should net
be forbidden.
C. Par. 250.45-1 provides wholly unnecessary proscriptions on
how incinerators should be run. Proper incineration of many
truly hazardous materials can be and is being done with much
shorter dwell-times and lower temperatures. Since the discussion
indicates encouragement for incineration (with which we general-
ly concur) this is scarcely the right direction to go. Ex-
tremely high temperatures use more energy directly, require
higher capital cost, and make heat recovery more complex. Further,
they tend to increase oxides of nitrogen emissions, thus making
new air permits more difficult. Case-by-case analysis, based
upon the desired emissions to the air, is again appropriate.
D. Par. 250.43-1(h) requires location of active portions of a
facility 200 feet from property lines. Again, we point out the
very broad meaning of "facility" and note that many generation
locations are not 400 feet in their smallest dimension, so this
regulation would forbid on-site temporary storage or treatment,
including incineration.
E. Par. 250.44(e), and Par. 250.44-l(a), (b), and (c) are
specific standards which may well be applicable in most cases,
but will certainly cause contradictory or anomalous results
in special situations. We suggest that 250.44-1 (c) should be
adequate, calling for compliance with 40 CFR 112 (oil and hazard-
ous substance pollution prevention regulations). If 40 CFR 112
does not fit the full RCRA requirements, it certainly could, with
slight modifications. As mentioned earlier, air emissions are
adequately covered by OSHA or air regulations.
F. Numerous other requirements of this group of regulations: are
obviously intended to apply to a large final disposal site and are
-------
Proposed RCRA Regulations-
Comments by Robert E. Hurt
Page 5
wholly inappropriate for temporary on-site storage, handling,
treatment and disposal. Many of these processes most: be con-
ducted at each site where waste is generated and some may be more
desirable on-site in many situations.
G. The flat prohibition of ignitable and reactive waste for
landfill, surface impoundment, basin or landfarm contained in
par. 250.45 (c) goes much too far. It is obvious that such
materials must be carefully handled, but there may often be fully
appropriate uses which would be forbidden by this very broad
regulation. Once more: case-by-case.
H. Par. 250.43(1) calls for closure for any part of a facility
not in compliance. Considering the great complexity and
rigorousness of these regulations, we suggest "shall" be re-
placed by "may be ordered to".
I. Par. 250.43-9 provides financial requirements for closure.
We suggest that these requirements be waived where it is apparent
that the closure costs would be a small part of the net worth of
the operator of the facility (remembering again the very broad
definition for facility).
J. As in other sections, some more convenient means than court
action should be provided for allowing variations from these
regulations.
SUMMARY
We feel that the regulations should concentrate upon truly
hazardous waste. They should not cover actions already under
strict legal control by operation of other Federal law. Many of
the facility regulations are not appropriate to on-site opera-
tions. Far more allowance, throughout, should be given to the
great savings possible with case-by-case analysis.
-------
STATEMENT OF
JAY SNOW, P.E.
CHAIRMAN, HAZARDOUS »ASTE
MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
REGARDING
PROPOSED ROLES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PURSUANT TO SUBTITLE C.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
EPA PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 12, 13, 11, 1979
SAN FRANCISCO, CA.
-------
SUB''ART A
The Task Force is concerned that the proposed criteria for identifying toxic
wastes may be overly broad in scope and result in unnecessarily burdensome and
expensive regulation of rnateiials presenting little environmental hazard. The
requirenents may impede uiiDlei:icni..ition ai'd administration c,f tne Subtitle C pro-
gram by diverting regulatory emphasis from wastes which present significant environ-
mental hazards. With reference to the Subpart A preamble, it appears that the
proposed toxicity criteria of ten times EPA dririklng water standard levels was
an arbitrary choice based upon the assumption of "disposal of tne waste in a non-
secure landfill or dump (one in which there is no functional barrier which pre-
vents subsurface /iioveinpnt of leachate, e.g., a sand or gravel pit) which is
situated directly over a usedble aquifer that is the source of a drinking water."
This assumption obviously disregards the proposed rules for classification of
solid waste disposal facilities published by EPA February 1, 1978. Noting that
the preamble states there is no "guarantee that such wastes will in fact be de-
livered to Subtitle D facilities", we would suggest that there is also no guaran-
tee that the transportation control requirements proposed under Subtitle C will
be complied with. Based upon this insufficient examination of problems associated
with waste materials which would contain lower contaminant levels, the Task Force
recommends that extract levels specified in the criteria be raised to one hundred
times EPA drinking water standards with the suggestion that these levels could be
lowered at a future- date by further rule making. Expansion of the criteria should
be proposed only after a thorough examination of problems associated with manage-
ment ot wastes that are excluded. The Task Force has also recommended an addition
to tne toxicity criteria to enable direct toxicity testing of wastes, as well as
vaste extract. Additionally, the Task Force considers the American Society for
"esting and Materials proposed method of leachating waste materials to be superior
,o the proposed extraction procedure.
-------
SU3PART A (Continued)
The proposal to desuihaU' hospi r,a !c,, veternary ci-nic^, and laboratories
seems to conflict with the direction of Section 3001 of r\>A ij'nch ci!l:> *or
"criteria fnr ide:i t: r y UK: the i haracteri ticb o' ha/ardous wt'3'_<_ and fot listir.'i
hazardous waste,..." arid for regulations "identifying the characteristics of...
and listin.'j particular hazardous wjste..." Accordingly, we have recommended
that infectious waste be identified directly, lifted, and the iources be offered
as guidance in Note form.
-------
SUBPART B
The TJS(; Force i _> concerned that the proposed exemptior, of generators pro-
ducing Ies5 than 100 t-g. per month from the Subtitle C system would result in
some highly hazardous wastes escaping adequate regulatory control. Accordingly,
we have presented two alternative recomncridationb to avoid this potential problem.
The first alternative would exclude smal1 generators only from reporting require-
ments and retaining manifest controls for all hazardous wastes. This approach
would not only provide better control but would al'>c provide regulatory agencies
ivith a means to deal witii rroblen,-, which developed as a result of non-cornpl lance.
The second alternative would exempt unly small generators of wastes exhibiting
low level hazards. This approach would necessitate di stirigui s'n'nn between levels
)f hazard in Subpart A, and/or type of hazard. We note with I'lierest the finding
stated in the preui.'blo la Subp?rt B that tPA lacks sufficient data to distinguish
ii'Mng degrees of hazard. We would submit that the propose 1 of criteria for the
rk'i'ti f ication of rozarJous waste represents a distinction of degrees of hazard posed
iy solid wasti-. Partner delineation of level of ha/ard could cerUuily be accom-
hshed by utiiizatiun 01 ("be criteria and/ur listing niechani ;i,i',. fov e.xdriple,
he criteria couid identify wastes containing higher concentrations of drinking
ater cont mi in ants as being "highly hazardous" with such waste; being so desig-
ated on tne list. In ,;ny rj^ tne first alternative would be preferable in
ie eve.it that Ef'A oniniend it i on on the texiciLy criteria.
-------
SUBPART D
The Task Force recognizes EPA's decision to rely primarily on design and
construction standards supported with performance standards. Unfortunately,
this approach, coupled with an apparent lack of experience in regulating solid
waste disposal activities, has produced an exceedingly complicated, interrelated,
and int^rdci-enriiin'. set of requirements. We note with satisfactu.:1 t;%e intent
to provide flexibility with the use of the "Mote" provisions. Performance
specifications are scattered throughout the rule, sometimes appearing in the
requirements and other times appearing in the Notes. Vlhere performance speci-
fications are note provided or where they are deficient, a corresponding defi-
ciency in the design requirements often is present. Rather than attempt to re-
construct this rule to emphasize performance, the Task Force elected to address
the deficiencies in design standards where they are apparent, and add or revise
performance specifications where needed. We hope that the advantages to both
the regulator and lacility operators of performance standards /vill be self evi-
dent in our recommendations.
With regard to the financial requirements, the Task Force is concerned
that during the iterim status period, duplicative financial requirements could
be placed on existing facility operators and n sonic cases the financial assur-
ance could be grossly deficient. Accordingly, we have recommended tnat EPA
accept closure financial requirements in force under existing state recuirementi
during the iterim peiiod, and that the Regional Administrator i.npose the require
nn-'nts only after reviewing and approving submitted estimates. Also, we have
recommended that alternate means of providing financial assurance such as surety
bonds, be allowed. Experience in state programs indicates that surety contract:
can be written to preclude the possibility of sudden cancellation by the surety
as discussed in the preamble. In addition, the states view the five m-llion do
lar liability insurance requirement, which according to the preamble was based i
-------
SUBf'ART D (Continued)
"existing damage data from an unregulated industry..." and "very little actual
data and inini'nal experience with a regulated hazardous waste industry... ', to
be unprecedented, inappropriately justified, and will serve to iimiede develop-
ment of a viable hazardous waste industry. Therefore, we have recommended that
these requirements be deleted.
With regard to the "special waste" standards, the Subpart D preamble seems
to support the view that the Subpart A criteria are likely to identify many
waste materials exhibiting low hazard potentials. The preamble further recog-
nizes that some wastes to be identified may not be "amenable to the control
techniques developed in Subpart U". This is a fundamental problem with the pro-
posed rules; the Subpart D standards seem to envision control of waste materials
that are highly hazardous, while the Subpart A criteria will include wastes
which are not extremely hazardous. The concept of developing separate stan-
dards for wastes prescnting low level hazards is viable. However, such ^tan-
dards shoulc be applied uniformly to all wastes exhibiting similar characteristics.
Applying such standards to large quantities of such wastes would create a system
where one set of standards was applied to certain wastes when in large quantities
and other standards being applied to the same wastes in smaller quantities. Thus,
generators disposing of wastes off-site would in many cases have to pay greater
costs for disposal at a commercial Subtitle C facility. We have recommended that
standards established in Subpart D should be uniform for wastes with similar
characteristics. Also, quantity, a term used in the definition of hazardous
waste, is a reasonable consideration in identifying waste in Subpart A and/or
establishing Subpart D standards, as long as the standards are uniformly applied
to wastes with similar characteristics. For example, standards established for
-------
SUbf'ART D (Continued)
"Utility Waste" should also apply to management of the same wastes generated
from non-utility activities ajid to wastes wit.'i similar characteristics cenerated
hy any other activity. Further, application of the standards could be limited
to activities ^here sucii wastes are in quantities that create a significant
envi rnriiuc-ntrfl hazard. In this renatJ, quantity criteria should consider the
tv'je of hazard and the activity to be regulated.
with regard to our comments on th.? SuLojrt A infectious waste criteria,
the Subpart D standards as proposed seen "verly strinijent. The vast majority
oi Miesc wdstos v,cuiri merit develotiment nf separate land iiispr, .il -.trtndrird', in
line with the Subtitle D criteria, if not excluded in Suboart A.
-------
Diamond Shamrock
Testimony before officials of the EPA Office of Solid Wastes
Re: Proposed Regulations to Implement RCRA Section 3004
March 14, 1979 - San Francisco
My name is Bruce Brubaker, and I speak on behalf of Diamond
Shamrock Corporation. This statement represents only portions of
our concern with these proposed regulations. Detailed comments
have been filed with the EPA.
Disposal facilities existing before issuance of the proposed
regulations implementing section 3004 of RCRA cannot be relocated
to an area meeting the standards proposed. Of the disposal
facilities owned and operated by Diamond Shamrock Corporation only
one-fifth meet any one of the proposed site selection standards
that are beyond the power of the Corporation to change (such as
the 500 year floodplain, etc.). None of our facilities, to the
best of our knowledge, pass all of these site selection standards.
Many of these facilities that fail to meet the indicated criteria
were built and installed in order to comply with other regulations
promulgated by the EPA or State Agencies, and received express or
implied approval from those Agencies. We believe, also, that the
stringent requirements of the proposed rules herein discussed will
severely reduce the number of new facilities that can or will be
constructed to receive hazardous wastes. If regulations, governing
existing facilities are adopted as proposed, the reduction in
disposal capacity will he devastating to the chemical industry.
