SolicJ vVasu;
vV .sr..r.gto>i DC 20460
Sol'd Waste
&EPA Proposed Hazardous
Waste Regulations
Volume 2
March 13, 1979
San Francisco
California
Transcript
-------
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on Proposed Rules for Controlling Hazardous Wastes
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Sections 3001 - 3004
Volume II
March 1?, 1979, San Francisco, California 94105
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceeding; (SW-62p ) 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.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
--- oOo ---
PUBLIC HEARING
on
PROPOSED RULES FOR CONTROLLING HAZARDOUS WASTES
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SECTIONS 3001 - 3004
Pages 285 - 538
N 6 ,vada_ •? ° 2. -
8-30 a.m.
March 13, 1979
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Reported by:
CAROL SPANN, CSR
(CSR No. 2786)
-------
-------
1 .
i NDEX
2 JOHN BEALE , Manager, Regulatory Affairs for
Solid Waste, Dow Chemical Company 297
3
A. H. DINSMOOR, Marshall R. Young Oil Company,
for Independent Petroleum Association of
America, Santa Fe , New Mexico 325
5
JIM JUSLISS, JR., International Association of
6 Drilling Contractors, Houston, Texas 347
7 JAY SNOW, Solid Waste Branch, Texas Department
of Water Resources, Austin, Texas 360
8
GAIL, BRICE, Environmental Manager, Raychem
Corporation, Menlo Park, California 365
10 j. p. SIEGFRIED, Environmental Counsel, Proctor
and Gamble Company 372
11
A. W. DILLARD, JR., President, Permian Basin
12 Petroleum Association, Midland, Texas 390
13 EDWARD G. GLADBACII, Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power, The Utility Solid Waste
Activities Group, and The Edison Electric
Institute 396
15
DEBORAH GU1NAN, Association of American Rail-
16 roads, Washington, D. C. 418
17 MAC McCULLOCH, Southern Pacific Railroad, San
Fran Cisco, California 455
18
JOHN P. HELLMANN, Executive Assistant to Director
of Transportation and Economics Division,
California Trucking Association, Burlingame,
20 California 477
21 DONALD JENKS , Manager, Hazardous Materials
Control, Santa Fe Railroad, Chicago, Illinois 490
22
RICK ROSE, National Industrial Traffic League 508
23
THOMAS MEICHTRY, IT Environmental Corporation,
Martinez, California 516
25 ERIC S. BURNETT, ARATEX Services, Inc., 16001
Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California 533
--- oOo ---
-------
286
2 DOROTHY DARRAR
Office of General Counsel
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chairman
4
JOHN P. LEHMAN
5 Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
7 HARRY TRASK
Desk Office - Sections 3002, 3003
8 Hazardous Waste 5'anagement Division
Office of Solid Waste
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
10 ALAN CORSON
Chief, Guideline 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
16 Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
18 JAMES STAHLER
Senior Environmental Engineer
19 Air and Hazardous Materials Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
20
ALAN ROBERTS
21 !' Associate Director for Hazardous Materials Regulation
U.S. Department of Transportation
22
23
24
25
-------
287
2 MR. LEHMAN: Good morning, ladies and
3 gentlemen. I'm John Lehman. I'm the Director of
4 Hazardous Wastes Management Division of EPA, Office
5 of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C.
6 I On behalf of EPA, I would like to welcome
7 you to the public hearing which is being held to
8 discuss the proposed regulations for the management
9 of hazardous wastes.
10 We appreciate your taking the time to
11 participate in the development of these regulations
12 which are being issued under the authority of the
13 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, better known
14 by its acronym of RCRA or RCRA.
15 The Environmental Protection Agency on
16 December 18, 1978 issued proposed rules under Sections
17 3001, 3002 and 3004 of RCRA and these proposals
18 respectively cover, first, criteria for identifying
19 and listing hazardous wastes, identification methods
20 and a hazardous waste list; second, standards
21 applicable to generators of such wastes for record-
22 keeping, labeling, using proper containers and using
23 transport manifests; and, third, performance, design
24 and operating standards for hazardous waste management
25 facilities.
-------
288
1 These proposals together with those already
2 published pursuant to Section 3003 on April 28, 1978,
3 Section 3006 on February 1st, 1978, Section 3008 on
4 August 4, 1978 and Section 3010 on July 11, 1978 and
5 that of the Department of Transportation pursuant to
6 the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act on May 25,
7 1978 along with Section 3005 regulations concerning
8 facility permits which are to be promulgated shortly
9 as proposed rules under 40 CFR, parts 122, 123 and 124
10 to the Hazardous Waste Regulatory Program under
11 Subtitle C of the Act.
12 This hearing is being held as part of our
13 public participation process in the development of
14 this regulatory program. The panel members who share
15 the rostrum with me today are, from your left,
16 Harry Trask, Program Manager in the Guidelines Branch
17 of the Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA,
18 Washington. Mr. Trask is the principle staff person
19 concerning Subsections 3002 and 3003.
20 Next is Alan Corson , Chief of the Guidelines
21 Branch, Hazardous ','Yaste Management Division, EPA,
22 Washington, who is the principle staff person concern-
23 ing Section 3001.
24 Next is Amy Schaffer of our Office of
25 Enforcement, EPA Headquarters, Washington
-------
289
1 Next is Dorothy Darrah, Office of General
2 Counsel, EPA, Washington.
3 Next is Fred Lindsey, Chief of the
4 Implementation Branch in the Hazardous Waste Management
5 Division, EPA, Washington.
6 Next is Jim Stabler, Senior Environmental
7 Engineer of the Air and Hazardous Materials Branch
8 in Region IX here in San Francisco.
9 As noted in the Federal Register, our
10 planned agenda is to cover Sections 3002 and 3003
11 today and 3004 tomorrow.
12 Also, we plan an evening session tonight
13 covering all four sections, 3001 through 3004. This
14 session is planned primarily for those who cannot
15 attend during the day.
jg The comments received at this hearing and
17 the other hearings, as noted in the Federal Register,
18 together with the comment letters we receive, will be
19 a part of the official docket in this rulemaking
20 process.
21 The comment period closes on March 16 for
22 Sections 3001 through 3004 except for a very narrow
23 part of 3001 that deals with the Extraction Procedure.
24 As we announced yesterday, this was an extension, a
25 very restricted extension until May 15, 1979.
-------
290
1 This docket may be seen during normal
2 working hours in Room 2111B, Waterside Mall, 401 M
3 Street Southwest in Washington, B.C.
4 In addition, we expect to have transcripts
5 of each hearing within about two weeks of the close
6 of the hearing. These transcripts will be available •
7 for reading at any of the EPA libraries. A list of
8 these locations is available at the registration
9 table.
10 With that as a background, I would like to
11 I lay the groundwork and rules for the conduct of this
12 hearing. The focus of a public hearing is on the
13 ' public's response to a regulatory proposal of an
14 agency or in this case agencies since both EPA and the
15 Department of Transportation are involved.
16 The purpose of this hearing, as announced
17 in the April 28, May 25 and December 18 federal
18 Registers, is to solicit comments on the proposed
19 regulations including any background information used
20 to develop the comments.
21 This public hearing is being held not
22 primarily to inform the public nor to defend a proposed
23 regulation, but rather to obtain the public's response
24 to these proposed regulations and thereafter revise
25 them as may seem appropriate. All major substantive
-------
291
1 comments made at the hearing will be addressed during
2 the preparation of the final regulations. This will
3 not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with the right
4 to cross-examination.
5 The members of the public are to present
6 their views on the proposed regulation to the panel
7 and the panel may ask questions of the people present-
8 ing statements to clarify any ambiguities in their
9 presentations.
10 The Chairman reserves the right to limit
11 lengthy questions, discussions or statements. We
12 would ask that those of you who have a prepared
13 statement to make orally, to please limit your
14 presentation to a maximum of 10 minutes so that we
15 can get all statements in a reasonable time.
16 If you have a copy of your statement, please
17 submit it to the court reporter. Written statements
18 will be accepted at the end of the hearing and if you
19 wish to submit a written rather than an oral statement.
20 please make sure the court reporter has a copy. The
21 written statements will also be included in their
22 entirety in the record.
23 Persons wishing to make an oral statement
24 who have not made an advance request by telephone or
25 in writing should indicate their interest on the
-------
292
1 registration card. If you have not indicated your
2 intent to give a statement and you decide to do so
3 later on, please return to the registration table,
4 fill out another card, and give it to one of the staff
5 As we call upon an individual to make a
6 statement, he or she should come up to the lectern,
7 identify himself or herself for the court reporter,
8 and deliver his or her statement. The Chairperson
9 will inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to
10 entertain questions from the panel. The speaker is
11 under no obligation to do so although within the
12 spirit of this information-sharing hearing, it would
13 be of great assistance to the Agency if questions
14 were permitted.
15 Our day's activities, as we currently see
16 them, appear like this. We will break for lunch at
17 the end of the comments on Section 3002 and reconvene
18 at approximately 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock for Section 3003
19 comments. Then, depending on our progress, we will
20 break for dinner and reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the
21 evening session.
22 I have a few housekeeping needs here for
23 those of you who are new with us today. The restrooms
24 and drinking fountains may be located by referencing
25 a format which is located behind the reception desk on
-------
293
1 the sixth floor lobby. There are vending machines
2 for snacks, coffee and soda pop and so on which can
3 be purchased. These purchases are also indicated
4 on thi s format.
5 Public phones are available in the first
6 floor lobby. If you need to call another Government
7 Agency, you may use the FDS phone which is located
8 here near the entrance to this room. These are the
9 only phones that are available for use during this
10 hearing. EPA office phones are extremely busy during
11 the day, and we do not have the facilities to take
12 phone messages for people attending conferences in
13 this building.
14 There is a handout on the rear table with
15 a partial listing of nearby restaurants. Also there
16 is a handout on transporation information for airport,
17 bus lines and taxis which are listed in that handout.
18 If you wish to be added to our mailing list
19 for future regulations, draft regulations or proposed
20 regulations, please leave your business card and name
21 and address on a 3 by 5 card at the registration desk.
22 Section 3002 addresses standards applicable
23 to generators of hazardous wastes. A generator is
24 defined as any person whose act or process produces
25 a hazardous waste.
-------
294
Minimum amounts generated and disposed of
2 per month are established to further define a
3 generator. These standards will exclude household
4 hazardous wastes. The generator standards will
5 establish requirements for recordkeeping, labeling and
6 marking of containers used for storage, transport or
7 disposal of hazardous wastes, use of appropriate
g containers, furnishing information on the general
9 chemical composition of a hazardous waste, use of
10 a manifest system to assure that a hazardous waste
is designated to a permitted treatment, storage or
12 disposal facility and submitting reports to the
13 Administrator or an authorized State Agency setting
14 out the quantiy generated and its disposition.
Section 3003 requires development of
standards applicable to transporters of hazardous
17 wastes. These proposed standards address identifica-
tion codes, recordkeeping, acceptance and transporatio
19 of hazardous wastes, compliance with the manifest
20 system, delivery of the hazardous waste, spills of
2i hazardous wastes and placarding and marking of
22 vehicles.
23 The Agency has coordinated very closely
24 with proposed and current U.S. Department of Transpor-
25 tation regulations in proposing these regulations.
-------
295
1 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all
2 sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979. It is
3 important for the regulated communities to understand
4 that the regulations under Sections 3001 through 3005
5 do not take effect until six months after promulgation.
6 That would be approximately June of 1980. Thus, there
7 will be a time period after final promulgation during
8 which time public understanding of the regulations
9 can be increased.
10 During this same time period, notifications
11 required under Section 3010 are to be submitted and
12 facility permit applications required under Section
13 3005 will be distributed for completion by applicants.
14 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and
15 the proposed regulations to be considered at the
16 hearing today, I return the meeting to our Chairperson,
17 Dorothy Darrah.
18 MS. DARRAH: Thank you, John.
19 Before I begin, there is a phone message
20 for Karen Bergen, if that person would pick this up.
21 Let me just repeat the ground rules. When
22 I call your name, if you have an extra copy of your
23 statement, first priority for us, if you would give
24 one to the court reporter, please. If you do have
25 additional copies, the panel would be happy to receive
-------
296
1 them. If you don't have an extra copy when you speak
2 but would be willing to loan your notes or sole copy
3 to the court reporter overnight, we would also
4 appreciate that to insure the accuracy of the
5 transcript.
6 I will be enforcing the 10-minute time
7 limit and I would appreciate it if you would summarize
8 your statements insofar as possible. I will remind
9 you this is not the only opportunity that you have
10 for the Agency to hear your views. A full, written
11 statement can be submitted to the transcript and of
12 course detailed written comments are being accepted
13 until this Friday as part of the comment period on
14 these regulations.
15 One additional thing I didn't say yesterday,
16 some people might be interested in purchasing copies
17 of the transcript rather than looking at them in the
18 EPA libraries. You should contact the court reporter.
19 The transcript can be purchased from the firm that is
20 doing the reporting.
21 One last thing today, we have three sessions
22 today. The morning is 3002 and the afternoon is 3003,
23 and the evening session is on all of the regulations,
24 but is primarily intended for people who cannot come
25 during the day. I have had two or three people
-------
297
1 indicate that they want to speak today but they have
2 not indicated what section. There are two people
3 that I cannot tell which section, Mr. Jenks and
4 Mr. Burnett. If you do want to speak today, I would
5 appreciate it if you would let me know which section
6 you will be addressing.
7 The first person to testify this morning
8 will be Mr. John Beale from Dow Chemical.
9 MR. BEALE: Good morning. I am John Beale,
10 Manager of Regulatory Affairs for Solid Waste of
11 Dow Chemical USA. I am happy to be here in San
12 Francisco and especially pleased to be first on the
13 agenda this morning.
14 Today I will review some of our concerns
15 regarding regulations implementing Section 3002 and
16 3003. I will address many of the areas in which the
17 Agency has specifically requested comments in the
18 preamble of Section 3002. In addition I will address
19 some of the additional concerns of generators that
20 warrant consideration.
21 Tomorrow, Karen Shewbart from one of our
22 Gulf Coast Divisions, will address Section 3004, and
23 by the 16th, Jack, we will be submitting written
24 comments for your consideration covering all sections
25 of Title C regulations, specifically to Sections 3001,
-------
298
1 3002, 3003 and 3004.
2 We hope that our efforts will assist the
3 Agency in developing a meaningful set of regulations
4 for the management of hazardous wastes.
5 The Agency has requested comment on its
6 proposed on-site regulations. Specifically, the Agency
7 asks: Is the DOT specification container exemption
8 proper for on-site temporary storage? Yes.
9 Is the contingency spill plan exemption
10 proper for short-term storage? Yes.
11 Are additional marking and labeling
12 requirements needed for on-site storage? No.
13 The overriding consideration here is clearly
14 stated in Background Document No. 8, Page G-2, and
15 I quote "balancing the cost of enforcement versus
16 protection against damage to the environment."
17 This statement is in relation to only EPA's
18 cost, but I perfer to think of total regulatory cost
19 which is society's cost. RCRA should address total
20 economic impact in resolving overall costs and benefits
I
21 to soc lety.
22 Over-stringent or overly-detailed standards
23 for each and every storage area would not be
24 cost-effective and would be an inappropriate cost to
25 society.
-------
299
1 Individual generating units within large
2 complexes will accumulate economically-sized lots
of wastes for subsequent transport to treatment or
4 disposal facilities.
5 The regulatory concern should be whether
these numerous storage sites are well managed and
not exactly how they are managed, whether DOT
8 containers are used, what kind of labels are used and
9
10 The exemptions proposed are steps in the
11 right direction, but they should be broadened and
12 extended. Waste storage should be conducted using
13 I environmentally-sound practices of adequate containment
14 identification, and spill prevention.
15 The Background Document used to support
16 3002, Background Document No. 8, clearly points out
17 that harm to human health or the environment occurs
18 typically from indiscriminate practices. Environ-
19 mentally sound practices should be appropriately
20 acknowledged where they do exist and should not be
21 pre-empted or unnecessarily supplemented by cost-
22 ineffective controls. Therefore, we recommend that
23 the temporary storage exemption be applied to all
24 on-site waste, whether subsequently transferred on-site
25 or off-site; that the exemption period for storage
-------
300
1 be extended to one year as long as the waste is
2 stored or contained in an environmentally-sound
3 manner, and that all references to DOT specifications
4 be removed from the regulations except as appropriate
5 for off-site transporation.
6 Finally, we strongly urge explicit
7 clarification within the regulations in accordance
8 with Background Document No. 8, that all resource
9 recovery facilities and materials be exempted from
10 these regulations; that the resource recovery
11 exemptions be applied equally to off-site and on-site
12 resource recovery operations, and, third, that
13 materials for resource recovery be defined as any
14 materials which are utilized for purposes of material
15 or energy recovery.
16 Next, the Agency has requested comments on
17 the question of who should be classified as a generate
18 under Section 3002.
19 The establishment of an exemption level for
20 generators of hazardous waste is sensible. However,
21 the Agency's proposed exemption level of 100 kilograms
22 per month is probably too conservative for most
23 materials and too high for some.
24 The granting of an exemption for generators
25 of spocitied amounts of hazardous waste must consider
-------
301
1 the degree of hazard of the material. The need for
2 such classification and its advantages will be
3 addressed in more detail in our written comments.
4 The Agency's decision to allow a 100 kilo-
5 grams per month exemption is apparently based on
6 several things. First, an evaluation of 82 damage
7 cases, a five-state waste survey, and the assumption
8 that the possibilities for mismanagement of solid
9 waste play an important role in determining whether or
10 not it's hazardous.
11 Tne Agency concludes from this evaluation
12 that past incidents of damage at sanitary landfills
13 would have been prevented had these landfills met
14 Subtitle D standards; every incident involved quanti-
15 I ties which greatly exceeded the 100 kilograms per
16 month quantity; that it would be safe to dispose of
17 limited quantities of hazardous waste at Subtitle D
18 facilities; an exemption level of 100 kilograms per
19 month is a reasonable and viable proposal; and that
20 highly toxic waste would still be managed properly.
21 Our examination of the 82 damage cases does
22 not lead to all of the conclusions reached by the
23 Agency. Only 7 percent of the cases involved anything
24 resembling a sanvtary landfill. The cases do not
25 address rate of disposal, only accumulation, and 75
-------
302
percent or more of the incidents appeared to be the
2 result of indiscriminate dumping.
3 We believe the Agency's comparison of
4 Section 3004 and Section 4004 facilities was proper
5 and presented the strongest argument for potential
6 utilization of Section 4004 facilities for disposal
7 of many solid wastes having low degrees of hazard.
8 Therefore, we recommend that indiscriminate
9 dumping not be used for determining the degree of
10 hazard or level of protection required for hazardous
11 waste; that Section 4004 facilities be used as the
12 base level of protection and as the starting point
13 for determining whether a higher level of protection
14 is required; and, finally, that the utilization of
15 Section 4004 facilities for hazardous waste be
16 aggressively pursued in conjunction with the establish
17 ment of levels of degree of hazard.
18 Another question which should be asked is
19 how should on-site be defined.
20 We fail to understand the rationale for the
21 proposed definition, Section 250.21(b ) (18 ) . We have
22 several facilities which qualify as two or more pieces
23 of property which geographically are contiguous and
24 are divided by public or private right of ways and
25 thus are considered a single site.
-------
303
1 We also have several additional facilities
2 which are within 50 miles of our producing units.
3 Thus we face a situation in which a short distance
4 means complying with one set of regulations while a
5 somewhat modest distance means a different set.
6 We recommend that the definition for
7 "on-site" for purposes of the generator -- treater/
g disposer relationship be broadened to include any
9 site within close proximity and under the same
10 ownership or control.
11 The Agency has requested comments on whether
12 additional transportation safety measures should be
13 required under Section 3003. No!
14 The extension of DOT regulations to
15 intrastate as well as interstate transportation of
16 hazardous waste should be sufficient to provide
17 adequate transporation safety. We do not believe that
18 any additional measures specific to hazardous waste
19 are warranted.
20 We recommend that the EPA and the DOT
21 clearly resolve their respective regulatory concerns
22 as to provide cost-effective regulations.
23 Should there be a consistent manifest
24 system? Yes.
25 Hazardous waste, more than ever before, will
-------
304
1 frequently be transported interstate. Therefore, we
2 urge the establishment of a uniform national manifest.
3 The Agency has solicited comments regarding
4 the manifest and reporting system.
5 Overall we believe the intent, concept and
6 content of the systems appear to be sound and realis-
7 tic. However, they need to be refined. The varia-
8 tions and subtle differences within and across the
9 systems, although not complex, are at best confusing.
10 Next, the proposed 30-day provision for
11 returning manifest to generators coupled with the
12 30-day reporting requirement by generators will, by
13 design, either result in an inordinate number of
14 exceptions or will cause a quarterly frenzy of last-
15 minute activity to obtain outstanding manifest.
16 Finally, it would not be warranted to requir
17 the submitta] of all manifests as the Agency is
18 considering in its list of options. In fact, no
19 manifest reporting should be required in those states
20 which assume the responsibility of tracking manifest.
21 Let me try to clarify our concerns by
22 referring to Figure 1, Generator and TSDF reporting
23 which is presented on Page 12. In short, there are
24 six different types of generators and TSDF's, five
25 different reporting requirements and two different
-------
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
305
reporting periods before one considers the additional
variations caused by special reporting requirements,
multi-site shipments and receipts of hazardous waste,
in-house versus contract transportation or disposal,
waste oil recovery and so on. There must be a better
way !
Therefore, we request the regulations be
modified to streamline the reporting requirements
by reducing the number of variations and eliminating
unnecessary detail, by permitting multi-site generators
and TSDF's the option of reporting by site, state
or other logical grouping, by eliminating the
artificial creation of "exception manifest" by
lengthening the reporting period for generators from
30 days to 60 days, and to clarify the exemption from
manifest reporting within those states which have
assumed the responsibility for manifest tracking.
Two related questions that should be
addressed are: Should the proposed regulations promote
incineration? They should.
Do they? No.
Incineration of hazardous waste is preferable
to long-term perpetual care in the land. The currently
proposed standards for incineration, however, are
overly stringent and will, in our opinion, severely
-------
306
1 discourage rather than encourage incineration.
2 We will address our specific technical
3 concerns regarding these proposals at tomorrow's
4 hearing and in our written comments. Today I wish to
5 discuss how we should address the potential roles for
6 incinerat ion.
7 MS. DARRAH: I'm sorry to interrupt, but if
8 you would summarize the rest of your statement, we
9 would appreciate it.
10 MR. BEALE: I have about three pages left.
11 A realistic assessment should be made of the
12 level of protection required of incineration versus
13 other methods and not what is the best that incinera-
14 tion can do under the most ideal conditions. This may
15 be done by determining the long-term efficiency of
16 land disposal, taking into account handling and fugativ
17 losses that may occur during the disposal operation
18 together with the loss rate and probability of
19 unexpected losses during the waste's hazardous life.
20 In the end, we would find that the balanced
21 i destruction efficiency for incineration may be 99
22 percent or 98.5 percent or perhaps 97 percent.
23 This approach could result in a performance
24 standard for incineration which would encourage its
25 use while providing the required protection of human
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
307
health and the environment.
The second important role of incineration
is as a resource recovery device. It is clear that
RCRA emphasizes conservation. After all, fully three-
quarters of RCRA, namely RCR addresses conservation
while the remaining one-quarter Act guides our effort.
Again, a sound assessment of the use of
incineration involving recovery of energy, for example,
may result in an optimum destruction efficiency of
98 percent or even 96 percent .
In either case, this approach will establish
parity among the hazardous waste management and
resource recovery options. The establishment of
parity would ensure cost-effective regulation.
Finally, highly absolute and predictable
treatment facilities such as incineration should be
encouraged over disposal facilities such as landfills
which require perpetual care.
Therefore, we urge the establishment of a
realistic standard of performance for incineration as
treatment that is balanced with less desirable modes
of disposal, the establishment of incentives for use
of incinerators as either a device for the destruction
of waste or recovery of energy or materials; the
establishment of two levels of standards for
-------
308
1 incineration of hazardous waste based upon degree of
2 hazard. One type is a 3004 type for higher level
3 hazardous wastes and a 1004 type for lower levels of
4 hazardous wastes.
5 Let me close by breaking down the term
6 "hazardous waste.''
7 We have stated that by proper hazardous
8 waste management we take the hazard out of hazardous
9 waste, leaving just waste and "ous.1 This is good
10 management. By incineration, however, we take both
11 the hazard and the waste out of hazardous waste,
12 leaving only "ous1'!
13 Thank you.
14 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
15 Will you answer questions, please, for the
16 panel?
17 MR. BEALE: Sure
18 MR. TRASK: Mr. Beale, I would like to
19 discuss this condition o! generator exemption, that
20 is the 100 kilogram issue, with you a little bit.
2i You seem to indicate that a fair amount of
22 hazardous waste could go into the 4004-type facility.
23 Do you have data ..hich shows that that is a safe
24 method and could you say which of the hazards it would
25 be safe to put into the 4004-tvpe facility?
-------
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
309
MR. BEALE: I don't think it would be fair
to say that we would have the kind of data you are
probably looking for in relation to the RCRA regula-
tions as they are proposed because they're new.
However, I would certainly hope that between
us we could find data that could help support that
concept.
I think it's viable, and I personally feel
that it may be a saving grace in terms of having the
capacity needed for handling the hazardous waste load
of this nature.
MR. TRASK: Well, we have had a number of
| people comment at other public hearings and also here
that we ought to have degrees of hazard and a higher
degree of hazard would include things like dioxin,
PCB's, PPB ' s , et cetera, and yet the people who run
landfills seem to have a different idea of what ought
to go in there. They seem to be more concerned about
inflammables and explosives and this sort of thing.
I am wondering if you have some information
or data which would shed some light on what is the
real concern about putting these kinds of materials
into 4 0 0 4-t y p e facilities because everyone seems to be
saying to us "Don't put the dioxins and PCB's and so
forth into the 4004 facilities. I'm not sure we
-------
310
1 understand why that is so.
2 MR. BEALE : And we would generally agree
3 with that, too.
4 Now, we will be submitting written comments,
5 I believe fairly detailed, of this kind of concept and
6 we would certainly welcome any questions for clarifi-
7 cation of our proposal which perhaps would touch on
8 the kinds of questions you have.
9 MR. TRASK: I am looking forward to your
10 comments.
11 You indicated that we ought to change our
12 definition of "on-site" to include the concept of
13 close proximity. Could you give me a feel for how
14 far that is?
15 MR. BEALE- 50 miles within the trade.
16 MR. TRASK: 50 miles?
17 What if someone said 60 miles?
IQ MR. BEALE: They may have a facility 55
19 miles away.
2o MR. TRASK: What would be the rationale for
21 50 miles versus 60 miles?
22 MR. BEALE: That would be tough to pin down,
23 but I would hope that you would look at it from a
24 cost-benefit standpoint.
25 Now, the Agency has stated in some of its
-------
311
1 factual background material that most, and I cannot
2 qualify that any further, waste, is disposed of within
3 50 miles, so I am sure there is a concern of disposing
4 of waste within 50 miles of generating facility.
5 It stands to reason that if most waste is
6 disposed of either on site or within 50 miles, that
7 needs to be brought within the hazardous waste
8 management regulatory concern. It's more of a matter
9 of how it's done, not whether it should be done or not
10 MR. TRASK: When you talk about cost-benefit
11 standpoint for the 50 miles, the difference is in the
12 administrative really?
13 MR. BEALE : Right. This would not be a
14 major factor. However, if you look at siting
15 restrictions, for example, in the transporat ion or
15 potential transportation of hazardous waste over long
17 distances, then I think you are talking about a major
18 economic and potential health impact that should be
19 considered carefully.
20 MR. TRASK: But what I am trying to say is
21 I don't think there would be very much regulatory
22 savings to accompany if --
23 MR. BEALE: There would be some, and we're
24 just one company.
25 MR. LEHMAN: Can I interject?
-------
312
1 About the point you are making, my under-
2 standing is that regardless of what EPA does, that
3 the Department of Transportation requires shipping
4 documents for transport across the street practically.
5 In other words, they don't have any restriction on
6 distance of travel.
7 So I am a little at a loss to see how this
8 type ot refinement on the part of EPA is going to help
9 matters any. You will still have to have a DOT
10 shipping document to ship it 45 miles even if EPA
11 sets such a limit.
12 MR. BEALE: We understand that and we have
13 no disagreement with that. We're thinking more of
14 Just simplifying the reporting and the siting kinds
15 of requirements that we will face up to.
16 MR. TRASK: I think there are very minimal
17 cost savings in doing that. We certainly will --
18 MR. BEALE: Getting back to the siting
19 thing, I would disagree from the standpoint that
20 especially today as soon as we talk about an off-site
2i | hazardous waste siting kind of situation, that's a
22 very difficult thing to deal with and that is one of
23 the reasons, again, that we're stressing the most
24 optimum use of Subtitle B kind of facilities.
25 I think that it puts it in a different
-------
313
1 perspective and makes a different ball game out of it.
2 MR. TRASK: Well, another point on 3003,
3 you mentioned that there are some DOT/EPA regulatory
4 concerns. I'm not sure what those are.
5 MR. BEALE : No. I would like to see the
6 respective agencies get those out on the table, but
7 in just reading the regulations, there seems to be
8 to me at least, some overlap between EPA's concern
9 off-site transport at ion-wise and DOT'S concerns, for
10 instance in the consideration of DOT containers or
11 labeling on site.
12 It would seem to me that it would be much
13 more cost-effective to draw that line at the property
14 line between on-site and off-site.
15 MR. TRASK. DOT regulations do not usually
16 apply -- I had better be careful of what I say.
17 MR. BEALE: There is one provision in there
18 that requires storage in DOT containers with materials
19 on site and evidently a plan for off-site shipment.
20 I think that's inappropriate.
21 I think storage on site needs to be done
22 in an on vi ronmen t al 1 y-sound manner, whether it. happens
23 to be a DOT container or not.
24 MR. TRASK: I was wondering if you were
25 getting to enforcement, concerns here, but you are not.
-------
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
314
MR. BEALE: No.
MR. TRASK: You also testified that we outfit
to have a uniform national manifest.
If we did that, we would also have to have
uniform shipping papers.
Would that be acceptable to Dow?
MR. BEALE: I'm not a transportation expert
by any means, however the example that's given to me
is the bill of lading system, if that answers your
question.
MR. TRASK: But there is no national uniform
form for that.
MR. BEALE: I understood that there is.
MR. TRASK: Everyone has their own shipping
papers, as I understand it.
MR. BEALE: What we would be concerned about
frankly, is tranporting hazardous waste across, let's
say a couple of state borders and having to have maybe
a series of three or four manifests.
I can visualize that happening as the
regulations are proposed now, leaving the states a lot
of leeway on how they implement manifesting.
MR. TRASK: But the state's manifest, if the
state becomes authorized to handle the program,
would have to be equivalent and consistent, and it
-------
315
1 would be only for waste which originates and is dispos-
2 ed of in their states.
3 So if you're going through a state, then
4 your DOT shipping papers, which is the combination of
5 shipping papers, manifest, would be sufficient.
6 MR. BEALE : Well, that sounds like that
7 takes care of our concerns.
g MR. TRASK: We spent a long, long time
9 working that out, so if it doesn't work out, we would
10 like to know why.
11 MR. BEALE: Good for you.
12 MR. TR/VSK: You indicated -- one final
13 question, and I will give up.
14 You indicated that 30 days was too short a
15 time to return the manifest.
jg Why is 60 days better other than that it's
17 twice as long as 30?
lg MR. BEALE- No. What I am speaking to here
19 is that the receiver of the hazardous waste has 30
20 days to return the manifest to the generator and then
21 the generator has 30 days at the reporting quarter
22 to submit a report. So theoretically then if there
23 has been a number of shipments, let's say near the
24 end of the reporting quarter, the generator is trying
25 to get his report together and yet the receiver of the
-------
316
1 waste has 30 days to get his report back to the
2 generator.
3 MR. TRASK: You are suggesting shortening
4 that period then toward the end?
5 MR. BEALE: Well, there are various
6 alternates, I'm sure.
7 One is to report for the prior quarter any
8 outstanding or exception manifests or having different
9 reporting requirements on the receiver of the hazardou:
10 waste.
11 MS. SCHAFFER- As a followup to that, there
12 was another suggestion within the preamble to 3002
13 which spoke to allowing the generator to report only
14 those exceptions which ho has not received back in
15 30 days and do it on an ongoing basis rather than
16 waiting until 30 days after the end of the quarter.
17 Do you think that that would satisfy your
18 concern?
19 MR. BEALE: The concept makes a lot of sense
20 The thing we were concerned about there is
21 having to keep track of the in and out date of each
22 and every manifest during the course of the year. It
23 .lust gets a little more burdensome, I think.
24 T h e w a y w« 1 o o k a t it is if a 1 o a d o f
25 hazardous waste has been improperly disposed of,
-------
317
1 reporting that within 30 days or 35 days or 40 days
2 is probably not going to make any difference. I am
3 afraid the harm has already been done.
4 So then I think what we're talking about is
5 the follow-up activity that's appropriate.
6 MR. CORSON: I have a couple of questions.
7 Earlier in your testimony you indicated that
8 you thought that all resource recovery facilities and
9 materials should be exempted from these regulations.
10 Could you be more explicit as to whether
11 you are talking about the entire set of Subtitle C
12 regulations, the 3002 regulation --
13 MR. BEALE: The entire set of Subtitle C.
14 MR. CORSON: So somebody at the resource
15 recovery facility, regardless of what he is doing,
16 you feel he should be exempted from our hazardous
17 waste regulation?
18 MR. BEALE. From Subtitle C there are also
19 or at least will he some regulations regarding resource
20 recovery systems in themselves.
21 MR. CORSON: Let me follow that up.
22 How about if in the process of resource
23 recovery he generates a hazardous waste which he is
24 now disposing of; is he in the system?
25 MR. BEALE-. He should be in the system.
-------
318
1 MR. CORSON: So it's just the process of
2 resource recovery?
3 MR. BEALE: Yes.
4 MR. CORSON: And toward the end of your
5 testimony you indicated something about two levels
6 of incineration standards, 3004 and 4004, and I'm
7 wondering whether you provided any detailed comments
8 or a description of 4004 incineration standards for
9 our consideration.
10 MR. BEALE : We would have liked to, but
11 however that was a thought we came up with at about
12 the llth hour, so we do not have a description of how
13 we would visualize that.
