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 CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY	EDMUNP G. BROWN JR,
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD—                                  ~
NORTH  COAST REGION
1000 CODDINGTOWN CENTER
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95401
Phon.  707—5452620
       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

-------