Diamond Shamrock Corporation I 1 Ou Si.pe'ior Avenue Cleveland Ohio 44114 Phone J1 u 694-bOOO
-------
Testimony before officials of the EPA Office of Solid Wastes
Re: Proposed Regulations to Implement RCRA Section 3001
March 12, 1979 - San Francisco
Page 2.
is a finite natural resource deserving as much protection as any
other limited commodity. Too loose a definition of hazardous
wastes may result in some future problems of contamination, but
too restrictive a definition will result in totally undermining
any benefit of the Law. It is self-evident that the EPA cannot
instantaneously stop production of hazardous wastes. Regulations
must, therefore, reasonably address the demarcation of control.
Of particular concern in this regard is the proposed extraction
procedure to determine toxicity. We believe that this test does
not represent actual disposal conditions and testing results will
have no bearing on the real question of hazardousness. For
example, extraction at a pH of 5 may have bearing on the issue if
disposal will be in an acidic facility. There are, however,
wastes containing an acid extractable component that is not soluble
or only marginally soluble in a neutral or alkaline situation. If
disposal of such a waste has and will be at a facility that has no
possibility of being acidic, we fail to see the need to define
hazard based upon such an inappropriate test. We recommend that
the extractant used in the proposed test be specified to be either
ground water in the disposal facility area or a buffered solution
of the same pH as that ground water. The benefits of this approach
are two-fold: 1) the wastes classified as hazardous will be so
classified on a realistic basis, and 2) wastes that might be
-------
Testimony before officials of the EPA Office of Solid Wastes
Re: Proposed Regulations to Implement RCRA Section 3001
March 12, 1979 - San Francisco
Page 3.
hazardous in a given situation will not be disposed of in a
facility where conditions exist that potentiate the hazard.
The practical result of this approach would be to assure that
potentially hazardous wastes will be disposed of in the
facilities least likely to manifest the harm.
Proposed section 250.15 seems to provide that only those
wastes identified as hazardous under section 250.14 can be
demonstrated not to be hazardous. We believe that any waste
classified as hazardous should be subject to this demonstration
and the regulation should so state. Further, we believe that
categories of wastes identified as hazardous should be subject
to a categorical showing that a particular process type or
waste treatment renders the entire category nonhazardous, thus
eliminating the need for further testing.
-------
Diamond Shamrock
Testimony before officials of the EPA Office of Solid Wastes
Re: Proposed Regulations to Implement RCRA Section. 3001
March 12, 1979 - San Francisco
My name is Bruce Brubaker, and I am speaking today on behalf
of my employer, Diamond Shamrock Corporation. We support, in part,
the regulatory scheme proposed by the EPA to accomplish the mandates
of section 3001 of RCRA. Although, as expected, our comments today
address some of those areas where we disagree, we would like to
begin by commending the OSW for prior, and hopefully continuing,
evaluation of all perspectives relative to subtitle C regulatory
development.
Proposed section 250.10 (d)(1)(iv) would require annual testing
of a waste previously tested and shown not to be hazardous. Adoption
of this section would needlessly tie up testing capacity. We believe
that a more appropriate approach would require retesting of a waste
to determine if it should be categorized as hazardous only if a
significant change in raw materials or processes occur that would
change the nature of the wastes.
The ultimate issue permeating regulations implementing section
3001 of RCRA is the scope of materials that will be classified as
hazardous. The EPA must bear in mind, while addressing this question,
that the amount of space available for disposal of hazardous wastes
Diamond Shamrock Corporation 1100 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Phone 216694-5000
-------
Testimony before officials of the EPA Office of Solid Wastes
Re: Proposed Regulations to Implement RCRA Section 3004
March 14, 1979 - San Francisco
Page 2.
Since the EPA cannot by fiat instantaneously stop production of
hazardous wastes, it follows that there must be a mechanism for
disposing of these wastes. In our opinion there is only one
answer to this question: existing facilities must be exempt
from those siting criteria over which they have no control.
EPA has ample authority, under section 7003, to remedy problems
that develop on a case-by-case basis. Without our proposed
modification in the regulations, it is very conceivable that
the whole regulatory framework relative to hazardous wastes
will come to a grinding halt.
Proposed section 250.43-9 would require owners and operators
of facilities to establish two trust funds. The structure of
these trusts is extremely vague. In our written comments we
have addressed what we consider to be major legal issues relative
to the law of trusts that are not addressed by the proposed
regulation. In particular, we question whether the trust funds
required comply with laws and judicial determination relative to
the establishment and functioning of trusts. The financial responsi-
bility requirements also require insurance be secured by the owner
or operator of the facility. Employees of my company asked the
following question, though worded differently, at two prior hearings:
is the $5 million coverage for sudden and accidental occurrences
required for each facility or for each owner where more than one
facility is owned. Unfortunately, we received both possible answers-
-------
Testimony before officials of the EPA Office of Solid Wastes
Re: Proposed Regulations to Implement RCRA Section 3004
March 14, 1979 - San Francisco
Page 3.
Since there appears to be some confusion on this point, we
request that the EPA publish clarification. From our point of
view this issue is very important since, on the one hand we
would need $15 million in coverage, but on the other up to
$295 million!
The Agency has adopted a policy of providing "notes"
following some sections of the regulations to, it would appear,
provide some flexibility in subjecting disposal facilities to
rigorous standards. Since no objective standards are given for
the use of these "notes" we are reluctant to base any necessary
decisions relative to site selection, performance standards, etc.
on the probability of the "note" standard applying. Since we
believe existing facilities should be exempted, the "notes" should
be restyled as variance provisions applicable to new facilities and
should stipulate the objective requirements necessary to secure
such variances.
-------
COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY
ON
PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES
PURSUANT TO THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SECTION 3001
SUBMITTED TO:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 12, 1979
PRESENTED BY:
ROBERT EDSON
MANAGER OF TECHNICAL SERVICES
AG PRODUCTS GROUP
WESTERN DIVISION
-------
1. My name is Bob Edson. I am the technical services manager for the
Western Division of the Agricultural Products Group of Occidental
Chemical Company located at Lathrop, California.
2. Occidental's facility in Lathrop, California produces ammonia, phos-
phoric acid and ammonium phosphate fertilizers. During the produc-
tion of phosphoric acid it also produces gypsum which is sold for
treatment of California soil. All of the gypsum produced at our
Lathrop facility is sold as a product.
3. The essence of what we are requesting at this time is to exempt gypsum
handled as an agricultural product from regulation as a waste.
4. To try to get a proper perspective on the problem under discussion, I
have prepared a brief demonstration showing the relative radioactivity
of a watch, a lantern mantle, a pottery dish and the gypsum under dis-
cussion. As you can see, the level of radiation in the gypsum is al-
most impossible to detect. This demonstration is not intended to
prove or disprove the existance of a radiation hazard, but is intended
to provide a reasonable viewpoint in evaluating the relative need for
regulation.
5. In California and other parts of the country, gypsum is used as a Foil
treatment to promote drainage of clay soils, correct pH in alkali soils,
improve the sodium calcium ratio, and add sulfur as a nutrient to the
soil. If the co-product gypsum is listed and regulated as a waste,
-------
the regulations as proposed will stop the use of this valuable
product in California agriculture. The reason the use of this
gypsum would be eliminated is that individual farmers could not
afford to perform the administrative work, fencing, inspections, and
water monitoring required of a disposal site operator. Although it
is difficult to estimate the full impact of stopping co-product gyp-
sum sales in California, the lost revenue from sales would be about
6 million dollars per year.
6. In California approximately 885,000 tons of gypsum are sold annually
for soil treatment. Of this, 885,000 tons, 570,000 tons are co-product
gypsum from phosphoric acid manufacture. 35,000 tons are co-product
from hydrofluoric acid manufacture and 280,000 tons are mined.
7. In California agriculture, typical gypsum application is about three
to four tons per acre every four years. At these application rates,
there is no forseeable radiation hazard. Furthermore, since Radium
Sulfate is almost completely insoluble, there is no danger of leach-
ing to surface or ground water.
8. Most gypsum oo-pcoduct from manufacture of phosphoric acid is stacked
in large piles when it is produced in areas where it is not sold for
agricultural soil treatment. However, a clear distinction should be
made in the regulations between material that is stored in this manner
and material that is a co-product to be sold for agricultural use.
-------
9. Since there is a need for gypsum for treatment of soil in California
and other areas of the country, use of this product is in keeping
with the spirit of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
which is to promote the protection of health and environment and to
conserve valuable material and energy resources. It is therefore
recommended that when gypsum is used for agricultural purposes, it
should not be regulated as a waste but treated as any other agri-
cultural product.
-------
A suggested addition to 250.46-3 would be to add a paragraph (d) as
follows:
d) The treatment, storage and disposition of gypsum produced during
the manufacture of wet process phosphoric acid is not subject to
the regulations listed in 250.46-3a, when it is sold as a product
to treat soil for agricultural purposes. The only requirement for
use of this material for agricultural purposes is that a statement
be made on the bill of sale that the material is to be used as a
soil conditioner or nutrient.
-------
Statement on Behalf of
Valley Kitrogen Producers, Inc.
Before The
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Concerning
Regulations Proposed December 18, 1978 to
Implement Provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
Section 3001
Presented By
Myrlen E. Kelly
Manager of Environnental Affairs
Valley Kitrogen Producers, Inc.
Fresno, California
At San Francisco, California
March 12, 1979
-------
Good Morning, my name is Myrlen Kelly.
I am Manager of Environmental Affairs for Valley Nitrogen Producers, Inc. (VNP)
TOP is a wholly farmer-owned cooperative organized for the purpose of
producing and distributing fertilizers and other commodities necessary for
successful farming operations in California. Since 1960 VNP's product line
has included phosphoric acid and phosphatic gypsum which is a co-product of
the phosphoric acid manufacturing process.
During the past 18 years all of VHP's phosphatic gypsum has been sold as
an agricultural mineral. The popularity of this product comes largely from
its ability to correct a problem inherent in San Joaquin Valley soils. These
soils are characterized by an imbalance in the calcium-sodium ratio. As a
result, untreated soils are slow to dry, difficult to work, and resistant to
the penetration of irrigation water. Controlled applications of gypsum provide
calcium which acts chemically to replace some of the sodium. Following a
leaching step to remove the soluble sodium salt formed in the reaction, the
treated soils exhibit the enhanced productive capacity which has made the
San Joaquin Valley an agricultural showplace.
A number of benefits accrue from the remedial application of phosphatic
gypsum. Primary araong these is the establishment and maintenance of a high
level of soil productivity. Another important aspect of this use is that
California gypsum producers do not accumulate large gypsum stacks which would
otherwise occupy many acres of productive lands and pose potential air and
water contamination problems. Finally, California phosphoric acid producers
operate under a severe handicap due to the expense involved in importing
-------
phosphate rock from Florida or the Western states. (VNP obtains its phosphate
rock from Idaho.) The revenues derived from gypsum sales partially offset this
expense and are an economic necessity if a phosphoric acid production capability
is to be maintained in California.
VNP submits that the manner in which its phosphatic gypsum is utilized
effectively removes it from consideration as a waste material. Section 1004
(27) of the "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976" defines the term
"solid waste" as follows: "The term 'solid waste' means any garbage, refuse,
sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility, and other discarded material, " The
discussion previously presented gives incontrovertible evidence that phosphatic
gypsum, when employed as a soil amendment, is a useful and valuable commodity
and can, in no reasonable sense be considered as a discarded material.
The EPA proposes to classify phosphatic gypsum as a hazardous waste, which
is a subset of solid waste, because it contains radium 226 in concentrations
exceeding 5 p Ci/g, the cutoff level for non-inclusion in the hazardous waste
system according to Section 250.15, (a), (5), (i). When the gypsum is incor-
porated in the soil as a remedial treatment for sodium imbalance, the attenua-
tion of its radioactivity is such that the impact of this characteristic
becomes insignificant. Calculations supporting this statement are included in
attached Appendix A.