14 MR. CORSON: One last question.
15 As a followup and mainly to the comments
16 we have had, for example during the previous four
17 sets of hearings, there has kind of been objections
18 to our use of the phrase like "environmentally sound"
19 because these are not definable, and I am wondering
20 whether you now feel or what your position is from
21 Dow's point of view as to if that is acceptable or
22 if you think there should be a quantitative definition
23 that could be used.
24 MR. BEALE: You mean our former comments?
25 MR. CORSON: No, just generally.
-------
319
\ ! MR. BEALE : Gee, obviously we are using the
2 term as we would understand it.
3 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Beale, earlier in your
4 presentation you talked about the 90 days' storage
5 exclusion and recommended it be extended to one year
6 and to all stored waste.
7 One of our concerns here in setting the
8 90 days was that we had no or we felt that after 90
9 days we ran the risk of drums corroding and becoming
10 nonsecure , if you will.
11 Let me ask you your impression or your
12 opinion. If we were to do what you ask here, do you
13 feel happy with having the storage regulations under
14 Section 3004 applied to storage facilities even though
15 the permitting process would not be involved?
jg In other words, you say extend the exclusion
17 to one year and to all stored materials, whether it's
18 for shipment off site or not. Suppose we were to do
19 that from the paperwork or administrative standpoint
20 but apply the standards, the technical standards for
21 storage.
22 Would you be happy with it?
23 MR. BEALE: We considered that, and the
24 thing that caused us not to is some of the specific
25 standards under 3004 are just simply too stringent.
-------
320
1 For example, there is one requirement that material
2 should be stored such that there is no discharge.
3 That's an absolute zero term. I don't think that's
4 appropriate for regulation.
5 MR. LINDSEY: That incident, I might point
6 out, where that comes from is from the definition of
7 the Act, the definition of storage versus disposal.
8 Disposal is a discharge from air or water. That is a
9 definition from RCRA, whereas storage is not that.
10 That's where that comes from.
11 I don't know that there is a lot we can do
12 about that.
13 On another front, the incineration regula-
14 tions, you indicated you felt we should not require
15 the 99.99, I think it's the four nines' destruction
16 efficiency, that you felt it was inappropriate, that
17 there may be times when you want less than that.
18 Our approach here in the destruction
19 efficiency, which is the bottom line regulation in
20 incineration, is that with the four nines' efficiency,
21 we, if it's insured, then we feel secure that the
22 emissions from such a facility will not create
23 problems.
24 Another approach which we considered was
25 the development of emission standards to provide that
-------
321
1 assurance. That of course is much more difficult to
2 do and would have to be done for many, many materials.
3 Could you comment on whether or not you
4 feel that would be a more effective approach than
5 destruction efficiency? In other words, if we do
6 away with the high-level destruction efficiency, then
7 clearly we need another method of insuring that
8 emissions and so forth will not be a problem.
9 MR. BEALE: I will comment first of all on
10 the 99.99 or the so-called four nines.
11 The reason we feel that that's too high is
12 that the Agency's supporting data seems to pinpoint
13 information regarding specific kinds of test patterns
14 or data under the most ideal conditions, and we did
15 not believe that the 99.99 would represent an overall
16 day-to-day achievable kind of operation.
17 Secondly, we do not believe that the
18 ' achievement of 99.99 is a good balance versus perpetua!
19 care of hazardous waste in the land for many years.
20 So what we were addressin?;' here is that there should
21 be a balance between the protection achieved by
22 incineration and the protection expected from long-terir
23 disposal in the land because you have not only the
24 handling of future losses of the material in the land,
25 but you have some loss rate occurring during its life
-------
322
1 together with some probability of an unusual event
2 resulting in a large emission from the landfill.
3 MR. LINDSEY: I understand your point there,
4 but I guess my problem still remains.
5 If I do away with destruction efficiency
6 requirements, what do I use to insure that emissions
7 are —
8 MR. BEALE: First of all we are not
9 recommending that you do away with such a standard.
10 We're suggesting that you establish a
11 performance standard which is more realistic and is
12 more in balance with the alternative modes of disposal
13 versus treatment as for incineration.
14 MR. LINDSEY: In your written submission,
15 are you going to address how you think we ought to do
16 that?
17 MR. BEALE: Probably not in the detail that
18 you may like. However, we would certainly entertain
19 any questions that you would have after you get our
20 , written comments.
21 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
22 MR. STABLER: I have just two questions that
23 I would like clarification on,
24 One is, again getting back to the 100
25 kilograms per month, do you have some suggestions as
-------
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
323
to how that might be approached, say in California,
for example, where they have an extremely hazardous
waste list versus a hazardous waste list, perhaps a
List A versus List B sort of an approach where
something less than 100 kilograms per month could be
addressed?
Have you given that thought?
MR. BEALE : Yes, we have, quite a bit of
thought .
We certainly hope that our written comments
will provide enough food for thought that this kind
of an approach wil] be pursued. It's a multi-tiered
kind of approach going down to levels be3ow 100 and
levels well above 100 kilograms per month.
MR. STAHLER: And that is in your written
submi 11al?
MR. BEALE: Yes.
MR. STAHLER: The other question I have is
on the manifest. You made the statement, quote, in
fact no manifest reporting should be required in those
states which assume the responsibility for tracking
manifest, unquote, and I'm not sure I understand what
• you mean by that.
MR. BEALE: No reporting beyond the submitta]
of the manifest itself, which obviously would be
-------
324
1 required for the state to provide the tracking
2 responsibility. I understand this occurs in
3 California.
4 MR. STABLER: Are you suggesting that the
5 enforcement agency, assuming it's a state, be in the
6 cycle of the reporting such as they do in California
7 or --
8 MR. BEALE : I believe they are in the cycle.
9 MR. STABLER: They are in California, but
10 I wondered if in the Federal proposal it puts the
11 responsibility on the generator to --
12 MR. BEALE: I would be concerned about
13 generating too many exception lists. I think it would
14 be too burdensome to try and resolve the differences.
15 MR. STABLER: Well, again, then my question
lg is would you be more comfortable with the type of
17 reporting mechanism that they use in California versus
18 what is proposed in the Federal?
19 MR. BEALE: No, we would not.
20 MR. STABLER: Okay.
21 MS. DARRAB : Thank you very much.
22 Before we have the second speaker, I would
23 like to introduce Alan Roberts who is joining us from
24 U.S. Department of Transportation.
25 He is the Associate Director for Hazardous
-------
325
1 Materials Regulations and will be able to ask incisive
2 questions on Section 3003 regulations.
3 The second person who is on the list for
4 this morning is Vfyatt Craft from Craft Petroleum
5 Company, Incorporated.
6 Is Mr. Craft here?
7 (No response.)
8 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Arthur Dinsmoor from
9 Marshall Young Oil Coraoany for the Independent
10 Petroleum Association of America'
11 MR. DINSMOOR: Madam Chairman, members of
12 the panel, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Arthur
13 Dinsmoor and I'm District Manager of the Marshall
14 Young Oil Company at Midland, Texas and an indeoendent
15 producer. I am a registered professional engineer
16 in the State of Texas. I have 30 years' operating
17 experience in the petroleum-producing industry. I am
18 also Vice Chairman of the Environmental Protection
19 Agency Committee of the Independent Petroleum
20 Association of America.
21 I am substituting for Mr. Francis Wilson
22 who unfortunately is in the hospital.
23 The Independent Petroleum Association of
24 America is a trade association representing 5,000 of
25 the approximately 12,000 independent oil producers and
-------
326
1 gas producers in the United States.
2 To put the independents into the proper
3 context in this meeting today, the independent
4 producers drill approximately 90 percent of the
5 exploratory wildcat wells, that is wells in new,
6 unproven areas on shore in the lower 48 states. The
7 independents drill 80 percent of the total wells
8 drilled on shore in the lower 48.
9 The independent producers account for
10 approximately 40 percent of total industry expenditure;
11 in the search for supplies of oil and gas, and they
12 do operate about 30 percent of the total oil and gas
13 produced on shore in the lower 48 states.
14 The independent producers are small
15 independent businessmen, generally one man who might
16 have an organization of three or four field employees,
17 but they are small independent businessmen who operate
18 out of their hip pocket, so to speak, with very
19 limited if any staff.
20 Normally, as is the case with many other
21 lines of endeavor, the independent businessman is
22 heavily mortgaged. Cash flow is survival. He is
23 mortgaged to the point that unnecessary economic
24 burdens could put him out of business.
25 Also today as a corollary, I am also speakin
-------
327
1 for the 26 unaff11iated state and regional oil and
2 gas associations representing the sum total of 12,000
3 independent producers in the United States today.
4 Since Mr. Wilson was unable to be here
5 yesterday at his appointed time, I would ask the
6 Chair's permission to briefly touch on some items
7 that we would like to address in Section 3001 as well
8 as Section 3002 this morning.
9 MR. DARRAH : Okay, if you can summarize
10 those, we will hear them.
11 MR. DINSMOOR: Okay. On some of the
12 documents in the proposed regulations it deals with
13 the definition of hazardous waste.
14 We note that there is no differentiation
15 as regards content. In other words, 100 kilograms of
16 pure, deadly chemical, we feel does not have the same
17 hazard to the environment that 100 kilograms of the
18 same substance that might contain a trace element of
19 some of the substances that are on the listing of the
20 proposed regulations.
21 To quote the background document of the EPA,
22 they talk about special wastes and they designate
23 these wastes as special for some of the following
24 reasons: Lack of information on waste characteristics,
25 lack of information on the degree of environmental
-------
328
1 hazard posed by disposal or lack of information on
2 waste disposal practices and alternatives, very large
3 volumes and/or large numbers of facilities, limited
4 movement of wastes from point of generation and few,
5 if any, documented damage cases and apparent
6 technological difficulty in applying current Subpart
7 D regulations to the waste, and potential high
8 economic impact of current Subpart D regulations are
9 imposed.
10 Our studies indicate that there are few if
11 any documented cases of hazard to the health or the
12 environment or hazard or contamination of groundwater
13 resources from drilling muds or drilling operations.
14 We have searched the records of the Texas
15 regulatory agencies and the New Mexico regulatory
16 agencies. It is our suggestion that drilling muds,
17 oil and gas produces brines and crude oil and crude
18 oil waste either be specifically eliminated from any
19 definition of hazardous waste or this definition be
20 deferred until such time as the two-year study that
21 we understand has been contracted, has been completed
22 and thoroughly analyzed to see if in truth there is a
23 hazard ,
24 Todav there are approximately 670,000
25 producing oil and gas wells in the United States. The
-------
329
1 testing procedures as set forth to arrive at a
2 definition of waste will require very sophisticated
3 laboratory equipment and testing. We would wonder
4 if the laboratory capacity is available on a contract
5 or commercial basis to accomplish this task.
6 Also, there is a stipulation of waste
7 analysis at each location. 'A'e will say that in many
8 instances some of the substances will have very
9 similar characteristics, and that it would be highly
10 redundant to require a specific test for each of
11 670,000 locations.
12 Addressing Section 3002, I will read from
13 the prepared statement.
14 Section 3002 regulations require that
15 generators of hazardous waste adhere to certain
16 prescribed standards in order to protect human health
17 and the environment. Although RCRA does not specifical
18 ly define a generator, EPA's definition encompasses
19 any person whose act or process produces hazardous
20 waste.
21 Furthermore, preambulatory language
22 elaborates, "...it is important to point out that a
23 person who accumulates hazardous waste is considered
24 a generator because the process of accumulation results
25 in a hazardous waste disposal problem."
-------
330
1 Although drilling muds and oil production
2 brines may not be produced in the sense of being
3 manufactured at oil and gas drilling or production
4 sites, they are accumulated. Therefore, those dealing
5 with muds and brines could be considered generators
6 for the purposes of hazardous waste regulation.
7 EPA, in an effort to minimize the burden
8 for those who generate only small amounts of waste
9 not posing a substantial environmental threat, has
10 proposed to exempt from this section those persons who
11 produce and dispose of less than 100 kilograms of
12 hazardous waste in any one month, although compliance
13 with 250.29 is still obligatory. While we support the
14 concept, we think it should be expanded and clarified.
15 First, it is not clear whether the 100
16 kilograms refers to the particular element in the
17 waste considered to be hazardous or whether the weight
18 determinant applies to the entire substance containing
19 I the hazardous material, regardless of how small the
20 amount of hazardous component present within that
21 substance.
22 Second, is this figure determined on a
23 cumulative basis of total operations or on the basis
24 of the amount generated at each individual site
25 location?
-------
331
1 Third, a monthly determination is confusing
2 and unworkable. Finally, the exclusion should be
3 reserved only for wastes, for example, muds and brines
4 that have a low degree of hazardous risk. We do not
5 believe wastes exhibiting a high degree of hazard,
6 for example PCB's, should be exempt from any stage of
7 regulat ion.
8 Accordingly, we recommend that EPA revise
9 the exclusion cutoff level to a higher-volume level
10 which would be averaged over a 12-month period per
11 facility. EPA has requested comments on whether an
12 exclusion level of 1,000 kilograms would be more
13 appropriate. While this figure would provide
14 necessary and warranted relief to at least some
15 generators in the oil and gas drilling industry, it
16 still would not be sufficient to cover deeper drilling
17 operations which require much higher volumes of mud.
18 For these latter situations, an even higher volume
19 exclusion could be enacted without increasing the
20 threat of measurable contamination to the environment.
21 Even if one qualifies for the volume
22 exclusion, he still must comply with 250.29 which
23 specifies that the waste material must be disposed of
24 at a permitted facility. Therefore, a large volume
25 of waste presumably will have to be transported
-------
332
1 off-site to approved facilities. This assumes the
2 availability not only of sufficient transport
3 capacity but also facilities meeting all requisite
4 conditions and willing to undertake this monumental
5 task. If this assumption is correct, we hope the
6 Agency will then clarify questions regarding ultimate
7 liability for any contamination that should occur
8 at the final disposal site.
9 The proposed regulations also make
10 allowances for those generators who store hazardous
11 waste on-site prior to shipment for less than 90 days
12 in DOT specification containers or permanent storage
13 tanks. That is, a generator fsllinp within this
14 category does not have to comply with Sections 3004
15 (standards applicable to owners/operators of hazardous
16 waste storage, treatment, disposal facilities) and
17 ; 3005 (permits for treatment, storage or disposal of
lg ' hazardous waste).
19 IPAA recommends that the cutoff period
20 be extended to at least 180 days. If this were done,
21 the vast majority of drilling operations would be
22 relieved from complying with Sections 3004 and 3005,
23 a compliance burden that is impractical and of
24 questionable benefit for these types of activities.
25 Typically, a well can be drilled and
-------
333
1 completed or plugged (depending on such factors as
2 geologic depth, weather, personnel, equipment
3 conditions) in a time period of a few days to a few
4 months. Most wells that are drilled do not find oil
5 or gas in commercial quantities so that they are
6 plugged and not developed.
7 Because of the temporary nature of these
8 projects, delays and extra costs associated with
9 permit applications and compliance requirements will
10 undoubtedly mean a reduction in the resources available
11 to find and produce needed domestic energy resources,
12 an especially disturbing perception in light of the
13 questionable benefits to be gained.
14 For those independent producers who must
15 comply with the entire list of standards in 3002,
lg the burden will be sizable. The reporting, record-
17 keeping and manifest system requirements will be
18 difficult for most of these small businessmen.
19 Certification of reports should be made
20 according to one's best knowledge. Under normal
21 working conditions, a producer or his authorized
22 representative may not be able to inspect personally
23 all information to be certified and to attest in
24 absolute terms to its accuracy.
25 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
-------
334
1 Will you answer questions?
2 MR. DINSMOOR: I will try.
3 MR. LINDSEY: I have a couple of questions
4 that maybe will help me and some of the other panel
5 members better understand the information involved in
6 wildcat drilling.
7 How long does it normally take to drill
8 from the time you start drilling and until you find
9 out you are not going to get oil? How long does that
10 take as a rule, assuming you don't get any oil?
11 Are we talking about a year?
12 MR. DINSMOOR: No. I would say the vast
13 majority of wells will be drilled and completed in
14 30 days or less.
15 MR. LINDSEY: So it's short term?
16 MR. DINSMOOR: I have personal knowledge of
17 some that ran as high as 900 days. But as I say, the
18 vast majority should be on and off in 30 days.
19 MR. LINDSEY: Tell me if I'm wrong. Most
20 of those, that is drilling operations, will produce
21 waste mud; is that right, but not necessarily brine?
22 MR. DINSMOOR: Right.
23 ME. LINDSEY: How many in the dry wells,
24 which I think you said 90 percent of them were dry,
25 something like 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
335
MR. DINSMOOR: Unfortunately.
MR. LINDSEY: That's the way it goes.
In dry wells how many of them will produce
brine before you give up?
MR. DINSMOOH: Well, in an exploratory well
we might possibly test a potential producing horizon
with a drill stem test. We might — we get a sample
of the fluids in the porous formation inside of the
drill pipe and we bring it to the surface and look
at it. This might amount to, oh, something less than
100 barrels -- I would say 20 or 30 barrels and only
in a limited number of the wells drilled.
MR. LINDSEY: I see.
MR. DINSMOOR: Normally we do not go to
the — the industry doesn't go to the expense of
running a drill stem test to sample these liquids
unless we have an indication of economic hydrocarbons.
Hopefully vie think we're smart enough to
deviate between potential hydrocarbons and salt water
based on the cuttings that we see at the surface.
MR. LINDSEY: How much mud would normally
be produced?
MR. DINSMOOR: It depends entirely on the
depth of the well.
The drilling mud sometimes consists of two
I
-------
336
1 components, the fluid system in the hole itself plus
2 the fluid system that is circulating and being
3 treated on the surface. In other words, we pump
4 mud down inside the drill pipe and lubricate and cool
5 the bits and to bring the cuttings to the surface
6 and then the geologist looks at the cuttings.
7 Let's say a 5,000-foot well, depending on
8 hole size, might have an active fluid system of two to
9 three or 400 barrels.
10 MR. LINDSEY: So must wells, we're talking
11 somewhere under 500 barrels of waste for a dry well?
12 MR. DINSMOOR: I would say that would take
13 care of, again, the large majority.
14 The very deep exploratory wells, of course,
15 get into much large fluid systems, maybe 1500 or
16 2,000 barrels.
17 MR. LINDSEY: A barrel is not a 55-gallon
18 drum?
19 MR. DINSMOOR: 42 gallons. That is a point
20 that does need to be clarified in all regulations
21 I because our industry has been operating on a unit of
22 42-gallon barrels for --
23 MR. LINDSEY: Years?
24 MR. DINSMOOR: As far back as I can remember
25 and more, and I have a few gray ones.
-------
337
1 MR. LINDSEY: What do you typically do at
2 a wildcat site with these 400 barrels?
3 Do you barrel it up and send it somewhere
4 or put it in a pond?
5 MB. DINSMOOR: Well, it's used to fill the
6 well and the requirements of the Texas Railroad
7 Commission specifically state that the well must be
8 plugged with mud-laden fluid.
9 MR. LINDSEY: So you put some back down?
10 MR. DINSMOOR: Right.
11 MR. LINDSEY: How much do you have left
12 over when you are all done?
13 MR. DINSMOOR: Let's say a third.
14 MR. LINDSEY. Roughly a third is ]eft on the
15 surface?
16 MR. DINSMOOR: Yes, as an estimate. Then
17 in many instances in the area that I'm most familiar
18 with, the South Plains, Lubbock, Texas area, which is
19 highly agriculturally intensive, in many instances
20 the farmers or operators of the surface ask us to
21 spread this out and disk it in because they have over
22 the years seen some beneficial help to the growth of
23 plant life.
24 I'm not prepared to testify on the chemistry
25 of plant nutrients today.
-------
338
1 MR. LINDSEY: What do you do if you don't
2 do that?
3 MR. DINSMOOR: It dries out in the pits
4 and we mix it in the reserve pits with soil and mound
5 and level.
6 MR. LINDSEY: And what would it be within
7 the special waste regulations that creates the
8 economic impact which you alluded to or are you going
9 to address this tomorrow?
10 MR. DINSMOOR: I will specifically address
11 3004 tomorrow.
12 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. We will wait.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. TRASK: Mr. Dinsmoor, in your comments
15 on the condition exemption of 100 kilograms per month,
16 you indicated that the exclusion should be reserved
17 only for wastes that have a low degree of risk, and
18 then you said, "We do not believe wastes exhibiting
19 a high degree of hazard should be exempted from any
20 regulations."
21 MR. DINSMOOR: Right.
22 MR. TRASK: Do I assume this to be a zero
23 recommendation that any quantity of a high hazard --
24 MR. DINSMOOR: Well, I don't want PCB's in
25 my drinking water, but I would say there is a
-------
339
1 difference between 5,000 PPM chloride brakage water
2 and pure PCB's, so there has to be some reasonable
3 differentiation as to degree of hazard.
4 The idea of zero discharge is a fine idea.
5 I don't think it can ever be attained in this country
6 with 220,000,000 people living here.
7 MR. TRASK: I was wondering if you had
8 some —
9 MR. DINSMOOR: I don't have any specific
10 numbers.
11 MR. TRASK: -- lower quantity in mind?
12 MR. DINSMOOR: No, but I think that the
13 thousand kilograms per month averaged over a yearly
14 basis — I can visualize that we might have an oil and
15 gas separator that's two feet in diameter and six foot
16 high and we might have some sludge or waste that has
17 to be cleaned out of it this year or maybe two years
18 down the line or three years down the line, and we
19 might have three or 400 barrels of some produced
20 brines and some crude oil waste which we say are
21 biodegradable that we will bury. T,Ve would exceed the
22 100 kilograms, and I would assume that we would have
23 to come under regulations or apply for and get a permi
24 to dispose of same.
25 You are looking at another 50 to 15,000
-------
340
1 permits a year with no appreciable benefit.
2 Normally we bury the wastes locally.
3 MR. TRASK: Well, to get away from the
4 permit thing for a minute, you also indicated that
5 the reporting requirements would be burdensome on
6 the wildcat drillers.
7 MS. DARRAH: Speak up please.
8 MR. TRASK: I'm sorry.
9 You indicated that the reporting requirement
10 would be burdensome.
11 Could you suggest some alternative that we
12 could consider here that would not be burdensome?
13 MR. DINSMOOR: Well, Mr. Trask , our position
14 basically is that no action be taken until such time
15 as this study that we hear of has been conducted
16 because, as I say, we cannot find recorded instances
17 of documented hazard.
18 Then the industry can work with the various
19 regulatory agencies to devise workable procedures,
20 ! plans and reporting requirements to take care of a
21 situation which we don't think they're going to find.
22 Now, in the past -- I am more knowledgeable
23 of operations in the state of Texas, and with the
24 potable groundwaters. In the 1930's and '40's there
25 are a few recorded instances of potable water
-------
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
341
contamination from produced brines. The industry
together with the Texas Water Development Board and
its predecessor groups have worked together to devise,
implement and monitor procedures which have eliminated,
as tar as we can tell today, any active hazards, and
that we would suggest that the industry will be happy
to work with that when a problem is documented. \¥e
have done so in the past.
MR. TRASK: Okay.
MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Dinsmoor, I wanted to
clarify one point, if I might, for your benefit and
also for the audience.
I believe your statement concerning storage,
it reads "The proposed regulations" --
MR. DINSMOOR. What page?
MR. LEHMAN- Page 13.
"The proposed regulations also make
allowances for those generators who store hazardous
waste on-site prior to shipment for less than 90 days
in DOT specification containers or permanent storage
tanks. That is. a generator falling within this
category does not have to comply with Sections 3004
(standards applicable to owners/operators of hazardous
waste storage, treatment, disposal facilities) and
3005 (permits for treatment, storage or disposal of
-------
342
1 hazardous waste)."
2 I just wanted to clarify for you that that
3 is not really correct. The standards for storage
4 apply during this 90-day period. It's just that you
5 don't need a permit if you store for less than 90 days.
6 So I wanted to make that point to you.
7 MR. DINSMOOR: Mr. Lehman, I would suggest
8 that many qualified industry attorneys have studied
9 the publication in the Federal Register. There are
10 many honest differences of opinion in interpretation.
11 MR. LEHMAN: Let me say that is our intent,
12 and if it doesn't come out that way, we will talk to
13 our a ttorney.
14 I think you prefaced your entire presentation
15 with something that I think is important that we
16 reiterate in this situation here, and that is that
17 it is only those materials from oil and gas drilling
18 operations that are found to be hazardous that are
19 being discussed here. In other words, we do not assum
20 that all oil and gas drilling brines or that all
21 drilling muds are indeed hazardous wastes. It is only
22 those lhat are found to be, by our characteristics,
23 that would be --
24 MR. DINSMOOR: Yes, sir, Mr. Lehman. The
25 industry has gone forward and has done quite a bit of
-------
343
1 preliminary testing work. They're under the tests
2 specified. The trace elements on many of these items
3 that are specifically listed show up. Some of the
4 heavy metals are the result of contamination of the
5 formations we drill for. In other words, we cut some
6 of the heavy metals and minerals in the process of
7 drilling, and they do come up with the cuttings and
8 trace elements will be found.
9 MR. LEHMAN: I see.
10 MR. DINSMOOR: That matter would be addressee
11 at length in the 3004 discussion,
12 MS. DARRAK: Mr. Dinsmoor, you mentioned
13 that you had searched the Texas and New Mexico
14 regulatory agencies' files for problems with drilling
15 muds and brines; is that correct?
16 MR. DINSMOOR: Yes, we did. We asked them
17 to search their records, and they replied to us.
18 MS. DARRAH: Could you tell me what criteria
19 you asked them to use or what you asked them
20 specifically to look for?
21 MR. DINSMOOR- In the case of drilling muds,
22 we asked them for any recorded instance of proven
23 contamination from drilling muds.
24 MS. DARRAH: Contamination of groundwater?
25 MR. DINSMOOR: Groundwater or any complaints
-------
344
1 that come into their office.
2 Normally if I — let's say a land owner
3 that we have operations on might have a question.
4 He would normally apply to the regulatory agency.
5 MS. DARRAH : Like a prize cow, for example?
6 MR. DINSMOOR- Yes.
7 MS. DARRAH: You have heard that before,
8 I think.
9 And how about the brines, is it primarily
10 contamination of the groundwater?
11 MR. DINSMOOR: Yes.
12 MS. DARRAH: We heard in one of our other
13 hearings -- someone testified that this drilling mud
14 was so valuable that they always took it all with
15 them when they went from well to wel] .
16 I wondered if you could comment on that.
17 whether that's done in other parts of the country
18 that you know of or whether under any circumstances
19 your men would ever do that.
20 MR. DINSMOOR: It depends entirely on the
21 fluid.
22 On the deep wells, the high-pressure wells,
23 we use, to me -- I just barely passed freshman
24 chemistry, and they are rather complex fluids. They
25 are valuable and they are reclaimed and reused.
-------
345
1 In the shallow wells we are dealing with
2 aqueous background, native muds, native bentonites.
3 and the value, the economic value does not warrant
4 salvage.
5 MS. DARRAH : What percentage of the wells
6 would be these deep wells, a fairly small percentage?
7 MR. DINSMOOR: You give me a depth cutoff
8 and I can search the records arid reply to you as to
9 definition. But it's, say, five, 10 percent.
10 MS. DARRAH: Because you just made a
11 distinction of the deep wells, these fluids are
12 available and I wanted to know what percentage.
13 MR. DINSMOOR: That's an off-the-cuff guess.
14 As I say, we can furnish to you numbers of
15 wells by depths. That information is generally
15 summarized in the industry every year and those
17 numbers are available. If you would like that, we
18 can furnish that to you.
19 MS. DARRAH' Well, I guess what we would be
20 more interested in is either a volume calculation or
21 percentage calculation, if you can do any better than
22 your estimate of how much is reclaimed.
23 MR. DINSMOOR- We wilJ try.
24 MR. TRASK: On these fluids that are
25 reclaimed, is that done by the driller himself or is
-------
346
1 there an industry that does that?
2 What happens to it?
3 MR. DINSMOOR: Well, the mud companies not
4 only deal in dry materials that are mixed with water
5 for drilling muds, but they also deal in liquid
6 muds, pre-prepared and premixed muds, and they're
7 handled by transport truck and are stored at their
8 facility. We sell them back to them and they in turn
9 clean them up and prepare them for the next applicatior
10 and then resell them.
11 It seems we always buy at $100 a barrel and
12 sell back at 50 cents.
13 MR. TRASK: So there is definitely a
14 recycling industry here?
15 MR. DINSMOOR: Yes, yes. As I say, it's
16 a matter of economic justification.
17 MR. TRASK: Under our regulation that would
18 not be a waste. That stuff goes back into the
19 recycling operation.
20 j MR. DINSMOOR: The time factor would catch
21 a lot of it.
22 MS. DARRAH: Okay. We don't have any more
23 questions.
24 Thank you very much .
25 Mr. Frank Reichmuth and Mr. Albert Wellman,
-------
347
1 California Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2 (No response. )
3 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Jim Jusliss, Jr.?
4 MR. JUSLISS: I'm Jim Jusliss, and I have
5 two written statements for your consideration today.
6 One is from my own company, and 1 will have no comments
7 regarding that statement. The other is submitted by
8 the International Association of Oil Well Drilling
9 Contractors, of which I am a representative, and I
10 ; would like to summarize that statement in the time
11 allotted.
12 The International Association of Drilling
13 Contractors is a trade group of over 1,000 member
14 companies directly involved in the oil and gas and
15 geothermal drilling process throughout the United
16 States and around the world. IADC currently represent
17 some 470 drilling contractors, over 140 exploration
18 departments of producing companies and some 402 service
19 and supplier companies in allied areas.
20 The role of the contract drilling company
21 is to provide the actual drilling equipment and
22 trained manpower to drill oil and gas wells. As a
23 practical matter the drilling contractor is but one
24 of many subcontractors involved in the exploration
25 process. The operator will separately purchase
-------
348
1 material or contract with geophysical crews, site
2 preparation crews, road builders, drilling bit
3 manufacturers, drilling mud suppliers, we]1 logging
4 companies, casing companies, and many others.
5 The operator controls the mud program
6 employed and actually purchases the mud. The drilling
7 contractor handles the mud while it is being utilized
8 in the drilling process as directed by the; operator
9 and his representatives at the well site. The operator
10 assumes overall responsibility. We are, however,
11 very much affected by the economic1 and practical
12 impact that regulations pertaining to the well
13 operator create for the allied service industry.
14 Any provisions creating unnecessary delay.
15 burdensome cost and more complex operating procedures
16 for the operator, particularly the thousands of
17 smaller independent operators, will certainly impact
18 upon the drilling industry in a meaningful way. The
19 issuance of these extremely burdensome regulations
20 with their novel and unrealistic requirements, when
21 applied to the oilfield, are unduly stringent and
22 will cause massive economic hardship and disruption oi
23 the petroleum industry at a time when domestic energy
24 exploration should be fostered.
25 We beljeve that much of the regulatory schem
-------
349
1 envisioned for waste disposal was directed at truly
2 hazardous and environmentally significant practices
3 of other industries, particularly those with fixed
4 plant or disposal sites. The inclusion of exploratory
5 and development drilling locations and practices,
6 even in a partial manner, is being proposed without
7 sufficient regard for the operating record of the
8 industry throughout the years and with insufficient
9 analysis of the need for, or costs attendant to, the
10 regulation.
11 Much of our industry's concern is with the
12 permit process. Yet these proposed regulations have
13 not even been issued while the hearing process has
14 begun. This could be a nightmare causing major
15 delays in drilling programs.
16 Since 1859 through 1978 over two and a half
17 million wells have been drilled in the United States.
lg The oil and gas industry could not have accomplished
19 tins without the acquiescence of the landowners
20 i n vo 1 vod .
21 If there were a harmful effect in the use of
22 urilling muds, the landowners, most of whom are
23 farmers, ranchers, foresters and wilderness enthusiast;
24 would have filled the record book with complaints and
25 documented testimony on some adverse environmental
-------
350
1 impact. Instead there is a minimum of public
2 controversy surrounding the use of drilling muds and
3 their disposition.
4 We are not aware of any documented testimony
5 of some adverse environmental impact. Instead there
6 is a minimum of public controversy surrounding the
7 use of drilling muds and their disposition.
8 We are not aware of any documented testimony
9 of some adverse environmental impact. Instead there
10 is a minimum of public controversy surrounding the
11 use of drilling muds and their disposition. We are
12 not aware of any documented evidence of industry
13 practice or hazard in connection with the use of
14 drilling muds that would justify the inclusion of
15 this material as a hazardous waste.
16 Other Federal, State and local regulators
17 applicable to drilling operations provide adequate
18 environmental safeguards without the necessity of
19 additional Federal intervention. For example, State
20 regulations generally provide for protection of the
21 fresh water sands, I^S safety procedures, the disposal
22 of brines and the like.
23 We understand that the proposed regulations
24 are to be placed in force where States have not
25 enacted equally stringent standards. We believe State
-------
351
1 controls over drilling activities are more than
2 adequate to protect the environment and the mud from
3 any possible hazard associated with exploratory
4 or production drilling.
5 General Site Selection: The drilling
6 sites and resultant wells are not continuing, permanent
7 facilities for waste disposal. They are merely
8 temporary working sites. If unsuccessful, they are
9 plugged and abandoned.
10 If commercial levels of petroleum products
11 are discovered, a closed system for extraction is
12 established and drilling muds are no longer in use.
13 Recordkeeping: The imposition of the
14 requirements for detailed recordkeeping are at this
15 stage unjustified and will create additional expense
16 without corresponding benefits.
17 Present industry practices concerning
18 recordkeeping seem sufficient.
19 Visual Inspection: Since drilling operations
20 are conducted on a 24-hour basis, drilling crews at
21 a well site where drilling mud is in use are already
22 performing constant visual inspections of all the
23 operating equipment, supplies and location.
24 Requiring a log notation of their activity
25 is needless paperwork.
-------
352
1 Closure: All well drilling in the United
2 States today is done under strict Federal or State
3 regulations governing the well and its abandonment
4 with adequate opportunity for public inspection to
5 determine responsibility.
6 In summation, the International Association
7 of Drilling Contractors takes the position that no
8 portion of the regulations proposed for hazardous
9 waste disposal should be made to drilling muds until
10 further studies on the actual environmental impact
11 of such drilling muds are completed.