VNP submits that the described beneficial application of phosphatic gypsum
illustrates, in the truest sense, the spirit and intent of the Resource
-------
Conservation and Recovery Act. Should the EPA persist in indiscriminantly
labeling all phosphatic gypsum as a hazardous waste, subject to the attendant
proposed regulations, the existing market for this product would disappear.
VNP's farmer customers would not be willing or able to cope with the adminis-
trative, monitoring, and security provisions which would then apply to users
of this material. EPA would thus find itself in the unenviable position, in
this instance, of creating the very type of problem it is attempting to solve.
VNP suggests, therefore, that Part 250, Subpart A, Section 250.10, (d),
(2) be amended to include a new provision as follows:
250.10, (d) , (2), (iiii) gypsum from phosphoric acid production which
is sold for use as an agricultural mineral is not subject to the
regulations of this part.
VNP has participated in the development of written comments submitted to
the EPA by The Fertilizer Institute and expresses its support and endorsement
of those comments as well as the statement presented by Occidental Chemical
Corporation at this hearing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
-------
APPENDIX A
Ultimate Radium Burden Contributed to San Joaquin
Valley Soils Treated with Phosphatic Gypsum
Basis for Calculation:
1. Application rate - 30 tons of gypsum per acre
2. 226 Radium Concentration of Gypsum - 25 p Ci/gram
3. Plow Depth - 8 inches
4. Soil Density - 1.8 grams/cm3 (112 lbs/ft3)
5. Conversion Factor - 1 gram gypsum per 1,626 grams of soil
Derivation - 43,560 ft2 x 8 in. x 1 ft >: 112 Ibs x 1 ton =
acre 12 in ft3 2,000 Ibs
1,626 tons/acre
Radium 226 Concentration = 30 grams x 25 p Ci/gram
1,626 grams
= 0.46 p Ci/gram
(1) This figure is conservative. A typical initial application is 2 - 8 tons
of gypsum per acre followed, if required, by several additional applica-
tions of 1 - 3 tons each.
(2) This figure is also conservative. Recent analyses of VNP gypsum indicate a
226 radium concentration of 10 - 15 p Ci/gram.
(3) Typically the soil is ripped to a depth of 18 - 24 inches when the first
gypsum is applied.
(4) This figure is only 1/10 of the level which mandates inclusion of a waste
in the hazardous waste system. In April, 1976 representatives of the EPA
Office of Radiation Programs, California Department of Health, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, University of California Department
of Environmental Toxicology, and the University of California Extension
Service concurred that the estimate basis used in the calculation above rep-
resented the maximum anticipated impact from phosphatic gypsum application.
-------
*C-,,; '-^V,_V.-^S/ -^7-^r-x-A-^^ "t^1*_ '^ -^-*O /^-^ *i^*_^^-^, , ' C^-<-->-<^V-w > ^*t^.
-^_«^__J ~^^y ^^^ (S^Lc
y>r
-------
,,3 .. ^
*A *b*yv ~&-
- -. u AJL
<7
11 , ,/r \
//" . ., /
-j^f~^~
-.J^vv* ~t4,*- yc&tSL^n*^.
/"
( / /^-£*~" \
-^ .&. -{j s^-^^^j^-^ J f ^^e^.j' v^^ J 4 . (_ ^^-tj>-v- XV^v^v *i-C-t^i-^^ .f -^_«^^ --<3-t-v^*^-n>«- -^ C CJ I *j£ ~t£jLv\.
tJ t
-------
- i! 4-
*&,- _TT_ _ t <
- vi_^-a- -- A.
-ft^ yi. i. u ia* vt^^-^fc-
-sJe* - **^4
~>
_^A*>^L^J' ^^ ^^v^ji^ t-fat'
.. _mi ^
: c^^J^ ^
^f.^A~ ^^t^OJ^^
a-V&-*-e?f~
tA*
. __ _ _ __ JA4^*^~*sflh-<^p CxA-"-^
$v<~~+X &**,*- \a**v~B-JL*- &~£*~4f\\_ ^t^f^f\i trf^ff _^j <--v** -
-CA.
-------
*>
-SX~//-jf c.
..?..'. -^'
d ^^'c^J*^^ 2^: ^uv^^ ~ <^/T* tb
-(. X^x c*s
^XA^X^-w^xo ^y i-'ww ^t^c^» -t-t-^-i-e ,
/ . - /y
J 'oa'°'" ~~ ^ ?y~
^^^ . .,/ -^ ^^ ., ^ -^^
-------
U
7S '
-> V
ir yr*^
- i" 'f
-------
Testimony of David G. Boltz
Sr. Pollution Control Engineer, Environmental Quality Control Division
Industrial Relations Department, Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Presented on Behalf of the
American Iron and Steel Institute
Before the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 12, 1979
Concerning Proposed Regulations Pursuant to Subtitle C
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
My name is David Boltz and I am Senior Pollution Control Engineer in
the Environmental Quality Control Division, Industrial Relations Department,
Bethlehem Steel Corporation. I appear here today on behalf of the American
Iron and Steel Institute, a trade organization whose 63 domestic member
companies account for 927=, of the nation's steel producing capability.
AISI's Task Group on Solid Waste Management has carefully reviewed
the regulations proposed by EPA on December 18, 1978 pursuant to Subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We have concluded that several
sections of the regulations are inconsistent with EPA's concern (as expressed
on page 58948 of the preamble) about the consequences of a regulation program
so broad and stringent as to shut down most of the hazardous waste facilities
currently available, and thereby fail to properly control the most hazardous
of wastes. In our opinion, the only way to avoid the shutdown or serious
overloading of existing hazardous waste facilities and assure that adequate
facilities are available for the most hazardous wastes is to establish a
plan for phasing in the requirements of Subtitle C. The preamble mentions
phasing as a major program issue, but the proposed regulations do not show
a serious interest in using the concept. This is especially evident in
Subpart A by EPA's insistence on using a worst-case disposal scenario,
i.e., codisposal of industrial and municipal wastes in a nonsecure landfill
or dump situated directly over a usable aquifer that is a source of driaking
-------
water. In Subpart D, EPA has ignored a prime opportunity for phasing by
proposing the same standards for both new and existing landfills, and by
failing to recognize degrees of hazard in wastes that are landfilled.
At this point I'd like to discuss several sections of the preamble
and proposed regulations and indicate where we feel changes ar" necessary.
Additional comments and specific recommendations for changes will be sub-
mitted by letter by the end of the week.
In the preamble (page 98948), EPA expresses concern for adequate
hazardous waste management capacity as the Subtitle C program develops.
One way of controlling the impact on existing facilities and phasing
implementation of the Act is to start out with a more realistic test pro-
tocol for the toxicity determination. Accordingly, we recommend that EPA's
initial hazardous waste regulations recognize the fact that most industrial
wastes are not codisposed with municipal solid waste, and allow the use of
distilled water as the leach fluid in the Extraction Procedure. A stronger
fluid should be used only if data become available to justify its use and
if EPA can demonstrate that disposal facilities are or will be available
to accommodate the increased volume of wastes requiring such facilities.
At another section of the preamble (page 98950), the three criteria
used for refining the candidate set of hazardous waste characteristics are
described. One of these criteria is that "a reliable identification or
test method for the presence of the characteristic is available." A few
paragraphs later the statement is made that "the characteristics that EPA
plans to use immediately are relatively straightforward, the tests are well
developed, inexpensive, and recognized by the scientific community ...."
We find it incredible that EPA claims their "Extraction Procedure" is a
reliable, well-developed identification method recognized by the scientific
-------
community! In fact, the scientific community became aware of the full details
of the Extraction Procedure only when it appeared in these Proposed Regulations
on December 18, 1978. We know that as of January 30, 1979, even EPA die! not
know the reliability of the Extraction Procedure. During a meeting of ASTM
Subconmittee D-19.12 on that date, an EPA representative orally admitted
chat EPA had not yet even signed a contract with a consultant to perform a
precision study on the Extraction Procedure.
Furthermore, the Extraction Procedure as described is not completely
workable. In our experience with the proposed filtration method described
in Settlor 250.13(u)(2), the step which calls for inverting the filter unit
and replacing the filter pads would result in the reservoir contents being
spilled. After several conversations with EPA personnel about this problem,
we were told that this procedure would be rewritten to correct the methodology
and that a notice would soon appear in the Federal Register regarding this
matter.
Tests have also shown that the mixer blades in the extractor produced
by Associated Design and Manufacturing Company of Alexandria, Virginia
(Part No. 3736), tend to bind when performing tests with granular materials.
We cice EPA's lack of knowledge about the reliability of the
Extraction Procedure and the problems with the filtration method and the
extractor to emphasize the point that the proposed Extraction Procedure
is sircply s prototype test. The time constraints confronting EPA for
promulgating these regulations cannot be used to justify the proposal of
an unprover test method for this critical portion of the regulation under
Section 3001, the section EPA refers to as "the keystone of Subtitle C"
(preamble, page 58949).
-------
We understand tha': EPA plans to extend the comment period on the
toxic waste portion OL Subpart A for submission of laboratory test data
and additional comments on the Extraction Procedure. AISI member companies
are in the process of completing an extraction study on a number of steel
industry wastes and will submit data and pertinent comments as soon as
possible.
With regard to the characteristics of ignitable wastes, the preamble
to Subpart A states that "the objective of the ignitability characteristic
is to identify nasLe. which presents fire hazard due to being ignitable
vnadrr routliie waste disposal and sFora^e conditions." (Emphasis added.)
However, EPA has not included this qualification in the proposed regulation
under Section 250.13(a). As presently worded, this section could be cited
as the basis for classifying hot, solidified slag as a hazardous waste,
since all slags retain considerable heat from refining operations prior to
ultimate disposal or storage. We do not believe that Congress intended that
common materials such as slags be considered as hazardous wastes on the basis
of retained heat.
We are also concerned about the definition of reactive wastes,
described in Section 250.13(c)(1). In particular, Section 250.13(c)(1) (i)
is overly stringent in that it would classify a waste as hazardous if it
generate;-, any amount of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes, however small or
fleeting, when mixed with water or exposed to mild acidic or basic
conditions. Without some quantitative 01 qualitative consideration of the
volinae of sjas liable to "re generated, this section of tiie proposed
regulation will r.f.edlpsr.ly force millions of tons of solid waste to be
classified as a hazardous waste. For example, when blast furnace slag is
cooled or quenched with water, small amounts of H2S are liberated, but
-------
we know of no instance where this release of gas has ever posed a threat
to human health. In 1977 over 24 million tons of blast furnace slag were
produced by domestic companies. A large proportion of this slag could,
under this provision, be classified as a hazardous waste. We do not
believe this was envisioned by Congress in writing Subtitle C of RCRA.
Section 250.13(d)(l) appears to imply that the determination of
whether a solid waste is a hazardous waste will be based on a single
analysis of the extract obtained from a single application of the
Extraction Procedure to a single representative sample of the waste. In
view of the heterogeneous nature of waste materials, EPA should allow a
waste generator the latitude of performing a number of tests on a repre-
sentative sample and using standard data analysis procedures on the data
before comparing the results with EPA's threshold values.
Furthermore, the table containing the threshold values for determining
whether the leachate from a given waste is hazardous does not take into
consideration any uncertainty in the accuracy of analytical measurements.
In this regard, we recommend that EPA incorporate into this table a "data
acceptance screen" similar to the one developed by EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) in 1975. (Report to Robert L. Booth,
Technical Coordinator of EMSL, on November 24, 1975 by John A. Winter,
Chief of EMSL's Quality Assurance Branch.) A report of that work states
that the screen provides a calculator of acceptance for a single analysis
and average analyses for given permit limitations. To illustrate the
applicability of the data acceptance screen, the report notes th-:it when a
daily (single analysis assumed) permit limitation for arsenic is 150 pg/liter,
the daily value must be above 266.8 pg/liter before one can have 99.5 percent
-------
confidence that the value is in violation. We believe that a screen of
this type is readily adaptable to the threshold values in the table in
Section 250.13(d)(1).