12 Establishing stringent restrictions,
13 significant paperwork burdens and new procedures
14 without a clear basis of need is unfair and of
15 questionable legal foundation. If scientific study
lg does indicate a need for change in types of drilling
17 mud ingredients or the procedures for their
18 transportation, storage, use and ultimate disposal,
19 these matters should be addressed specifically. They
20 should be reviewed for their application to the
21 technology and capabilities of the drilling industry
22 and to the specialized operating conditions under
23 which exploratory and production drilling are conducte
24 We pledge to work with the Environmental
25 Protection Agency and the numerous State agencies whic
-------
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
353
already monitor this activity as well as other
interested Federal agencies in the review, development
and implementation of any appropriate standards.
Madam Chairman, that completes my comments,
and I will be glad to answer any questions.
MS. DARRAH: Go ahead.
MR. TRASK: Mr. Jusliss, you indicated that
the recordkeeping requirements should not be imposed
because you referenced something called "present
industry practices." Could you explain what those
are a little bit for us so we have a better idea of
what goes on here?
MR. JUSLISS: Each tower on a drilling
rig keeps a complete record of all the activities
that go on during that operating tower, and this
includes any changes in the mud program, any additions
to the mud system and the amount of material used,
the cost of that material, and this information is
forwarded to the owner of the well together with any
other interested parties.
It's our position that additional paperwork
beyond what we're already doing is just a slowdown
of the operation because our drilling procedures are
usually very — time as very important and we're
trying to complete this operation as quickly a-s
-------
354
1 possible. So any additional burdens as Car as
2 reporting procedures there or administrative reporting
3 from our office, we think, unless it serves some
4 purpose, we shouldn't be required to file those papers
5 MR. TRASK: Does the drilling contractor
6 keep a copy of this record?
7 MR. JUSLISS: Yes.
8 MR. TRASK: You said he gave it to the
9 owner, but he keeps a copy?
10 MR. JUSLISS: Yes.
11 MR. TRASK: How long does he keep that?
12 MR. JUSLISS: Three years.
13 MR. TRASK: And does it indicate what
14 happened to the mud that isn't put back into the well?
15 MR. JUSLISS: Surplus mud?
16 MR. TRASK: Yes.
17 MR. JUSLISS: No, sir, that would not be
18 on our records.
19 Many times the mud is disposed of, if it
20 is disposed of at all, after our equipment has left
21 the location. Occasionally we will use our pumps
22 and our equipment to dispose of the mud subsurfacely.
23 MR. TRASK: Pump it back down?
24 MR. JUSLISS: Pump it back in the hole at
25 the end of the job.
-------
355
1 This is done about as much to eliminate
2 a mess as it is to eliminate a hazard because if you
3 leave the .pits full, quite often the farmer wants
4 to utilize his land and put it back into production,
5 and if you have left your mud on the surface, well,
6 it's quite a time lag, maybe several years even before
7 that land can be put back into production because it's
8 a soupy, messy area that is not very compatible with
9 equipment, farm equipment being used.
10 MR. TRASK: Thank you.
11 MR. CORSON: In the written testimony
12 there's a statement that indicates that 20-year
13 maintenance care is required if a facility is not
14 closed and waste remains.
15 Is that a Federal requirement or is that an
16 individual State requirement?
17 MR. JUSLISS: We understood that was one of
18 your requirements.
19 MR. CORSON: By ours, you mean EPA?
20 MR. JUSLISS: Yes.
21 MR. CORSON: Can you give us any details
22 of what maintenance care is required for that 20-year
23 period?
24 MS. DARRAH : Alan, no. The point is that
25 is the 3004 requirements.
-------
356
1 MR. CORSON: Sorry. I thought you were
2 talking about something already in business independenl
3 of our 3004.
4 MR. JUSLISS: No. We don't have any
5 recordkeeping of that magnitude at this time.
6 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Jusliss. early on in your
7 testimony you seem to make a distinction between the
8 well drilling contractor which your organization
9 represents and the producer or, I believe you used
10 the term "operator" who actually owns the mineral
11 lease and controls the drilling operation and brings
12 a number of other subcontractors into play and so
13 forth.
14 You also used the words that the drilling
15 process is directed by the operator and his representa-
16 tive or representatives at the wellsite.
17 Does that imply that as a normal practice
18 then that a representative of the operator or the
19 producing person is on the site?
20 MR. JUSLISS: In the vast majority of the
21 cases he would have a representative. This depends
22 on the type drilling contract that you have with the
23 owner or producer, but the vast majority of them are
24 under the care, custody and control of the operator.
25 There are some occasional drilling contracts
-------
357
1 which are what we would refer to as a turnkey
2 : contract where the contractor would accept the
3 responsibility that normally would go to the operator
4 : because he may have the expertise to perform these
5 services and the operator may be more of an investor-
6 type owner and not have the technical ability to drill
7 that well and service its activity. In that instance,
8 he would attempt to obtain a contractor who does have
9 the expertise and could perform the services that he
10 normally would provide in addition to the contracting
11 services that are normally provided in a drilling
12 con tract.
13 So occasionally the contractor would accept
14 those responsibilities.
15 MR. LEHMAN- Okay. Occasionally is what,
16 10 percent of the time'
17 MR. JUSLTSS- I would think probably less
18 than that on a turnkey basis.
19 MR. LEHMAN: What I am trying to get at,
20 it would appear from your description of the
21 contractual relationship of the producer and operator
22 of the wellsite and the drilling contractor, that
23 these regulations would really app]v to the producer
24 or operator rather than the drilling contractor.
25 MR. Jl'SLISS: Vc take that position,
-------
358
1 Mr. Lehman. The thought we would leave most
2 importantly with you is that we are a satellite of
3 the oil and gas industry and anything that has an
4 adverse impact on the oil and gas producing industry
5 immediately has a. mere reflection on our activities
6 in that they slow down — rig activity drops and ours
7 would mainly be an economic impact on an industry that
8 has had enough economic problems historically without
9 adding to it .
10 MR. LEHMAN: Thank you. I just wanted to
11 clari fy that.
12 MS. DARRAH : I take it you heard
13 Mr. Dinsmoor's estimate of the amounts of mud used
14 and what happens to it.
15 Do you have any different estimates or do yoi
16 pretty much agree with what he said?
17 MR. JUSLISS: I would suspect that in my
18 opinion his figures were probably a little bit low.
19 The Lubbock area mostly has shallow
20 operations and for shallow wells those figures probabl>
21 would be reasonable, but most of my mud systems,
22 surplus mud systems, would have between 700 and 1200
23 barrels in the system on the surface not counting the
24 waste that would accumulate in what we would call the
25 reserve pits.
-------
359
1 MS. DARRAH: And do you do the deep wells?
2 Do you have any idea what the estimate is of the muds
3 that can be or are reused? What is your estimate
4 of the percentage of the muds that are reused?
5 MR. JUSLISS: That are reused?
6 MS. DARRAH: Yes. I mean the estimate we
7 heard earlier is that some of these muds are valuable
8 enough to be reclaimed.
9 MR. JUSLISS: It's a small percentage.
10 Transportation gets into that problem.
11 You overcome the benefits that you might
12 acquire in transportation. It's relatively small.
13 Ours are very heavy-weight muds where
14 barite is involved and mud weights of 15 to 18 pounds
15 are involved. This is the area that you salvage most
16 of your muds. It's $40 or $50 or $70 a barrel of
17 mud at your cost and, as he said, we don't get
18 anything like that back.
19 MS. DARRAH: What would you say, less than
20 five percent?
21 MR. JUSLISS: Yes, I would say so.
22 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
23 I guess that's all of our questions. Thank
24 you very much.
25 We will take a short break and reconvene at
-------
360
1 10:35.
2 Would the following people, if they're here,
3 p]ease see me: Mr. Jenks, Mr. Burnett, "r. Rose and
4 Mr. Gladbach.
5 (Recess taken, after which the hearing
6 reconvened at 10:45 o'clock a.m.)
7 MS. DARRAII : Mr. Jay Snow, head of the
8 Industrial Solid Unit of the Texas Department of
9 Water Resources.
10 MR. SNOW: My name is Jay Snow, head of the
11 Industrial Solid Waste Unit, Texas Department of
12 Water Resources, and I'm speaking today representing
13 the National Governors' Association, Hazardous Waste
14 Task Force, a group of 18 states of a Subcommittee on
15 Waste Mangement formed shortly after the enactment of
16 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
17 My statement regarding Subpart B was
18 provided to the reporter yesterday although it wasn't
19 the same person.
20 Vi'ith regard to Subpart B, the Hazardous
21 Waste Task Force is concerned that the proposed
22 exemption of generators producing less than 100
23 kilograms per month from the Subtitle C system would
24 result in some highly hazardous wastes escaping
25 adequate regulatory control.
-------
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
361
Accordingly, we have presented two alterna-
tive recommendations to avoid this potential problem.
The first alternative would exclude small generators
only from reporting requirements while retaining mani-
fest controls for all hazardous wastes. This approach
would not only provide better control, but would also
provide regulatory agencies with a means to deal with
problems which developed as a result of noncompliance
with the manifest requirements.
The second alternative would exempt only
small generators of wastes exhibiting low-level
hazards. This approach would necessitate distinguish-
ing between levels of hazard in Subpart A and/or per-
haps type of hazard. We note with interest the find-
ings stated in the preamble to Subpart B that EPA lacks
such data to distinguish among degrees of hazard.
il'e would submit that the proposal of criteria
for the identification of hazardous wastes represents a
distinction of degrees of hazard posed by solid waste.
Further delineation of level of hazard could certainly
be accomplished by utilization of the criteria and/or
listing mechanisms.
For example, the criteria could identify
wastes containing higher concentrations of drinking
water contaminants as being highly hazardous or whateve
-------
362
name you would care to attach to them, and such wastes
2 could be so designated in the Subpart A lists.
3 In any case, the first alternative would be
4 preferable in the event that EPA accepts our recommenda
5 tion presented yesterday on the subpart on toxicity
6
7 For those of you who were not here yesterday,
g in my testimony yesterday, I presented the Task Force
recommendations to increase the toxicity contaminant
level from ten times EPA drinking water standards to
100 times those standards.
That concludes my prepared statement.
. o I would like to read into the record the
,, alternatives, the detailed recommendations presented in
,c the Task Force's comments and recommendations.
,, The first alternative would be effectuated
lo
,-. by it going to Subsection 250.29(a), Subparagraph (a),
I
wherein the 220-pound exemption is made and simply re-
write that paragraph to exempt retailers disposing of
hazardous wastes other than waste oil, or not genera-
2, tors, provided that the hazardous wastes -- and go on
22 to retain the rest of the proposal language, and then
go to Subsection 250.23(a) and rewrite the introductory
sentence to state "any generator who meets the criteri
pc of 250.20(c ) (1)i or iv, except generators who produce
-------
363
1 and dispose of no more than 100 kilos, approximately
2 220 pounds per month shall --" and then retain the
3 balance of the proposed language.
4 That section, I just suggested that be modi-
5 fled, would be the reporting requirements and hence
6 the manifest controls would remain in effect.
7 The second alternative of our recommendation
g is as I presented it, to rewrite Subsection 3 to make
g the exemption conditioned on the degree of hazard or
10 type of hazard presented by certain waste.
11 The requirement should be constructed so as
12 to include highly hazardous and toxic wastes in the
13 Subtitle C regulatory program.
14 That's it.
Ig MS. DARRAH: Okay. Will you answer questions
16 MR. SNOW: Sure.
17 MS. SCHAFFKR: On your first recommendation
lg concerning the small generators, excluding them from
19 reporting, are you saying that they would stay in the
2Q manifest system and they would keep records? They
2i would notify and do all those things and do everything
22 except report?
23 MR. SNOW. Right. That's the gist of the
24 recommendation, the object being, once again, to avoid
25 this problem of highly toxic and dangerous wastes being
-------
364
1 exempted in a wholesale fashion from controls under
2 this program which is obviously one of the intents of
3 establishing the program to begin with.
4 I'm not absolutely sure, and I should have
5 checked my notes on this, but I remember discussing
6 with a gentleman from a company in Missouri who was in-
7 volved in the production of dioxin. and he was attempt
8 mg to find an outlet for disposal to incinerate t h o
9 dioxin stillbottoms and I believe he had somewhere
10 under a few thousand gallons that was generated by a
11 company t h a t leased his facility over several yea r s,
12 ' so that, is one example where it is conceivable to rne
10 that this particular waste may have been generated in
quantities less than 220 pounds per month.
15 MS. SCHA7FER: I'm not sure I see that w
have any more control under that first recommendation
because wo, as the regulating agency or the state as
the regulating agency, does not see the movement of
the waste. It doesn't get exception reports or annn-il
2Q reports.
oi Where is the balance between — of still
22 making them keep with the manifest requirements and no
23 reporting?
24 Mil. SNOW: 1 wouldn't agree with that.
25 The controls that, you imposed are not, necessarily
-------
365
1 dependent upon vour also requiring reports of cornpli-
2 ance with your control. You impose the control and
3 you require the nan i-Test, and if it is not issued and
4 not fol Lowed by anybody who the rules require compli-
5 ance with, then \ou have violations.
g It is a Ujs s intens.- level of regulations
7 for small generators, I will grant you, but, still the
g controls are active,.
9 MR. SCiiAFFER. Thank you, Jay.
-US. DAKR4H- Okay. No more questions.
Thanks.
12 MR. SNOW: Thank you very much.
13 MS. DARRAH: Kenneth Wilkins, Safety
Specialist,? Is Mr. '.Vilkins here"
(No response.)
'IS. DARRAH Gail Brice, Raychem, represent-
ing Peninsu!a \anuiacturers ' Association9
18 MS. GAIL BHICE- My name is Gail Brice. I'm
the Environmental Manager for Raychem Corporation, and
2Q f am also representing the Peninsula Manufacturers'
Association, which is a class affiliation of companies
22 on the San Francisco Peninsula in the Counties of San
23 .'lateo and Santa fiara
24 The basic ohjec1ive of the Peninsula Manu-
25 fact urers' Assoc, laiton is to review all governmental
-------
366
regulatory activities that we can all get our hands on
2 these days and see whether or not they're going to
3 effect the economic vitality of the San Francisco
4 Peninsula.
5 Most comments made today are from the efforts
6 of the Industrial Tfaste Committee which I am Cochairman
of. Our primary objection to the federal regulations
8 concerning hazardous waste disposal is that for the
9 past several years, we have been working with the
10 California State Health Department for the disposal of
11 our hazardous wastes, and within our companies we have
12 set up procedures for the proper identification, con-
13 tamer izat ion , labeling, disposal of hazardous waste.
So we all have our waste haulers' manifest forms and
15 waste haulers' manuals that we have set up under the
guidance of the California State Health Department, anc
now the? federal government comes around and says that
"We want the same end, but we want you to do it differ-
ently," and the big problem in these requirements are
2Q the different manifests that are going to be required
that aren't as comprehensive as the California State
22 Department manifests and also the record keeping and
23 reporting requirements.
24 At this time in California, we have to fill
25 out our haulers' waste manifest, and it goes along with
-------
367
the hauler and goes to the disposal site, and the dis-
2 j posal site sends us a copy and we send monthly a group
3 | of copies of the manifests that were sent to the dis-
A posal site. So the disposal site also sends it to the
c State Health Department and the State Health Department
does the matching that would be required of the genera-
7 tors in the federal regulations. Okay.
o Besides the fact that it would be a hassle
to do this matching, this waste tracking at the genera-
tor site, also with the State Health Department's new
recycling waste regulations which state that they will
,? be reviewing all waste streams being sent to dumps --
._ to disposal sites -- Excuse me -- reviewing the waste
,. streams and seeinf where there are areas where wastes
14
.- are going to disposal sites where they could be r e -
claimed.
Ib
_ So there is going to be a screening at the
State Health Department level and also waste exchanges
18
have been going on for the past several years, so at
__ the same time while they are going to be required —
This is a proposed regulation that looks like it is
_„ going through -- they will be required to review the
„_ waste streams going to disposal sites to see if any-
thing can be reclaimed or exchanged within industry.
25
24
At the same time it seems like it would be
-------
368
only one small step forward to set up the waste track-
2 ing system within the <\g;ency rather than to be required
3 from the generator. Okay?
So this is what I am savins?;, is that we have
5 been set up for this in California for the past
g several years, and if there are any problems in the
California system, let's fine tune the California
system instead of, you know, starting all over again
with the federal regulations.
Other features of the California systen which
were brought up in our discussions at the Peninsula
Manufacturers' Association, as I mentioned before, is
,o more comprehensive hazardous waste manifests. We have
,A provisions for confidentiality in California and also
,e the extremely hazardous waste permitting program.
._ As was mentioned before, the 1 00-k i 1 op;r am
ID
.- exemption for highly toxic materials such as dioxin,
10 we just don't see that this is feasible at this time.
lo
,„ In California, if we have a small amount of hazardous,
extremely hazardous waste which is on the list, we con-
„. tact the State Health Department and receive an ex-
o« tremely hazardous waste permit. Vie have found no
problems with this in the past, and the disposal sites
are prepared to receive this hazardous waste and to
handle it in a special manner when 11 's received at
-------
369
1 the disposal site.
2 So we would like to see this continued on
3 the federal level.
4 So just to summarize what the Peninsula
5 Manufacturers' Association feels are our problems with
6 the federal regulations, it's simply that WP havo been
7 working with I, ho State of California for the past
g several year:-; , and we would just like that system to
g be maintained and possibly modeled after the Clean Air
Act in that State Implementation Plans are submitted
to the EPA and if the state programs meet or exceed
the regulation of the federal government, let the
state maintain their own program.
14 Thank you .
MS. DARRAH. Thank you.
•,<- Wi 11 you answer questions9
17 MS. BP1CE: Sure.
MR. LINDSEY: One point for the record, is
that the regulations are — authorising state* programs
2Q under RCHA have not been prope>sed yet . They wj 1 1 be
21 proposed within the next six weeks, but by and large
22 the thing you are recommending with regard to authoriz-
23 ing st a te programs is the approach which will be usad.
24 MS. BRICE: Thank you.
25 MR. LEHMAN : Ms. Brice, a number of commen t ar ie t
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
370
and including some here at this hearing, have indicated
that they feel the need exists for a national uniform
manifest system. Maybe you heard some of those remarks
today.
You're, I believe, advocating something
different. In other words, stick with what California
has got .
MS. BRICE: Maybe the federal government
would like to adopt California's manifest.
Just another comment on that is because it's
more comprehensive. In talking to operators at dis-
posal sites, they're very apprehensive. I have heard
apprehensions expressed that the information proposed
for the federal manifest would not be comprehensive
enough to protect them and their operators from possibl
hazards that wouldn't be identified on the federal
manifest, so more comprehensive manifests may be the
best bet .
MR. LEHMAN. Well, okay.
MS. BRICE: As a waste generator, in
California we have been dealing with more comprehensive
manifests for quite a while.
MR. LEHMAN: I will point out that the State
of Illinois has such a manifest and the State of New
Jersey has such a manifest and so on, and I am sure the/
-------
371
all like theirs as much as you like yours, but I just
2 wondered if you had any commentary about that, and you
3 have given it to me, so thank you.
4 MS. BRICE: Thank you very much.
5 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
g Is Rick Rose here, and does ne want to offer
7 us comments on Section 3002? He was one of these
g people who signed up yesterday and indicated he wanted
to speak today, and I couldn't tel] on what section.
I am going to go through the list again of
people who have indicated they wanted to speak on
j2 Section 3002 that have not answered yet, and then we
can decide a little better when we can start with 3003
,4 because we have quite a few people who want to discuss
15 that.
... Is Mr. \Vvatt Craft here?
Ib
,-, (No response. )
18 MS. DARRAH: Is Mr. Frank Reichmuth and
Albert Wellman here?
2Q (No response.)
21 MS. DARRAH: Is Mr. Kenneth Wilkins here?
( No r e s p o n s e . )
23 MS. DARRAH: Is there anyone else who would
like to offer comments on Section 3002 -- Oh, sorry.
25 Mr. John Siegfried indicated he wanted to speak on
3002 .
-------
372
1 If there is .-.oneone else who wants to speak
2 on 3002 specifically, Let the registration desk know
3 because this is your b i •; chance.
4 Mr. Siegfried9
5 MR. JOHN SIEGFRIED- I am )ohn Siegfried,
6 Environmental Counsel for r'roctnr and Su.ti.jie Company in
7 Cincinnati, Ohio. I am deliveri!!;?, li'.^se comr-jen f s which
8 are in a summary nature on a subs t < t a i: e basis ror
9 J. Floyd Byrd, Manager of Proctor and 'iarnbJe's Environ-
1Q mental Control Department.
11 Mr. Byrd developed a oonf! let be!ween his
12 attendance in some other areas and there lore could not
13 attend this hearing.
14 First, I would 1iko to thank you Cur the
15 opportunity to address this pcroup ;inc| f(J express
lg Proctor and Gamble's position on a number oT issuer-;
17 involved in the proposed regulations is-vied under the
lg hazardous waste provisions of the Resour< e Conservation
t
ig and Recovery Act.
2Q j Although P roc, tor and Gamble's man u f a C' t u r i ng
I
2i j processes involve relat ively few haz;ji'dous wastes rh
22 company has an extensive program to insure that ,
23 \;umber 1. all wastes thai clearly are ha z.i i don s , rhai
24 Rover n ^ien t al as;encies isidicali1 may !'e c-u ris :,! e rod
25 hazardous or wastes whic'h we fee! n'-i^ DI |je r1 <• ^ :i ved as
-------
373
1 hazardous at some future date, are disposed of in a
2 manner that is entirely environmentally responsible.
3 T/e feel our procedures overa 1 1 are more cori-
4 prehensive and for the most part more rigorous than
5 those likely to be required under RCRA . 'We are highly
6 supportive of the basic intent of the hazardous waste
7 provisions in RCRA, and of striotly regulating the
8 disposal of hazardous wastes, and we t'eel that in many
9 ways, such regulations should be a benefit to society,
10 to industry, and more particularly to our company.
11 However. wo do have several concerns about
12 the regulations as they have been proposed. In some
13 areas we feel that the regulations should be consider-
14 ably more strict. For example, while Proctor and
15 Gamble is more than willing to accept total rosponsi-
16 biliL> for Liu.- wa.ste it ^em-rates, we feel that the law
17 does not impose enough restrictions on the transporter
18 and disposal agencies.
19 We have found that we have a continuing
20 problem locating disposal agencies that meet our
21 rigorous standards and at which we can be certain that
22 our wastes wi11 be disposed of in an entirely respon-
23 s i b 1 e man n e r .
24 In addi t ion, we have a cont inuint', concern
25 that wastes that we consign to disposal agencies are
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
374
disposed of in the specific manner designated in the
contract. It is our feeling that the manifest system
should include a statement of the mode of disposal to
be used for that specific waste, and further that
there be federal sanctions imposed if the transporter
or disposal agency does not follow the instructions
listed on the manifest.
It is our current policy to spot check our
waste disposal to insure that contract terms are being
met, but it would certainly be helpful in this effort
if the government would require legal requirements and
penalties as necessary to insure that disposal agencies
follow the disposal instructions of the waste genera-
tors .
As I mentioned, we find that it is difficult
today to locate acceptable facilities at which to dis-
pose of hazardous wastes. Anyone who reads the papers
is aware of the problems involved in developing new
sites for hazardous waste disposal facilities. There
have been frequent articles in recent months of the
strong citizen pressure, or in some cases, of legal
pressures, to close sites which are considered by
state and federal regulatory agencies to be highly
responsible and environmentally sound.
Just to give you a case study, in the
-------
375
1 Cincinnati area, one of the few acceptable landfills
2 east of Cincinnati in Ohio is receiving a great deal of
3 citizen pressure from local groups who are greatly con-
4 cerned over having a waste disposal site in their
5 neighborhood. This site has been operating for in
6 excess of five years and has been approved by the Ohio
7 Waste Disposal authorities, and it is being operated in
8 a sound manner and may qualify for the ultimate
9 federal requirements, but nonetheless citizen groups
10 in the local area have been extremely vocal and have
submitted petitions that the site be closed down. I
12 am sure this case study may be found in a number of
13 other areas in the U. S.
In light of this, it is totally irresponsible
15 to use sites which have been prepared for the disposal
of truly toxic or hazardous wastes for types of wastes
17 where no significant hazardous wastes are involved. It
lg is absolutely essential that the tests used to define
hazardous wastes are designed to do just that.
20 For example, the original proposed toxic ex-
traction procedure would have resulted in classifying
22 such materials as peanut butter, baby food and raw
23 carrots as hazardous due to their salt content. While
24 the toxic extraction procedure has since been changed,
25 it remains technically deficient.
-------
376
1 This presentation was orepared some time ago,
2 arid I notice Mr. Lehman made a statement that the ex-
3 traction procedure has been lott open for comments
4 until May 16 and perhaps, therefore;, this objection i
5 premature.
6 There is a continuing danger that an incor-
7 rect definition of hazardous waste will result in the
8 inclusion of nonhazardous wastes and will exacerbate
9 the problem of proper disposal of truly hazardous
10 wastes.
In addition, we feel that it is absolutely
12 critical that hazardous wastes be categorized both in
13 regard to the type and the degree of hazard. For
example, it is absurd to require that gasol i ne-soa ked
15 flammable rags be disposed of in a site that was pre-
16 pared to dispose of highly toxic pesticides or poisons
such as dioxin.
lg I have referenced here the fact that Proctor
and Gamble is submitting directly to the EPA written
2Q comments with a detailed proposal on this subject, and
we would recommend that EPA evaluate the classification
22 or category,a proposal that we understand others have
23 submitted as well, very carefully.
24 We have come up with three classes of
25 hazardous wastes in our written comments, and doubtless
-------
377
1 based on the interests of other waste generators, per-
2 haps there are other classes that should be present as
3 well.
4 To start with in the classification process,
5 the EPA regulations should differentiate between wastes
6 which are hazardous in terms of public health or the
7 environment, and those which simply present some degree
8 of hazard to (lie safety of the employees. V/'hile both
9 must be protected, it is obvious that the most effectiv
10 means of providing that protection will be different.
11 For example, it is unlikely that for most flammable
12 wastes, there wil 1 be any significant, danger to either
13 the public health or the environment. The only concern
14 will bo for the safety and health of the employees at
15 the disposal site.
15 The protection of the employees ai the dLs-
17 posal site should be effected by workplace regulations,
18 possibly issued by O3IIA rather than EPA hut it should
19 not require that such wastes bo treated in the same
20 manner as highly toxic chemicals. Vi h i 1 e there 1;-, sono
21 possibility for harm to the environment or the public
22 health from corrosive or reactive materials, it must
23 cases this risk is rather limited.
24 Furthermore, the res t r i <_ t i on.-, on a proper ly
25 I construe I or! sanitary landfill to prevent significant
-------
378
leaching to the environment would normally be more than
2 satisfactory. Any restrictions written around corros-
3 ive or reactive wastes should take this into account.
4 Only a limited amount of such wastes would require any-
5 thing more than good sanitary landfill practices and
g proper occupational safety protection for the employees
7 It is a simple fact and one that should be
g obvious, that facilities for disposal of hazardous
g wastes are a very scarce resource in this country today
and will continue to be so. Toxic chemicals and others
11 which are a significant hazard to the environment or
12 the public health are of major concern to the entire
13 country. It is totally counterproductive to our effort
to control these serious hazards, to squander this re-
15 source and use hazardous waste disposal sites for
wastes which impose no significant risk to the public.
In addition, for toxic materials, there
clearly should be categories defining the degree of
hazard. For example, a case could be made that not
2Q even the rigorous EPA site construction standards are
adequate for some persistent highly toxic materials
no such as dioxin. On the other hand, for materials
23 which biodegrade readily, which absorb to the soil, or
where the degree of toxicity is sufficiently low that
25 massive discharges would be required to endanger the
-------
379
1 public health, considerably lesser requirements would
2 be in order.
3 It is the feeling of our company that a
4 waste categorization system is absolutely essential if
5 this country is to deal with the critical hazardous and
6 toxic waste situation which we face today.
7 A final matter of concern to us is the pro-
8 posal to apply RCRA requirements to biological waste
9 treatment facilities which have NPDES discharge permits
10 These facilities are already regulated, and all legiti-
11 mate concerns can be addressed in the NPDES permitting
12 process. More importantly, applying tho currently pro-
13 posed RCRA construction specifications to these facili-
14 tics would be extremely costly and provide no measure-
15 able benefit to the environment.
It would seem intuitively obvious that if
biological treatment renders the waste materials in-
volved safe enough to discharge to navigable waters,
the facilities themselves do not constitute a threat
20 to the environment. There is no justification in
either RCRA or the Clean Water Act for the policy.
22 This is a true case of regulatory overkill which mis-
23 directs attentions and resources away from the real
24 problems, and we urge the Agency to reconsider.
25 There are a number of other points in the
-------
380
proposed regulations which we have comments, questions
or suggestions in regard to the technology involved,
and comments have been made separately and have been
submitted to the EPA either through Proctor and
Gamble's trade associations or directly.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to
present our views.
IIS. DARRAH: You are welcome.
9 j! Mr. SIEGFRIED- n'ith regard to questions, I
!
10 ji will anticipate this. Again, I am an attorney repro-
11
11 sentiag Mr. Byrd who has j great deal more technical
[
12 j| know 1 edge than I do. 1 \vill certainly be happy to
"
i
13 | answer genera] questions, and 1 wilt be happy to dol«r
14 i answers to an^ technical qae-,t ions to properly qmxli-
15 I fied individuals in the1 Cincinnati offices who will
i
15 I r os.50 rid in depth in the; event vou have1 any.
17 |! MS . DARRAH : Okav .
i t
lg | MR. TRA?K You indicated in vour statern<-nt
i
i
19 oi" Mr. Rvrd's slat<-''UM I; that there ought to be morn
20 controls on irans;u> 'Tors, among other things.
21 Do you have some thoughts on what kinds of
22 controls Mr. Byrd had in mind there'?
23 MR. -SIEGFRIED: AMempting to inject, my per~
24 sona! knowledge here —
25 MS. DARRAII: Please :,)oak into the mike.
-------
381
1 MR. SIEGFRIED: Attempting to inject my per-
2 sonal knowledge here, I think that most major generator
3 have occasionally had problems, especially in certain
4 parts of the country, with disposers who say that they
5 will dispose of waste in one manner and ultimately the
6 wastes turn up in sone other chain of commerce or some
7 other place other than where they were supposed to.
8 Certainly the manifest system is an attempt
9 to address this problem, and time will tell whether it
10 will do so effectively. But our narticular concern is
11 one in the transportation area, especially in the East.
12 New Jersey is a case that comes to mind, and recently
13 the Supreme,1 Court had something to say on the subject
14 of interstate commerce and waste generally that could
15 be" hazardous or not.
i<- But certainly there is a reason for federal
17 preemption in this area, and there is reason for uni-
jg form standards with regard to the manifest system and
19 the manifest system's impact on transporters, and
2Q beyond this, I really can't respond to your question.
2i MR. TRASK: Well, to just point out briefly
22 the way <:he manifest system is constructed, the trans-
23 porttr is required to take all the waste to the facilit
24 that you, the generator, designate, and short of his
25 breaking that regulation and breaking those rules, I am
-------
382
1 wondering what we should do with the transporter to
2 require him to do what — or to speak to your concerns
3 there.
4 MR. SIEGFRIED: I would say this, that an
5 effective manifest system with teoth in it, properly
6 enforced with regard to transportation and disposal,
7 should basically address the problem.
8 MR. TRASK: Okay. On a different subject,
9 you seem to draw a distinction between public health
10 and the safety of employees.
11 MR. SIEGFRIED: That's correct.
12 MR. TRASK- Would you give us your thoughts
13 on that?
14 MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, certainly the RCRA
15 concerns are of a broad nature, and there are times --
lg asbestos standards, for example, when the line between
17 ; environmental control and protection of employees is a
lg rather thin one. This is a case where the Environmenta
jg Protection Agency may end up regulating the workplace.
20 But our concerns, and they relate to the
2i classification or categorization area, are that while
22 the transporter and the disposal agency have very valic
23 concerns with regard to protecting their employees,
24 that these concerns are not on a par with the concerns
25 with regard to protecting public health and the
-------
383
1 environment.
2 We're not saying that they are minor concerns
3 that they are not concerns that should not he addressed
4 ultimately this coordination with other agencies and
5 perhaps including the EPA, but we cite in this sub-
5 stantiation of the fact that a classification system
7 is required.
8 MR. TRASK: Well, for the record, RCRA
9 requires protection of human health and the environ-
10 inent . It doesn't say public health.
11 So I guess our interpretation applies across
12 the board.
jg MR. SIEGFRIED- You are saying that the
14 human health area would include protection of the
ic public as well as protection of any members of the
jg public in specialised groups, such as employees.
17- MS. DARRAH : That's one interpretation.
lg MR. TRASK: There could be others.
jg MR. SIEGFRIED: Our point is simply that
2Q these are different classes of individuals that should
2] be differentiated, and this is a good reason for
22 classifications.
23 MR. CORSON: A couple of points.
24 One, I would like a clarification as to your
25 testimony where you cited something about the original
-------
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
384
proposed toxic extraction procedure. There is only
one proposed toxic extraction procedure, and I am
wondering whether you are referring; in your example
here that the proposed extraction procedure does
classify these materials as hazardous or whether you
are referring in these comments to one of many pro-
cedures that were considered somewhere along the line
in the evolution of the present regulation.
MR. SIEGFRIED: I can't really answer your
question which is a detailed one.
I would be happy to obtain from my corporate
clients the substantiation for the objection they have
made here. It's entirely possible, as you state, that
the engineers got a copy of one of the proposed ex-
traction procedures and they have simply designated
this as the original procedure.
MR. CORSON: The second point, while I
recognize that you are just giving us these oral com-
ments and there is apparently a more detailed presenta-
tion in a letter which has some other material with
it which responds specifically to our regulations, you
also indicate that Proctor and Gamble has a fairly
rigorous internal procedure for evaluating waste that
they feel requires special control.
To the extent that that may be different from
-------
385
what you are commenting on in your response to our
2 regulations, I would request, if possible, that Proctor
3 and Gamble share with us their methods of determining
4 whether or not a waste is hazardous or requires special
5 control.