In general, we are very concerned about the proposed Subpart D
Standards in that they apparently apply equally to all hazardous wastes,
without regard to degree of hazard. We believe that this is a classic
example of overregulation. There is no justifiable reason to apply the
same disposal standards to a wastewater treatment sludge which barely
fails the toxicity screening test and a highly inflammable, aromatic
organic waste.
In addition, the Standards apparently apply equally to both existing
and new facilities, so all facilities would have to conform to the require-
ments for the most hazardous wastes. Furthermore, the preamble (page 58985)
notes that "If an existing facility cannot be modified to conform to
applicable standards, it will have to close." We fear that it will not be
practicable or possible to upgrade many existing on-site facilities,
particularly landfills, operated by private industry. Such facilities
would be forced to close, thereby increasing the burden on commercial
facilities.
In our opinion, the primary thrust of Section 3004 of RCRA is to
promulgate regulations establishing such performance standards "as may
be necessary to protect human health and the environment." In view of
this directive it seems incumbent upon EPA to write its initial hazardous
waste regulations in such a way as to avoid jeopardizing the availability
of hazardous waste landfill sites for the most hazardous wastes.
Section 3004 does not preclude the establishment of less stringent
standards for existing facilities compared with new facilities, or the
-------
recognition Chat disposal requirements should be commensurate with the
potential hazard associated with a given waste.
In a lighter vein, we call your attention to the fact that a literal
interpretation of the parenthetical example in Section 250.43-2(c) could
require that facilities in New York City use both English and French on
warning signs, since the city is located in a state bordering Canada.
Finally, as EPA is preparing to embark on a massive new regulatory
program, I'd like the panel to be aware of a statement by the Council on
Wage and Price Stability in their December 1976 "Catalog of Federal
Regulations Affecting the Iron and Steel Industry":
"If the trend in regulatory intervention proceeds at the
pace of the past ten years, there is no doubt in our minds
that the American steel industry will become increasingly
unwilling and unable to invest in new, job-creating plants
and equipment. That is clearly not the desired result of
either the regulations or the regulators, and indeed no
single regulation could have that effect. But when each
and every regulation, rule and directive is aggregated,
when each and every hoop and hurdle is put in one arena,
the impact is far more pervasive and overwhelming than the
creators of any single regulation can imagine. 1t is truly
a case where the whole is far greater than the sum of the
parts."
In view of the very difficult economic and financial circumstance^
in which the steel industry currently finds itself -- some of it caused by
the necessity of complying with a host of burdensome governmental requ_.rernents
it is particularly important that additional and very likely massive
-------
regulatory burdens not be imposed without a careful assessment of the
potential economic consequences. In this regard, we have reviewed EPA's
draft Economic Impact Analysis of the Subtitle C regulations and will be
submitting written comments on those sections of concern to the steel
industry.
On behalf of the American Iron and Steel Institute, I thank you for
this opportunity to express our major concerns with the proposed Subtitle C
regulations.
-------
Statement of Edward G. Glacibach
on behalf of
Department of Water and Power
City of Los Angeles
Public Hearing
Proposed Regulations to Implement Section 3001
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 12, 1979
San Francisco, California
;iy name is Edward G. Gladbach. I an employed as a
Civil Engineer by the Department of Water and Power of the City of
Los Angeles. There I an responsible for the Power System's
programs for water quality and solid waste matters. Today, I will
express the general concern, which the Department has, regarding
your proposed regulations for implementing Section 3001 of t.he
Resource Conservation ana Recovery Act of 1976.
The Department believes that the impact resulting from
the implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
could be even greater than the impact resulting from the
implementation of the Clean Water Act. This concern and the
possible expenditures of major funds for the control of solid
-------
wastes, without the attendant improvement in the environment,
cause the Department to express our concerns today and in our
forthcoming written comments, which you will receive in a few
days.
In reviewing the objectives of the Act, I focus on Mo. 4
which states "...regulating the treatment, storage,
transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes which have
adverse effects on health and the environment" (emphasis added).
I request that you keep this in mind as I continue with my
statement.
Our basic concerns have to do with the possible
classifying of utility wastes as hazardous based upon a single
test, and if determined to be hazardous, the lack of adequate
distinction between barely hazardous wastes and very hazardous
wastes. It is hard to conceive how more than one, perhaps two,
waste streams, liquid or solid, iron a fossil fueled power plant
could be considered even barely hazardous. Waste material from
power plants has been used for years as fill to construct
roadways, as aggregate in concrete, as an additive in cement
products, in land reclamation, and others.
~,'e recognize that pernaps you aon't have all o£ the
answers because of the enormous task, limited time and staff. We
are alno aware that over the next several months, you will be
conducting your own multimillion-dollar field studies in order to
-------
determine what action is necessary to protect the environment fron<
power plant wastes.
It is our contention that these wastes are nonhazaraous.
We therefore recommend that you exempt power plant wastes, at
least until your study is complete.
One nay ask how could we get into this oosition of
havinq our waste classified as hazardous. The answer to tha
question is the Extraction Procedure (EP) wnicn has been
established as the criterion nor determmncj vmether or not ,1
waste is r.azaraous. I cannot see the validity of a sir.ale test to
be the sole criterion for ueternininq wnetner or net tne material
is Hazardous. This is especially true when considering the impact
that tne failure to pass sucn a test will impose upon generators
of major quantities of solid waste, juch as the rjenartnent and
other utilities. In addition to tne }JP, one should loo^ at sh>°.
history of such wastes, wnat the assirnlation is of suca vau t^s t.n
the ground, ^r.d other sirailar pararieters.
I have received a copy of letters fro in the scientific
community '^nich have been highly critical of the EP. One sucn
letter '.7as written by Professor _. .:.:; ->~-. -- -..^ J.^ior^.Jj o^itj
University. Professor Lee is a professor OL environmental
chemistry with nearly ^n year;; of experience rolatinci to tactors
which affect the release of contaninants from joiids.
Professor Lee criticized the failure of many '-necific features of
the EP, and in general, believes it to be arbitrary and will prove
-------
to be inappropriate. He states, "There is absolutely no way tne
SPA, AST;;, or other aroaus can develop a sinqle leachirni test such
as that proposed which can make this type of assessment. The1
approacn that raust be usad is a case-by-caso approach to the
particular situation of concern." He goes on to point cut that a
single test "...could readily causa the expenditure of millions of
US dollars in the name of pollution control with little or no
improvement in environmental quality." Moreover, he believes that
"...in sone instances, the arbitrarily developed test could,
because of alternative methods of disposal, create more
environnental harm than if no test had been used and the solid
waste uad siripiy been dumped out on the rjround."
The American Society for Testing Haterials (AST.'<)
Subcormittee 0-19.12 had a special task group to review the
proposed UP. They contend that the EP "...is an unscientific
appron'-n..." and "...not technically suitable for the tvpe of
toxicity tests which SPA contemplated." The subcommittee
continues, "Of primary concern in this situation is tho fact that
many wastes nay be declared hazardous even though there is little
or m -Jancrer from the wastes when disposed in their present
manner."
I unders wc,r.a c..~.c.t 3ven your original contractor
concluded that a sinaie cost was an unsound approach towarti
classifyinn industrial wastes.
-------
It seems likely that some soil materials occurring
naturally in this country would fail the EP procedure and thus
have to be disposed of in a hazardous landfill. I have heard
runors that even concrete has failed the EP.
I appreciate your concern over hazardous materials in
general and totally support this approach when discussing
facilities for the disposal of materials such as dioxanes. What
is hard for me to accept is when materials such as fly ash which
has been used in society for years without known incidents cculd
all at once be classified as a hazardous material.
Allow me to nake an analogy of hazardous waste to
baseoall. In baseball, you have many levels. From the major
league down through its farm system into college, hiqh school and
little leaaue. Yes, you can say that a little league baseball
player is indeed a baseball player; however, he is in a totally
diffc-ent class though than a Pete Rose or Rod Carew. Likewise
with hazardous materials, all the waste materials from a power
plant, if determined to be hazardous, are in a totally different
leacrue than dioxanes. I cannot foresee the need, if the forner is
determined to be hazardous, to be controlled to the same degree
that the dioxanes will be.
w'e aqree with ASTH'n statements: "The issues of undue
economic impact and citizen unrest are too significant to allow
that we condone such an arbitrary approach t>y government. The
-------
probability of overclassifying wastes is not an acceptable rink,
wnen rational alternatives can be developed."
Again, our main concerns stem from the fact that a
single test will determine whether or not a waste is hazardous,
and if hazardous, there is little consideration given as to how
hazardous the waste is.
,!e commend you for your recognition that at least some
power plant wastes are less hazardous by your proposal for a
special "utility waste" category. I believe the above discussion
indicates tnat there are varying degrees of hazardousness which
warrants different levels of care, if determined to be hazardous.
We recoinmend that all utility wastes be included in the
special category if they are found to be hazardous, and that the
method of determination for being hazardous be technically
supportable. This determination should consider the composition
of trie material, its interaction with other materials which it
will contact and its history.
Thank you.
-------
I am Ken 0'Morrow, Technical Director of Oil and
Solvent Process Company which is located in Azusa, California.
Our plant is about 25 miles east of Los Angeles.
Oil and Solvent Process Company is offten referred
to as OSCO. We have been in business for 44 years, 24 at
our present location. I would like to provide some information
about our operation which should indicate the unique position
held by a solvent reclaimer and how we view the proposed
regulations.
We reclaim most common solvents, including aromatic
and aliphatic hydrocarbons, ketones, esters, etc. These
are generally flammable solvents or combustible solvents.
We also reclaim nonflammable solvents including several
chlorinated solvents. Basically, the solvents we reclaim
are those used as washes or in some type of cleaning or de-
greasing process.
During a normal day we will operate three stills for
24 hours, blend a dozen different products which vary in
size from one drum to 10,000 gallons each. These blends
will contain about 707., reclaimed solvents. We will receive
dirty solvents from several wastehaulers and several customers.
In addition over a hundred drums will arrive on our trucks
and bulk loads from several customers on our own vacuum
trucks. We are distributors for several large manufactureres
of new solvents which enables us to serve our customers with
combined deliveries of these products and reclaimed solvents.
-------
We have a modern laboratory which is quite well
equipped and staffed. In a nornal day the laboratory will
run 150 to 200 samples on our gas chromatographs. Also, 50
to 100 lab distillations will be run on dirty solvents.
Chemists will evaluate hundreds of tests in order to designate
the best utilization of reclaimed solvents. Many blend
cards will be prepared and lab and factory blends checked
for desired properties. Quality control tests will be performed
on representative samples of every drop of solvent entering
or leaving the plant. We need to be especially careful in our
quality control to offset the fear of using reclaimed solvents.
It took many years to achieve the acceptance we now enjoy
for our products.
Our sales people are especially trained to be able
to evaluate dirty solvents. Much of their efforts are spent
in educating our customers and potential customers on the merits
of solvent reclaiming. On a daily basis and at conventions and
other meetings and in our advertising, our sales effort is
directed toward solvent recovery and its benifits to the
customer and the environment.
We have been involved with every government agency which
has any jurisdiction over our industry. We have tried to work
with each of these agencies and maintain good relationships
based on sincere approaches to problems. We receive many phone
calls inquiring about our services. Many of these are the
-------
result of referals from these agencies.
OSCO has had an important role in waste management. We
estimate that we have brought into our plant over 100 million
gallons of material which would have been a waste disposal
problem had it not been for our efforts. We believe the
government agencies involved do not really appreciate the
significance of the contribution to waste management offered
by solvent reclaimers.
Some of the problems facing the solvent reclaimers
are the result of a difference in the impact of one governmental
agencies rules versus another agencies rules or regulations.
Fire departments, landfills, the State Department of Health
and other agencies refer customers to us and encourage our
expanding so we can accommodate these wastes. Even Air Quality
Management Districts and the EPA refer customers to us and
praise our efforts. The confusion begins when you experience
all the controls of the A.Q.M.D.'s and especially when you
want to expand and you are faced with the New Source Review Rule.
This rule of course affects your whole facility, not just a
new piece of equipment. OSCO would like to add a new type still
which would increase our capacity and efficiency. To utilize
this we need more tanks for both dirty and clean solvents.