6 MR. SIEGFRIED: These comments, I have read
7 a draft copy because I am involved in the approval
8 process of it, of our written comments, and they're
g addressed in our written comments.
I mentioned earlier that we had come uo with
three categories which we would differentiate based on
12 our °wn industry, and we certainly wouldn't want to
13 limit the classification process to three categories
because our industry may not be typical of the industry
15 in general or waste generators generally.
MR. CORSON. I guess I am wondering specifl-
cally whether, for example, one of the three things in
18 your statement, you say "waste which we feel —'' "we"
being Proctor and Gamble --"may be perceived as
2Q hazardous at some future date," and this would indicate
to my mind that it would not be covered by the regula-
22 tions we have proposed or which any governmental agency
23 may consider hazardous because that is your second
category, and if for some reason Proctor and Gamble
25 feels that might require some special care or in the
-------
386
1 future would be considered as hazardous because of
2 some characteristic of that waste, and I am wondering -
3 that is the area., if we could get your comments.
4 MR. SIEGFRIED: Your point is, if I may take
5 an example here, is that Proctor and Gamble may have
6 identified some wastes which might go beyond, for
7 example, the drinking water standards on the list and
8 you would like us to share this information with you?
9 MR. CORSON: Yes.
10 I MR. SIEGFRIED: '.Ve would be glad to.
11 MR. LEHMAN: I would like to explore with you
12 one part of your remarks concerning the application of
13 RCRA requirements to biological wastewater treatment
14 facilities which have an NPDES discharge.
15 Your statement is "all legitimate concerns
can be addressed in the NPDES permitting process."
17 It is our understanding that the NPDES per-
jg mitting process deals with discharge of materials to
navigable waters and does not concern itself with, for
2Q example, the leaching of materials downward into ground
water from the waste facility.
22 Now, do you have a different interpretation
23 of that? In other words, I am trying; to explore why
24 y°u believe all legitimate concerns can be addressed in
25 the NPDES permitting process.
-------
387
1 MR. SIEGFRIED: I understand your comment,
2 and I think it's a good one. I have really not given
3 the subject a great deal of thought.
4 As I read and reread the presentation I
5 delivered, I was under the impression that the comment
6 was limited to discharges to navigable waters, and the
7 problem that you mentioned of infiltration of ground-
8 water through the bottom of a lagoon is an example of
9 one which could — perhaps could not be addressed in an
10 NPDES permitting process, but I would stand by my
11 statements with regard to the water discharges from a
12 secondary treatment plant, for example, which might
13 happen to be a private plant on the waste generator's
14 premises.
15 MS. DARRAH: We do recognize that that's ex-
16 eluded by the terms of law. I mean something which has
17 an NPDES permit in and of itself, that its discharge is
18 excluded.
19 MR. SIEGFRIED: Our concern is an unreason-
20 able overlap, and if this issue does not result in an
21 overlap with the NPDES requirements, then this allevi-
22 ates our concern.
23 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
24 Mr. Roberts?
25 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Siegfried, your comments
-------
388
about transporters, if I may interpret in ray view, were
2 rather broad.
3 Could I assume that your comments were not
4 addressed to the adequacy or inadequacy or the merits
of the proposals at hand here for transporters?
MR. SIEGFRIED: That is correct. These
statements are of a general nature, and they were not
8 intended to be detailed statements which more approp-
9 riately would come under the transporter's section
10 which you are about to address this afternoon.
11 MR. ROBERTS: Can I assume that, your comment
12 about transportation is addressed to people who really
13 are not t ranspor t€»rs per se , but people who, to accom-
14 plish other objectives, use transportation equipment?
15 In other words, you are not addressing common carriers
whose livelihood is the transportation of Roods? You
17 are talking about people that may have some bos^us type
disposal operation, and in the operation of this bogus
19 type disposal, they would be us ins; a tank truck or
20 motor vehicle? Is this the kind of people you are
2i talking about?
22 MR. SIEGFRIED: We have had problems with
23 transporters who operate in unorthodox manners and I
24 think your assumption is correct.
25 MR. ROBERTS: But the transporter, you just
-------
389
1 made the statement again. The transporter you are
2 referring to is not a person who is truly in the trans-
3 portation industry in the sense of providing common
4 carrier services for hire?
5 MR. SIEGFRIED: Would it be clear if I used
6 the word "hauler" to take it out of the RCRA-defined
7 transporter term?
8 MR. ROBERTS: Not particularly. I am trying
9 to separate it from the fellow who, verv frankly and
10 speaking openly, can make a fast buck by running and
11 ! renting a U-Haul trailer, and anybody in this room
12 could be a transporter, and takes it out. and dumps it
13 in the swamp versus a bonafide far-hire certificated
14 common carrier, rail and highway carrier, and I was
15 just trying to separate your allegation as to what
15 segment of the transport industry you were referring
17 to-
18 MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, Mr. Roberts, you have
19 put your finger on why we support the Tianifest system
20 and why we would like to see teeth in the. law with
2i regard to transporters' obligations.
22 MR. ROBERTS: Will you comment on this this
23 afternoon?
24 MR. SIEGFRIED: No, I will not. However, we
25 will have comments on this detailed question in our
-------
390
1 written proposal.
2 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Our comment period
3 closes June 1st. That's for DOT.
4 MR. SIEGFRIED: Thank you very much.
5 MS. DARRAH: That's all. Thank you very
6 much.
7 MR. SIEGFRIED: Thank you.
g MS. DARRAH: Mr. A. W. Dillard has indicated
9 he will be speaking for Mr. Arthur Dinsmoor and will
IQ address this morning Section 3002 rather than address-
jl i ing Section 3003 this afternoon.
12 , MR. A. W. DILLARD: Thank you, Madam Chair-
13 man .
14 My name is A. W. Dillard, Jr. My business
15 address is 1001 Wilco Building, Midland, Texas. I am
16 President of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association
17 located in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico, and
12 I am representing its almost 1,500 members in the
ig largest single petroleum producing area in the United
2Q States. The membership is basically independent
2i domestic oil and gas operators, but almost every type
22 °f business in the Permian Basin is also represented.
23 I am an independent oil and gas operator with
24 over 32 years of experience in Oklahoma, Mississippi,
25 New Mexico and Texas.
-------
391
1 We acknowledge that we need rules and regula-
2 tions to assure both the safe and orderly conduct of
3 all business operations, as well as the protection of
4 health and the environment. However, we also believe
5 that the hazardous waste program, as proposed by the
6 EPA, is unnecessarily broad and burdensome. If imple-
7 mented, as proposed, these regulations will have a
8 shattering effect on the future discovery rates and
9 production of oil and gas in the United States.
10 We realize that the EPA is required by the
11 RCRA, as substantially amended, to promulgate regula-
12 tions that are all-encompassing in nature but which,
13 by EPA's own admission, lacks specific guidance in many
14 areas, particularly drilling muds and production brines
15 With this admission in mind, we strongly recommend that
lg gas and oil drilling muds and crude oil production
17 brines be totally exempted from the EPA Hazardous
18 Waste proposals. Short of that, that they be exempted
19 until necessary studies are completed and specific
20 guidance is achieved.
2i In reading the language of the Standards
22 Applicable to Generators, it is plain to us that oil
23 and gas operators were not included in the compliance
24 requirements. We get the feeling that these regulation
25 are, in fact, directed at those operations where
-------
392
1 something is manufactured and a hazardous waste is
2 produced. The language refers to fixed facility loc.a-
3 tions and the manufacturing process involved. Mention
4 is made of kilograms and gallons, but nothing is said
5 about barrels. Specifics to proper containerization,
6 proper container labeling and movement manifests are
7 included. None of these terms are common to the oil
8 and gas industry.
9 Compliance, to protect both the health and
10 environment, has long been underway in Texas and New
11 Mexico, as required by state laws and regulations con-
12 cerning the usage of drilling mud and production brines
13 and their disposal. We recommend that these laws and
14 regulations be adopted by the EPA and incorporated into
15 the EPA Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines.
16 With the energy problems already facing the
17 domestic consumer, it is inconceivable that the federal
18 government would want to compound those problems. But,
19 by making it even more difficult for the domestic opera
20 tor to look for additional oil and gas reserves, you
21 are compounding them.
22 Each operator is basically a small business.
23 and the additional manhours and money required in the
24 compliance can only reduce the operator's time and
25 finances needed for his drilling and producing efforts.
-------
393
1 You are preventing them from doing their jobs, finding
2 new oil and gas
3 Madam Chairman, due? to an apparent oversight,
4 we were excluded from the schedule to speak on Section
5 3001 yesterday; and with your permission, I have in-
6 eluded in here our comments on Section 3001, and if I
7 could, I would like to read those into the record. If
8 not, it's understandable.
9 MS. DARRAH: If you can perhaps summarize
10 them in any way, that certainly would be fino.
MR. DILLARD: Let me do this for you. I will
12 stay off of most of it, but I do want in the record on
13 our water.
MS. DARRAH: Certainly the whole thing will
15 bo Included in the transcript of the hearing.
16 MR. DILLARD- All right.
17 During the drilling operations in the Stat
of Texas, vve went back and had the Texas Railroad Con
mission research their records ''or a 20-year period,
20 and there is a copy of a letter attached to this
statement in which they find that there are four in-
22 stances where there was a possibility of a water sand
23 being affected by the drilling of a nearby oil well.
24 Now. they also state that over 1hat 20-year
25 period, that they had numerous problems relative to
-------
394
1 drilling mud escaping from the reserve pits, but almost
2 nil of fresh water strata being affected by mud or salt
3 water during drilling operations.
4 We have had the best record of probably any
5 state in the United States with our programs and our
6 regulatory system in working with the oil and gas in-
7 dustry .
8 Also, one comment that I would like to make
9 is that I visited with the Chief Engineer of the water
10 supply field that is a major source of water for
11 Midland, Texas, and the water field was commenced in
12 1958 and has 26 producing water wells. In the last
13 seven years, we have had more than that number of oil
14 wells drilled in the midst of the water field, and
15 there are no contaminants that have showed up from any
16 of these operations.
17 So I think our record speaks for itself, and
18 that is why I say we wish that you would visit with the
19 Texas Railroad Commission and the Texas Water Quality
20 Board and get their ideas and use them instead of the
21 proposed regs that you have in here.
22 That is the basis of most of the Section 3001
23 that 1 wanted to bring out for you.
24 'AS. DARRAH: Thank you.
25 Will you answer questions?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
jg
17
2Q
2i
22
23
24
25
395
MR. DILLARD: Yes, to the best of my know-
ledge .
(No questions posed.)
MS. DARRAH: Gee, Mr. Oil lard, I don't know
what to say. If there are any more 3001 points that
you want to make, you can go ahead and take five
minutes.
MR. DILLARD: No, I think basically I will
let you read the rest of 3001, but we do have -- The
economic impact wi ] 2 be a big thing on the strinper
and narginal wells and your monitoring systems locally.
These are the things where I think you need to look, is
the regional aspect, because this water engineer stated
to me that there is no way that anything on the surface
from drilling muds on the surface of the ground could
ever leach down to the 200-foot level where the water
sands are. These are things -- In other words, you
spread a blanket across the United States, but you will
have to deal with the regional, is the way we see it.
In other words, what are the local conditions.
MS. DARRAH: Okay. I guess there still
aren't any questions. Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else that wants to speak on
Section 3002 this morning'?
(No response.)
-------
1
2
396
J.IS . DARRAH: All right. I'm going to start
and call one or two people on 3003. There is certainly
no penalty if these people aren't here, but we have;
quite a few signed up.
5 Mr. Gladbach from Utility Solid Waste
6 Activities Group, would you like to speak on 3003?
7 MR. EDWARD G. GLADBACH• My name is Edward G.
8 Gladbach, and I am with the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power, representing not only the Department
10 of Water and Power, but also the Edison Electric Insti-
ll tute and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.
12 Before I get into my statement, I would like
13 to kind of clarify something that came up during the
14 j questioning yesterday and perhaps may have been given
15 a wrong indication by my statement or answers, and that
lg is that I don't think the utility industry -- And I
17 speak specifically for the Department of Water and
Power — is opposed to regulations when we feel that
19 those regulations do prevent significant adverse health
2o to either human health or the environment. I think thi
2i was demonstrated by the Department's and the utility
22 industry's cooperative nature in the program, voluntary
23 program I may emphasize, three years ago when we went
24 on a voluntary program to totally eliminate the use of
25 the PCB's in the environment and to control the entire
-------
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
397
volume of PCB's which we had without any limitation.
1 spent many hours in going over that pro-
gram, and by the way, Mr. Trask , I do consider PCB's
a very hazardous material. For some reason that was
on the foremost of my mind the other day, but when
we're talking about PCB's, very definitely I think it
is a hazardous material and should be dealt with in
that manner. It is fairly hard to conceive of how that
is in the same category, and I guess as far as criteria
I don't have any criterion, but it's just, good judg-
ment and based upon what I consider good tests by
agencies, and that's their business of dealing with it.
I'm appearing on behalf of the Department of
Water and Power, the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group, and the Edison Electric Institute. For those of
you not familiar with Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group, to save time I will say USffAG. I will briefly
describe that group.
USWAG is an informal consortium of electric
utilities and the Edison Electric Institute. Currently
there are over 70 utility operating companies that are
participants in USWAG. These companies own and operate
a substantial percentage of the electric generation
capacity in the United States. EEI is the principal
national association of investor-owned electric light
-------
398
1 and power companies, and as you know, the Department is
2 municipally owned.
3 Over the last several weeks, USV/AG representa
4 tives have testified regarding the importance of coal
5 to the electric utility industry, and the impact of the
6 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act on that industry
7 I will not reiterate the various points covered in our
8 previous testimony. Indeed, we will soon be submitting
9 written comments on the proposed regulations which will
10 cover our concerns in detail.
11 Today, however, I will comment on something
12 we have not fully addressed before, and that is those
13 aspects of the regulations proposed by the EPA and the
14 Department of Transportation which deal with the trans-
15 portation of hazardous waste materials under Section
jg 3003 of RCRA and the Hazardous Materials Transportation
17 Act of 1974.
18 I should point out initially that U.SWAG
jg firmly believes that the p;reat bulk of utility wastes
2Q are not hazardous. If this should turn out to be the
2i case, then the utility industry will not be concerned
22 with the regulations regarding transportation of
23 hazardous wastes promulgated by either EPA or DOT.
24 However, if they are determined to be hazard-
25 ous, then we are, indeed, concerned. These concerns is
-------
399
1 what I would like to discuss today.
2 We have a fundamental problem with regard to
3 the applicability of EPA's 3003 regulations to utility
4 wastes. Specifically, this concern centers on the
5 relationship between those regulations and EPA's pro-
6 posed special waste rules under 3004, and I may add,
7 250.46. As now drafted, 3004 or 250.46 appears to
8 suggest that only waste transporters who also qualify
9 as owners or operations of special waste treatment,
10 storage and disposal facilities will be regulated under
11 the special waste rules. If so, those transporters who
12 are not also treatment, storage and disposal facilities
13 (TSDF), owners or operators will not be covered by the
14 special rules.
15 A further question is raised from the pro-
posed 3004 regulations regarding whether even owners or
operators of TSDF sites in their roles as transporters
jg would be subject to the full panoply of 3003 require-
ments, even though in their capacities as owners or
operators of TSDF sites they would be regulated under
the special rules.
22 We do not believe that such a regulation is
23 sensible nor do we believe that it was intended. We
24 thus urge that the language be clarified to provide
25 that all transporters of special utility wastes, whethe
-------
400
1 or not they are owners or operators of TSDF sites, be
2 subject to the same regulatory requirements, that is
3 those contained in Section 250.46, as owners and
operators of TSDF sites for special wastes.
In fact, we question whether E^A should be in
the transportation business at all. We feel that DOT
7 is the expert in transportation regulations or in the
g transportation business, and, as such, should be the
ones to be issuing regulations concerning hazardous
wastes.
As we read the transporter regulations pro-
jo posed by the EPA, they seem to duplicate and overlap
the DOT transporter regulations. Such redundancy is no
,. called for by RCRA, and we suggest that transporter
,c regulations may well be properly within the jurisdic-
... tion of DOT rather than EPA.
lo
._ Should EPA ultimately decide that it must
10 promulgate transporter regulations to carry out its
lo
RCRA obligations, we cannot stress strongly enough that
EPA and DOT must have a coordinated regulatory approach
Unfortunately, it appears that the proposed EPA trans-
_„ porter regulations overlook three areas which are
„„ essential to this coordination.
First, the EPA proposals do not contain ex-
emption provisions for those transporters who demonstra
-------
401
1 that alternate transport practices (not called for by
2 Subpart C) achieve an adequate level of safety.
3 DOT already has an established exemption
4 procedure in its current regulations. In order for
5 EPA regulations to be consistent, we believe that Sub-
6 part C must also have similar provisions, or at the
7 very least must, give full recognition to any DOT
8 exempt ion.
9 Second, EPA has failed to include a p r e -
10 emption provision in its proposed regulations. We are
11 concerned about the possibility that various states
12 will pass their own regulations covering the transpor-
13 tat ion of waste, and that such regulations will be
14 more stringent than those prooosed by EPA.
15 For instance', proposed Section 250.32
lg requires a transporter to have an ident i fi cat ion code
17 number from EPA or an authorized state. Authorised
jg states night adopt different code systems; thus, an
jg interstate transporter would be required to copip 1 v with
2Q various state code systems. In addition, various
2i states might adopt more, stringent packaging and con-
22 tainorixation requirements. In fact , it is theoreti-
23 cally possible that a transporter rpuld he faced with
24 50 different state transporter requirements.
25 USWAO fully endorses DOT's proposed amendment
-------
402
1 to its transporter regulations, which would preempt
2 inconsistent state or local transporter requirements,
3 and urges that EPA follow suit.
4 Thirdly, we are concerned that tho EPA trans-
5 porter regulations have been proposed without regard tc
6 degrees of hazard. Thus, utility wastes, if they are
7 declared hazardous under the 3001 tests, would be
8 fully subject to the Subpart C requirements despite the
9 absence of any evidence indicating that they pose any
10 substantial present or potential risk to health or the
environment when transported.
12 EPA has not structured its proposed trans-
13 porter regulations to make any differentiation between
deadly poisons on the one hand and innocuous substances
such as fly ash on the other.
Identical requirements are proposed for all
wastes categorized as hazardous when transported. On
the other hand, DOT'S current regulations do take this
into account. For example, DOT placarding requirements-
2Q arc; not imposed on every hazardous material whereas
the EPA proposals would require placarding and marking
for every vehicle moving more than J ,000 pounds.
23 I think the various comments which you
24 received this morning and yesterday support the idea
25 that we really have got to have more than one level of
-------
403
1 hazardous waste in the associated regulations.
2 At this time I would like to comment on a
3 proposed DOT packaging requirement that could be unduly
4 burdensome to the transporters of special utility
5 wastes and would, in our view, yield no environmental
6 benefit.
7 DOT has proposed to prohibit the transport of
8 bulk waste in the Other Regulated Material category in
9 open-top vehicles, such as dump trucks.
10 Many utilities transport ash and sludge in
11 open dump trucks. Our dry ash is conditioned with
12 moisture which causes the ash to form a crust. This
13 practice has proven to be a satisfactory method for
14 dust control and prevents the ash from being dispersed
15 during transport. Our scrubber sludges are dewatered
jg and fixed in a solid state. We are unaware of any
17 case where transporting special utility wastes by this
jg method has resulted in environmental harm.
19 Clearly, if open hauling is flatly prohibited
20 as proposed, overall waste management costs will dra-
21 matically increase. Also, reuse of utility wastes will
22 be hampered because many reuses are already economi-
23 c a 1 1 y in a r g i n a 1 . ',? e urge that this proposal not be
24 adopted with respect to high-volume utility wastes.
25 I appreciate the opportunity of giving these
-------
404
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments.
MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
MR. GLADBACH: I guess this may be the last
statement, but 1 would like to clarify something that
has come up and perhaps I had the wrong impression of,
I in that I guess I want to clarify in my own mind that
material that is going to be reused, which is a by-
product from, say, our industry, as long as that is a
byproduct and will be used by another industry, and
correct me if I'm wrong, that that is not a waste and
therefore not covered under these regulations?
That's caused a lot of confusion.
i
MR. LINDSEY. Only if use doesn't constitute
disposal . By disposal . we no.jn spread i nt* on the land.
MR. GLADBACH: Yes The stutf is used in
construction activities or something else.
MR. LINDSEY- By and larg(j, that is to erect.
MR. GLADBACH: And I guess the olhor thing I
|| want to make sure t hat I was correct , -! i , iviien I \\ ;\ s
talking to you yesterday, 1 he nhrase "oth'-r discarded
material" is not a hazardous waste; is that correct 'f
MR. CO:?SON. If something is not an 'other
discarded material , '' and if is not oivj of the specific
items listed in the legislative definition of so] id
waste, it's not a so 1 id waste. If i1 's not a solid
-------
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
405
waste, it can't bo a hazardous waste, so soi-iot hi ntc --
looking at your material, the fly ash spec i f i c a 1 1 v used
in the nanuTacture ol citiderbLocks , for example, then
tbat is a use which does not constitute disposal and
therefore the fly ash is not a waste.
MR. GLADBACH: I was thinking more of lubri-
cating oils and tut tin;; oils.
MR. CORSON : In that definition, one excep-
tion is that any used OJ1, and we have several adjec-
tives in front of the oil, when hurned, is other
| discarded material, and some of those are tisted as
hazardous waste.
MR. GLADBACH- ft'hen burned'?
MR. COHSON: Yes.
MR. LINDSEY. I have a question. You have
.s pe 111 some t i me talking about the s p e o i a I w a s t e c- a t o -
Sonet, and how that relates lo transporters, and I
don't think I understood what you said, and 1 am not
sure you understood what the regulations say.
:.*Al . GLADB4C11 : Okay .
M3. LINDSEY: So let me clarify what the
regulations say or meant to sav, in any event.
I an on 250.46, the load-in to the special
waste standards. Pa^e 59015. It says, "Owners and
operators of facilities that treat, store, dispose of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
406
any of these special wastes, shall not have to comply
with other requirements of this subpart or Subparts (b)
or (c) with respect to a special waste.''
MR. GLADBACH: Right.
MR. LINDSEY: Well, (c) is the transporter
regs and so if it's legitimately one of these special
wastes, it's not — Wait a minute. I'm getting dis-
agreement .
MS. DARRAH: I think 1 can explain. I think
I understand your problem, which is that the way this
reads, he is saying that only owners and ooerators are
exempt from Subpart (c) and if they want to use a
transporter who is not an owner or operator, that it
appears, the way this is written, that that person
would be subjected to Subpart (c) requirements.
MR. LINDSEY: Is that right?
MR. GLADBACH: That's right. As we said in
the next paragraph, we don't think that was your in-
tent ,
It took we a while to figure it out, too.
MR. CORSON: A word of clarification.
1 do believe in the preamble where we talk
to special wastes, one of the criteria is that the
management is on site and the on-site part normally
does not have the transporter regulation requirements,
-------
407
1 which is why it is restated that way in the first para-
2 graph of 250.46.
3 I think we have used that as one of the
4 attributes of special waste.
5 MS. DARRAH: We understand your point and
6 obviously -- We understand your comment that you believ
7 that non-owner/operators who are transporters of
8 utility waste should be exempt, and then it will be up
9 to us to consider that and see where we come out.
10 MR. GLADBACH: And even if it's not on site,
11 and I know Dow Chemical brought this up, too, this
12 morning, and it's our approach, too, that as long as --
13 even though not on site physically, a contiguous
14 property, a nearby site, as long as we have complete
15 control over it through our own equipment or personnel
16 or through a contract, and when we are dealing with
17 hazardous waste, we have a tight contract as to who is
ig responsible for what, and I think I would strongly
ig encourage you to consider the responsibilities are
2Q still on the owner/operator even though he doesn't
2i physically handle it.
22 But I think we can still control it. We
23 would like to get out of as much of the paper work as
24 we can.
25 MR. ROBERTS: On Page 3 of your statement,
-------
408
1 you arc talking about a distinction between the trans-
2 porters and the people who are not also treatment,
3 storage and disposal facility owners and operators,
4 and I want to make one thing clear and make sure that
5 you understand it, and that is that as far as the DOT
6 proposal is concerned, it applies to all persons
7 equally regardless of who they are if they transport
8 things in commerce.
9 MR. GLADBACH: As Ion?; as we use public high-
10 ways.
11 MR. ROBERTS: That's right.
12 It's important to understand that aspect.
13 Now, the duplication statement you made, 1 think there
14 are two aspects of this; one, when EPA started us out,
15 they had no firm agreement from DOT that DOT would
16 accomplish transport requirements and they would be
17 stuck with a statutory mandate. I want to make sure
18 that you understand that.
19 MR. GLADBACH: I understand the statutory
20 mandate.
21 MR. ROBERTS: Aside from that, you should
22 understand that the Hazardous Materials Transportation
23 Act, only goes to people that transport materials in
24 commerce, and we have to prove commerce in its broadest
25 sense, but commerce has to be there.
-------
409
1 For example, DOT has no jurisdiction over
2 the transportation activities of the U.S. Department of
3 Defense and the other government agencies or a state
4 agency performing a transportation function associated
5 with this. Possibly even your organization, if it is
6 a government-owned entity --
7 MR. GLADBACH: We won't hide under that.
8 MR. ROBERTS: In transporting materials, you
9 may be considered not "in commerce, and a few other
10 odds and ends.
11 For example, we have no jurisdiction In the
12 Marianas and a fov,' other things. This is one of the
13 reasons why this thing happened this way.
14 You made a comment about the —
15 MR. GLADBACH: On that, if I may comment, and
16 this is not directed to you but to the EPA, if that is
17 a problem, and perhaps :t is a problem, that what we
18 would really be pushing for is to have a .joint EPA/DOT
19 regulation as EPA has done wi1h many other federal
20 agencies, to avoid duplication of regulations and
21 possible overlap.
22 MR. ROBERTS: Vse thought we were doing that,
23 but mavbe we didn't do as well as we would like1.
24 MR. GLADBACH- You hinted that vou didn'1
25 have a Memorandum of Understanding, hut are you working
-------
410
1 on a memorandum like that?
2 MS. SC1IAFFER: Yes. It's kind of in both of
3 our hands and we're looking to draft something up.
4 MR. GLADBACH: So you intend to come up with
5 a single set?
6 MS. SCHAFFER: Yes, but a coordinated
7 enforcement effort -- It's a coordinated enforcement
8 effort. As to whether we are drafting regulations that
9 are joint regulations —
10 MR. ROBERTS: If I can come back on this, I
11 think I have explained why there may be a necessity to
12 have a duplicate set of regulations.
13 If we have not done a job in coordinating
14 those regulations so the sane requirements apply in
15 both cases, we have done a bad job and that's why we
jg are here. That's the kind of comments we are solicit-
17 ing-
jg The question about the exemptions program, I
19 think we should understand the statute. There is a
20 provision in the law, the 1974 Act on DOT'S exemptions
2i program mandating how it will be accomplished and how
22 we will conduct our affairs in the exemptions area. I
23 think it's important, to understand that also.
24 MR. GLADBACH: I saw also in RCRA that there
25 is a statement that says "a substantial threat" and not
-------
411
1 "a potential threat." It says "substantial threat to
2 health and environment."
3 MR. ROBERTS: Hight. I want to make sure you
4 understand some of the distinctions here.
5 MR. GLADBACH: But we do feel that there are
6 some inconsistencies, and I elaborated on three of
7 those that EPA has not picked up, you know, in DOT'S
8 regulations, three things missing from EPA regulations
9 that we feel are necessary.
10 One of those you commented on, and maybe you
11 can't — Certainly on DOT regulations, if you go ahead
12 and adopt or prohibit the hauling of hazardous wastes,
13 quote, in open dump trucks, you are going to -- it's
14 going to be a whole new world in disposing of fly ash
15 that we're talking about, a few million tons per year
16 per power plant.
17 MR. ROBERTS: We specifically addressed that
18 matter in our preamble saying that we were aware of
19 what we are doing here, and we have — we solicit
20 constructive comments as to what we can do about it.
21 I think you understand that we would be con-
22 cerned about open-topped dump trucks with asbestos
23 waste spewing out on the Los Angeles Freeway.
24 You suggested in a paragraph or so what your
25 industry does to mitigate or preclude this type of
-------
412
problem.
MR. GLAD3ACH: Right.
MR. ROBKRTS: But you have just given it to
"ie in a few sentences. Now, I'm supposed to go back
to Washington and possibly consider granting relief on
these few words, and how I would write them that would
7 I accomplish both our purposes, your continuing with your
i|
8 |i open-top vehicles and DOT and EPA being satisfied that,
' i!
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the problem would be mitigated.
Could you submit further comments before
June 1st on what kind of language would accomplish
this in your view?
MR. GLADRACH. Right.
MR. ROBERTS: We would appreciate it.
And, as an add-on to that, if I may, 1 would
assume that your comment is addressed only to highway
I transport or are you talking about rail transport also'
13 || MR. GLADBACEI: I think when they haul flv
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ash by rai 1 , to my knowledge, it's in out berths with
covered hoppers. That's my only experience with rail
transport. They haul it like cement,
MR. ROBKRTS: Would you kindly address thit
point also in your statement?
I appreciate your makin" these comment^
because this is the sixth hearing we have had on this
-------
413
1 topic, and it's the first time that anybody said any-
2 thing that's close to being constructive.
3 V>o purposely solicited these comments in the
4 preamble of our not: co , recognizing what we were doing.
5 Another point, are you fully aware that DOT'S
6 hazardous waste proposals, aside from its existing
7 hazardous waste regulations, do not cone to bear except
8 in one area dealing with the disposal location or
9 delivery to an authorized disposal location but, without
10 that exception, are you aware of the fact that the
11 regulations about waste do not come to play until a
12 manifest is required?
13 MR. GI.ADBACH: I guess I hadn't thought
14 about it one way or the other because we're dealing
15 with Los Angeles and that's where my experience is.
15 !Ve have been dealing with the California
17 manifest, all the time. Some of the things you live
18 w i r. h all the time, you take for granted.
19 MR ROBERTA; I wanted you to be aware of
20 that, ,ind it I understand the K^A proposal, this would
21 not happen except under very limited circumstances, if
22 T arn correct, in terms of the fly ash, because only
23 certain kinds of Hy ash, if they meet certain analyse
24 so therefore DOT's nronosal is not to all fly ash in
25 the United States. I would assume not.
-------
414
1 MR. GLADBACH Right.
2 MR. ROBERTS: Am I correct on that, Mr.
3 Trask?
4 MR. TRASK: (Nods affirmative.)
5 MR. GLADBACH: If fly ash falls out.
6 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
7 MR. GLADBACH: We will be will ins; to work
g with you, by the way, and come up with something. We
9 will be getting comments to you.
10 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.
11 MR. TRASK: In that same general area, you
12 indicated that if open hauling is flatly prohibited,
13 that overall waste management cost would dramatically
increase. That suggests that you have a breakdown of
15 the waste management cost which includes something on
transportation.
17 MR. GLADBACH: We don't have a real break-
down. When you talk about volume of waste, you know,
fly ash, scrubber sludge and bottom ash, which is a
special utility waste, you know, an educated guess is
oi you are talking about 95 percent of the volume, and
22 when we talk about — if we can't do it in open-top
23 dump trucks, the next thing, my only other guess then
24 is covered hoppers and a vacuum system.
25 You are talking several times the cost per
-------
415
1 truckload.
2 MR. TRASK: Then you do have some numbers on
3 cost?
4 I MS. GLADBACH: Again, that's an educated
5 I guess. I'm trying to put it in perspective for you.
6 I When someone says increase, when it goes up
7 one tenth of one percent, that's an increase. I am
8 trying to say that it is dramatic.
9 MR. TRASK: You indicated aiso that there
10 ought to be some degrees of hazard which would be
11 associated with the transportation, and I gathered from
12 that there would be lesser requirements for .low-hazard
13 waste .
14 That indicates there would be more require-
15 ments for high-hazard waste.
16 MR. GLADBACH: Again, I have experience with
17 transportation of PCB's from the City of Los Angeles to
18 a disposal site, and we go all out. I wouldn't want to
19 do that on every truckload of fly ash.
20 MR. TRASK: When you say you go all out, what
21 specifically are you doing?
22 MR. GLADBACH: We set down with the driver an[i
23 make sure he knows everything he has to do in case of
24 accident. He takes extra materials with him so that in
25 case there is a spill, he has extra containers to pick
-------
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
416
up and materials to pick up any spilled material e n -
rou te .
MR. TRASK: So there is truck operators'
special education associated with the high-hazard waste
MR. GLAD3ACH: Ri^ht. That's part, of it. ',Ve
also have to follow EPA's regulations, not only in
storing; the stuff, but handling the stuff, how it is
tied down to the trucks so there is no chance of some-
thing falling off the truck.
MR. TRASK: We have, as you know, proposed
that a hazardous waste manifest have instructions on it
as to what to do in case of an accident or a 24-hour
telephone nunber where such instructions could be
I obtained, and I gather you feel those are not sufFTCien
for this high-hazard category?
MR. GLADBACH: Well, back East, and I know
you are from back East, you have towns every few miles,
but in the West, you don't have a town for several
miles, and it might be a while before you p;et to a
phone, and by that time, the damage is done and we
want the guy to get there before it all leaks off tho
truck.
MR. TRASK: Well, it would be a requirement
that the operator have special trainin;;?
MR. GLADBACH: We do it in-house. We ft el
-------
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
417
that that's necessary.
MR. TRASK: You are suggesting that we ought
to make this a rule, I gather?
MR. GLADBACH: I'm concerned enough that we
do it in-house. I consider it a very serious business.
I think that also steins from that I don't think I con-
sider fly ash a problem. My real concern is that it
might fail under your 3001 test.
MR. TRASK: On the assumption that it is --
MR. GLADBACH: Yes.
MR. TRASK: But we were actually talking
about PCB's.
MR. GLADBACH: My real point is when we feel
it is necessary, we will go all out. VJe would hate to
go all out and have the same type of regulation for fly
ash .
MR. TRASK- Thank you.
MS. DARRAH• Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Gladbao.h.
MR. GLADBACH- If we have costs on that,
would you want some cost percent age-wise?
MR. TRASK: We would appreciate it.
MS. DARRAH We will recess for lunch and
reconvene at 1:45 p.m.
(Luncheon recess taken at 12.15 p.m.)
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
418
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1979 1:45 O'CLOCK P.M.
MS. DARRAH: I will read the names of people
that I have who want to speak on Section 3003 in the
order in which I will call them:
Tom Meichtry, Deborah Guinan, David Long or
McCulloch, J. P. Hellman, Don Jenks and Jean Siri.
If there are additional people who want to
speak on Section 3003 this afternoon, please let the
registration desk know.
Is Torn Meichtry here?
(No response.)
MS. DARRAH: Is Deborah Guinan here?
MS. DEBORAH GUINAN: My name is Deborah
Guinan, and I'm Manager of Environmental Services for
the Bureau of Explosives, Association of American Rail
roads, and we would like to comment today on Section
3003, transporter waste.
To give you a little bit of background, the
| Association of American Railroads is a voluntary, un-
incorporated non-profit organization that has railroad
companies which operate with 92 percent of the trackagf
and have 94 percent of the employees and produce about
97 nercent of the freight revenues of all the railroads
in the United States.
-------
I 419
1 The Bureau of Explosives is a division of
2 the Association of American Railroads that was chartere
3 way back in 1907 to handle transportation of hazardous
4 materials, explosives and other dangerous articles
5 which we now call hazardous materials.
6 The first thing I would like to mention
7 before I get into the body of the comments is that we
8 in the railroad industry would like to put in a plea
9 to extend the comment period for one month. We have
10 gone under the original assumption that the comment
11 period would remain open up to 60 days after final
12 promulgation of Section 3005, and I just want to
13 mention that we were going by that, and we have an
14 industry-wide survey going right now on sludge genera-
15 tion and some hazardous waste sludge analysis that we
16 aren't going to have a chance to statistically analyze
17 and finish adequately and submit to you by next Friday.
18 The comments that I am going to submit today
19 concern transportation of hazardous wastes and they are
20 reflective of the railroad industry's intense interest
21 in the manner in which environmental regulations which
22 affect transportation are coordinated and implemented
23 within the current DOT regulatory framework.
24 As has been noted by the MTB in the Thursday,
25 May 25, 1978, Federal Register, Docket HM-145 A, sevora
-------
420
1 requirements proposed by DOT for transportation of
2 hazardous waste materials are substantially different
3 from the proposed standards for transporters of
4 hazardous wastes as proposed by EPA under Section 3003
5 Our basic overriding concern is that, the two
6 agencies develop a uniform and consistently applied
7 set of regulations for the transport of hazardous
8 I wastes.
9 Another very basic issue to us is that DOT
10 remain the primary legislative agency with regard to
11 transportation safety regulations, and that the pre-
12 emption of inconsistent state and local requirements
13 afforded by Section 112 of the Hazardous Materials
14 Transportation Act must remain effective in this trans
15 portation rule making.
1 g With respect t o the proposed standards
17 applicable to transporters of hazardous wastes under
!8 40 CFR, Part 250, Subpart C, the Association of Ameri-
19 can Railroads believes that the following areas need
20 substantial review and revision to accommodate practi-
2i cal operational problems and to deal specifically with
22 modal differences in transportation.
23 The first item is on the identification code
24 which requires submission of certain information to KP
25 or to an authorized state concerning hazardous waste
-------
421
1 transportation activities to obtain an identification
2 code.
3 Railroads, as common carriers, subject to
4 ICC regulation, currently have a unique throe-dig-it
5 accounting code for identification purposes. This
6 number appears on every waybill prepared for commodity
7 movement, and we recommend that EPA adopt this system
8 to avoid duplicative efforts at carrier identification.
9 Also, the addition of this code to the waybill for each
10 railroad at every interchange point adds nothing to the-
ll tracking of the oar and should not be required.
12 Section 250.33 on record keeping requires
13 that each transporter maintain a copy of the manifest
14 or delivery document for at least three years.
15 The railroad industry has a unique and
lg sophisticated car movement tracking system which is not
J7 necessarily dependent upon the passing and retaining o
lg shipping papers from one railroad to the next during
19 the transportation cycle of a car.
20 I would like to point out that the shinning
2i paper, waybill, delivery document, are sets of words
22 that are used, all synonymously by EPA. Usually the
23 shipping papers are prepared or information is supplied
24 by the shipper. A waybill is prepared by the railroad
25 from the shipping papers or from instructions from the
-------
422
1 shipper, and a specific train consist is put together
2 from waybill information. Intermediate railroads are
3 currently not required by federal regulation to main-
4 tain a copy of the waybill. Usually they do simply and
5 only for practical purposes, that if in case there is a
g billing dispute later, they want to get paid.
7 However, we feel it would create an undue and
g unnecessary burden to require any railroad to keep a
g separate set of records simply and solely on hazardous
10 waste movement.
11 The rail system is highly controlled from
12 origin to destination. The shipping paper requires the
13 carrier to transoort the lading to the designated con-
14 signee and traffic movement is subject to this control
15 whether one railroad or ten are involved. Therefore,
1C we would like to see this section modified to recognize
lo
17 the practical operating realities of the railroad in-
lg dustry.
IQ Section 250.34 on acceptance and transport o
2Q I hazardous waste deals with the conditions under which
2i a transporter shall and shall not accept a shipment of
22 hazardous waste.
23 The specific details involved in this sectior
24 are very restrictive and are contrary to current rail-
25 road practice under the restrictions imposed upon
-------
423
I
1 hazardous materials movement by the DOT.
2 The railroad industry is rapidly moving
3 toward computerization of systems involving shipping
4 documents. Initial telephone billing of cars is a
5 well known, widespread practice in the railroad in-
6 dustry. Once movement and commodity patterns for
7 specific shippers are determined by a carrier, it is
8 possible to get information from a shipper to prepare
9 a waybill by phone, followed later by a fornal bill
10 °f lading. Shippers can furnish shipping instructions
11 by telephone and thereby promote accuracy, speed and
12 economy in the billing process and car movement. Thus
13 billing in connection with preestab1ished repetitive
14 shipping patterns is facilitated.
15 One railroad has computerized its system to
jg eliminate paper work and possible errors in the billing
17 process and has even received an exemption from DOT's
IQ Hazardous Materials Regulation in terms of a revised
ig shipper certification and a specific waybill accompany-
20 ing a car as long as DOT-required information is
2i placed on the train consist.
22 This points the way of the future. To put
23 needless signature and document requirements on the
24 railroad industry is to stifle its progress in effi-
25 cient car movement, reducing paper work and needless
-------
424
1 human error in preparing waybills.
2 The necessity to track a car carrying any
3 commodity, be it hazardous or nonhazardous, is not
* only of interest to EPA for disposal purposes. Rail-
5 roads must report all shipments to the ICC and must be
able to retrieve this information for its own revenue
use as well as in an emergency situation when a mani-
o
0 fest is destroyed.
° The mechanism for this information retrieval
I" is the Standard Transportation Commodity Code or STCC
11 Code, as we call it. The 49-series of the STCC system
12 is reserved for hazardous commodities.
13 Section 250.35, compliance with the manifest,
14 there are several problems associated with the com-
15 pliance procedures outlined by EPA in this section.
16 The railroad industry already has a unique
17 record keeping system which contains detailed informa-
18 tion on car movement as well as delivery. One can
19 determine where a car is and where it went for off-
20 loading. This highly controlled system of movement
21 from shipper to designated consignee can only be modi-
22 fied at the shipper's request.
23 A railroad cannot deliver any commodity to
24 an arbitrary location. Therefore, a carrier must
25 deliver the load to the designated consignee and
-------
425
1 requiring signature of the consignee upon delivery is
2 not only unnecessary but a serious disruption of rail-
3 road operating practice.
4 We suggest that the railroad industry, there-
5 fore, be exempted from signature and accompaniment
6 requirement of this manifest system.
7 Section 250.36, delivery of hazardous
8 wastes to a designated permitted facility, again,
9 requirement of delivery to a designated facility is a
10 moot point in railroad operation.
11 As mentioned above, a railroad must deliver
12 lading to the designated consignee. The Bill of Lading
13 Act under the jurisdiction of ICC requires rail carrier
14 to deliver goods tendered to the consignee shown on the
15 bill of lading. Specifically, shipments must be
16 delivered to the person designated by t.he shipper on
17 the original document. This is a contractual instru-
18 ment between carrier and shipper, and rail carriers
19 have no authority to switch from one consignee to
20 another consignee.
21 The issue of permitted facilities is another
22 problem. Presently there are eight permitted facili-
23 ties for disposal of PCB's in the United States. How-
24 ever, problems of acceptance at disposal sites for
25 hazardous wastes resulting from spills of hazardous
-------
426
materials have plagued railroads in the past. We
fervently hope sites will soon be designated to accept
3 these wastes for disposal.
4 Section 250.37 on spills. The railroad in-
dustry feels strongly that notification should be
limited to the National Response Center. The carrier
under emergency conditions would seldom have at hand
8 correct telephone numbers of the specific regional,
9 state or local on-scene coordinator, whereas the
10 National Response Center would be better equipped to
11 do this notification.
12 Also, it is not stated that there is a mini-
13 mum limit on quantity of hazardous waste spilled to
14 • trigger notification. It seems that any spill, regard-
15 ! less of amount, is covered under Section 250.37. If
15 this is EPA's intent, it should be so stated.
Subsection (c) should also be modified to
lg indicate that a transporter or his designated agent be
19 required to clean up a hazardous waste spill occurring
20 in transportation.
In closing, I would like to ask once again
22 that the final comment due date be extended one month.
23 We realize and appreciate the constraints placed on the
24 Agency by the lawsuits brought by various environmental
25 groups. However, our original expectations were for a
-------
427
1 60-day comment period following the promulgation of
2 the proposal of Section 3005, which hasn't been pro-
3 posed yet, and the arbitrarily shortened time frame
will not allow us to statistically analyze data coming
5 from our member railroads.
6 The railroad industry is slowly recovering
7 from the shock of finding itself a generator, treater,
g storer and disposer of hazardous waste under these pro-
9 posed regulations, and the data from this industry-wide
survey is most important in assessing the problem and
its potential impact upon us.
12 MS. DARRAH: May I ask you when after
13 December 18, where we stated that comments were due on
14 March 16, both in the first column and in the first
15 page of the preamble, when you contacted the Agency to
16 seek clarification of the comment due date? In other
17 words, on December 18 when we proposed the regulations,
it stated in the first column and third column of the
19 beginmngof the preamble, that comments were due March
2Q 16th. Now, you are claiming that you were relying on
some of the 3003 proposals which --
22 MS. GUINAN: Up to this point, yes.
23 MS. DARRAH: Up to December 18?
24 MS. GUINAN: Right.
25 MS. DARRAH: But not after that?
-------
428
1 MS. GUINAN: No, no. I am just saying that
2 we aren't happy with that. That's all.
3 MS. DARRAH: But as of December 18, you
4 recognized it would be March 16?
5 MS. GUINAN: We did.
6 MS. DARRAH: Will you answer questions for
7 the panel?
8 MS. GUINAN: I will try. I have some operat-
9 ing railroad people in the audience, however, and if
10 there is something that I can't answer, I would like to
11 defer to them.
12 MS. DARRAH: Sure, if they identify them-
13 , selves.
14 i MS. GUINAN: Fine.
15 MR. TRASK: You have some concerns about the
lg record keeping requirements of the 3003 proposed stand-
17 ards. Could you discuss for us what the current rail-
IQ j road record keeping practices are?
19 MS. GUINAN: In terms of --
20 MR. TRASK: Well, how are they done? Do you
2i keep copies of waybills?
22 MS. GUINAN: Okay. When a shipper either
23 sends a shipping paoer or. as we were saying, there ].s
24 a system now whereby they can call the information in
25 and we can prepare the shipping paper, ycjs, the
-------
429
originating mad keeps a copy. The destination road
2 keeps the final or the original documents. Tnter-
3 mediate railroads do keep copies of waybills usually
4 for just in case therp is any billing dispute later.
5 They do put their stamp on it.
6 MR. TRASK: How long do they keep if
7 MS. GUINAN: Throe years by ICC -- Again, the
8 intermediate roads are not required to keep it three
9 years, but the origin and destination roads are.
MR. TRASK: I don't understand what is
different about that from what \ve are proposing.
12 MS. GUINAN: Requiring intermediate railroads
13 to keep those records.
14 MR. TRASK: You said they do.
15 MS. GUINAN: I said they usually do.
MR. TRASK- We did understand from the
Association of American Railroads earlier that that was
common practice in the industry.
19 MS. GUINAN: They usually do.
20 MR• TRASK: So we didn't give it another
thought.
22 ?>1S . GUINAN: But people have always mentionec
23 that requiring that, and especially in any kind of a
24 system that would be separate, that you could pull out
25 hazardous waste movement, and that would be a burden an
-------
430
1 think any railroad would tell you that.
2 Am I correct?
3 MR. JENKS: Can I answer?
4 MS. DARRAH: If you identify yourself at the
5 microphone. I think you are signed up to speak later.
6 MR. JENKS: My name in Don Jenks, Manager of
7 Hazardous Materials Control, Santa Fe Railroad, Chicagc
8 Specifically what happens when a shipper
9 prepares a bill of lading and it's tendered to the
10 railroad, the railroad keeps that original bill of
11 lading and prepares another document called a waybill.
12 There is no through movement of a single shipping
13 paper from the shipper to the consignee. The waybill
then moves on with the car to destination where it is
15 retained for financial records by the delivering
carrier.
17 The consignee does not get a copy of that
waybill. Many times, for verification of interchange
records, a carrier will copy a portion or all of the
2Q waybill at point of interchange and may retain that to
verify his interchange records.
22 Does that answer your question?
23 MR. TRASK: I'm not sure. I was talking
24 about records , and you have brought up another point ,
25 though, and that is that the original —
-------
431
1 MR. JENKS: Bill of lading.
2 MR. TRASK- -- bill of lading that is given
3 to you by the shipper is kept by the originating rail-
4 road?
5 MR. JENKS: That's correct.
6 MR. TRASK: So then our system of the
7 original manifest going through to the consignee would
8 not be in concert with your practice; is that correct?
9 MR. JENKS: That is correct. It wouldn't
10 work the way we have got it set up today. In many
11 cases, there is noteven physical connection between
12 train movement and the bill of lading. It's done at a
13 remote location.
MR. TRASK: How about our orovision for use
15 of a delivery document, would that fit your system?
MR. JENKS: Most of our shipments are pre-
17 paid, and there is no requirement for signature on
receipt by the consignee.
19 The car is simply delivered from the yard
2Q where it's removed from the train by a switch engine,
for example, to the consignee's facility, and he does
22 not sign a document nor require any verification of
23 delivery.
24 MR. TRASK: Is that unique to your railroad
25 or is that common practice?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ig
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
432
MR. JENKS : That's industry practice.
MR. TRASK : Industry-wide practice is pre-
payment and no signature?
MR. JENKS: That's right. If it's a collect
shipment, then, of course, we would hold the car until
we got paid for it.
MR. TRASK: That was my experience with the
rai Iroads .
MR. JENKS: But it's not, the common situation
In most cases, the shipper pays the freight charges.
I don't see how that would be different from
the movement of waste. I think the generator would pay
the freight charges for the movement of that waste to
the disposal facility, not the disposer.
MR. TRASK: Well, I don't know about that.
I'm not familiar with those practices of those disposal
facilities with rail sidings, which there are not
many --
MR. JENKS: True. We have been told that
approximately 90 percent of waste material identified
up to now moves by highway, but we expect that to
change over time. That's why we are concerned about
it.
Any other questions?
MS. DARRAH : Mr. Roberts does.
-------
433
1 MR. ROBERTS: Do you transport any materials
2 where you do carry the documentation on the train
3 which is required by 174.26, special notification
4 cards for special loads such as hydrogen cyanide?
5 MR. JENKS: Yes.
g j MR. ROBERTS. So there are different material
7 for which your train crews carry with them documents
8 other than the consist?
9 MR. JENKS: Very limited.
10 MR. ROBERTS: But they do?
MR. JENKS: Yes.
12 MR. ROBERTS- Does it cause any big problems?
13 MR. JENKS: Sometimes they get lost.
MR. ROBERTS: Sometimes they get lost?
15 MR. JENKS: Sometimes we have to hold the
lg car at the location until we can get another car or
create one .
MR. ROBERTS: Do you lose the consist at the
same \ ime?
2Q MR. JENKS: No.
MR. ROBERTS. Wasn't that usually attached to
22 the consist?
23 MR. JENKS: No, attached to the movement way-
24 bill.
25 MR. ROBERTS: Where is the movement waybill
-------
434
I relative to the consist?
2 MR. JENKS: In a separate package usually.
3 MR. ROBERTS: In whose possession?
4 MR. JENKS: The conductor's.
5 MR. ROBERTS: Are all documents in the con-
6 ductor's possession?
7 MR. JENKS: Yes.
g MR. ROBERTS: So there's a chance that he
loses one document but not the other in his possession?
10 MR. JENKS: It has happened.
Another problem that would cone up would be,
12 for example, occasionally some shippers today offer
13 additional response information on hazardous materials
as a separate document, and there is no federal require
15 ment for this, so if it becomes lost in transportation,
16 we can recreate another movement waybill by calling a
location that has a copy of the necessary inforniaI ion
and comply with 172.202 and 203, but if a manifest was
required with signatures, it would mean that the car
would have to be physically held at an intermediate
location until a copy of the manifest was mailed from
22 origin to that location which could take in excess of
23 five to seven days.
24 MR. ROBERTS: Or a telephonic facsimile.
25 MR. JENKS. Yes. Vie don't have that many
-------
435
devices that could handle that.
2 I wouldn ' t want to trust my clerks to tran-
3 scribe all of the manifest information over the tele-
4 phone, but hazardous material requirements are rather
5 brief and concise and we can accommodate that by tele-
phone.
7 MR. ROBERTS: I don't think we're here sug-
g gesting that these proposals are without some opera-
g tional problems to the affected industries. Nobody
doubts that.
11 I think it's pretty well recognized that
12 difficulties have been found in administering or
13 attempting to carry out the requirements of RCRA.
One other question about operating practices.
15 Do you have any shippers who, as a part of their tender
of materials, would attach on the exterior or interior-
ly of the car a packing note with special instructions?
MR. JENKS : Yes, and some customers attach
an emergency response to the domes of tank cars, but
2Q we're not responsible for their maintenance and if
they become lost of detached, we don't do anythin
22 about it .
23 MR. ROBERTS: In your tariff filings, there
24 is a condition of acceptance of hazardous waste, and
25 would you not specify that the manifest wil] be
-------
436
1 attached to the car?
2 I am just looking at alternative ways of
3 dco ng this.
4 MR. JENKS: Yes, it could be done. 1 don't
5 know how we would inspect to iiisuro that it remained
6 with the car during all types of situations on
7 delivery. In other words, \\e could requir*- it. but as
8 you know, our clerical personnel do not physically
9 observe the car in many cases, and I think it would bf
10 very difficult to, in fact, assure that that document
was, in fact, attached when the car was pulled from
12 origin and then again to assure that nt remains with
13 the car all the way to destination. That's not so much
a. problem with a closed car Like a boxcar, but, yon
wouldn't put it inside a tank car and fasten it '•. o the
ic outside. In many CUSPS, this could create- a loss
17 problem.
What we're suggesting is to have the genera-
tor mail it direct to the disposer and simply reference
20 -^f- hy manifest number and the NRC lumber on the bj 11 of
2i lading which we would transcribe to the waybill.
22 MS. DARRAH: Will you later be d i sc:uss i n g
23 that in your testimony?
24 MR. JENKS: Yes.
25 MS. DAIIRAH : If you want to remain up heie,
-------
437
1 do.
2 MR. ROBERTS: You indicated about the lack
3 of coordination between the EPA and DOT rulings, but
4 most of your comments were on the EPA rulings.
5 MS. GUI NAN: Right.
6 MR. ROBERTS: In terms of being specific, if
7 you will, what specific points are you talking about?
g MS. GUINAN: Well, .specifically the require-
9 ments that a state can require more information on a
10 manifest or on a waybill that's got additional in forma-
11 tion on it serving as a manifest.
12 MR. ROBERTS' Can 1 interrupt you there?
13 MS. GUINAN: Sure.
14 MR. ROBERTS: There is my Point No. 1.
15 Is that in the DOT proposed rules or EPA
lg proposed rules? We're running a joint hearing, and
17 we have to figure out which one you are commenting on.
jg MS. GUINAN- What difference does it make?
19 MR. ROBERTS: It makes a big difference be-
2Q cause —
2i MS. GUINAN: All right. EPA regulation is
22 the one that says it can have more state control ; is
03 that correct''
£O
24 MR. ROBERTS: The DOT proposal says that the
25 destination state would not be preempted if the
-------
438
destination state required more information on the
manifest than was required.
MS. GUINAN: How does that fit with Section
112, then?
MR. ROBERTS: I don't see it as a conflict.
It's absent a requirement in the EPA rules. EPA did
not address preemption factors, so it's not a conflict.
It's a lack of addressment in one versus the other.
Would you prefer that EPA did it all and not
10 DOT?
11 MS. GUINAN: I said I would prefer DOT to do
12 it all .
13 MR. ROBERTS: Then let's talk specifically
14 about DOT requirements on the preemptive aspect of the
15 documentation.
16 You object to the destination state exclu-
17 sion --
18 MS. GUINAN: Being able to require more in-
19 format ion .
20 MR. ROBERTS: Who would the burden be on to
21 do that if that requirement, the provision was left in
22 the rule?
23 MS. GUINAN: Well, I presume it would be on
24 the shipper.
25 MR. ROBERTS: The generator?
-------
439
1 MS. GUINAN: The generator.
2 MR. ROBERTS: Now, if the state had a peculialr
3 situation involving the type of soil structure or what-
4 ever the other conflicting technical problems are to be
5 faced in disposal site location, the thinking in terms
6 of this provision was that material may be generated in
7 Maryland and go to Oklahoma and there may be some
8 unique problems to be looked at in the State of
9 Oklahoma that may call for certain criteria in terms
10 of material generated in Maryland going to Oklahoma.
11 Now, what does the railroad industry do if
12 the generator must check with the State of Oklahoma to
13 find out what additional requirements are necessary to
14 get the stuff into Oklahoma?
15 MS. GUINAN: There won't be room to put that
Ig kind of information on our waybills.
17 MR. ROBERTS: This is where you will use the
18 waybill as the manifest?
19 MS. GUINAN: Yes. There physically isn't
20 enough room on a waybill to put that kind of informa-
21 tion .
22 MR. ROBERTS: If you are to use a waybill as
23 a manifest?
24 MS. GUINAN: Exactly.
25 MR. ROBERTS: I'm sure Mr. Hellman from 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
440
California Trucking Association will tell us about the
freight problem in the trucking industry.
I don't think the designers of the manifest
requirements ever visualized that somebody ecmld fit it
onto an IBM-sized card unless they have better glasses
than I an wearing now.
But in saying this, the preemptive statement
... was to preclude your being subjected to the individual
requirements of every transit state all the way from
Maryland to Oklahoma. But now AAR does not like the
destination exclusion on the shipping documents.
Is that your comment?
MS. GUINAN: No. My comment is that we don't
want to be subjected to different regulations, differ-
ent information requirements on going from state to
state to state.
MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry. T think you might
be missing my point. Would you rather we drop the
entire preemptive statement from our proposed regula-
tions'?
We drafted it and proposed it, and it was to
preclude you from being bothered by every state of
transit. Maybe I'm not getting the point across.
MS. GUINAN: I guess I don't understand.
What you are saying is that your preemptive statement
-------
441
I does exactly what I am saying?
2 MR. ROBERTS: It does to a degree, but the
3 generator would have to check with the State of
4 Oklahoma to find out if there was any peculiar require-
5 ments within that state or in the state nlan.
6 MS. GUINAN: And if the generator didn't do
7 that, that liability falls back on him but not on the
8 transporter?
9 MR. ROBERTS: All you do is transmit the in-
10 formation and I have used the comment before that the
11 transporter is under the system that we have designed
12 here, is mainly the carrier pigeon.
13 MS. GUINAN: Right, from A to B.
14 MR. ROBERTS: Now, the other thing that was
15 absent from your comments, the AAR comments —
16 MS. GUINAN: Yes. This is a preliminary.
17 Again, the full written comments will be submitted.
IS MR. ROBERTS: This is why I am going into
19 this next thing, but. I am sure Mr. Pheniater will be
20 glad to help you with the words.
21 When you read Section 3003 of the Act, the
22 statute, and it talks about the things that must be
23 done and it says "compliance with the manifest system
24 referred to in Section 3003 (5)" you go back to that
25 and that deals with the generators and it says "use 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
442
a manifest system to insure that all such hazardous
waste generated is designated for treatment, storage
or disposal," etc.
Now, you have failed to address this in the
AAR statement so far as to how you people interpret
this Act, as to whether we can in the Agency, and if
DOT continues its participation in this program, how we
can ignore this statutory mandate.
Now, I think it's important that you and your
legal staff and the legal staffs of the railroads
understand that there is a statutory mandate, and
argue your point if you say we're misinterpreting what
we are required to do.
It's not just a matter of choice of a few of
us bureaucrats that sit down and decided, "Oh, we are
going to create a manifest." So I wanted to respond
to your comment unless you have something on the
statute as to how you interpret it now —
MS. GUINAN: No, we don't.
MR. ROBERTS: -- to make sure you draw this
information in your final statements which, in our
case, is due by June 1st.
MS. GUINAN: Yes, I know that.
MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
MS. SCHAFFER: Only two questions. One is
-------
443
1 do you have any idea what percentage of hazardous
2 wastes are transported by the railroad?
3 MS. GUINAN: I would say maybe one percent
4 or two percent. Again, I'm not sure.
5 MR. JENKS: I will address that. I have been
6 told that there are about ten percent that are moved by
7 other than motor carrier, but the problem we have is
8 we cannot develop movement statistics on commodities
9 without a commodity code, and we haven't been able to
10 assign a commodity code to waste streams because they'r
11 not identified specifically.
12 So it's difficult to tell whether something
13 is, in fact, a waste and identify it specifically. So
14 it would be difficult, and I think workers seem to
15 agree that, unless they know that, this is a waste,
15 then there is a question about what is a waste and what
U is not a waste.
18 Some day I definitely hope to be able to give
19 you that information, but we can't do it now.
20 MS. GUINAN: Something less than ten percent.
21 MR. JENKS: That's a guess on our part. We
22 have been told.
23 MS. SCHAFFER: The second question is that
24 you refer to a consist. Can you be more specific on
25 what that is?
-------
444
1 MS. GUINAN: Yes. When you put --
2 MR. JENKS: Let me do that, Debbie.
3 A train consist is a list of the cars in the
4 train as they stand in the train, and it indicates the
5 position from the engine or caboose, and additional in-
6 I formation may be provided as to the contents of the
7 car, the placards that they may have on them, etc.
8 It's usually one, or at the most two lines of data,
9 and it simply tells you the location.
10 The waybill gives you what is in the car, and
11 the consist just says, "Fifth car from locomotive," or
12 whatever.
13 MS. SCHAFFER: Does that keep track of what
14 is in the car?
15 MR. JENKS: In some cases, we have, for
15 example, eight columns or eight-charaeter fields to
17 put in the contents information, and on our property
18 we choose to do that with a 49-series STCC code:.
19 MS SCHAFFER: I know you referred to some of
20 it as being computerized. Is that kind of the trend'7
21 MR. JENKS: Yes.
22 MS. SCHAFFER: Thank you.
23 MR. TRASK: I have another question.
24 In Section 250.34 relating to acceptance of
25 shipments, you said that the proposed standards were
-------
445
1 very restrictive and contrary to DOT. Is that because
2 we're only requiring the signatures? Is that your
3 concern?
4 MS. GUINAN: Yes. I didn't say contrary to
5 DOT, just a current operating practice under DOT. But,
6 yes, it's because a signature right now, as Don indi-
7 cated, is not required, especially if it's a prepaid
8 sh ipment.
9 Mil. TRASK: On shipping papers, are signa-
10 tures not required by the transporter?
11 MR. JENKS: On the bill of lading. In other
12 words, it's a contract, but it does not travel with the
13 car. So there is a signature on behalf of the shipper
14 and the carrier, the one he offers and the one we
15 accept, and then the initial carrier retains that docu-
16 ment for the assessment of freight charges.
17 MR. TRASK: So then the shipper signs it and
18 the railroad signs it?
19 MR. JENKS: That is correct.
20 MR- TRASK: So that's the same as we are say-
21 ing, that the generator signs it and the transporter
22 signs it?
23 MR. JENKS: Except only the initial carrier
24 would sign it, and it's retained by the initial
25 carrier. It does not move on after that point. The
-------
446
waybill bears the signatures.
2 MR. TRASK: If it's transferred from one to
3 another, your concern is that the next railroad does
not s ign?
5 MR. JENKS • Or even within the movement of
g one property between two locations, there is no signa-
7 ture on the document that moves with the car to destin-
g ation, the waybill.
9 MR. TRASK- Okay.
MR. JENKS: It is a new document created
from the information contained on the bill of lading.
12 MR • TRASK: So your real concern, then, is
12 that the intermediate railroad, not the originating
and not the delivering, but the one in between or the
•in one who may deliver, would have to sign it under our
proposed regulations and do not have to sign it now?
17 MR. JENKS: That's correct.
MR. TRASK: Only the originating railroad
-_ signs now?
_.
MR. JENKS: There is no requirement that it
move with the car. The bill of lading does not move
22 with the car, where a manifest --
23
MR. TRASK: But the waybill does?
24 MR. JENKS: Yes.
25 MR. TRASK: And the consist does?
-------
447
1 MR. JENKS: Yes, but the consist may be
2 created at every either interchange point or division
3 point. The one consist does not move with that car
4 throughout its entire movement.
5 MR. TRASK: Right, but the waybill always
6 does?
7 MR. JENKS: Yes.
8 MR. TRASK: The same waybill?
9 MR. JENKS: Yes, unless it's lost and then
10 you create one from the computer or the telephone.
11 MR. TRASK: In the proposed rules for spill
12 cleanup, I'm not sure I understood what specifically
13 you were recommending that we do.
14 MS. GUINAN: Use the National Response
15 Center as a single notification. Is that what you mean
16 MR. TRASK: That's what we propose.
17 MS. GUINAN: But it also says "or telephone
18 numbers of specific regional, state and local on-scene
19 coordinators," if I'm not mistaken. But we would like
20 to see the National Response Center be the only place
21 that you have to call.
22 MR. TRASK: You say the "National Response
23 Center"or the government official predesignated?
24 MS. GUINAN: Right.
25 MR. TRASK: You are saying we should take
-------
448
1 that out?
2 MS. GUINAN: I would like to have it -- I am
3 saying in an emergency situation involving a train
4 wreck, the crew man who calls the dispatcher or whom-
5 ever to report that, would never have those numbers on
6 hand.
7 MR. TRASK: Obviously if he didn't have them
8 on hand, then he couldn't contact then, so then he
9 would contact the National Response Center.
10 MS. GUINAN: Right.
11 MR. TRASK: That's the first choice?
12 MS. GUINAN: Yes. So the other ones are not
13 required then is what you are saying the way it is
14 written.
15 MR. TRASK: They're not required, no.
lg Another thing, you were concerned about some-
17 thing in 250.37(c), and again I didn't understand what
12 your concern was.
ig MS. GUINAN: We would like the phrase added
20 "occurring in transportation" to that little section.
2i It just says "transporter's designated agent be require
22 "to clean up a hazardous waste spill." We would like to
23 have "occurring in transportation."
24 MR. TRASK: You are suggesting words be added
25 to clarify that it's only during transportation that
-------
449
1 that would occur?
2 MS. GUINAN: Ri-jht.
3 MR. TRASK: Thank you.
4 MR. ROBERTS: Just one more, I hope, minor
5 quest ion.
6 You said there was no provision for small
7 quantity spills, or words to that effect.
8 MS. GUINAN: Yes.
9 MR. ROBERTS: Now, one of the things an the
10 design of this proposal was to attempt to remove the
11 thought process, if I may use the term, as much as
12 possible from the transport workers as to the decision-
13 making process. For example, on our hazardous sub-
14 stance notice, we had visions of a man being up there
15 with a measuring cup at 2:00 o'clock in the morning
measuring drips coming from his truck.
What do you have in mind? I hear your
comment, but I don't hear anything specific.
19 MS. GUINAN: I want to clarify. That's all,
2Q that if that is, indeed, the case, that there isn't a
lower limit, that any amount of a hazardous spill
22 triggers a notification. It should be stated that way.
23 MR. ROBERTS: That's what it says. Excuse me
24 pause.
25 MS. DARRAH: Let mo ask a clarification on
-------
450
your sludge study, that I think you were talking about.
2 MS. GUINAN: It's more than that, but it went
3 out under the title of sludge survey.
4 MS. DARRAH; Can you give some information
5 about that?
6 MS. GUINAN: Yes. Again, as I stated kind of
at the end. the railroad industry was kind of slow in
8 realizing that it was going to be a generator, treater
9 to store or that kind of thing, and there hasn't been
10 an industry-wide gathering of statistics on sludge
11 generation, composition. API separator sludges, just
12 for example, which is on the hazardous waste list is a
13 big thing from diesel cleaning facilities and which
14 there are several around the country.
15 So we thought , "Gee , maybe we had better sjet
together and find out what kind of impact it will mean
to have this waste be on this hazardous waste list."
So we sent out to the major railroads a ques-
tionnaire asking the kind of units that they had that
2Q generated sludge, processes that generated sludge, how
much, that kind of thing, and also analysis.
22 And the sludge analysis, of course, is what
23 is a long time in coming, and there are a couple of
24 roads right now that have or are going to submit their
25 sludges for this toxicant extraction procedure to see.
-------
451
1 I think we would like to get it taken off the
2 list.
3 MS. DARRAH: When you say the sludge analysis
4 is what is taking a long time in coming, are you refer-
5 ring to the extraction procedure analysis?
6 MS. GUINAN: No, just an AA analysis of
7 sludge takes a while. They have to get it and send it
8 out. It is not analyzed, you know, across the board
9 by everybody for trace heavy metals or anything. The
10 data is coming in right now, but it's- going to take a
11 little bit of time also to analyze it.
12 MS. DARRAH: Can I ask when you sent the
13 questionnaire out?