With this expansion we could accommodate each year another
two million gallons or more of waste solvents which are otherwise
going to be evaporated into the air, burned or dumped into
-------
sewers or landfills. To expand we have to comply with the
New Source Review Rule. Does OSCO receive any special consideration
because of the two million gallons we will prevent from being
disposed of in an environmentally unsound manner? No, not at all.
If anything we will be the focus for additionally closer
surveillance and enforcement of rules and regulations. It may
not be possible to meet the economic burden of this rule. Common
sense would suggest that there is something wrong with a rule
which prevents the very thing it is supposed to promote. Why
not make provisions in a rule to encourage reclaimers? Why not
trade a few gallons emissions from one plant in order to save
two million gallons within the general area? In addition to
saving the pollution involved the reclaimed solvent which is
conserved can be used over and over again.
Assume that we install a still and the other equipment
required to enable us to process the additional two million
gallons of waste material above. We have calculated the total
amount of additional emissions using the same methods of
calculating utilized by the engineers of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District. Based on 250 working days per
year, we would recycle approximately 72,000 Ibs. per day. Of
this amount about 54,000 Ibs. would be reusable solvents after
distillation. We would recover perhaps 1800 Ibs. of reusable
paint and possibly 7001bs. of reusable oil. We would dispose
of about 15,500 Ibs. of still bottoms in a landfill. Only about
340 Ibs total emmissions would be released to the- atmosphere from
-------
the 72,000 Ibs of waste solvent processed each day. This is
less than 1/2 of 1 percent.
We are facing a worldwide shortage of crude oil and many
petroleum products are in short supply. Prices are going up
on many of the same new solvents that are being discarded as
waste materials.
The EPA can fulfill the intent of Congress when it
passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 by
declaring that solvent reclaimers are exempt from the New
Source Review Rule. This is clearly in the public intrest
and would be an exercise of common sense, which thankfully
seems to be an innovative approach to problem solving utilized
by EPA personnel. Thank you.
-------
County of San Francisco )
State of California )
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Before me this day came JAMES C. MORRISS III known to me
to be the person whose name is subscribed below and being by
me duly sworn deposes and states as follows:
My name as James C. Morriss III. I have personal
knowledge of the facts set forth herein and I am competent to
make this affidavit. Attached hereto are true and correct
copies of the material represented by slides in the presentation
of General Portland Inc. made on March 12, 1979. The presentation
addressed the inappropriateness of the "Extraction Procedure"
proposed under Section 3001 of RCRA as a test for the toxicity
of kiln dust, together with other portions of the proposed
hazardous waste regulations.
This affidavit was made at the request of Ms. Dorothy
Darrah., Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency .
n
JAMES C. MORRISS III
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of March, 1979.
/Notary Public /
County of San,, Francisco ,/
State of California
My Commission Expires:
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
John Chadbourne General Portland Inc.
II. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Benjamin Jones Radian Corporation
III. LEACHING FUNDAMENTALS
Prof. Marc Anderson University of Wisconsin
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
James C. Morriss Thompson & Knight
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Backgound
B. What is kiln dust?
C. Methods of Disposal.
D. RCRA A Complex Problem.
-------
OBJECTIVES
Determine RCRA classification of cement kiln dust.
Determine appropriateness of E.P. for evaluating toxicity of cement
kiln dusts.
Develop realistic extracting conditions which are representative of
typical disposal conditions.
-------
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Characterize cement kiln dust.
Characterize disposal pond water.
» Apply RCRA E.P. to cement kiln dust.
« Apply modified E.P. using only D.I. HsO to dust.
« Study the effect of pH on the extraction or leachability of cement
kiln.
-------
CEMENT KILN DUST
(wt. %)
CAO 41 AlaOs 8
SiOz 15 F62O3 4
SCh 15 NaaO 8
KZO 10 MgO .5
-------
As
*Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Se
*Ag
Dust
Mg/g
27
6
3
47
170
3
19
1
Maximum
Extractable
mg/1
1.4
.3
.16
2.4
8.3
.14
1.0
.07
RCRA
mg/1
.5
10
.1
.5
.5
.02
.1
.5
-------
RCRAE.P.
As
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
A
<.01
<.001
.13
.008
.002
KILN
B
.012
<.001
.17
.003
.001
DUST
C
.019
<\OQ1
.29
.004
.001
LIMIT
rng/1
.5
.1
.5
.5
.02
Se .07 .13_ .32
pH 11.2 11.4 8.8
-------
LO
-------
.1
-------
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
As
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Se
Composite
E.P.
.02
.001
.09
<.001
.002
.35
Composite
D.I. HaO
.01
.001
.09
.007
.001
.04
POND
HaO
.03
.003
.26
<.001
<.001
.02
RCRA
.5
.1
.5
.5
.02
.1
pH 8.8 12.2 12.1
-------
EXTRACTING ENVIRONMENT
RCRA E.P. organic-acidic
Disposal Conditions inorganic-alkaline
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Some cement kiln dusts may be inappropriately classified toxic
by proposed RCRA methodology.
The RCRA E.P. is inappropriate in evaluating the toxicity of cement
kiln dusts.
The RCRA E.P. may inappropriately classify would-be toxic materials
as nonhazardous.
Deionized water is a more appropriate extracting solution for eval-
uating cement kiln dusts.
-------
CO
C
JO
0)
o
ro
CO
c
-------
-------
Ca(OH)2
Ca(OH)2
SOLID
CaU+ 2 OH'
DISSOLVED IONS
-------
CEMENT KILN DUST
(wt. %)
CAO
Si02
SO,
K2O
41
15
15
10
A12O3
FeiCh
NaaO
MgO
8
4
.8
.5
-------
Q
Z
LLJ
z
1
lia 3:
: < co
li 0
i
X
o
CM
4.
t
CO
0
/i
CM
X
o
cc
c
o
DC
Q
-------
LT3
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
_Q
JD
~o
CO
-------
AMOUNT
ADSORBED
ANIONS
As, Se, B
PH
AMOUNT
ADSORBED
CATIONS
Pb, Hg,Cu,Cd
PH
FIGURE 3
-------
THE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE
0
z
MS CONCERN!
UJ
_i
CO
O
cc
Q.
£>
0)
T3
O
E
*
CO
0)
<-^
0)
£
I*-*
co
0)
0
T3
*-
CO
JZ
.
<
4-*
c
co
3
Q)
"5
CD
O
'o
.C
O
i
icipal landfills?
c
3
E
1
g
'o
<
o
"S
o
<
co
k.
g
CO
Jd
Q)
JQ
X
0
a
2
(/)
XH
a
c
JO
o
c
0
E
oi
Agressiveness
.
n
TJ
O
3
CO
<0
-------
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
A. Background
B. Proposed Changes
(1) Toxicity
(2) Corrosivity
(3) Subtitle C and D Interface.
C. Conclusion
-------
The toxicity of large volume wastes disposed in mono-
landfills should be evaluated using distilled deionized
water as the eluant in batch test.
-------
The hazardous waste criteria should be viewed as
screening tools. A generator should be permitted
to utilize comprehensive scientific tests to evaluate
the hazard potential of the waste.
-------
The generator-disposer should be permitted to
consider the characteristics of the disposal site and
the method of disposal. A waste which might other-
wise be hazardous can be innocuous in a particular
disposal environment.
-------
Solid wastes placed in a heterogeneous disposal
environment should be evaluated
using an appropriate eluant.
-------
STATEMENT OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM RE-REFINERS
ON THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
AND PROPOSAL ON
IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
AS PUBLISHED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1978
PRESENTED BY
MICHAEL L. KERRAN
-------
Mr. Chairman, I am Michael L. Kerran, president of the Association of
Petroleum Re-refiners. I am also vice-president of Double Eagle Refining Com-
pany which is a re-refining facility in Oklahoma City. I want to thank you for
the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the Association of Petroleum
Re-refiners(APR) views concerning the Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and
Regulations as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1978. These
comments reflect the input from our members across the nation. The APR repre-
sents those companies, essentially small businesses, that have the capacity
and that are actively engaged in the process of re-refining waste oils of
various types.
Our Association recognizes the monumental effort of EPA in formulating
these hazardous waste regulations. The proposed regulations represent sub-
stantial progress toward a sensible regulatory structure of resource con-
servation and recovery. However, the proposed regulations have certain in-
consistencies that we feel must be resolved in order to effectively fulfill
the intent of RCRA.
As we understand the regulations, we applaud the concept of EPA to elli-
minate from the controls of Section 3004 those facilities involved in re-
cycling, reclaiming, or re-refining a hazardous waste to a product that is
substantially equivalent to the virgin product it replaces, whether or not the
hazardous waste treated is listed in Section 3001 as a hazardous waste or it
is considered "other discarded materials". The example given by EPA on page
58950 of the Federal Register dated December 18, 1978, clearly defines this
intent. I quote the Federal Register:
"...used solvents sent to a solvent reclaiming facility
would not be considered a discarded material, and there-
fore, would not be considered a solid waste or a hazardous
-------
waste. Consequently, this solvent reclaiming facility
would not be subject to Section 3004 Controls nor would it
require a RCRA permit. However, a solvent reclaimer would
be a generator subject to Section 3002 Regulations if his
waste is hazardous."
This example is expressed even though used solvents are specifically
listed in the hazardous waste list under Section 3001, Section 250.14. We
enthusiastically endorse the direction that EPA is taking in this area. By
this action EPA has recognized and encouraged the recovery of a hazardous
waste to a product that is substantially equivalent to the virgin product Lt
replaces. However, we feel further clarification is necessary to insure as
much waste as possible is recycled, reclaimed, or re-refined. To provide
adequate controls over the hazardous wastes that are treated by a recycler,,
reclaimer, or re-refiner, we suggest until a hazardous waste reaches a process
facility the waste still be subject to the regulations and should be manifested.
Only when it arrives at the facility does it drop the distinction as a hazar-
dous waste.
For the first time we in the re-refining industry, which are not new to
resource recovery, find a federal agency is encouraging the recycling of haz-
ardous waste material. This attitude is consistent with the objectives of
RCRA, that is, the identification and controlling of hazardous waste in cor-
relation with pollution abatement and the greater utilization of our natural
resources through recovery and reuse. We feel that this action is essential
on the part of EPA to provide the necessary climate for our industry to survive
and fulfill its objective of returning discarded waste material into a viable
resource that can be used over and over again.
EPA has from time to time in the proposed regulations singled out waste
oil for special treatment because of its unique characteristics. Indeed, waste
-------
lubricating oils must be singled out for special treatment to insure they are
conserved for their highest level of reuse. For this accomplishment we feel
it is necessary for EPA to develope a definition of re-refining. As a sug-
gestion we submit that the definition of re-refining should be: "The use of
petroleum refining techniques on waste oils to produce lube stocks that are
substantially equivalent in quality to lube stocks produced from virgin crudes.
Techniques may include a combination of distillation, acid, caustic, solvent,
hydrogen treating and other physical or chemical treatments." It is important
to keep in mind that the purpose of re-refining is the conservation of petroleum
lubricants, our most vital natural resource. Any means of recycling that does
not return waste oil to the equivalent of its virgin state should come under the
purview of Section 3004 as a treatment facility.
There are those who advocate the recycling of waste lubricating oils by
other means than re-refining. The two most predominate other methods of dis-
posal discussed are road oiling and incineration. The EPA in New Jersey addressed
the issue of road oiling and found that only approximately 1 percent of the
oil that was applied to a road remained on the road surface. The remainder
of the waste oil was found to have left the road surface and contaminated
the environment. Clearly, road oiling should be banned as a method of disposal.
Generally, incineration of waste oil occurs without any processing of the
waste oil. APR suggests EPA set specific standards for the incineration of
waste oil. Waste oil can be processed to render it no more hazardous when
burned than virgin fuel oil. The indiscriminate burning or raw waste oil has
been found by EPA to have serious environmental consequences and possible threats
to human health. APR believes that the EPA should fix maximum levels for
contamination of waste oil that has been processed for use as a fuel oil. These
levels must cover the lead content as well as sulfur, phosphorous, zinc and
other metals.
-------
The APR enthusiastically supports the specific inclusion of both waste
lubricating oils and waste hydraulic and cutting oil as a hazardous waste under
Section 250.14(a). As EPA has recognized the imprudent dumping of waste oil
together with road oiling as a major cause of environmental and water pol-
lution. However, we feel the present language is too limited. The catagory should
be simplified to read "waste oil and previously used oil". This would encom-
pass all forms of waste hydraulic, lubricating, cutting, crankcase, and indus-
trial oils. The present language is confusing and seems to imply that items
not specifically mentioned such as waste from highly compounded industrial
grinding or broaching oils are excluded. Yet, the heavy additive package in
such oils may make the related waste more hazardous than the waste oils pre-
sently included. The definition as suggested will simplify the task of iden-
tification, and should eliminate the possibility of any attempt of using special
names to avoid having a particular waste categorized as hazardous. The pro-
cedures of Section 250.15 are available to generators to demonstrate non inclu-
sion of any specific waste oil stream.
In Section 3004, of the proposed regulations, EPA has failed to consider
the degree of hazard involved and the necessary distinction between treatment
or storage facilities and permanent disposal sites, such as a landfill. There
is no justification for applying the same standards to a treatment or storage
facility as to a permanent disposal site. The recordkeeping, financial,
closure and post closure requirements do not appear to be compatible with
both a treatment or storage facility and a permanent disposal site.
With respect to treatment or storage facilities of low-hazard waste, APR
submits some of the more stringent requirements are inflationary in the treat-
ment and/or storage of those wastes. Our recommendation is EPA make a greater
distinction between treatment or storage facilities and permanent disposal
sites.
-------
A recent major oil company publication stated "between now and 1990 the
United States will need 520,000 new oil and gas wells, 17 additional refineries,
206 large coal mines and much more if the energy demands are to be met." Part
of this enormous demand of energy can be obtained from the materials we are
currently discarding as waste. Through proper re-refining techniques we can
greater utilize our most valuable natural resource, petroleum lubricants.
This is one of the primary objectives of RCRA. EPA has addressed this objective
by their example of the solvent reclaimer as discussed earlier.
Although it is apparent re-refiners that produce, from waste oil, lube
stocks that are substantially equivalent in quality to lube stocks produced
from virgin crudes are exempt from the regulations of Section 3004, APR has
a number of comments on specific sections of the regulations and it is our
hope they will prove helpful to EPA in understanding the impact of these
regulations on treatment facilities and transporters.
We have endevored to cover just the highlights of the proposed regulations
in our oral testimony. However, we are submitting both our oral comments and
specific detailed comments concerning the regulations for the record.
-------
STATEMENT OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM RE-REFINERS
ON THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
AND PROPOSAL ON
IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
AS PUBLISHED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1978
-------
The Associatioji of Petroleum Re-refiners (APR) hereby submits
these written comments on the proposed hazardous waste guide-
lines and regulations (40 CFR Part 250) as published in the
Federal Register on December 18, 1978. These comments reflect
the input from our members who are actively engaged in the process
of re-refining waste oil.
The APR represents those companies, essentially small businesses,
that have the capacity and are actively engaged in the process
of re-refining waste oils of various types.
It is important to note that this industry, by re-refining waste
oils, is providing a valuable service in the effort to achieve the
twin goals of environmental protection and resource recovery as
dictated by the American people through their representatives in
Congress.
APR recognizes the monumental effort of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in formulating these hazardous waste regulations.
The proposed regulations represent substantial progress toward a
sensible regulatory structure and resource conservation and
recovery. However, the proposed regulations have certain incon-
sistencies and errors that must be resolved in order to effectively
carry out the intent of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
-------
GENERAL COMMENTS
As APR understands the regulations, we applaud the intent of
EPA to eliminate from the controls of Section 3004 those
facilities involved in the recycling, reclaiming or re-refining
of a hazardous waste to products that are substantially equivalent
to the original virgin products they replace, whether or not the
hazardous waste treated is listed in Section 3001 as a hazardous
waste or is considered "ether discarded material."
The example given by EPA on page 58950, which clearly defines
this intent, concerns used solvents sent to a solvent reclaiming
facility. Those solvents "would not be considered a discarded
material and would therefore 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. However, a solvent reclaimer would be a generator
subject to Section 3002 regulations if his waste is hazardous."
This example is given even though used solvents are specifically
listed ir, the hazardous waste list of Section 3001.
We applaud the direction that EPA is talcing in this area. By
this action, they have recognized and encouraged the recovery
of hazardous waste back to its original state. Any other means
of disposal should be subject to the full controls of the
regulations.
However, as EPA has pointed out from time to time in the proposed
regulations, used oil has been singled out for special treatment
because of its unique characteristics. In order to carry out the
full intent of this action, it is necessary to do so again to
insure that waste oil is indeed re-refined to its original virgin
State by- including in the regulations a definition of the re-refining
-------
process. The regulations should specifically state, for
e x amp 1c :
Used oil sent to an oil re-refining facility
would not be considered a hazardous waste.
Consequently, the re-refining facility would
not be subject to Section 3004 controls nor would
it require RCRA permit. However, a re-refiner
would be a generator subject to Section 3002
regulations if his waste is hazardous. Further,
re-refining should be defined as "the use of
petroleum refining techniques on waste oil to
produce lube stocks that are substantially
equivalent in quality to lube stocks produced from
virgin crudes. Techniques may include a combina-
tion of distillation, acid, caustic, solvent,
hydrogen treating and other physical or chemical
treatments.
This would eliminate the possibility of any facility giving minimum
treatment to used oil and converting it to a use not intended for
the product in its original state. It must be made clear that
only when a re-refiner is re-refining waste oil back to a product
substantially equivalent to the virgin product it replaces is
that re-refiner exempt from the requirements of Section 3004.
It should be further clarified that until a waste oil reaches a
re-refining facility, that waste oil is still subject to the
iazardous waste regulations and should be manifested. It is only
when that waste oil reaches a re-refining facility that it drops
its distinction as a hazardous waste.
\lthough it is apparent that re-refiners and waste oil which is
received by tliu re-refiners for processing will be exempt from these
regulations, APR has a number of comments on specific sections
)f the regulations. It is our hope that they will prove helpful
o EPA in understanding the impact of these regulations on recovery
facilities and transporters.
-------
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Subpart A, Section 3001 - Ident'ification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste
Section 250.14 - Hazardous Waste Lists
APR enthusiastically supports the specific inclusion of both
waste lubricating oil and waste hydraulic or cutting oil as
hazardous waste under Section 250.14(a). As EPA has recognized
and as one of the prime reasons for the passage of RCRA and these
regulations, is the indiscriminate dumping of waste oil, together
with road oiling, as a major cause of environmental and water
pollution. A recent American Petroleum Institute (API) study
estimates that 44 percent of all oil pollution in America's
streams, waterways and harbors comes from the dumping of over 341
million gallons of waste oil. Furthermore, research by EPA and
others has shown that uncontrolled burning of waste oil can cause
serious air pollution and constitute a serious threat to the
environment.
APR supports the inclusion of waste lubricating oil and waste
hydraulic or cutting oil in the list of hazardous wastes
(Section 250.14(a)). This will greatly reduce the amount of
pollution that enters our environment. APR feels that the present
language is too limiting and could be simplified to read "waste
oil and previously used oil," in order to encompass all forms of
waste lubricating, hydraulic, cutting, crankcase and industrial
oils within the category of hazardous waste. The present language
is confusing and seems to imply that items not specifically
mentioned, such as wastes from highly compounded industrial
grinding or broaching oils, are excluded. Yet the heavy additive
package in such oils may make the related wastes more hazardous
that included waste oils. The definition herein suggested will
simplify the generator's task and should eliminate the possisility
-------
of any attempt at using special names to avoid having a. particular
waste oil categorized as hazardous. In any case, the procedures
of Section 250.15 are available to generators to demonstrate
non-inclusion of any specific waste oil stream.
Reference is further made to our comments under Section 250.46,
where it is our position that many of the special wastes therein
defined are clearly hazards and should be subject to the normal
regulatory structure applicable to hazardous wastes in general.
They should not qualify for the special treatment that EPA now
proposes to accord to those wastes.
Subpart B, Section 3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste"
Section 250.20(b) - Purpose, Scope, and Applicability
This subsection deals with EPA approval of state programs for
administration of hazardous waste programs under Section 3008
of RCRA. We believe that EPA must establish uniform enforcement
as one of the criteria by which state performance will be judged.
Uniform enforcement across the country is essential to insure
that the purposes of RCRA are served and that industry in one
area does not gain unfair competitive advantage by reason of
local laxity of enforcement. Equal protection under the law
clearly requires equal enforcement of the law, and EPA has the
authority and the overview necessary to assure such equality.
Section 250.20(c)(l) - Purpose, Scope, and Applicability
Subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of this subsection require that
a generator comply with the requirements of Subpart B with certain
stated exceptions, and in each case Section 250.28 is a listed
exception. APR believes that this is an error, and that all
references to Section 250.28 should be deleted from subparagraphs
(i) through (iv). Section 250.28 deals with waste oil assumption
of duties contracts, which is always an optional provision; if a
-------
generator does enter into such a contract then he must comply
with the provisions of Section 250.28. There should be no excep-
tion under Section 250.20(c)(1)(i-iv); otherwise the effect is
to totally gut the value of Section 250.28 for no apparent
reason.
Section 250.23(a)(1) - Reporting
This subsection requires, among other things, that a generator
file a quarterly exception report of all shipments of hazardous
waste which originated during the reporting quarter but for which
the original manifest has not been received. As presently
drafted, this quarterly report must be submitted within 30 days
after the close of the reporting quarter under Section 250.23(a)(3) ,
yet the treatment, storage or disposal facility (TSDF) also has
30 days following receipt within which to forward the original
manifest back to the generator, pursuant to Section 250.43-5.
As a result of this interrelated timing, it appears likely that
a great many exception reports will be required for shipments
where nothing is really amiss. This is clearly not the purpose
of requiring exception reports. In view of the rather burdensome
paperwork and reporting requirements under the proposed regulations
unnecessary additional reporting should be eliminated. Changing
the filing time to 60 days, as we propose below under Section 250.2'
(a)(3), would eliminate this unnecessary reporting and assure that
the exception report requirement is limited to those probleir.
situations where it is truly justified. If the filing time is not
extended, then some other means must be found to eliminate the
unnecessary exception reports that will be required under this
Section as now proposed.
Section 250.23(a)(3) - Reporting
This subsection requires that quarterly and annual reports te
submitted within 30 days after the closing date of the reporting
quarter or year. APR strongly urges that these filing times be
-------
extended to 60 days for the reasons stated below and under
Section 250.23(a)(l) above.
The proposed regulations impose very burdensome paperwork and
reporting obligations upon generators. This burden will be
compounded substantially for those transporters (or treaters,
storers, or disposers) who enter into waste oil assumption of
duties contracts under Section 250.28. Yet it should be obvious
that vast quantities of waste oil will be effectively brought
within the regulatory scheme of RCRA only through the medium of
the assumption of duties contract.
In order for this new regulatory scheme to work, persons subject
to paperwork and reporting requirements must be given sufficient
time to do a proper job without the unnecessary haste inherent
in a 30 day time limit. It does not appear to us that the requested
change to 60 days will adversely affect accomplishment of the
objectives of RCRA; whereas the present 30 day limit risks eleva-
ting the importance of mere paperwork above these legitimate
Dbjectives.
Section 250.25(b)(6)(and similar provisions throughout Section 250.25)
Reporting
iPR objects to any requirement that the annual report contain any
ata on a shipment-by-shipment basis. The only situation where
ustification exists for requiring individual shipment data is on
.he exception report under Section 250.23(a) (1). The listing of
ndividual shipment data on annual reports will create a terrible
'urden for generators, some of whom generate thousands of shipments
f hazardous materials in a year. Again, this will be particularly
rue for persons entering into waste oil assumption of duties
ontracts under Section 250.28. We do not believe that such informa-
ion will enhance EPA's performance of its responsibilities under
CRA. More likely it will only aid in burying EPA under an even
-------
heavier deluge of paper. In any specific case where EPA feels
a need to get more detailed information, the generator will have
such detailed information available pursuant to the recordkeeping
requirements of the regulations.