14 MS. GUINAN: I believe it was -- I don't know
15 if it was late January or early February. It was a very
15 quick thing that we put together after -- It was in
17 response to the December 18 notice.
ig MS. DARRAH: I will point out, and I am sure
19 you didn't hear, that the comment period on the ex-
20 traction procedure has been extended a two-month
2i period.
22 MS. GOINAN: Yes, I heard that. You will
23 still accept data?
24 MS. DARRAH: Any analysis of the sludge that
25 is based on the extraction procedure. It was just
-------
452
1 probably in the Federal Register yesterday.
2 MS. GUINAN: So, say an analysis of that,
3 kind, an industry-wide survey of analysis, can be sub-
4 mitted up to that point?
5 MS. DARRAH: All I can say is if it's
6 analysis of the extraction procedure, if the analysis
7 is done following the extraction procedure and you have
8 results and comments on the extraction procedure itself
9 that we can accept it.
10 MS. GUINAN: Thank you.
11 MR. ROBERTS: I assume that that's the
12 material generated by the railroad industry itself and
13 not the material transported by the railroad, if I
14 remember.
15 MS. GUINAN: No, it's generated -- Yes, at
jg car cleaning facilities, diesel loading and unloading
17 facilities, where there is waste oil.
lg MR. ROBERTS Back to this discharge report-
19 ing requirement, it would be my interpretation, the waj
2Q it was proposed, that any discharge would be reportable
2i during transportation outside the facilities of the
22 shipper or consignee under the DOT proposal.
23 MS. GUINAN: Okay. Well, I was just speci-
24 fically addressing the EPA proposal with that, but,
25 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
453
MR. ROBERTS: Recognizing that sometimes
requirements of this type go to the sublime, I raised
the question to you because I thought maybe you had
some constructive suggestion about how we can adminis-
ter a bottom line on such a problem.
MS. GUINAN: No, I don't. I just wanted it
stated more clearly that that was, in fact, the case,
that any amount discharged, and that's the way you
read that. That's fine.
MR. ROBERTS: Or we could add the words "any
quantity" to the sentence. I am referring to Section
171.17 for the record.
MS. GUINAN: All right.
MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
MR. TRASK: One final question.
In regard to the signature business, how does
a railroad prove that it actually delivers all the gooc
that it delivered to the consignee?
MR. JENKS : We are not engaged in the loadin
or unloading of material. We simply move the freight
container to the unloading location, and the consignee
takes care of that problem. We don't count the number
of boxes in a boxcar.
MR. TRASK: But if the number of boxes in
the boxcar was lower when it arrived than when it was
-------
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
454
shipped, then what happens?
MR. JENKS: Then he files a claim, the con-
signee, and we try to work it out. It is usually
shipped under shipper's load and count anyway, and the
carrier is not required to verify the number of boxes.
Once the car is sealed at origin and moves to
destination with the sea] unbroken, then technically we
don't have liability on loss that occurred during trans
port at ion.
Now, in the case of a tank car, that might be
a little bit different. If the bottom outlet was leak-
ing, then, you know, we work it out. But we're not
engaged in that loading or unloading process. It's not
like some motor carriers that actually provide that
as a service.
MR. TRASK: So there really is no way, then,
| that the railroad can verify that it delivered all of
the material?
MR. JENKS: No, not in the normal procedure.
We don't weigh the car at origin and at destination
again. That is not done.
MR. TRASK: Thank you.
MS. DARRAH : Thank you very much, and thank
you, Mr. Jenks, for helping with those questions.
Mr. David Long or Mac McCulloch from the
-------
455
1 Southern Pacific Railroad?
2 MR. MAC MC CULLOCH: Just so nobody is con-
3 fused, I'm Mac McCulloch.
4 Before I start, I would like to thank Al
5 Roberts for his attempt earlier today to distinguish
6 between the transportation industry and the midnight
7 dumpers. With that, my commentary.
8 The railroad industry is in kind of an odd
9 situation in that we have some operations in which we
10 are generators of hazardous wastes, but the vast
11 majority of what I wish to speak to today related to
12 our operations as carriers of hazardous waste.
13 The first thing that I want to talk about,
14 though, is the proposed Section 250.10(b), Definition
15 of Hazardous Wastes, and specifically that portion
addressing waste oil.
We believe that Subparagraph 2 should be
deleted, "A material which is used is not disposed as
defined in the Act. Similarly, used oil, which is
burned, is not disposed as defined in the Act."
The subparagraph is inconsistent with the
22 Agency's statutory authority as proclaimed in RCRA.
23 For example, a use to which -- what the EPA would
24 define as waste oil that we are putting some of our
25 material to, in the refrigerator car industry six
-------
456
1 percent use lube oil as added to diesel , and used to
2 operate the diesel refrigeration apparatus in roechani-
3 cal refrigerator ears, and to define waste oil in the
4 fashion that the EPA has really is, we think, completely
5 not in accordance with their statutory mandate.
6 The next item I would like to address is
7 Section 250.13(a), ignitable wastes.
8 We recommend very strongly that the EPA
9 adopt DOT's definition of flammable and combustible.
10 If the EPA wishes to regulate only those wastes, DOT
11 combustibles with a flash point below 140 degrees
12 Fahrenheit, that can be easily handled without intro-
13 ducing a new term to the regulatory vocabulary. We
14 already have far too many hazard classes, and we don't
15 need to keep track of another one.
16 Section 250.14, Hazardous Waste List. (a)
17 I says, and I quote, "Spill cleanup residues and debris
18 j from spills of materials which appear in Appendices 3,
19 4 or 5," and those are the toxic, toxic organic and
20 mutagenic criteria, and unfortunately the appendices
do not indicate which appendices is addressing toxic,
22 which is addressing toxic organic and which is address-
23 ing mutagenic.
24 I believe this is an oversight which can be
25 easily corrected, and, in fact, I rather expect that
-------
457
one of the hearing officers can advise me as to which
2 criteria apply to which appendix, and this really
3 should be no more than a housekeeping item.
4 I want to talk about the manifest system
5 which is detailed in the main in Section 250.22 and
5 250.35. We as the industry appreciate and understand
7 the disposer's needs for the information contained on
g the manifest and the need for the signature system pro-
g posed for those modes of transport in which a single
individual has custody of the shipment.
11 We believe, however, that both the manifest
12 system and the delivery document requirements are not
13 necessary in rai] transportation. For rail transporta-
tion there is no reason for the manifest to accompany
15 the shipments. For this reason the rail industry
should be exempted from the manifest requirements.
The manifest could be mailed to the consignee
or could be attached to the car for his return to the
19 generator upon his receipt of the shipment. The cur-
2Q rent railroad shipping papers, including shipper's
bill of lading and carrier's waybills, need only in-
22 elude the manifest number for tracing or matching pur-
23 poses, the DOT/EPA descrintion and the NRC 800-series
24 phone number.
25 Generator reports would have to include the
-------
458
1 railway bill number which could be placed in the com-
2 ment space of the generator report. This would allow
3 cross-checking between the manifest and the carrier's
4 waybills, and if you would like, I would be more than
5 happy to go through again the way that the railroad in-
6 dustry internally handles the paper work.
7 What we are objecting to is having to carry
8 that piece of paper called the manifest around. That
9 is our objection.
10 Tracing of the shipment can be accomplished,
if necessary, through the railroad's current accounting
12 system which is entirely adequate to establish delivery
13 of any shipment to any consignee.
No single railroad employee pver has complete
15 custody of any shipment, effectively precluding un-
authorized disposal. We must note that diversion of
the shipment can be accomplished only by the written
18 authority of the shipper or consignee, effectively pre-
19 eluding unauthorized diversion.
2Q Given the organizational and technological
bars to unauthorized disposal inherent in railroad
22 operation, there is no reason to require that the
23 manifest accompany the shipment.
24 If the EPA is intent on forcing rail carriers
25 into an unnecessary paper chase, the following comments
-------
459
1 will reduce the burden. We are unhappy with the impli-
2 cation of havir.rT to comply with multiple state manifest
3 ing systems, although I think that the preemption
4 statement that Alan Roberts indicates exists would
5 probably satisfy most of our problem there.
6 Information required: The common code
7 number, the CAS number is going to mean absolutely
8 nothing to transporters. The railroad industry, as was
9 alluded to before, uses a 49-series transportation com-
10 modity code number to record what it is that is being
11 shipped. There is a STCC number for microphones and
12 another one for chairs and another one for tape
13 recorders, and on and on and on. We also use this to
14 identify hazardous materials and will use it to identif
15 hazardous waste.
16 For rail shipments, we would like to see the
17 shipper required to furnish us the STCC number to
18 reduce the chance of error in assignment. The reason
19 we want to do this is because if this is not done, our
20 clerk is going to have to -- is going to be in the
21 position of having to assign the STCC number and most
22 of these people do not have either the training nor the
23 education that those of us in this room do.
24 In the industry we would like very much for
25 the Department of Transportation to add to its list all
-------
460
items identified by the EPA but not shipped under NOS
descriptions. This will simplify paper entries and
provide easier assignment of proper STCC codes. This
should be done regardless of the final form of the
5 I application of the manifest system to the railroad.
6 Directions as to immediate action: Immediate
7 action alternatives are limited as are the resources to
8 deal with the spill immediately. About all that can be
done is to control the liquid flow, which most emergent1
10 response agencies will do as a matter of course.
11 We support the 24-hour phone-in information
12 but suggest that the National Response Center provide
13 it in a manner similar to Chemtrak's handling of
14 hazardous materials.
15 Section 250.26, Labels. Application of
labels as described in Section 250.26 will serve no
17 useful purpose for rail tank car shipments.
We recommend that an exception be made for
19 tank cars, and if no exception is made, the consignee
20 or disposer must be required to remove the label when
the car is unloaded to prevent the accumulation of
22 labels on cars not carrying hazardous waste.
23 Section 250.33, Copy of Manifest. Provision
24 must be made for recognizing that only the final rail
25 carrier will have the manifest or delivery document.
-------
461
1 This comment presupposes that you ignore my earlier
2 comments about the manifest system,
3 Each carrier will have a waybill record
4 which reinforces our point about the completeness of
5 the current railroad operating record which must be
6 kept by the ICC for three years, which was alluded to
7 ear 1i er.
3 Spills. The Agency should modify the current
g telephone report requirement for any spill to recognize
10 that in rail transportation, the majority of spills are
of such small quantity as to present no hazard to the
12 environment.
13 Typical railroad examples are, first, rupture
disc or a dripping bottom outlet. The criterion shoulc
15 be revised to require telephone reports only on those
spills which do present a risk to the health or the
envi ronment.
In answer to Al's earlier questions, I would
suggest that maybe 100 kilograms is a good cutoff, and
2Q that would exclude the vast majority of our spills frorr
the immediate telephonic, reports. We don't object to
22 reporting them. We already do that to the DOT on the
23 5800's and that is no particular problem for us.
24 The other point, and this was made earlier
25 Ms. Guinan, is the shortening of the comment period.
-------
462
1 We relied on the April 23, 1978. Federal Register which
2 indicated that the comment period would be held open
3 for 60 days after the last of Section 3001 through
4 3005 was proposed, and we object strenuously to the
5 arbitrary shortening of the comment period.
6 With that, I will answer questions.
7 MS. DARRAH: Let me clarify again regarding
8 your remarks about the comment period. We certainly
9 stated that in our April 23 Federal Register notice.
10 When we published the December 18 notice, we did give
11 a 90-day comment period.
12 Now, what if we had published the 3005 regu-
13 I lations 15 days later? I mean you had 90 days after
14 December 18, and I guess I don't quite see why this
15 sort of 60-day number that we originally had given
16 before we were ever sued and before we were on a court
17 order schedule, I guess I don't quite understand how
18 this sort of 60-day number that you relied upon has
19 caused you hardship, given that we stated pretty
20 clearly December 18.
21 MR. MC CULLOCH: The reason that has caused
22 us hardship is that we had a pretty fair idea of what
23 the progress of Section 3005 was or was not making, and
24 we therefore were not under the pressure that the
25 sudden foreshortening, what we perceived as a sudden
-------
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
463
foreshortening of the comment period has now placed
the industry in.
MS. DARRAH: Okay.
MR. TRASK: You indicated early on, Mr. Me
Culloch, that in your comments on 250.22, and I think
you said something like a manifest would be appropriate
when a single individual has custody of the shipment.
MR. MC CULLOCH: Yes.
MR. TRASK: A railroad is not a single in-
dividual?
MR. MC CULLOCH: No. There is -- The rail-
road does not move a car. People move the cars.
The point that I am trying to make is that
if I have a car at any location, there is nobody that
is going to go out and arbitrarily move that car. They
are going to have to be instructed specifically to do
that. If it's in a yard or if it's sitting out on the
line somewhere, there will have to be a specific in-
struction issued before that car 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
464
not and has not got the capability even to go out and
take off with a car.
MR. TRASK: If, as you suggest, we went to a
system where the manifest was mailed -- I guess you
suggested mailing the manifest to the receiver or
whatever, how would you verify to the generator or the
shipper in your terms that you actually had delivered
that car? How is he going to know that it isn't sit-
ting on a siding somewhere with no one getting an order
to move it ?
MR. MC CULLOCH: That's a very legitimate
question. Let me answer it in kind of two ways.
One is that at any time while the car is in
transport, we have the capability to determine the
location of the car. For example, if I were in my
office now, you could give me a car number for any car
on the Southern Pacific system and within about 60
seconds I could tell you where it was.
Once the car is placed, there is a record
made of that in the computer, and these records are
periodically out put on a hard copy and then most of
the railroads are reducing them to microfilm.
So if I wanted to know where that same car
was six months ago, presuming that it, was on the
Southern Pacific or when it was — the last trip 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
465
it made six months ago, I could find out within, again
in ray office, within 10 or 15 minutes.
MR. TRASK: Would that hard copy that came
out of your computer system fill the requirements of
our delivery document as we have proposed it?
MR. MC CULLOCH. No, it would not, and that's
our problem. What we would like to do is to tie in --
have your regulations tie in our waybill number with
the manifest number. If that's done, then we can tell
you the car moving on waybill such and such was spotted
at a specific location at a particular time, and we can
show you that.
MR. TRASK: So that's all it is, then, you
want us to just require that the waybill number be put
into the manifest?
MR. 1IC CULLOCH. Yes, all we need is to tie
those two together and not be required to physically
carry that piece of paper.
MR. TRASK: Are you submitting comments,
hopefully, before the 16th of March, and if you are, I
wish yon would put that in there, exactly what you
would like to see and maybe we can o-at in touch with
you and discuss that.
MR. MC CULLOCH: Our comments will be a part
of the AAR submission, but I understand you would like
-------
466
1 us to demonstrate how we know where our cars are. Is
2 that it?
3 MR. TRASK: Really what we would like you to
4 demonstrate is proof of delivery.
5 MR. MC CULLOCH: Write that down, Debbie.
6 MR. TRASK: That's it.
7 MR. CORSON: I have one question. You indi-
8 cated in your comments something about our use of the
9 term "ignitable" versus DOT's flammable and combustible
10 and I am wondering if your comment is addressed to the
11 problem of an additional term or if you feel our desire
12 ! to protect to a given level is unnecessary to —
13 MR. MC CULLOCH: No, I have no objection to
14 '•• your selection of 140 degrees as a cutoff point. My
15 objection is to the addition of yet another term. It
16 would seem to me that there is no reason that you could
17 not write a regulation and presumably it would be in
lg 250.13(a) in which you would regulate as a hazardous
19 waste those combustible liquids with a flash point of
20 140 degrees or less, combustible or flammable. You
21 would have to refer to both, of course.
22 MH. CORSON: Is it easier for you --
23 MR. MC CULLOCH: It's easier for everybody.
24 Right now we have DOT classes of flammable and combus
25 tible. Everybody knows what those are. Now you are
-------
467
talking about, for example, A material, whatever it's
2 name was, combustible liquid, ignitable waste. It
3 really does not convey any more information.
4 MR. CORSON: Merely the placarding or the
5 information on the waybill or bill of lading because
6 the generator, in your terms the shipper, should be
7 required to do exactly the same thins; in either case.
8 Something he is now offering for shipment as a flam-
9 mable, he still would offer for shipment as flammable?
10 MR. MC CULLOCH: Yes.
MR. CORSON: And if it's a combustible even
12 beyond the 140 degrees, he still must offer it for
13 shipment as a combustible?
14 MR. MC CULLOCH: Yes.
15 MR. CORSON: And if he has to determine
whether it's 140 degrees for our purposes, he would
still have to do that.
lg MR. MC CULLOCH: Yes.
MR. CORSON: So what is the precise thing
2Q that is creating the problem of making that distinction
Is it the paper work?
22 MR. MC CULLOCH: Yes, the paper work. Instea
23 of simply saying waste, combustible liquid NOS, com-
24 bustible liquid, we now say waste, combustible liquid,
25 combustible liquid ignitable waste.
-------
468
MR. LINDSEY: Mr. McCulloch, to get away
2 from this fascinating business of waybills, if I can,
3 you mentioned earlier on that the waste oi] business
4 gave you some problems, and you said something which
5 was interesting in that you use some of the waste oil
g from your diesel shops.
7 MR. MC CULLOCH: We generate waste oil in
two ways. One is fuel oil which is spilled and sub-
sequently reclaimed. The other is lubricating oils.
MR. LINDSEY: And you blend tnem into -- You
use them as a diesel fuel in running your refrigeration
systems?
MR. MC CULLOCH- Yes. We have a. mechanical
refrigeration car that includes a relatively small
diesel engine, and during the fuel shortage it
,,. discovered they could add six percent of the used lube
oil back into the diesel oil and it would run quite
,0 fine in those particular engines.
10
,_ MR. LINDSEY- Do you use all of your waste
„_ oil in that instance?
MR. MC CULLOCH: I doubt it. 1 don't know
for a fact. Dave may know. Dave is an expert on that
23 one'
MS. DARRAH: If you would come up and identi
25 yourself.
-------
469
MR. LONG: My name is David Long. I'm an
2 attorney with the Southern Pacific in San Francisco,
3 but formerly I was a mechanical engineer with the
4 Refrigerated Department of the Southern Pacific, and
5 in 1973 we did some experimentation in which it was
6 determined that you could put six percent lube oil
7 mixed with diesel fuel oil and it would increase the
8 burning characteristics, actually increase the burning
9 characteristics of a diesel and serve as a fuel.
10 This practice was established in the West
11 I here and then through refrigerated car associations, it
12 became a national practice.
13 There are approximately 26,000 refrigerator
cars in the United States. Each engine holds approxi-
15 mately 24 quarts of lube oil and is changed out
probably in the order of 5,000-hour intervals, and that
17 oil is all taken directly from the crankcase of the
engine and pumped into the fuel tanks of the car and
the ratio of a 500-gallon tank of a car and the 20
2Q gallons in the crankcase works out to be six percent.
It's practical to dispose of it in that manner.
22 MR. LINDSEY: But you don't think all the oil
23 gets used up that way?
24 MR. LONG: Well, that's burned in the engine
25 like your car loses a quart of oil as it goes along.
-------
470
This is not a practice restricted solely to
2 the refrigerated car, railroad car industry. It's been
3 adopted now by major trucking firms, and it has been
4 experimented with in diesel locomotives and not fully
5 adopted but there has been work on this. It's now
6 fairly much a standard practice in the diesel engine
7 industry.
3 I would imagine it amounts to probably in
the tens of thousands or millions of gallons of lube
oils nationwide annually.
MR. LINDSEY: You suggested, Mr. McCulloch,
that what we should do is drop the business of burning
this fuel. I guess I should point something out.
Our intention in setting that up, when we
set it up, we were thinking primarily of burning as a
fuel in a boiler, a steam boiler. That's as opposed
to burning waste oil as a fuel in diesel engines.
If we were to clarify that point, would that
solve your problems with this?
20 MR. MC CULLOCH: I don't believe it would
because -- When we sell our spilled oil, some of it
~2 does go for boiler fuel type uses, so we still have
23 that problem.
24 MR. LINDSEY; This is both the spilled crude
25 and waste from your diesel engines?
-------
471
1 MR. MC CULLOCH: No, this is predominantly
2 diesel oil that has been spilled at fueling facilities.
3 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. McCulloch, you said some-
4 thing about, if I got you right, that the manifest
5 could be attached -- you preferred to have the manifest
6 mailed, but it could be attached to the car. Did I
7 hear you correctly?
8 MR. MC CULLOCH: Sure, it could.
9 MR. ROBERTS: In other words, there are other
10 things attached to cars in terms of documents and —
11 MR. MC CULLOCH: If I were going to do it, I
12 would want to put it in a waterproof plastic sack or
13 something like that, but there is no real technological
14 problem to it.
15 MR. ROBERTS: Now, on a generator, you said
16 that the waybill number should go in the generator's
17 manifest if it's going to be mailed.
13 MR. MC CULLOCH: Yes. We have to tie the two
19 together.
20 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Now, when you go to put
2i them up at a consignor location, what does the crew go
22 in there with?
23 MR. MC CULLOCH: Usually a switch list,
24 printed list.
25 MR. ROBERTS: What do they give them by the
-------
472
1 shipper?
2 MR. MC CULLOCH: Usually nothing.
3 MR. ROBERTS: Where is the waybill, the docu-
4 merit, actually created?
5 MR. MC CULLOCH; It's typically in the near-
6 est yard office.
7 MR. ROBERTS: Which could be how far away?
8 MR. MC CULLOCH: It could be 15 or 20 miles.
9 MR. ROBERTS: When is the first time the
10 generator could get the waybill number to put on the
H manifest to mail to the consignee location? How fast
12 would that happen?
13 MR. MC CULLOCH: No more than 24 hours or one
14 working day.
15 MR. ROBERTS: So there could be some?
!6 MR. MC CULLOCH: There could be a one-day
17 time lag.
18 MR. ROBERTS: Is it conceivable the car
19 could arrive at some destination prior to the —
20 MR. MC CULLOCH: I wish they would move that
21 fast, but. I don't think it would.
22 MR. ROBERTS: Maybe I should say prior to
23 the U.S. mails. I know railroad efficiency is improv-
24 ing so I will correct that statement.
25 MR. MC CULLOCH: One of these days.
-------
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
473
MR. ROBERTS: Getting to the point, though,
you made the comment that they should put the waybill
number on the manifest, and I was wondering if that
were thought through as to the problems that may ensue?
MR. MC CULLOCH: Perhaps I misstated or you
I misunderstood. What I had in mind was the generator
would forward the forms and he would report to the EPA,
you see.
MR. ROBERTS: I am glad you clarified that
because you said manifest.
MR. MC CULLOCH: I could have and that wasn't
what I had in mind. And there may be even another way
to do it, but to get away from carrying that piece of
paper, we recognize that the regulatory people have to
have a way to match those two up, and that's the way to
do it.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, suppose a federal in-
spector, whether EPA or DOT in this case, were to make
a spot check in a yard and he found a car and he
wanted to make sure that it was a properly manifested
car to the right place, how would he go about this frorr
the standpoint of verifying or tying things together9
MR. MC CULLOCH: He would have the consignee.
MR. ROBERTS: But it's not at the consignee
yet .
-------
474
1 MR. MC CULLOCH: The waybill would show the
2 shipper and the consignee which is the same information
3 that would be on the manifest.
4 MR. ROBERTS: Yes, but I think one of the
5 points that must be raised here is that the creation of
6 the manifest has a place in time and a place in time is
7 at the time of generation for moving the transportation
8 MR. MC CULLOCH: Like an offer.
9 MR. ROBERTS: Yes. You are saying retro-
10 actively or ex post facto or whatever you want to call
11 it the man could go back and create a document after
12 the fact of movement and transportation, then we have
13 a little bit of a problem like we would for all hazard-
14 ous problems, that if we didn't require the creation of
15 a shipping paper at the time the material was offered
lg for transportation, I don't see how your alternative
17 solution would resolve —
13 MR. MC CULLOCH: One thing I didn't mention
ig is that we would certainly have no objection, for
20 example, to the origin road receiving a copy of that
2i manifest and keeping it attached to the shipping paper
22 as he does, and maintaining it on file as he does cur-
23 rently with the shipper's bill of lading.
24 MR. ROBERTS: Well, that's a concession.
25 MR. MC CULLOCH: We have no problem with that
-------
475
1 MR. ROBERTS: That would establish something
2 in terms of if the inspector was suspicious, he could
3 find a manifest that was created at the time of genera-
4 t ion .
5 MR, MC CULLOCH: Absolutely. What we don't
6 want to do is carry that paper around. That's what we
7 are trying to get away from.
8 MR. ROBERTS: And there could be a relation-
g ship to the switch ticket or bill of lading, what we
10 call the shipping paper, although we do recognize
11 switching tickets, in terms of the manifest number
12 tying into the freight document, the shipping document.
13 MR. MC CULLOCH: Yes. I have trouble with
14 switch tickets, and this gets back into the DOT hazard-
15 ous materials regulation, and I would rather not say an
16 awful lot about it here. But the document that is the
17 key one to us is that bill of lading. That's the con-
lg tract of carriage. That's the important one.
jg MR. ROBERTS: Does that bill of lading always
20 have a number on it, an identifying number, a progres-
2i sive series?
22 MR. MC CULLOCH: I don't know that it's
23 necessarily a progressive series. For example, Standard
24 Oil at Richmond up here might ship 20 cars and 100
25 trucks a day and their number sequence, which would mea
-------
476
nothing to us as the carrier, they might take five rail
cars here and go down and skip 20 numbers and nick up
another five, so I think you would have those kinds of
4 problems, if that is a problem.
5 MR. ROBERTS: I think that part of this is to
g explain to the EPA staff some of the inherent problems
7 in this system because what many people don't undor-
8 stand is that the Bill of Lading Act requires that tho
9 carrier issue to the shipper a hill of lading. That's
10 a contract, rig'ht? But invariably and historically the
shippers have all prepared their own bills of lading in
12 conformance with the basic requirements of the Act. So
13 it's really the Chevron form or the Shell Chemical
form or something like that, and :t's not really tho
Southern Pacific bill of lading form.
You might have some blank bills lying around
17 MR. MC CULLOCH; We will provide a shipper
10 the form if he needs them, but as a practical matter,
most people prefer their own.
2Q MR. ROBERTS The point of this is that you
are not issuing bills of lading; in a progressive series
22 MR. MC CULLOCH: That's correct.
23 MR. ROBERTS- As a railroad.
24 MR. MC CULLOCH: As a matter of course, that'
25 correct.
-------
477
1 MR. ROBERTS: What is the first controlling
2 number that exists within the railroad that could be
3 referred to on the manifest document for purposes of
4 ' investigation or determination of compliance? What is
5 | the first controlling number that exists in the rail-
6 road industry?
7 MR. MC CULLOCH: The controlling number in
8 the railroad industry would he the waybill number.
9 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
10 MS. DARRAH : I guess that's all of our ques-
11 tions. Thank you very much.
12 Mr. J. P. Hellmann, California Trucking
13 Association?
14 MR. JOHN P. HELLMANN: My name, ladies and
15 gentlemen and members of this hearing board, is John
16 Hellmann, H-e-1-1-m-a-n-n. I appear here today to
17 represent the California Trucking Association.
lg I have a hard act to follow, the Santa Fe anc
19 the Southern Pacific Company, both of them coinoident-
20 ally members of the CTA, taut they're speaking for the
2i railroad and I an speaking for trucks.
22 MS. DARRAH: Would you mind putting that mike
23 up a little bit? Thank you.
24 MR. HELLMANN: The CTA is an organization
25 whose members cover every field or type of trucking
-------
478
operations conducted within the State of California,
Each type of trucking operation may at some point in
3 time be asked to haul a hazardous waste material.
4 Our main concern with the proposals of your
Agency, Mrs. EPA, is that they must be uniform and
follow the same guidelines as to descriptors that are
applied to all forms of transportation by the U.S.
8 Department of Transportation.
9 The trucking industry is the most flexible of
10 all types of transport used by industry within the U.S.
and therefore the regulations that your Agency may im-
12 pose on us must conform with those of the U.S. Depart-
13 merit of Transportation, our local state health authori-
14 ties and with the enforcing agencies.
15 That's all. Thanks for the opportunity of
15 telling you that.
t
17 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
lg | MR. HELLMANN: If you want to ask questions -
MS. DARRAH: I have a feeling there might be
20 some questions.
MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Hellmann, it seems that the
22 key word in your very succinct statement was "conform"
23 at least in a short reading. In other words, you say
24 that whatever we do has got to conform with whatever
25 DOT does or the state and local health authorities do
-------
479
1 and the enforcing agencies.
2 Now, do you mean that, or do you mean con-
3 sistent with?
4 MR. HELLMANN: Well, if you want to be con-
5 sistent with, that's fine with me, but you have got to
6 remember that that guy sitting on the end of the table
7 has got a preemption law that says something about the
8 regulations not being a burden on commerce. If you are
9 just consistent with and you name something that is
10 more strict than theirs, then we have a problem. That1
11 consistency.
12 MR. LEHMAN: Well, we will have to ask Mr.
13 Roberts about this, but I believe DOT can preempt what
14 one of the state agencies does, but I'm not sure he
15 can do it with EPA. We will have to argue that deci-
16 sion.
17 MR. HELLMANN: Let's put it this way, Mr.
18 Lehman. Mr. Roberts knows that the trucking industry
19 is dead set against code numbers. Now, in your pro-
20 posed regulation, you are talking about code numbers,
21 and when you get out on that highway at 3:00 o'clock
22 in the morning and there is a tank truck upside down,
23 and the CHP guy says "What does this code number 2516
24 mean" and he has no way of knowing what it is, he will
25 get on the radio and call his dispatcher and the
-------
480
1 dispatcher calls the zone and zone calls headquarters
2 in Sacramento, and then Sacramento calls the National
3 Response Center and asks, "What's Code 2516." All this
4 time is lost. We want it spelled out on the bill of
5 lading, shipping document or whatever is used to move
6 it from A to B, no code numbers, Number 1.
7 You have different standards for f lamraabi I i ty
8 than he has. You have different standards for deter-
9 mining corrosive-ness. He has the white rabbit.
10 He knows what will be corrosive or not from his rabbit.
11 But you have a system of pH.
12 Then you also talk about toxicity, and we
13 used to have trouble in the trucking industry with the
14 word "inflammable," i-n-f-1-a-m-m-a-b-I-e, and we got
15 rid of the "i-n" and somebody said something about the
jg railroad clerks and I don't want to get into that box,
17 but we have people who think about when they hear intoxic,
lg the first thing they think about is a beer at the
19 corner saloon, if you talk about being intoxicated, so
20 if you would stick with the word "poison" we would
2i appreciate it. That's what I mean by consistent with
22 his regulation. You change the names and nomenclature
23 around. Let's conform with his regulations. One set
24 of regulations is all we want.
25 The small quantity exemptions, well, they
-------
481
have a 20,000-gallon leaking tank car out there on the
1
tracks and ±f it's got a leak in it, it has a problem,
2
but we may only have a little can about the size of
3
this machine over here, round (indicating), a five-
4
gallon pail that has a leak in it, and what do you do
5
with it? Are we going to have to call the National
6
Response Center every time? Just put it in another
7
drum and put a lid on it and take it to another destin-
8
ation and let him worry about calling the National
9
Response Center.
10
Then we have the labeling and placarding
11
requirements of DOT to live with, and you fellows have
12
different names for it. What are we going to do? We
13
have a diamond-shaped placard, white, black, that says
14
"poison" and when we haul it for you, we have to take
15
the word "poison'' out and put "toxic" on it to be
16
legal.
17
Mr. Trask, I'm sorry, but we used to have a
18
fellow working for CTA named Bert Trask, and I hope yot
19
are related to him.
20
MR. TRASK: He probably was a real good man.
21
MR. HELLMANN: Questions anybody?
22
MR. ROBERTS: J. P. --
23
MR. HELLMANN- Mr. Roberts, your day is
24
tomorrow.
25
MR. ROBERTS' I will be out on an island
surrounded by water.
-------
482
1 Well, I'm glad to see you elicit some of
2 your comments which were not in this document. My
3 comment is that that's about the briefest I have ever
4 seen CTA ever and the first time I would say that you
5 took the lesser of two evils in supporting DOT.
5 That aside, I think we ought to seriously
7 address some of the substantive proposals of DOT
g since you are talking about EPA conforming, and I think
you mean being consistent with DOT.
MR- HELLMANN: Yes. That's your terminology.
MR. ROBERTS: I would gather that the CTA
12 management has taken a look at the requirements of the
Act, the RCRA requirements, and acknowledged that there
will exist a manifest.
15 MR. HELLMANN: That we live with on hazard-
ous wastes or all materials that we transport in
California now. We have a manifest system set up now,
set up by the State Health Department, and I am sure
that the Washington branch of EPA and our State Health
2Q Department can work the problems out on manifest prob-
lems. The manifest to us is a shipping document.
22 What you talk about is the shipping document
23 and it serves the same purpose. It tells us what it is
24 and what placard on the vehicle and who gave it to us
25 and who we will give it to and we get, a receipt on it,
-------
483
I and we don't have any problem with that, like the rail-
2 road people .
3 MR. ROBERTS: Fine. Now, I go to the next
4 point and clarify your preemptive statement. DOT has
5 no authority to preempt EPA's administration of 3003
regulations. The Administrator, without my reading the
7 words exactly, is required by law to consult with the
3 Secretary of Transportation through a direct contact
9 between the Secretary of Transportation and Mr. Costle,
and that has been accomplished in the terms of the
broad mandate that we attempt to work together.
Then I'm the guy that got named to do the
actual coordination.
,4 It's not a preemptive thin^. It would be a
matter of law and somebody is alleging in the court
that the Administrator didn't do what he was required
to do by the statute. There are a number of lawyers
in the room, and I am sure they can interpret that
jo aspect much better than I.
So it gets down to the things that you feel
between -- on the merits of what EPA is proposing in
22 the administration of its 3003 regulations and what
23 DOT is proposing just on its merits to accomplish the
24 requirements of the Act and then looking at those
things that would be not what you would consider to be
-------
484
fully coordinated.
You gave some definition material which is
under 3001, and EPA is not required to consult with
DOT on that, so that's done away with.
By the required Communities Acts Amendments,
EPA is only required to consult with DOT, I think as of
this past December on 3003. They're not even required
to consult with DOT on 3002, which is the crux of the
whole business, the generator/sh ipper , although we are
10 continuing to cooperate in those areas anyway hopefully
11 Now, you mentioned your problem with the cor-
12 rosion definition. Do you have a preference for the
13 pH system, or the rabbit test? These are serious ques-
14 t ions .