Sections 2_50_. 25-Containers and 250 . 26-Labeling Practices
These Sections, dealing with containers and labeling practices,
raise the problem of always carefully distinguishing between a
material categorized as a hazardous waste under RCRA, and a
material categorized as a hazardous material by the Department
of Transportation. As pointed out in greater detail in our comments
under Subpart C, there are many materials, such as most waste oils,
that are included under Section 250.14 as hazardous waste but are
not hazardous materials as classified by DOT. APR strongly opposes
any efforts to apply the DOT requirements applicable to hazardous
materials to the EPA category of hazardous wastes as that will only
result in the imposition of unnecessary if not impossible additional
burdens with no adequate corresponding benefit. The categories
are similar only in the common usage of the term "hazardous." The
materials themselves are quite dissimilar.
Section 250.27 - Confidential Information and Presumption
Because the information provided in connection with the manifest
and reporting sections shall be available to any person to the
extent and in the manner authorized by Section 3007(b) of the Act,
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. Section 552), and
the EPA Regulations adopted in compliance with the FOIA (40 CFR
Part 2), we concur that the identification of the generator,
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities be a numerical code.
Further, we suggest that the identification of the code number
not be given to any person, company, or governmental entity without
prior notification to the particular generator, treatment, storage,
or disposal facility. Additionally, we feel it is extremely
important that only total volumes of used oil sent for processing
be given to the EPA Regional Administrator. Any further breakdown
-------
of information could be ascertained by inspection of the records
at the facility. These precautions are necessary to protect
each facility's customer list, which in some cases could be
considered confidential information.
Section 250.28 - Waste Oil Assumption of Duties Contract
As commented previously under Section 250.20, it is our inter-
pretation that the Waste Oil Assumption of Duties Contract of
Section 250.28 is an optional agreement that the transporter,
storage, or disposal facility may enter into with the generator
of waste oil. If such an agreement is entered into, then the
transporter, storer, or disposer becomes legally responsible
for the hazardous waste of that generator. The generator should
not be relieved of all his legal responsibility concerning that
hazardous waste. Stronger language to re-establish the generator's
liability if the generator breaches the Assumption of Duties
Contract is necessary.
Section 250.29 - Persons Who Dispose of Less than 100 Kilograms
Per Month of Hazardous Waste; Retailers; and Farmers
APR recognizes that there must be a minimum requirement for a
person to be classified as a generator subject to the regulations.
However, we caution that setting the minimum too high can exempt
an overwhelming amount of waste oil which, when taken in its
accumulative effect, could have disastrous repercussions on our
environment.
APR believes that the minimum quantity of waste oil should be
fixed in gallons of liquid measure, rather than in kilograms,
since the generation, collection, and disposal of waste oil in
the United States is conducted in this form, and the EPA reporting
mechanism requires use of gallons. We suggest that the exception
be defined to cover any person who produces and disposes of no
more than 30 gallons of waste oil in any one month.
-------
Subpart C, Section 5005 - Transporters
APR's overall comment on Subpart C is that the distinction
between hazardous materials identified by the Department of
Transportation and hazardous wastes identified by EPA must be
maintained and not blurred.
The proposed guidelines (page 18508 of the Federal Register,
April 28, 1978) state that: "Since EPA anticipates that DOT
will redefine hazardous materials to include all hazardous wastes,
EPA has determined that DOT should develop such safety standards."
APR strongly opposes any such effort to equate the two terms.
For example, waste oil is categorized as a hazardous waste under
RCRA, yet most waste oils are not hazardous materials under
current DOT standards. We submit that the reasons that justify
categorizing waste oil as a hazardous waste do not justify
categorizing all waste oil as a hazardous material for DOT purposes.
The transportation of waste oils does not constitute a threat to
human health of the nature of hazardous materials as presently
defined. The economic burden of indiscriminately categorizing
all hazardous wastes as hazardous materials would be disastrous
in the case of waste oils, and could in some cases make transpor-
tation of waste oil impossible.
As an example, certain of the present DOT standards for flammable
liquids such as gasoline require protection devices intended to
prevent escape of the liquid in the event of an accident or valve
failure. If these standards were to be applied to waste oil, which
often contains substantial percentages of water, it would be
practically impossible to transport waste oil in cold weather
because the water content quickly freezes these protective devices
and makes loading and unloading impossible.
-------
APR fears that efforts to equate hazardous wastes and hazardous
materials may continue without a comprehension of the true
consequences of this equation in terms of vast economic cost
vs. minimal benefit or protection.
Subpart D, Section 3D04 - Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities~~
Section 250^40(c)(2J - Purpose, Scope, and Applicability
This subsection defines, by reference to later sections, the
minimum requirements which must be complied with by the owner/
operator of a treatment, storage and/or disposal facility (TSDF)
during the period of interim status. Reference is therefore
made to our specific comments set forth below with respect to
those sections which may apply during the period of interim
status.
Section 25Q._43(h) - General Facility Standards
This subsection requires sampling of each load of hazardous waste
received at a TSDF, and further attempts to set minimum analysis
standards which must be met for each load. Whereas Sections 250.43(f)
and (g) seem to recognize that the owner/operator of a TSDF knows
his own business, under Section 2SO,43(h) the EPA is attempting
to substitute its judgment for that of the owner/operator with respect
to each load. We submit that such interference by EPA in normal
operating procedures of a TSDF is not required by, or contemplated
under, RCRA, and that the owner/operator's own self-interest
requires that adequate sampling and analysis be performed commensurate
with the degree of treatment contemplated and to avoid the acceptance
of loads that are unsuitable for the TSDF in question. APR strongly
objecls to the minimum analysis standards of this Section and
believes that such standards should be deleted in their entirety,
It is not possible for EPA to fix any minimum standards that can be
meaningfully and reasonably applied to the vast variety of
hazardous wastes subject to RCRA.
-------
Section 250.45-1 (h) - General Site Selection
This Section requires that the active portions of a TSDF be
located at least 200 feet from the property line of a facility.
This requirement, as applied to a treatment and storage facility,
in the nature of a. re-refinery, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ARBITRARY
AND CAPRICIOUS, CONFISCATORY, AND PATENTLY UNREASONABLE. While
such a requirement may perhaps be justifiable as applied to land-
fill disposal sites dealing with seriously hazardous wastes, there
is n£ justification for applying it to treatment and storage
facilities dealing with low hazard wastes such as most waste oils.
If this proposed requirement becomes final, the continued viability
of most treatment and storage facilities will be destroyed. For
example, consider an existing re-refinery site 700 feet by 500 feet
in size, containing over 8 acres of land, which thus constitutes
a fairly large industrial facility. Under this proposal the
active portion of the facility would be restricted to the central
100 feet by 300 feet, which is less than 7/10 of an acre or less
than 10 percent of the total site. This is not just unreasonable,
it constitutes an unconstitutional confiscation of property in the
guise of environmental regulation.
Besides being unreasonable, this requirement is unnecessary in
order to accomplish the objectives of RCRA. First, the require-
ments for diking, surface water diversion and containment, and
a spill prevention control and counter measure (SPCC) under the
Clean Water Act, constitute sufficient protections. Second, this
proposal fails to consider the degree of hazard involved, and thus
imposes ultra strict standards to facilities that treat and store
only low hazard wastes. Finally, in the case of re-refineries,
the main threat to the environment from an escape of waste oil
comes not from any metallic or chemical content in the waste oil
but from the oil content itself. Since the oil content of the
hazardous waste oil is no more of a threat to the environment that
a virgin oil would be, this requirement cannot be justified unless
all virgin oil facilities are subjected to similar standards.
-------
In summary, APR hereby demands that the requirements of Section
250.43-l(h) be deleted in their entirety if applied to treatment
and storage facilities in the nature of re-refiners.
Section 250.45-2 - Security
The security provisions of this section represent a clear case of
regulatory overkill as applied to treatment and storage facilities
that handle only low hazard waste, such as most waste oils.
In general, these regulations must make greater distinctions
between treatment-storage facilities and disposal sites; similarly,
distinctions must be made between seriously hazardous wastes
(e.g. highly infectious medical laboratory wastes) and low hazard
wastes (e.g. most waste oils). For example, waste oil has been
categorized as a hazardous waste primarily because uncontrolled
burning of unprocessed waste oil, indiscriminate dumping of waste
oil, and road oiling, all cause serious environmental pollution.
However, the waste oil itself does not constitute a serious threat
to health or to persons working with, or coming in contact with,
the waste oil. From reading this section of the regulations,
however, one could easily get the impression that a waste oil
treatment-storage facility was dealing with a waste as hazardous
as, for example, nuclear waste or highly infectious medical labora-
tory waste; but this simply is not true.
APR believes that the security provisions of Section 250.43-2
must be deleted in their entirety if applied to treatment and
storage facilities in the nature of re-refineries that deal only
with low hazard wastes that do not endanger human health.
Section 250.45-3 - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
APR's comments to the contingency plan and emergency procedures
requirements of this section incorporate by this reference our
comments under Section 250.43-2 above. We recognize that spill
prevention and countermeasure plans are necessary with respect
to liquid wastes such as waste oil, but this need is fully met
-------
as to waste oils by the requirements of the Clean Water Act
referenced in Section 250.43-3(a) and (b)(2). The additional
requirements, as applied to re-refiners, represents regulatory
overkill.
We wish to again point out that waste oil is a hazardous waste
primarily because it pollutes the environment; waste oil does not
itself endanger human health. Thus, a re-refinery is no greater
a risk or threat to the environment than a virgin oil refinery;
in fact, the processes and materials used in a virgin oil refinery
are generally more of an immediate threat of fire, explosion, etc.
than in a re-refinery.
APR proposes that facilities that only treat and store waste oil,
such as re-refiners, be exempt from the requirements of Section
250.43-3, except as they relate to otherwise existing requirements
under the Clean Water Act.
Section 250.43-4 - Training
For the reasons stated under Sections 250.43-2 and 3 above, the
APR strongly objects to the training requirements of this section
as applied to a low hazard treatment and storage facility such as
a waste oil re-refiner. The cost to a re-refiner of complying
with these requirements is prohibitive, and far outweighs the
questionable benefits that might be derived.
Section 250.43-5 - Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
!.aJjj) - Manifest System
APR fully supports the 30 day time period allowed to the owner/
operator of a TSDF for forwarding the original manifest to the
generator. The normal flow of heavy volume paperwork requires
adequate time to be properly processed, and we feel that EPA has
proposed a reasonable time period for forwarding of manifests. Any
reduction of this proposed time period could result in serious
disruption to the proper mechanics of the entire manifest system.
-------
Section 250.43-5(b) - Recordkeeping
These recordkeeping requirements fail to make the necessary
distinctions between a storage and treatment facility, such as
a re-refiner, and a final disposal site such as a landfill. In
the case of the re-refiner, there is absolutely no useful purpose
served by keeping these records for the life of the facility and
until closure. Unlike landfills which have a finite capacity and
therefore a fixed useful life, the site life of a re-refinery is
indeterminate and potentially infinite. APR proposes that this
section be modified to limit the recordkeeping requirements for
treatment and storage sites such as re-refiners to not more than
3 years.
Section 250 . 43- 5_(c) (5) (_ii) - Reporting
APR strongly urges that the time within which the owner/operator
of a TSDF must forward the annual report be extended from 4 weeks
to 60 days, for the same reasons enumerated in Section 250.23(a)(3)
above. It will simply be impossible for many owner/operators of
TSDFs to comply with this requirement in such a short time period.
Section 250.43-5 (c)(5)(iii) - Reporting
It is not clear to us from the proposed regulation whether any of
the information on the annual report must be on a load-by-load
basis. If there is any intention on the part of EPA that any of
the required information be furnished on a load-by-load basis,
APR strongly objects for the same reasons set forth under Section
2S0.23(b)(6) above.