15 MR. HELLMANN: I'm serious with you.
16 MR. ROBERTS: Let me make a point first, J.P.
17 I must acknowledge that the DOT criteria for
18 corrosives under Docket 857, the Albino Rabbit Test, is
19 much more expensive to administer than the pH system.
20 MR. HELLMANN: That's the generator's problem
21 MR. ROBERTS: But you commented on it.
22 MR. HELLMANN: I commented on it because that
23 is what everybody else uses. You know what is corros-
24 ive on that score by your test. We're the transporter
25 and we're subject to your regulation when we start to
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
485
move it down the highway, and not subject to h]s regu-
lation when we start to roll it down the highway.
MR. ROBERTS: Right, but I meant this,
though, that you don't run a rabbit test or pH tost on
your freight.
MR. HELLMANN: We depend on what the genera-
tor tells us what it is. We have no way of knowing,
but the pH thing, if we get involved in a problem.
we're used to the rabbit business. !\'e would rather
stay with that regulation so that it's all DOT as far
as we are concerned.
MR. ROBERTS: I appreciate your loyalty.
But in this particular case -- It has not always been
that way, folks. But I just want to see if you really
had technical comments on what was being proposed
relative to EPA versus DOT because I'm of the opinion
that the DOT reg is much more expensive to the regulate
and affected industries, shippers and generators.
MR. HELLMANN: The shippers, the generator of
this hazardous waste is making a product; right? In
making that product, if he's going to end up with a
corrosive material that is waste, he probably will end
up with corrosive material that is a principal salable
product rather than waste. He wouldn't know whether
it's corrosive or not. If he wants to use the pH
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
486
system, I have no objection; but, as far as we're con-
cerned, your definition of a corrosive is what we have
to 1ive with.
If you get a second definition that is either
greater than or less than yours, the shipper, the gen-
erator of the waste says it's not corrosive and we go
down the road and something happens and acid reacts on
steel or the paint comes off somebody's car because we
dripped stuff on it, you know, the question is at that
point in time is is it corrosive or not corrosive.
The only way we know then is for somebody
like you to tell us.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, we do have criteria
that's not too bad and was strongly supported by regu-
lated industries as far as virgin chemicals were con-
cerned, but I suggest that there is a distinction
between that and cleaning out sludge pits and sumps.
MR. HELLMANN: Well, there is a question
there. What is the difference between virgin sulfuric
acid, 120 and 99.6 sulfuric acid sludge?
MR. ROBERTS: In terms of hazard to humans,
for example?
MR. HELLMANN: Uh-huh. One is a waste
material, and the other is a. virgin material.
MR. ROBERTS: Not much probability --
-------
487
1 MR. HELLMANN: It will burn your finger off
2 if you are not careful.
3 MR. ROBEHTS: I would suggest that there is a
4 long way from that percentage that you just gave down
5 to the end of the pH scale that we're talking about at
6 EPA in terms of percentages, way, way down. As a matte
7 of fact, in DOT we're trying to find a bottom line to
8 things like nitric acid, and we're below one percent
9 strength.
10 MR. HELLMANN: Are we talking about percent-
11 age or are we talking about Bomb A?
12 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I understand the dis-
13 tinction, but I am saying when you get to percentages,
14 I will not debate the merits, but I wanted to see if
15 you had a comment from that direction as to the merits
16 of definition criteria besides being in conformance.
17 MR. HELLMANN: We have to live with your
ig regulations and anything they can do to make it con-
ig sistent with your regulations, hooray.
2Q I was going to say as a. point of information
2i for those assembled that I see that the Department of
22 Health Services in Sacramento are about to revise their
23 hazardous waste regulations. This is our problem. The
24 EPA/federal, they have theirs and you have yours as far
25 as us is concerned, and the CHP has theirs as far as us
-------
488
1 is concerned, then we have the state. Now, we can
2 only serve one master.
3 MR. ROBERTS: Unless they're all in con-
4 formance with each other.
5 MR. HELLMANN: And we tell everybody the
6 same thing. We must conform or be consistent with
7 Title 49 U.S. Code.
8 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Hellmann, I have a comment
9 for you. I would hate to bring you the bad news, but
10 you made a statement earlier on that the one and only
11 master you serve is DOT, and I'm afraid that's going
12 to change as a result of these regulations, according
13 to the U.S. Conference.
14 MS. DARRAH: Any questions, Harry?
15 MR. HELLMANN: Mr. Lehman, let's qualify
16 that. We do have to live up to your regulations. We
17 are only allowed so many noxides and so many nitro-
18 &en — s° many particulars when we go down the road.
19 We live up to those, too, if that's what you are
20 referring to. Yes, we bow down —
21 MR. LEHMAN: I was referring to Section 3003
22 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which
23 mandates EPA to write regulations which do apply to
24 transporters of hazardous wastes in addition to the
25 DOT requirements. That's what I meant.
-------
489
MR. TRASK: Mr. Hellnann, the statement that
2 you handed me said the subject was on the HM Docket
3 145-A, and I assume you meant that also to apply to
the proposed regulations 250.30-37?
5 MR. HELLMANN: We understood this hearing
6 was 145-A.
7 MR. TRASK: Well, it's both 145-A and the
g hazardous waste standards.
9 I The other thing is that I wonder if I could
10 clarify exactly what you are talking about when you use
the word "descriptors." You say that the main concern
12 with the regulations is that they must be uniform and
13 follow the same guidelines as to descriptors.
Could you clarify exactly what you mean in
15 that area9 Do you mean just shipping descriptions, or
16
is it broader than that?
MR. HELLMANN: Well, partially the shipping
descriptions of what's been transported, and you talk
about code numbers.
20 And also I might refer you to Page 58951 of
the Federal Register, Volume 43, December 18, and the
22 first paragraph at the top right-hand side of the page.
23 This, to me, is a descriptor.
24 MR. TRASK: Okay. So then you are talking
25 about more than just a straight shipping description.
-------
490
1 You are talking about the hazard involved as well?
2 MR. HELLMANN: The actual description from
3 this point of view, what is inflammable.
4 MR. TRASK: Thank you. I appreciate it.
5 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Hellmann, I did want to com-
6 pliment you on the conciseness of this, and because
7 this will be such a hard act to follow, we will take a
8 ten-minute break and reconvene at 3:40.
9 (Recess taken. )
10 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Don Jenks from the Santa Fe
11 Railway?
12 MR. DONALD JENKS: I'm Don Jenks, Manager of
13 Hazardous Materials Control of the Santa Fe Railroad,
14 headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. I'm responsible
15 for hazardous materials, emergency response for the
system and to the extent that it applies to transporta-
tion, the environmental regulations.
jg I would like to emphasize some of the points
made by Mr. McCulloch of Southern Pacific.
20 One of the problems is that we transport
used lubricating oils for re-refining. It is not a
22 waste as far as we are concerned. It goes back, is
23 re-refined and that oil that is reclaimed is reused
24 again, and we don't consider it a waste and we don't
25 think EPA should either.
-------
491
1 We don't like the idea of "ignitable waste."
2 If DOT perceives that a material poses a hazard because
3 it has a flash point of between 100 and 200 degrees
4 Fahrenheit, we believe it should be shipped accord-
5 ingly.
6 If EPA chooses to regulate only up to 140
7 degrees Fahrenheit at the disposal end of it, that's
8 their prerogative, but as far as a definition in trans-
9 portation, it should be classified as a combustible
10 waste.
11 As far as the manifest system is concerned,
12 we agree that the thing should not be the responsi-
13 bility of the railv/ay carrier to move from the genera-
14 tor to disposer. It should be handled by some other
15 means, mail or attached to the car if it could be done
15 in a method where we are not responsible for the main-
17 tenance of that document or to assure that it reaches
jg its destination and that it can be accommodated during
19 all possible weather problems.
20 There is some question about the emergency
21 phone number. At one point in the regulations, there
22 is a comment made that in the event of a spill, contact
23 the NRC, U.S. Coast Guard, for emergency assistance.
24 There is some concern on our part that no matter who
25 you call, they're not going to be able to tell you much
-------
492
about the material. Waste can contain, as you know,
many constituents in the waste stream and it's diffi-
cult to supply any real good information other than the
basic, primary hazard class and some basic instructions
on containment procedures.
Tracing a shipment is not a problem. We have
computers and a computer system that can allow us to
trace shipment from origin to destination and documents
indicating when the shipment was made available to the
10 consignee for unloading. The car is then released to
us later empty, and we can obviously deduce from that
12 that the car was, in fact, unloaded.
13 One problem not addressed in the regulations
is identification of the residue in empty tank cars.
15 If waste will be moved in empty tank cars, we believe
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the DOT should, as they have for hazardous materials,
require identification of the contents in the car so
that if the car was involved in a derailment or leak,
we would know what the material was.
We also agree that there should be some
criteria for eliminating telephone notification for
minor leaks and spills. In many cases, the improper
application for closure of a valve, the bottom outlet
cap on the tank car, results in a minor leak which we
do not feel imposes a direct threat to health or
-------
493
1 environment. We do not feel we should burden our dis-
2 catchers with telephone notification of these minor
3 prob1 ems.
4 Perhaps the recommended 100 kilograms or some-
5 thing like that susctiested by SP , would be an appropriate
6 approach to that, but to call for every single minor
7 release of product, the action of the safety valve or
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
product loss from a .small ruptured disc would not only
unnecessarily burden our people but perhaps the NRC as
well. I don't know what they're able to do about these
minor problems, and probably thev wouldn't even send
somebody to investigate them.
Another problem we see in this proposal is we
at Santa Fe are looking for the eventual elimination of
the waybill on our trains. One, the railroad now has
DOT exemption to put only the information required in
172, 202 and 203, and that's the proper shipping
description, name, class, quantity, etc., on the train
consist. We don't need to have a waybill with the move
ment of the car. This is done on a computer-generated
train consist.
Also, the carrier can sign on behalf of the
shipper under the shipper's previous written authority,
the bill of lading, and shipper's certification require
by DOT, and a copy then is mailed to the shipper, but
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
494
they do not have to receive that signed certified ship-
ping paper prior to the preparation of the movement
waybil1.
This speeds up the process, and the whole
thing is accomplished by previous patterns specified
for the movement of that product from origin to destina-
tion .
My point is that no written document needs to
be received or signed by the shipper before the car can
be moved, and we think that the manifesting requirement;
should accommodate that proposal.
Another thing that I see that perhaps needs
correction is that DOT proposes to identify hazardous
waste NOS or ME, and this is inconsistent with the
previous description used for all other specifically
identified material by preceding the proper shipping
name with the word "waste."
We agree that this is the proper method of
j flagging the hazardous waste. Waste, hazardous materia
NOS or ME, might be a way to accomplish this, but you
have an exception by calling it "hazardous waste, NOS"
when you precede every other descriptor by "waste,"
sulfuric acid, for example.
The fact that the waybill will have the mani-
fest number and the word "waste" between the proper
-------
495
1 shipping name is sufficient flagging for our people
2 to know that we have to report to EPA under certain
3 circumstances.
4 That's all the comments.
5 Any questions?
6 MS. DARRAH: Thanks.
7 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Jenks, I think I want to
8 clarify one point at the front end of your report
9 and also to explore with you another part.
10 I believe your statement was that you felt
11 that used oil that was going to re-refining should not
12 be considered a waste and so forth. We agree with
13 ' you, and in fact if you read our proposed regulations
14 very carefully, I think you will see that used oil
15 that is going to a re-refining operation is in fact
16 excluded from these regulations.
17 You. brought up an interesting point in your
18 commentary concerning residues in so-called empty
19 tank cars after shipment. The same thing happens in
20 trucks, vacuum trucks. I'm not sure how DOT handles
21 that, but I guess our thinking on this is that — our
22 experience at least with the trucking industry, was
23 that so-called empty trucks are in fact washed out
24 before the next use usually.
25 MR. JENKS: I don't know that that
-------
496
1 necessarily would be the case. I'm not really
2 familiar with the disposer requirements for decon-
3 tamination, but we assume arbitrarily that a tank
4 car contains up to three percent of the product that
5 was last loaded in it when it's made empty. Perhaps
6 that tank car in the future for the movement of
~l waste might be assigned a dedicated service; in other
8 words, moving back from the generator to disposer,
9 and I would say that it wouldn't need to be cleaned
10 out because it wouldn't have any other product
11 anyway.
12 Now, if the disposer is required to complete-
13 ly decontaminate the tank car, fine. We don't have
14 a problem, but I don't think as a practical matter
15 that that may be the case.
16 But if you have, let's say that we're
17 talking about a large car, a 33,000-galIon capacity
18 car, then you could have 900 gallons of product under
19 the three percent situation, and I would just like
20 to know that I have that in a car so that if it's
21 involved in an accident, I know that I have to look
22 out for the spillage of the material.
23 MR. LEHMAN: I want to ask you what the
24 common practice is within your industry with respect
25 to this.
-------
497
1 Let's assume that you are carrying some
2 commodity of toxic chemical or something or a
3 hazardous waste in a car, and it's been received and
4 you have a so-called empty car now.
5 What do you do with it? Is it routed back
6 to some cleaning operation before you put it back
7 in service?
8 MR. JENKS : No, normally the car is in
9 service, for example, the sulfuric acid, and it goes-
ID back for another load of sulfuric acid, and it still
11 contains, let us say for argument, three percent of
12 the product that they were unable to remove from the
13 car or which may not be possible to remove without
14 full decontamination, and DOT requires that the
15 shipping- paper for the movement of that car bear
16 the following notation, "Empty" or "Empty, Last
17 Contained Sulfuric Acid Corrosive Material" placarded
18 and that tells us what the car contains as a residue.
19 MR. LFHMAM : Now, are you suggesting that
20 if the hazardous waste transport by rail becomes
21 a major part of this, that you would anticipate the
22 same type of situation occurring there where you
23 have dedicated cars for that purpose?
24 MR. JENKS : Yes. The cost of decent amina-
25 tion for a tank car is somewhat larger than it would
-------
498
1 be for a 55-gallon drum, and I think you would see
2 movement of cars from generator to disposer of the
3 same waste material back and forth, back and forth,
4 and I think it can be accomplished the same way as we
5 handle hazardous materials in empty cars, the word
6 "empty," proper shipping name, class, and of course
7 if no placard is required, the word "placard" would
8 be deleted from that description.
9 But it would tell us what we have to be
10 ! aware of that may remain in that car.
11 MR. LEHMAN: Well, pardon me if I'm wrong,
12 Alan Roberts, but I believe that -- well, as you
13 mentioned, I believe DOT does require the so-called
14 empty car to have some sort of shipping document on
15 it. I guess we didn't consider that to a great
16 extent; did we?
17 MR. ROBERTS: If I can answer your point.
18 In Section 173.29 of our regulations,
19 namely, I think it is Paragraph F, which we're about
20 to renumber or reletter -- it's like Government
21 reorganization -- we require the portable tanks,
22 cargo tanks and tank cars to basically be treated
23 the same as if they were loaded if they have not
24 been cleaned and purged of the hazardous material
25 res idue.
-------
499
1 What Mr. Jenks is pointing out, that
2 interpret atively so-called empty car -- and from a
3 historic standpoint of many years it has been
4 considered to be in the empty state if they have
5 three percent or less of their maximum capacity --
6 and as a matter of fact we started a rulemaking
7 action on this topic recently and it was withdrawn
8 to be transferred to another regulatory docket, but
9 with the exception of the empty placard which is a
10 distinct and separate, and again historic system in
11 the railroad industry, there is basically no
12 difference in transportation except the words "empty"
13 or "empty, last contained" on the shipping document.
14 Even there DOT has taken a very liberal approach to
15 this in terms of the 115,000 tank truckloads of
16 gasoline delivered in the United States each day,
17 which means that the truck stays under regulation,
18 placarded with a document even though the driver does
19 not make a notation of exactly what he delivered at
20 each stop or record that fact that it is now so-
21 called empty for the return trip to the refinery.
22 But basically if the packaging and in this
23 case the tank car, portable tank, cargo tank, is not
24 cleaned and purged, it stays under regulation and
25 you will be notified that there are hazardous waste
-------
500
1 residues in it.
2 The other part that I think responds to
3 your question, Mr. Lehman, since I am commenting
4 as a commentor now, is that basically the determina-
5 tion of when this happens is what service the car
6 is going to go into next. As Mr. Jenks pointed out,
7 if it's going out to get another load of sulfuric,
8 they're not going to clean the car out. But if it
9 changes service, somebody always will clean the car,
10 and that responsibility does not rest with the
11 railroad. It rests with the person who is in control
12 of the car under lease or ownership.
13 WR . JENKS: We own no cars for commercial
14 service and -- well, for examnlo, anhydrous amonia
15 propane, same car, different times of the year, goes
16 to a lank car shop. They check the gaskets and clean
17 and purge the car, restencil it for the commodity
18 it will handle and out it goes for the noxt six
19 months, and in the same process. Neither the shipper
20 or consignee does that. It's a third party.
21 ™R. TP.ASK: What is it about our regulations
22 that prevent this same system from continuing in the
23 way you have been doing it under the existing DOT
24 regulations?
25 MR. JERKS' All I'm saying is that the DOT
-------
501
1 regulation 12475(c) should cover hazardous waste.
2 HP. . TRASIC: I guess we can sort that out
3 later with DOT. I thought they bad put it in there.
4 MR. JENKS : I don't think they do now, do
5 they?
6 MR. ROBERTS: I can understand why the
7 question is being raised because we say "to make
8 the waste requirements applicable in most cases
9 except for approved or permitted delivery facilities,"
10 and we start out the rule saying "for which a
11 manifest is required according to 40 CFR 250," and
12 if there is no manifest required, most of the DOT
13 proposed hazardous waste regulations are not operative
14 except 171.3, which makes no reference to a manifest
15 in terms of the prohibition against delivery to any
16 facility other than a permitted facility.
17 That doesn't have anything to do with the
18 manifest or not. It could be five pounds of
19 material that has nothing to do with the 100 kilograms
20 or anything else.
21 One other point, and since it's not a
22 question but a comment on something Mr. Jenks said
23 as well as several connmentors , I think it's very
24 important to be noted that none of the existing DOT
25 regulations per se are affected by this ruling. I
-------
502
1 think it's paramount that people understand that when
2 they say "100 kilograms exclusion this and forget
3 that and do this," it has nothing to do with the
4 existing regulatory system of DOT. No way are we
5 goinp to forget a five-gallon pail of parathion,
6 whether waste or otherwise because of a 100 kilogram
7 exclusion under the hazardous waste regulations.
8 These are a subset to the DOT parent basic hazardous
9 waste regulations.
10 It is very important that in light of a
11 couple of comments that have sort of skidded around
12 this point, that that be clearly understood and made
13 a part of this record.
14 MR. JEIIKS: What we were talking about,
15 Al, is under 171.15 there are certain specified
16 criteria, and that you don't have to call DOT for
17 every release of hazardous material, and I don't think
18 DOT wants to be called for five drops of a leaking
19 bottom outlet, but what we are saying if the same
20 type of criteria should be applied to hazardous
21 waste if it's a problem, a major problem, and then
22 we want to notify somebody. But if it's a minor
23 thing, we don't see why we should have to call or
24 you should have to be bothered with a notification.
25 I don't think you will do anything about
-------
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
503
that five drops anyway. We have spilled gasoline
over a long period of distance from leaking cars
and EPA said "Fine. Thank you very much." That's
it .
J,'H. ROBERTS: If I may, I would like to
deal with that since that's a part of your comments.
You have accidental or intentional included
in the 171.17 reporting requirement, and, true, when
you have virgin products worth so many cents or
dollars or much money per pound, for example, we
don't visualize that the system has to recognize in
terms of proof of delivery as stringently as we would
when talking about discarded or waste material.
Therefore, by design and intention, I think you should
understand this. There was no bottom line imposed
for the reporting requirement because we take the
view, and I think it's a pretty good view, that the
motivation to assure that the product is delivered
to where it's supposed to go is much, much less than
it is relative to the transportation of virgin
materials.
MR. JENKS : I don't agree that by rail
that's true.
MR. ROBERTS: I just want you to understand
that this is a broadly-applied rule to all segments
-------
504
1 of industry, and I can understand why you may say
2 that in rail there is not such a motivation and such
3 exclusion should be provided, but you understand why
4 the background of it is such.
5 MR. JENKS: "/hen you consider what the
6 penalties for spillage, failure to report and the
7 economic burdens of cleanup, I think there is a hell
8 of an incentive not to let it get out of its container
9 MR. ROBERTS. Yes, but there is one catch
10 statement to that, if you get caught.
11 MR. JENKS: That's true. All I'm saying
12 is that right now if one drop escapes from a car and
13 we don't report it, we are subject to a penalty, and
14 that requires a heck of a good reporting system on
15 our part as well to catch it, number one.
16 MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and I also acknowledge
17 that we know where most of the railroads are in the
18 United States. It's a fixed system.
19 MR. JENKS: But there ought to be a limita-
20 tion that says this is a minor problem and don't
21 call but report it in writing, or there is a major
22 problem and call us and report it in writing.
23 MR. ROBERTS: I have one other point and
24 then I will quit.
25 When you say that you are suggesting a
-------
505
100 kilogram cutoff point, and it came up from
Mr. McCulloch's comments, I would assume, and you can
3 answer yes or now, but I would assume that you are
* excluding from that those materials designated as
hazardous substances, reportable quantities, and
quantities less than 100 kilograms under the Pollution
7 Act?
8 MR. JENKS: Wait until tomorrow, 41.
MR. ROBERTS: For purposes of this, because
mainly those materials would be waste in the shipping
11 description and it is the subject of this hearing,
12 but I assume you are not saying this broadbrush for
13 all hazardous wastes. That's my point.
MR. JENKS: I am saying that if it's a
minor situation, and let's say it doesn't have a
16 reportable quantity of one pound, I would presume
1' that most of that material would be packaged fairly
18 well, but the small situations would be hard to
19 detect and then what are you going to do about the
20 situation, tighten the leak or take care of it?
21 MR. ROBERTS: Without getting into
" specifics. I am trying to get to your point — I
realize it is a quick statement, 100 kilograms, but
" you are not saying it's for --
oc
MR. JENKS: If the material imposes a severe
-------
506
1 risk, it obviously should be reported.
2 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.
3 MS. DARRAH: I have one question. When
4 you alluded to the three percent requirements on the
5 empty tanks, I take it you were referring to the
6 DOT definition and did not necessarily want us to
7 believe that most of the time when a car is empty,
8 that three percent or this 900 gallons would necessari
9 ly remain in it?
10 MR. JENKS: I will explain where that came
11 from.
12 In the Uniform Freight Classification there
13 is a provision that states that if a car contains
14 less than three percent, it's considered empty, and
15 more than three percent it's not considered empty
16 under certain circumstances, and we have had
17 meetings with the manufacturers of chemicals, and
18 they have said that for our purposes we can assume
19 that an empty car contains up to three percent and
20 treat it accordingly with the same type of respect
21 that we would inure to a clean container that
22 contains that much material. In some cases it's
23 less and sometimes more, but rarely is the car
24 completely empty. It's very expensive to decontami-
25 nate a 20,000-galIon tank car for every movement,
-------
507
1 and most people don't do it. It goes back and moves
2 the same product from the same origin and same
3 destination.
4 And I think the same thing would be true
5 about this waste. And we've got this hang-up about
disposing of everything, but I don't think it's
physically possible to get every last drop out of
that kind of container. You can't even get every
9 drop out of a 55-gallon drum.
10 MS. DARRAH: I wondered if you had
information as to whether it is often much less than
12 three percent?
13 MR. JENKS: It depends on the product.
14 Sometimes the product solidifies in the bottom of the
15 car and forms a crust that is impossible to remove.
16 I have seen them get in there with
17 jackhammers to knock the stuff out. It all depends
18 on the type of product, but when you pull the plug
19 out the bottom, it will not all run out. It will
20 cling to the sides and with gases you run into all
21 kinds of problems there with suspended vapors and
22 so on .
23 MS. DARRAH: I guess we don't have any
24 more questions. Thank you.
25 Mr. Rick Rose, International Minerals and
-------
508
1 Chemical Corporation?
2 MR. ROSE: My name is Rick Rose and my
3 position is Transportation Manager, Hazardous
4 Materials for International Minerals and Chemical
5 Corporat ion.
6 I am representing the National Industrial
7 Traffic League, an organization composed of domestic
8 and international shippers located throughout the
9 United States whose primary concern is safe and
10 economical transportation of people and property.
11 Addressing the Resource Conservation and
12 Recovery Act for genoral application is extremely
13 difficult because of the many-faceted approaches
14 to compliance. The Government has offered the
15 several States several options as how to enact a
16 program for hazardous waste disposal. These options,
17 combined with "import bans," intimate it apparently
18 will be many months before total regulations will
19 be promulgated that will contain enough uniformity
20 so that cradle-to-grave mandates are enforceable
21 through the United States.
22 There is in effect, however, Federal
23 regulations, although still in refinement stages,
24 that have provisions to regulate a substantial portion
25 of the necessary regulations for hazardous waste
-------
509
1 materials disposal. These regulations are found in
2 Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100
3 through 199.
4 The requirements for identification and
5 classification of product, documentation, labeling,
6 placarding, packaging- and certification, though
7 designated for commercial products, could readily
8 apply to waste materials.
9 Because of foreign matter in the waste,
10 descriptions will not be precisely accurate but should
11 be close enough that the properties of the waste
12 materials could be identified by emergency response
13 personnel in case of incident, and, by environmental-
14 ists for incident and disposal.
15 Section 3003(b) of Public Law 94-580
16 advocates consistency with the Hazardous Materials
17 Transportation Act (Public Law 93-633) for compliance.
18 Section 3003 is dedicated to standards applicable
19 to transporters of hazardous waste. When that
20 statement becomes an integral part of 49 CFR, with
21 reference to Section 3003, it will clarify the intent.
22 The contradiction of Section 3003(b) lies
23 in Section 3001(a) Criteria for Identification or
24 Listing. This section grants the Administrator of
25 the Environmental Protection Agency authority to
-------
510
1 establish criteria for identification of hazardous
2 materials waste though this authority to classify
3 hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials
4 Transportation Act was mandated to the Department
5 of Transportation.
6 Representative James J. Floria, Democrat
7 of New Jersey, titled the RCRA action as the
8 "sleeper" issue of the year. We respectfully pray
9 that this already complex subject will not be further
10 complicated by interagency disagreements.
11 On behalf of the National Industrial
12 Traffic League, I think you for the opportunity to
13 voice our opinion.
14 MS. DAB.RAH: Will you answer questions
15 from the panel?
16 MR. ROSE: Yes, ma'am.
17 MS. DARRAH: Do you have any specific
18 problems with the DOT and EPA proposed regulations
19 or specific recommendations to us?
20 MR. ROSE: Well, just the recommendation
21 in the 3001 section where you will classify the
22 hazard of hazardous materials.
23 I tried to qualify the difference between
24 the virgin product and the waste material to the fact
25 that even though it is a waste material, it could
-------
511
1 almost be identified with the particular product
2 it came from. You are going to find, I think
3 throughout the industry and in the chemical industry
4 especially, where you have a waste product where a
5 portion of that waste can be used and put into another
6 product and become an integral part of that product.
7 For instance, if you have 10 tank cars of a hazardous
8 waste and somebody may buy one car of that to refine
9 it or put it in as part of another product, and it
10 now becomes a commercial product and now you have
11 nine cars of hazardous waste materials.
12 If you are going to define the application
13 of the same material in two different categories,
14 you will have problems.
15 MR. TRASK: I gather that your major
16 problems are with the Act itself and not with the
17 standards that we have proposed; is that correct?
18 MR. ROSE: Basically it is our intention --
19 we think the DOT at present has very active and
20 fine regulations for the movement of hazardous
21 materials.
22 A hazardous waste is a hazardous material,
23 and I don't think you can make waves to institute
24 something that is already there unless it's a refine-
25 ment process that the DOT is doing or will do with
-------
512
1 you.
2 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Rose, I want to make a
3 couple of comments on your statement.
4 Number one, I don't think you will find
5 that there has been a major interagency disagreement
6 in the sense of the application of requirements.
7 Personally there may be some choices or decisions
8 made within EPA as to their criteria, but not in
9 terms of a conflict between agency rules because
10 it's important, you understand, that the DOT by
11 letter and by a policy statement has stated that EPA
12 will make the decisions on what is a hazardous waste
13 and make the necessary determinations relative to
14 the application of rules on hazardous wastes other
15 than coordination with us on those rules pertaining
16 to transportation. This is important.
17 It's also important that you people note
18 that the framework or background of the DOT
19 regulations in most of these classifications we are
20 talking about, for example corrosives, mainly being
21 those materials which may pose an acute risk to
22 people in the transportation environment on a short
23 time frame basis. I think it's very clear that the
24 EPA's motivations in the definitions criteria goes
25 to a longer range of effects on the environment and
-------
513
1 the effects caused by materials that may pose
2 unreasonable risk to the environment in the longer
3 sense, and thereby affecting health and safety and
4 environment.
5 So it's important that you understand the
6 distinctions of why many of the criteria that are
7 proposed by EPA are not DOT criteria and for logical
8 reasons never would have been DOT criteria based on
9 the «;ay DOT and its predecessor have done business
10 historically under its statutory mandate. And there
11 are more distinctions to be made between the two
12 systems.
13 The things that we are interested in is
14 the actual merits of the proposals in this portion
15 of the hearing on the transportation rules, but
16 basically to establish that the material, number one,
17 was generated by somebody who is responsible for
18 its generation and determination of what it is, that
19 the material was received by somebody, the carrier
20 pigeon I called them, the transporter, and that that
?1 person did in fact deliver it to the place it was
>2 required to go under the law, and that fact was
'3 acknowledged by a receipt for the material.
'4 Now, in that aspect what are the conflicts
5 and requirements in the proposed requirements of DOT
-------
514
1 and EPA and what are the choices to be made in terms
2 of where the rules are cast in CFR, these are the
3 questions that must be asked in these hearings.
4 MR. ROSE: Let me clarify this. I am only
5 addressing this statement to the transportation of
6 hazardous waste, not to the penerator, not to the
7 storer and not to the disposer, just to the transpor-
8 tat ion.
9 MR. ROBERTS: But you did comment on the
10 classification criteria.
11 j MR. ROSE: Classification of hazardous
12 waste for transportation.
13 MR. ROBERTS: But what DOT has said in its
14 proposal and maybe this gets down to an industry
15 challenge of DOT's authority to even promulgate or
16 attempt to promulgate in this area, what DOT has
17 said is that any material that is designated as a
18 hazardous waste, whether it is presently regulated
19 as a hazardous material or not, will be transported
20 as a hazardous waste under DOT regulations.
21 MR. ROSE: That's what I am advocating.
22 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. That's what's in here,
23 but the definitions and the coverage or scope of the
24 EPA is much broader than DOT. For example, we stop
25 basically in the poison area and the LD50, 50, and in
-------
I
515
1 some cases we go further. But EPA goes further than
2 the LD50 area and they have other materials, trace
3 element materials that vie don't pick up under our
regulations at the present time, but we are proposing
to regulate them as a subset of hazardous materials
in the waste category in this rulemaking action.
Are you objecting to that?
MR. ROSE: No, not at all, and I think I
stated that if it were a joint venture with EPA and
10 DOT, it would be acceptable, I am sure, by all
11 concerned. Of course, we would have to accept it
12 whether we wanted to or not, but I think we would
13 gladly accept something because it would be more
rational to augment something already in existence
15 than to come out with a complete set of new
regulations.
17 MR. ROBERTS: Maybe I just put material
18 on the record that is not necessary , but it may be
19 that other people read it who are not present and
20 will understand what I have said.
21 But you indicated that there was some kind
22 of conflict between DOT and EPA.
23 MR. ROSE: I didn't say there was a conflict
24 i asked that there not be -- will not be further
25 complicated by interagency disagreement. I did not
-------
516
1 say there was any.
2 I said we respectfully pray that this
3 already complex subject will not be further
4 complicated by interagency disagreement.
5 MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry. I took that as an
6 inference that there was some kind of interagency
7 disagreement at the present time that needed to be
8 resolved.
9 MR. ROSE: I said nothing like that.
10 MR. ROBERTS: Okay.
11 MR. ROSE: Any other arguments?
12 MH. ROBERTS: That was not an argument but
13 a clarification.
14 MS. DARRAH: No more clarifications. Thank
15 you very much.
16 Tom Meichtry from IT Corporation?
17 MR. MEICHTRY: My name is Tom Meichtry with
18 IT Corporation. I would like to touch on just a fev-1
19 items at this time. One is regarding the request
20 for EPA regarding the need for new placarding of
21 vehicles. We do have some comments on that.
22 Let me just read.
23 Due to the range of placards for display
24 in vehicles carrying hazardous waste, it is strongly
25 recommended that no further placards be required. The
-------
517
1 current terms utilized provided ample warning to
2 emergency response personnel approaching the vehicle
3 or to the general public in observing the vehicle.
4 The use of further categories such as
5 carcenogenic, mutagenic, teterogenic or other such
6 terms would provide no additional information even
7 to the experienced individual and would tend to
8 confuse or not be understood by the uninformed
9 public.
10 We would ask that current DOT requirements
11 for bills of lading be more stringently enforced,
12 not necessarily on the waste transporters but on
13 virgin product transporters. We have found in our
14 experience that in responding to spills and
15 emergencies on the highway, very frequently we cannot
16 find the shipping paper and the driver involved really
17 has no good knowledge of what he is carrying, so it
18 makes our job much more difficult in trying to
19 correctly respond to an emergency.
20 Another area that I would like to comment
21 on is that in the requirements of Section 250.38,
22 it indicates that the town or the city of residence
23 for a vehicle be printed on the side of the truck,
24 and we don't really see much need for that. What
25 we would agree with or could see some use for is a
-------
518
1 telephone number or some state I.D. number that could
2 be stenciled on the side of the truck. We think that
3 would probably serve more the purpose than the name
4 of a town.
5 Other parts that we would like to comment
6 on are 250.34 through 250.36, and this deals with
7 the producer indicating the disposal location.
8 What we would recommend is that waste
9 materials consigned to a transporter provide the
10 flexibility in the location to which it is being
11 hauled, and this is due to a number of factors such
12 as traffic conditions, the hours of operation, site
13 capacity, haul distance, and not the least of which
14 would be the price.