Section 250.45-6 - Visual Inspections
With respect to treatment and storage facilities of low hazard
wastes, such as re-refiners, APR believes that the benefits derived
from the visual inspections do not outweigh the additional costs
required to make and log such inspections on a daily basis. Further-
more, since a treatment and storage facility is an active business,
-------
visual inspections appear to be unnecessary because the work
place is not abandoned but is maintained on a daily basis. Any
signs of possible damage to any structure, storage area, or dike
will be readily seen by those personnel who are operating the
facility. APR believes that this entire section should not apply
to treatment and storage facilities of low hazard wastes, such
as re-refiners.
Section 250.45-7 (n) - Closure and Post-Closure
This subsection dealing with post-closure care should be expressly
limited to landfill and similar disposal facilities. The guidelines
to this section state that: "Post-closure monitoring and maintenance
requirements do not apply to treatment or storage facilities be-
cause when those facilities close no hazardous waste will remain
at such sites." (page 58986 of the Federal Register, December 18,
1978). We concur with the guidelines and believe that this section
should be modified accordingly.
Section 250.43-9(a)(ii) - Financial Requirements
This section requires every facility owner/operator to make a cash
deposit equal to the cost estimate for closure multiplied by the
appropriate present value factor from Table 1 of the regulations.
In the case of treatment and storage facilities, such as re-refin-
eries, the site life is indeterminate and potentially infinite.
APR believes that a present value factor should be specified by
EPA for use in such cases, and that such factor should be based
upon a site life of not less than 20 years, if not longer.
APR also wishes to note for the record that the costs of closure
for a facility such as a re-refiner will be quite low. It will
only be necessary to remove all waste oil from the closed facility
and to take such waste oil to another permitted TSDF.
-------
Section 250.45-9(b) - Financial Requirements
APR's comments with respect to the proposed financial responsibility
rules are in several levels, as follows:
1. In general, APR believes that EPA has gone completely
beyond the intended scope of RCRA with these financial
responsibility requirements. APR acknowledges a need to
assure that necessary closure and, where applicable, post-
closure costs are provided for. However, in the financial
responsibility section, EPA is thrusting government inter-
ference into the private business and free enterprise
sectors to a totally unwarranted extent. The purposes of
RCRA encompass environmental protection and resource
conservation, but they do not permit EPA to require huge
amounts of insurance for the alleged protection of the
private sector.
Furthermore, to reiterate, the risk posed by a re-refinery
is certainly no greater than the risk posed by a virgin
oil refinery or by any facility that handles and/or stores
virgin oil products. Clearly, such virgin oil facilities
are not subject to the financial responsibility rules of
RCRA, thereby threatening a government-created competitive
advantage to the virgin oil handler. This could hardly have
been the intent of RCRA, which was intended to encourage
recycling or national resources and energy conservation.
APR urges that Section 250.43-9(b) be deleted in its
entirety.
2. In the event that the concept of financial responsibility
becomes a part of the final regulations, the $5 million
and $10 million limitations set forth in the proposed
regulation are grossly excessive in the case of low hazard
waste treatment and storage facilities, such as re-refineries.
The potential threat of injury to persons or property from
the release or escape of waste oil is minor in comparison
-------
to the excessive cost of carrying insurance against
this liability as herein required. The only sector
that will benefit by this provision will be the insurers.
3. In the guidelines, EPA states (page 58987 of the Federal
Register, December 18, 1978) that it has discussed the
expense of the proposed insurance with insurance industry
representatives and has concluded that insurance costs are
not unreasonable. It is impossible for APR to intelligently
respond to this assertion without the underlying data, and
we therefore request that EPA make its underlying data
base public so that meaningful comment can be made.
Based upon today's very high cost of providing adequate
general liability and product liability insurance, APR
believes premiums for the proposed insurance will be quite
large and excessive and certainly inflationary. They will
be particularly so in relation to the limited benefits
that may accrue to the potential beneficiaries of such
insurance. We believe that only the insurance companies
will benefit if this proposal is allowed to stand.
Section 250.46 - Chemical, Physical, and Biological Treatment
FacilitTes"
Simply put, it is the position of APR that there should be no
"special wastes" that are entitled to special treatment under
the RCRA regulations.
EPA is threatening its own credibility by seriously stating that
it has very little information on the composition, characteristics,
and degree of hazard posed by wastes such as utility waste, ga:. n.J
oil drilling muds, and oil production brines (page 58991 of the
Federal Register, December 18, 1978). With all of the time and
energy expended by EPA to date on background data for these
-------
regulations, data on such admittedly high volume wastes would
seemingly have been easy to obtain. Furthermore, it is hard to
believe that wastes such as those mentioned above are not at least
as hazardous as certain wristes specifically listed as hazardous
under Section 250.14 (e.g. many waste oils).
If these EPA regulations under RCRA are to have the intended effect
and are to gain the respect needed to assure their success, then
EPA cannot permit such loopholes to exist for the benefit of
special interests.
Section 3004 - Commercial Products
EPA has recognized in its proposed guidelines (page 58991 of the
Federal Register, December 18, 1978) that hazardous waste can,
in some cases, be tro-'t":d to becon;e non-hazardous commercial
products, although no standards have as yet been proposed. In
general, APR supports the approach that a recycled hazardous waste
becomes non-hazardous if it does not pose a i.hreat to human health
or the environment greater than the threat posed by the virgin
product it replaces.
APR requests that EPA, in the final regulations, set standards
for determining whether or not a treated waste oil has become
non-hazardous and car; be burnsd as fuel oil. The EPA has documented
that indiscriminate burning of waste oil can cause serious environ-
mental effects and possible threats to human health. Clearly,
however, waste oil can be treated in such manner as to render it
no more hazardous when burned than virgin fuel oil, and standards
should be developed for making this determination. APR believes
that EPA should determine maximum levels for contamination of waste
oil that has been treated to be used as fuel oil. These levels must
clearly cover lead content, as has been recognized by EPA in the past.
Additionally, CPA should determine maximum levels for other
constituents such as sulphur, phosphorus, zinc, and other metals.
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIARESOURCES AGENCY EDMUNP G. BROWN JR,
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ~
NORTH COAST REGION
1000 CODDINGTOWN CENTER
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95401
Phon. 7075452620
March 7, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
The following comments are offered in response to proposed rules under Section
3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (December 18, 1978, 43 FR 58949-58968).
My name is Albert Wellman. I am a sanitary engineering associate on the staff
of the State of California, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
My work involves waste disposal practices incident to the application of sapstain
control chemicals to newly manufactured lumber.
One of the most commonly encountered active ingredients in sapstain control
chemical formulations, pentachlorophenol, was cited by the California Department
of Fish and Game as the second highest cause of fish poisoning incidents caused
by pesticides used in or near California waters from 1961 to 1976. (California
Department of Agriculture, 1978, "Report on Environmental Assessment of Pesticide
Regulatory Programs".)
Appendices to the proposed rules identify as hazardous wastes this compound in
both its active form, pentachlorophenol, and its commonly encountered soluble
form, sodium pentachlorophenate. In view of the ubiquitous nature of sodium
and the comparatively simple pH solubility properties of pentachlorophenol,
this dual listing might appear redundant. However, tay office has encountered
enforcement action evasion attempts based upon an alleged difference between
the two compounds. If such evasion were successful, one might expect to en-
counter pentachlorophenate formulated and marketed with another monovalent
cation, such as potassium, to circumvent control by the regulations as proposed.
Most of the sapstain control chemical formulations which I have encountered
list "other chlorophenols" as active ingredients. These are usually precursors
to pentachlorophenol which are produced as by-products during the successive
chlorination of phenol. Three of these precursors 2-chlorophenol, 2,4~
dichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are listed in Appendix V of the
proposed rules. An obvious omission, however, is 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol.
Tetrachlorophenol is sufficiently active biologically to be listed as a
principal active ingredient of at least one sapstain control chemical. We
have used this formulation to estimate a 96-hour LC50 for rainboe trout fry
of 14 parts per billion tetrachlorophenol. (The laboratory report is attached.)
-------
March 7, 1979
These other chlorinated phenols could also be encountered as chlorophenates
in wastes, and consideration might be given to specific listing as such in
Appendix V. In summary, I wish to suggest that the appendices used for
identification of hazardous wastes should be modified to include tetra-
chlorophenol and the phenates of the listed phenols either without reference
to any specific cation or with all readily soluble cations.
Albert L. Wellman
Sanitary Engineering Associate
Attachment
-------
WATES POLLUTION CONTROL LA2oa.WXJ3X
Request for Chemical Analysia end/or Etoa39ay Findings on Matarlsls Submitted
". This fern will be returned to you. Please typa or print legibly vith black irJ<
KOT£:
in triplicate as completely as possible
'LT. Dennis Wilson
f-'t
627 Cypress
Iw'-E^
Redding
CITY
Avenue
STR En-
California 96001
STATE ZIP
(fCP L.13CKATCRY IBE OttY)
W.P.C.L. f'O. L-151 78
RECEIVE) BY EJF
D1TEPHCEIVED 12-8-78
Description cf Sernple
Source of Sa^iole
Fungicide CVvap^ia^ PQ^-10 _- see attached letter for
chemical coTspositio"i*
c/o NCRWQCB
Detailed Description of Problem_
Determine 96~hr LC50
Brian Finla/son
Region/branch
Date 12-8-78
Delivered Py Brian Fjnla>son
Dal-s Analysis Peqjlrad ASAP
5650 and others
Analysis Required
( ) Chsnlc-l ( 3 Qupnt. ( ) Qual, (X) Bioa3aay
Laboratory Findings
Tne 96-hr LC50 of Chap~3n PQ-IO
fov
trout fry 'was .OSj ppm.
This Is equivalent to .014 ppm
telrachlorophenol or .018 ppn total
L'aboratcry Director
-------
-------
-------
I -
/ f,y^^v,J -j.^
f-l
,^J r\i<, V-«.|Ji
- V
\\.<}
\ j^
II fs. &Wl
O-H j
A 5 \fjlt'
/ ,' ]|i\ V-'Si/S'V «yV> '"
-------
V*. Od<*2Jl"f--» i>~o
i C L i ,jJ^~
v-j >.v- .^-'
-^<
^,';;tA ; /;;.,. r w h *~r^j~- VM
*
4- , i .'
. o j-,^ ,
-------
- ->,*
n/>.,-,.(,,,
*>Jv *
«- fe* -^/y-.T «f '^ 0~
^'
't^J tax - ^ i vv 1~l>yv-^ ,,1 ;K
|xr-'J«- ' '"°- 'j^*. ,*"'V/--> i*
y "?./>% -rr y'^' M'V j y '>
J'n ,5 »-T-D ;i 1-vT/JO t -- ^-J'^
: - )
»^->
i^l-'-^- V/U - H- rV' "- » ''
-/o-x-^ : v " .^ < ! >h --
-------
>"
(i-P
_»-v^A-<.
-,
,( "i T , fj? ^
...,~4 u- ^JK'
(/ \r^\ "'' ' ' ^">-^
' T
'fV>C> 'f'»
rrwivl
'\ "'i-v> ""-'-^o.
-------
I V- J l X' Tf ' )l> 0 7- / -T
V"'l \, ->i~" r. e s,,,.j -"f/'i'/ S" I -' ^t^-jf" ^,
/i ^ )A v iV^^> -!.-~
\ \ > ^^ - - .
7v r-'-O^v' "*"' '^J '.-' - V HTX
, ^ /). ^ i^/, -) ,; "HP l'J.,.J V /'" P---J
! ^ .'isi; to ;,,'; A"~^ ^ ,f-7^ " i->
v ^' i k. -> f^r '~~~ --*J ^
T?.'
^>
,r- Jr «^> J
-5-,J*
»^A>-, o
--, ', 9 v-vx
-------
A
A)
^- J a-AMv-rs, .f-
V- /TV
..N,.\v rJ»,v-l'>,
J
*US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-281-147 70
------- |