15 The use of one or the other approved sites
16 may be necessary or economical. The elimination of
17 this flexibility through the requirement to dispose
18 of the material at one facility and only one facility
19 without prior written approval, could result in
20 loaded vehicles being tied up, adding transportation
21 expenses to the generator and also increasing the
22 potential exposure to the general public. The
23 generator has the right to require that the material
24 be hauled to a sole facility and be handled in a
25 specific manner through the disposal contract between
-------
519
1 the generator and the disposer facility.
2 This does not, however, require that this
3 procedure be required for all materials such as
4 oil and water, drilling muds and other less hazardous
5 materials.
6 Analysis of this section indicates that it
7 serves no specific purpose and would result in
8 increased cost of disposal to the generators.
9 Another area that we would agree with is
10 the gentleman from Proctor and Ganble this morning
11 who indicated that he would like to see heavy
12 regulation for transporters, and we would agree with
13 that comment. We are fairly regulated now and have
14 found that it has benefited our industry to be
15 regulated in such a manner, and we would concur that
16 that regulation is necessary.
17 MS. DARP.AH: Thank you.
18 V/ill you answer questions?
19 MR. MEICHTRY: Certainly.
20 MR. ROBERTS: I don't want to ask you a
21 loaded question as it might sound like I am trying to
22 trap you, so I will make a statement about the
23 carrier marking vehicle.
24 If you were an interstate motor carrier
25 and you're transporting hazardous materials presently
-------
520
1 subject to regulation that would lead to an implementa
2 tion of the requirement that the vehicle be placarded,
3 you are presently required to give your name and
4 principal address on your vehicle, and you have been
5 for nine years.
6 Now, I wanted to tell you that way because
7 I don't want to load up and ask you if you are an
8 interstate carrier or not.
9 MR. MEICHTRY: This is not interstate; is
10 that correct?
11 MR. ROBERTS: Yes, at the present time.
12 MR. MEICHTRY: But not within the state.
13 MR. ROBERTS: Vie 11, it doesn't mean you
14 cross state lines. You understand that if you engage
15 in interstate commerce of any type, it doesn't matter.
16 A truck could run around the city of Los Angeles all
17 day long and be an interstate carrier, but I want
18 to point out that it's already in the existing
19 Federal regulations.
20 MR. MEICHTRY: But we are not an interstate
21 carrier.
22 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Of course, then, you
23 understand that this is proposing to expand the
24 DOT jurisdiction to intrastate jurisdiction.
25 MR. MEICHTRY: Then let me ask a question.
-------
521
1 What city would you put on if you had a
2 fleet of trucks that moved long distances within the
3 state or interstate? What city would --
4 MR. ROBERTS: The principal place of
5 business is common although it's been accepted that
6 a terminal address also, a place where you ca.n find
7 the entity can be used. I mean quite often you
8 find a major corporation operating on the East Coast
9 that may show Richmond, California as its home
10 address, just the corporate address.
11 It doesn't have to be the street or anything
12 like that.
13 You mentioned flexibility in destination
14 sites. Are you talking about a person that would be
15 a generator/transporter?
16 MR. MEICHTRY: No.
17 MR. ROBERTS: Are you talking about a
18 flexibility to the transporter vis-a-vis -- in other
19 words, the generator is required to designate and
20 make a determination that he is shipping- the material
21 to a permitted facility. That's the way the proposal
22 goes.
23 MR. MEICHTRY • It's the generator's
24 responsibility that it arrive and --
25 MR. ROBERTS: And be put on the manifest.
-------
522
1 MR. MEICIITRY: Well, the way we operate now,
2 and I guess maybe from the perspective in California,
3 we have a luxury of having more than one disposal
4 site in our state, and in fact in Northern California
5 and in L.A. We have anywhere from three to four
6 sites at each location where we can dispose of
7 materials.
8 It works out fairly well if it's left up
9 to the transporter to make sure that it winds up
10 being disposed of at a licensed facility. But if
11 the generator wrote on every document that it could
12 only go to one specific location, it would make our
13 system very inflexible.
14 MR. ROBERTS: Are you referring to the
15 DOT proposal or EPA?
16 MR. MEICHTRY: This is EPA's.
17 MR. ROBERTS: Because the DOT proposal, as
18 I would read it, and I wrote it so I should understand
19 it, would not limit you to showing one designation
20 site on the document per se.
21 MR. MEICHTRY: No, but EPA does.
22 MS. SCKAFFER: No.
23 MR. ROBERTS: If I may read this for a
24 moment, it goes further and says "When that is not
25 reasonably possible to deliver that waste to a
-------
523
1 permitted consignee facility" — and you raised this
2 problem -- "when one is designated on the shipping
3 paper, he may deliver to another facility otherwise
4 identified by the shipper provided on all copies of
5 the shipping paper."
6 So just as a request, I would ask you to
7 examine the DOT proposal 171.3(c) at your leisure
8 and if you can comment on that I would appreciate
9 your views at a later time.
10 MR. MEICHTRY: Okay. I was commenting on
11 EPA 250.34, if I can find it.
12 MS. SCHAFFER: Do you want to look at
13 250.22? That's the manifest under Section 3002
14 regulation.
15 MR. MEICHTRY: What was the number?
16 MS. SCHAFFER: 250.22, Page 4.
17 MR. LINDSEY: Page 4, middle column.
18 MR. ROBERTS: If I can go back on the
19 record on this matter --
20 MR. TRASK: I think 250.36(a) says that
21 the transporter shall deliver the entire quantity
22 to a permitted facility designated by the generator.
23 MR. MEICHTRY: That's where I am looking,
24 under Section 3003, May 25.
25 MR. ROBERTS: But you are claiming that
-------
524
1 the transporter should hold this authority to make
2 that determination besides the generator also?
3 MR. MEICHTRY: The way we read this, the
4 i generator is required to write on the manifest the
5 specific site to where the waste is going.
6 MR. ROBERTS: Or sites.
7 MR. MEICHTRY: Well --
8 MS. DARRAH: Let's say the intent.
9 MR. MEICHTRY: Well, you can't fit them all
10 on.
11 MS. DARRAH: The panel is saying that the
12 intent of the regulation is to allow the generator
13 to put more than one facility on the manifest. Now,
14 I certainly will take your comment as being, number
15 one, that either it doesn't come out that way or,
16 number two, if you want to say that you think the
17 transporter ought to have some leeway rather than
18 making the generator responsible for checking with
19 the disposal site —
20 MR. MEICHTRY: No, we don't have any
21 objection to that.
22 The only thing we wanted to insure is that
23 there was some flexibility in the case where there a.re
24 several licensed facilities, that any one of them
25 could receive the material if the generator in fact
-------
525
1 specifies all of them, that that would be fine.
2 I guess what you are telling me is that we
3 more or less have to go and educate the generator and
4 say, "Okay, you specified one, but did you knori' that
5 there v/ere throe others that could do the same job."
6 MS. DAHRAH: In California do transporters
7 need licenses or permits?
8 MU. JIEICHTP.Y: Yes, and I have noticed that
9 in your regulations you have not gone that approach.
10 In other words, you are not going to license
11 transporters; is that correct'-
12 VS. DARRAH: Under the present proposal,
13 that's correct.
14 Do you think that
-------
526
1 felt that if the contract was between the generator
2 and the disposer and the payment went from generator
3 to disposer directly, then the transporter becomes
4 nothing more than the mover of the waste, and there
5 is nothing in it for him to have the material get
6 lost between A and B, and maybe you would like to
7 comment on that from your experience in California
8 where the transporter does have the option to take
9 the stuff wherever he pleases.
10 MR. MEICHTRY: The great majority of
11 contracts written in this day are between the
12 transporter and generator. Very few are with the
13 disposal site operator directly.
14 MR. LINDSEY: Do you think it would work
15 the other way, the way we have set it up9
16 MR. MEICHTRY: I suppose it could.
17 MR. LINDSEY: In other words, we don't think
18 we need to license transporters if all they're doing
19 is hauling it from A to B, and there is nothing in it
20 for them to have the waste get lost in the middle,
21 you see .
22 MR. MEICHTRY: Generally you will find, and
23 I think it's also the case in California except in a
24 few cases, but in the majority of cases the transport-
25 ers are the people that go out and actually get the
-------
527
1 business. The disposal site companies have rarely
2 their own fleet of trucks so they don't have a
3 mechanism to go out and get contracts. They don't hav
4 a sales force, for instance.
5 Most of the waste contracts are written
6 through very active transporter operation, and I would
7 be surprised if that were not the case nationwide.
8 MR. LINDSEY: I suspect you are probably
9 right, but on the other hand with the coming of this
10 regulatory scheme here, it's going to be up to the
11 generator to find a place to take his waste, so he's
12 going to be the one out generating business, if you
13 will, looking for a place to take it first of all.
14 MR. MKICHTRY: Well, I think when you are
15 dealing with large corporations and large chemical
16 manufacturers and that type of responsible industry,
17 you are probably right, but when you are dealing with
18 the majority of waste generators for whom these
19 regulations are written, they're not going to be out
20 looking at disposal sites. That's just not their
21 business. Their business is chrome-plated bumpers
22 or making calculators or whatever. They don't have
23 the staff or the time or the inclination, and they may
24 not even be aware of the regulations to go out and
25 find a qualified disposal site.
-------
528
1 So you will still find that the transporta-
2 tion company is the one that goes and solicits
3 business. His first response when he walks in the
4 door is, you know, "Who are you and v/hat are you
5 telling me," and finally you get around and lay the
6 law on him and say "Did you know, Mr. Jones, that you
7 can go to jail and are liable for, you know, dollar
8 penalties as well if you don't do it according to
9 this law."
10 So the real sales effort is usually on the
11 part of transportation.
12 MR. LINDSEY: You still see the transporter
13 having a very big part in the business dealings with
14 regard to all this?
15 j MR. MEICHTRY: Certainly.
16 MR. TRASK: I think our interpretation of
17 Section 3002 of the Act is the generator is required
18 • to designate the disposal site,
19 We have taken a little bit of liberty there
20 in saying that he could designate more than one, and
21 we have accommodated that in the 3003 standards by
22 saying that he could take it to a site designated by
23 the generator, but I am not sure that we have the
24 authority to go ahead and give the decision-making
25 power to the transporter.
-------
529
1 if you think differently, I would be
2 interested in how you arrived at that.
3 MR. MEICHTRY: Well, I guess what I am
4 saying is that in the majority of cases the disposal
5 site operator and the generator don't get together.
6 Okay? The bills generally go through the transporter
7 back to the generator.
8 Mow, it's getting more and more that the
9 generators are looking into the disposal site
10 operators, and granted that's in California where we
11 have been working under this law or similar regulation,'
22 for almost a decade now, but I'm not sure you're
13 going to find that all these little generators are
14 all of a sudden going to jump in their cars and find
15 a disposal site because most of them in many parts of
15 the country are several hundred miles away.
17 MR. TRASK: There is probably nothing to
18 prevent the transporter from telling the generator
19 where the designated facilities are in which case the
20 generator officially designates them by signing
21 manifests, and that is what would be happening.
22 MR • w'EICHTRY: That's what I am saying, but
23 when the transporter goes in, I think he would want
24 the option to say that there are three or four or
25 six sites that are available to 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
530
Most transporters don't have any vested
interested in the sites so as far as they're
concerned, it's not of great importance to designate
a single site. They would like to have the option
as prices fluctuate. They will go in and sign a
contract for six months to a year to haul the mater-
ials away. In the meantime if the disposal site
operation goes up, they would like the option to go
to a less priced site.
MR. TRASK : Do you think there is anything
in the proposed standards that prevents that now?
MR. MEICHTRY: The way we read it, at least,
it said there was one site and possibly more than one.
I guess what I am asking is that we be
assured that we not be limited to one site. Like I
say, we may have to go through an education process
with the generators, and that may be where the burden
lies, back on the transporters.
MR. ROBERTS: I think you have raised some
very interesting points, and I consider your presenta-
tion rather worthwhile. It brings out an element
of the way DOT does business in terms of segmenting
the regulated audience.
We have a provision that says that if it
performs the function of a shipper, he is in effect
-------
531
1 for purposes of regulation, a shipper.
2 This is like a trucking company that may
3 come in and for some reason or another fill out the
4 shipping paper on behalf of a shipper, and there is
5 an operation in the petroleum industry called key
6 stop or turnkey operations where the truck driver
7 has the key to the gate and goes in and picks up the
8 material and there is no shipper employee present
9 at all, and he fills out the shipping papers on an
10 agency relationship to the shipper.
11 Now, getting to your comments, are you
12 talking about a service performed by a person, quote,
13 a transporter that goes beyond just providing a
14 transportation service where he does other things on
15 behalf of the person who previously had the material?
15 Does he go in and package it for them or
U does he go in and document it for them? Would they
lg stencil the packages for them?
19 MR. MEICHTRY: That sometimes is the case.
20 i MR. ROBERTS: It's more or less a service
21 deal, package deal, more than just performing a
22 transportation function of picking up the goods;
23 right?
24 MR. MEICHTRY: It depends on the situation,
25 but especially in drum materials we offer that
-------
532
1 service, for instance, in our own company where
2 someone will call and say, "Gee, I've got 80 drums
3 in the back yard and I don't know what they are. They
4 were here when I bought the property. Can you come
5 and he>lp me out?"
6 We will send our chemist and go through
7 and la.bel the material, find out where it has to go
8 and get the necessary permits from the State, and
9 then transport and take care of the paperwork.
10 MR. ROBERTS: Well, this is why your
11 comments are so important because in the DOT context,
12 we consider you to be a shipper as well as a carrier
13 performing those functions.
14 So I think it's important that we will have
15 to address this with EPA before final regulations to
16 make sure we're coordinated on what is a generator
17 in this aspect, because if you participate in that
18 function as performing a generator function, or
19 shipper in our case, then you become a shipper for
20 that function you have performed.
21 MR. MEICUTRY: I guess we go all the way up
22 to signing the documentation. We do not do that.
23 We .vill prepare, but we recognize also that
24 it is the generator's responsibility. The person
25 who owns those drums has to somehow get involved in
-------
533
I the paperwork, but we do all the work for them.
2 MR. ROBERTS: Under DOT you could also sign
3 the shipping papers, and I'm just talking about
4 hazardous materials in fitting this system together.
5 It's rather important that we get this
6 clarified. I think your comments have been well
7 worthwhile.
8 Thank you very much.
9 MS. DARRAH: I guess that's all the
10 questions. I will second that. I think they have
11 all been very helpful. Thanks.
12 Is Jean Sir! here?
13 (No response.)
14 MS. DARRAH: Does Mr. Burnett want to speak
15 this afternoon or this evening? That was not clear
16 to me.
17 MR. BURNETT: I would rather speak this
18 afternoon.
19 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Mr. Burnett is the
20 Director of Energy and Pollution Control, ARATEX
21 Services, Inc.
22 MR. BURNETT: My name is Eric Burnett,
23 Director of Energy and Pollution Control for ARATEX
24 Services, Inc.
25 Madam Chairman, members of the Board, I
-------
534
1 welcome the opportunity to make a brief comment,
2 though not quite so brief as one of the previous
3 speakers. But I will keep them as brief as possible.
4 My first comment relates to Section 1004,
5 Paragraph 21 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
6 Act, which specifically addresses the subject of
7 resource conservation including the reduction of
8 overall resource consumption.
9 The use of waste oil or Stoddard Solvent
10 as a supplemental fuel for industrial boilers,
11 subject only to meeting air pollution control require-
12 ments, is common practice in our industry.
13 This practice is wholly in consonance with
14 the concept of resource conservation implicit in the
15 Act. The concept is supported by DOT and is sound
16 economic practice. The proposed regulations under
17 Section 3002 will do much to discourage this practice
18 at a time when we face severe energy problems in
19 many parts of the country. The maximum use of this
20 resource should be encouraged rather than discouraged
21 by superfluous regulations.
22 The second point relates to ignitable
23 materials. In the preamble to the proposed regula-
24 tions, ignitable materials are defined as substances
25 having a flash point below 140 degrees Farenheit or
-------
535
1 60 degrees Centigrade. This definition is repeated
2 in Subpart (a) addressing Section 3001, Paragraph
3 250.13, Subsection (a)(i) of the proposed Hazardous
4 Waste Guidelines and Regulations.
5 This definition is at variance with the
6 inclusion of Stoddard Solvent as a hazardous waste
7 under Paragraph 205.14, Subsection (a), since most
8 of the Stoddard Solvent used by the dry cleaning
9 industry has a flash point of 140 degrees Farenheit
10 (60 degress Centigrade) or above. Admittedly, some
11 Stoddard Solvent 105, with a flash point of 105
12 degrees Farenheit is still in use, but lack of
13 availability and price have resulted in diminishing
14 use of this solvent.
15 It is recommended that the definition of
16 Stoddard Solvent under Section 250.14, Subsection (a)
17 should be qualified to exclude the more commonly used
18 Stoddard Solvent 140.
19 My third point under the definition of
20 Hazardous Waste Characteristics, Section 3001,
21 Paragraph 250.13, and this is, by way of rhetorical
22 question, can it be assumed that for a generator
23 having large volumes of semi-liquid sludge resulting
24 from his process operations, most of which is water,
25 and, grit and lint, that the 100 kilograms per month
-------
536
1 applies only to that element of the sludge which is
2 specifically designated as ignitable, corrosive,
3 reactive or toxic?
4 To amplify on the question, typically in
5 our own operations pump out of the waste-water heat
6 recovery pit may generate between 500 and 1500
7 gallons of liquid per month, most of which is water
8 with three percent to four percent solids, deriving
9 from the textile rental service or laundry operations.
10 which my corporation is a part. This corresponds
11 to 4,000 to 12,000 pounds per month of liquid wastes,
12 but the solids content is only between 120 and 480
13 pounds or 55 to 218 kilograms.
14 ! The question is, within the oresent
15 I proposed regulations how does the 100 kilograms per
16 month apply in this particular context?
17 MS. DARRAH : I think we can give you a
18 brief clarification to answer that question.
19 ! ME. CORSON: Our 100 kilograms, by way of
20 clarification, applies to hazardous \vaste, so if you
21 were to take your 3,000 gallons and it was to test as
22 a hazardous waste, the entire 3,000 gallons having
23 failed the characteristic of either ignitabi1ity,
24 corrosivity or reactivity or toxicity, it would be
25 a hazardous waste. If, on the other hand, by nature
-------
537
1 of having diluted the hazardous components in it by
2 nature of the percentage of solids or the hazardous
3 to the nonhazardous, if the entire thing were
4 nonhazardous, the entire waste would be nonhazardous
5 giving you the option of treating it that way, or
6 if you find it's hazardous to dewater, you are only
7 managing a smaller quantity of hazardous waste. But
8 the 100 kilograms is total if it's a hazardous waste.
9 MR. BURNETT: Thank you.
10 MR. CORSON: I have another question.
11 I was interested in your comments with
12 regard to the Stoddard Solvent. I hope you will, if
13 you have a more lengthy written submittal, precisely
14 define for us, at least help us to that point with
15 your comments, as if we analyze and it seems to us
16 to be proper, we are not unwilling to further refine
17 and define to make sure we are including those wastes
lg which are hazardous.
19 So if our definition of Stoddard Solvent
20 -1 s too broad, there should be some narrowing and if
21 you would help us with your comments to define that
22 narrower subset which you feel belongs there.
23 MR. BURNETT: I believe we can do that
24 within the Institute of Industrial Law, and we will
25 provide you the information.
-------
538
1 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
2 MR. BURNETT: Thank you.
3 MS. DARRAH: If you can, would you leave
4 a copy of that with the court reporter. It would be
5 helpful.
6 Is there anyone else who would like to speak
7 on Section 3003 regulations this afternoon?
8 (No response. )
9 MS. DARRAH: Okay. We will recess until
10 7:00 p.m. tonight and reconvene at that time.
11 (The hearing recessed at 4:55 o'clock p.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
Hazardous Waste Management
Comments on Section 3002 (Subpart B)
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
and
Section 3003 (Subpart C)
Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
by
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
Public Hearing
San Francisco, CA
March 13, 1979
-------
Mr. Chairman, I am John Beale, Manager of Regulatory Affairs
for Solid Waste, of Dow Chemical USA. Today, I will review
some of our concerns regarding the regulations implementing
Sections 3002 and 3003. I will address many of the areas in
which the Agency has specifically requested comments in the
Preamble to Section 3002. In addition, I will address some
additional concerns that warrant consideration.
Tomorrow, Karen Shewbart from one of our Gulf Coast Divisions
will address Section 3004. We will also be submitting by
March 16 detailed written comments on all portions of
Sections 3001, 3002, 3003 and 3004.
We hope that our effort will assist the Agency in developing a
meaningful set of regulations for the management of hazardous
waste.
-------
I. The Agency hag requested comments on its proposed
"on-site" regulations. Specifically, the Agency asks:
(1) Is the DOT specification container exemption proper
for on-site temporary storage?
(2) Is the contingency spill plan exemption proper for
short-term storage?
(3} Are additional marking and labeling requirements
needed for on-site storage?
Yes, yes, and no 1
The overriding consideration here is clearly stated in
Background Document #8 (p G-2)..."balancing the cost of
enforcement versus protection against damage to the
environment". This statement is in relation to only
EPA "s own cost, but I prefer to think of total regulatory
cost which is society 's cost. Overstringent or overly
detailed standards for each and every storage area would
not be cost-effective and would be an inappropriate cost
to society.
Individual generating units within large complexes, will
accumulate economically sized lots of waste for
subsequent transport to treatment or disposal facilities.
-------
The regulatory concern should be whether these numerous
storage sites are well managed, and not exactly how they
are managed, whether DOT containers are used, what kind
of labels are used, and so on.
The exemptions proposed are steps in the right direction,
but they should be broadened and extended. Waste storage
should be conducted using environmentally sound practices
of adequate containment, identification, and spill
prevention.
The Background Document used to support Section 3002
(BD-8) clearly points out that harm to human health or
the environment occurs typically from indiscriminate
practices. Environmentally sound practices should be
appropriately acknowledged where they do exist and should
not be pre-empted or unnecessarily supplemented by cost-
ineffective controls. Therefore, we recommend that:
The temporary storage exemption be applied to all
on-site waste, whether subsequently transferred
on-site or off-site.
The exemption period for storage be extended to one
year as long as the waste is stored or contained in
an environmentally sound manner.
-------
All references to DOT specifications be removed from
the regulations, except as appropriate for off-site
transportation.
Finally, we strongly urge explicit clarification within
the regulations, in accordance with Background
Document #8, that:
• All resource recovery facilities and materials
be exempted from these regulations.
* That the resource recovery exemptions be
applied equally to off-site and on-site
resource recovery operations.
* Materials for resource recovery be defined as
any materials which are utilized for purposes
of material or energy recovery.
-------
II. The Agency has requested comments on the question who
should be classified as a generator under Section 3002.
The establishment of an exemption level for generators of
hazardous waste is sensible. However, the Agency's
proposed exemption level of 100 kg/mo is probably too
conservative for most materials, and too high for some.
The granting of an exemption for generators of specified
amounts of hazardous waste must consider the degree of
hazard of the material. The need for such classification
and its advantages will be addressed in more detail in
our written comments.
The Agency 's decision to allow a 100 Kg/mo exemption is
apparently based on:
(1) An evaluation of 82 damage cases;
(2) a five-state waste survey; and
(3) the assumption that, "The possibilities for
mismanagement of solid waste play an important role
in determining whether or not it's hazardous". The
agency concludes from this evaluation that:
-------
• Past incidents of damage at sanitary landfills
would have been prevented had these landfills
met Subtitle D standards.
• Every incident involved quantities which
greatly exceeded the 100 kg/mo quantity.
• It would be safe to dispose of limited quanti-
ties of hazardous waste at Subtitle D
facilities.
• An exemption level of 100 kg/rno is a reasonable
and viable proposal, and that
• Highly toxic waste would still be managed
properly.
Our examination of the 82 damage cases does not lead to
all of the conclusions reached by the Agency. Only 7% of
the cases involved anything resembling a sanitary
landfill, the cases do not address rate of disposal (only
accumulation), and 75% or more of the incidents appeared
to be the result of indiscriminate dumping. We believe
the Agency's comparison of Section 3004 and Section 4004
facilties was proper and presented the strongest argument
-------
for potential utilization of Section 4004 facilities for
disposal of many solid waste having low degrees of
hazard.
We recommend that:
• Indiscriminant dumping not be used for determining
degree of hazard or level of protection required for
hazardous waste.
• Section 4004 facilites be used as the base level of
protection and as the starting point for determining
whether a higher level of protection is warranted.
• The utilization of Section 4004 facilities for
hazardous waste be aggressively pursued in
conjunction with the establishment of levels of
degree of hazard.
-------
III. Another question which should be asked is: How should on-
site be defined?
We fail to understand the rationale for the proposed
definition [Section 250.21(b)(18)]. We have several
facilities which qualify as "two or rrore pieces of
property which are geographically continguous and are
divided by public or private right(s)-of-way"...and thus
"...are considered a single site". We also have several
additional disposal facilities within 50 miles of our
producing units. Thus, we face a situation in which a
short distance means complying with one set of
regulations, while a somewhat modest distance means a
different set.
We recommend that the definition for "on-site", for
purposes of the generator — treater/disposor
relationship, be broadened to include any site within
close proximity and under the same ownership or control.
-------
IV. The Agency has requested comment on whether additional
transportation safety measures should be required under
Section 3003.
No!
The extension of DOT regulations to intrastate as well as
interstate transportation of hazardous waste,should be
sufficient to provide adequate transportation safety. We
do not believe that any additional measures, specific to
hazardous waste, are warranted.
We recommend that the EPA and the DOT clearly resolve
their respective regulatory concerns as to provide cost-
effective regulations.
V. Should there be a consistent manifest system?
Yesi Hazardous waste, more than ever before, will
frequently be transported interstate.
Therefore, we urge the establishment of a uniform
national manifest.
-------
VI. The Agency has solicited comments regarding the manifest
and reporting systems.
Overall, the intent, concept, and content of the systems
appear to be sound and realistic.
However, they need to be refined! The variations and
subtle differences within and across these systems,
although not complex, are at best confusing.
Next, the proposed 30 day provision for returning
manifest to generators coupled with the 30 day reporting
requirement by generators will, by design, either result
in an inordinate number of "exceptions" or will cause a
quarterly frenzy of last-minute activity to obtain
outstanding manifest.
Finally, it would not be warranted to require the
subraittal of all manifest as the Agency is considering in
its list of options. In fact, np_ manifest reporting
should be required in those states which assume the
responsibility of "tracking manifest".
Let me try to clarify our concerns by referring to
Figure I - Generator and TSDF Reporting. I have tried to
chart the proposed reporting requirements. It has not
-------
been easy! In short, there are six different types of
generators and TSDFs, five different reporting require-
ments, and two different reporting periods...before one
considers the additional variations caused by special
reporting requirements, multi-site shipments and receipts
of hazardous waste, in-house versus contract transpor-
tation or disposal, waste oil recovery, and so on. There
must be a better way! Therefore we request the
regulations be modified to:
Streamline the reporting requirements by reducing the
number of variations and eliminating unnecessary detail.
Permit multi-site generators and TSDF 's the option of
reporting by site, state or other logical grouping.
Eliminate the artificial creation of "exception manifest"
by lengthening the reporting period from 30 days to
60 days.
Clarify the exemption from manifest reporting within
states which have assumed the responsibility for manifest
tracking.
-------
*
g
M
EH
£
w
P3
pT|
Q
CO
EH
=8
P5
g
S
O
Q
EH
O
EH
Q
EH1
CO
.p
0
ft
CU
CO
o
ft
PS
O
•p
cd
cu
c
cu
o
0
cd
CD
c
CD
C5
a
o
•a
cu
c
o
-p
id
cu
c c
tu o
•p
a cd
o o
^ o
P1
E?
•p
CO
1)
j
CO COCD CO <*H CO' — COl COl EH
O O w O TJ O — - OK OK LA
f
-*
J- LA LA LA LA LA >>>>,>, O 0
EH EH EH EH S3 63 0
LA
CM
CO
O CU CU (U > >, >, >,
Q LA pq pq pa pq
e? e? J? e? ^ e?
CD
ft
EH
1
M M M M > > ^— -
}— t M M M -H
M
rf — x
O
o
W
CO CO tO CO •
d) Q) d) o o QJ o
>H >< >H a a >-< IA
CM
W
SH
O
•P
cd
t.
cu
CU CD C
•p -p CU
iti cd o
~^4J -~-+^ ^ ^~ cu
EH cu
CO HJ
t, ti -H
&o
ft >)
a cu s
K K *"
•>
M
M
M
(H .p
CU O W
ft CU
>> Q - » CU S
•H • EH S
•H pq I cu to
X • , — * ^ £2
CU T3 .H -H
M > ^^ C* C
M H EH - CU cd
CU CU — CO
ft ft ,0 , ^> -— ft .H 3
EH EH ro >, O O
1 1 CM EH C
^" .1 CD 0 .C
•H p- O * — * jJ -H -p
•H -H LTv O CO -P -i-t
^^ oj— a aJ 5
? -P
*H CO
OJ O .-I
^ ft cd
ctf to SH -P
a^ EH IH
0) O
O T^ 4^ 04
IX -H O CU
03 Cj JH
C IH
O -P O
O C
O 4)
-P 0 ft
& £
cu
H
b
cu
,c
•p
^,
rH
C3
O
n
d
rO
03
-P
o
ft
o
IA
O
„
CQ
ft
„
^
"" C>»
VJ co
•^ ro
•p
CO
CD
-------
Two related questions that should be addressed are:
VII. (1) Should the proposed regulations promote incineration?
(2) Do they?
Yes,...and no!
Incineration of hazardous waste is preferable to long-
term perpetual care in the land. The currently proposed
standards for incineration, however, are overly stringent
and will, in our opinion, severely discourage rather than
encourage incineration.
We will address our specific technical concerns regarding
these proposals at tomorrow's hearing and in our written
comments. Today I wish to discuss how we should address
the potential roles for incineration.
A realistic assessment should be made of the level of
protection required of incineration versus other methods
and not what is the best that incineration can do under
the most ideal conditions. This may be done by
determining the long-term efficiency of land disposal,
taking into account handling and fugative losses that may
occur during the disposal operation together with the
loss rate and probability of unexpected losses during the
wastes ' "hazardous life" .
-------
In the end we would find that the balanced destruction
efficiency for incineration may be 99%, or 98.5%, or
perhaps 97%!
This approach could result in a performance standard for
incineration which would encourage its use, while
providing the required protection of human health and the
environment.
The second important role of incineration is as a
resource recovery device. It is clear that RCRA
emphasizes conservation. After all, fully 3/4's of RCRA,
namely "RCR" addresses conservation...while the remaining
1/4, "Act", guides our effort!
Again, a sound assessment of the use of incineration
involving recovery, of energy for example, may result in
an optimum destruction efficiency of 98% or even 96%.
In either case this approach will establish par ity among
the hazardous waste management and resource recovery
options. The establishment of parity would ensure
cost-effective regulation.
Finally, highly absolute and predictable treatment facilities
such as incineration should be encouraged over disposal
-------
facilities such as landfills which require perpetual
care. Therefore, we urge:
o The establishment of a realistic standard of
performance for incineration as treatment that is
"balanced" with less desirable modes of disposal.
o The establishment of incentsetives for use of
incinerators as either a device for the destruction
of waste or recovery of energy or materials.
o The establishment of two levels of standards for
incineration of hazardous waste based upon degree of
hazard.
o "3004-Type" standards for higher level
hazardous waste, and a
o "4004 -Type" standards for lower level
hazardous waste.
-------
Let me close by breaking down the term "HAZARDOUS WASTE" into
its component parts. We have stated that by_ proper hazardous
waste management we take the hazard out of hazardous waste,
leaving just WASTE AND OUSi This is good management.
By incineration, however, we take both the hazard and the
waste out of hazardous waste, leaving only OUSI
This is even better management!
Thank you.
-------
REFERENCES: February/March 1979 Oral Statements Regarding
Sections 3001, 3002, 3003 and 3004 of the RCRA
1. Beale, John (Dow Chemical U.S.A., Environmental Quality),
Comments on Section 3002 and Section 3003, to U.S. EPA,
public hearing, San Francisco, CA, March 13, 1979.
2. Daniels, S. L. , (Dow Chemical U.S.A., Environmental
Sciences Research Laboratory), General Comments on
Hazardous Waste Management, to U.S. EPA, public hearing,
St. Louis, MO, February 14, 1979.
3. Daniels, S. L., (Dow Chemical U.S.A., Environmental
Sciences Research Laboratory), Comments on Section 3001,
to U.S. EPA, public hearing, Washington, D.C.,
February 22, 1979.
4. Shewbart, Karen (Dow Chemical U.S.A., Environmental
Services Department, Texas Division of Dow U.S.A.).
Comments on Section 3004, to U.S. EPA, public hearing,
San Francisco, CA, March 14, 1979.
-------
STATEMENT OF
INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATICN CF
AND
ALASKA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION
ARKOA BASIN INDEPENDENT GAS
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION
EASTERN KANSAS OIL AND GAS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
EASTERN OMAHCf-'A OIL PRODUCERS AND
ROYALTY OWNERS ASSCCIATICN
INDEPENDENT OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
INDEPENDENT OIL PRODUCERS TRI~
STATE, IMC,
INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
OF K3UNTAIN STATES
KANSAS INDEPENDENT OIL AND GAS
ASSCCIATICN
KENTUCKY OIL AMD GAS ASSCCIATICN
HE LAND AND ROYALTY OWNERS OF
LOUISIANA
LIAISON CCWITTEE OF COOPERATING
OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATIONS
LOUISIANA ASSCCIATICN OF INDEPENDENT
PRODUCERS AND ROYALTY OWNERS
MICHIGAN OIL Af!D GAS ASSCCIATICN
NATIONAL STRIPPER WELL ASSOCIATION
MEW YORK STATE OIL PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATICN
NORTH TEWS OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION
OHIO OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION
OKLAHOMA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
ASSCCIATICN
PANHANDLE PRODUCERS AND ROYALTY
CVJNERS ASSCCIATICN
PENNSYLVANIA GRADE CRUDE OIL
ASSCCIATICN
PENNSYLVANIA 01L, GAS AND MINERALS
ASSOCIATICN
PERMIAN BASIN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
TENNESSEE OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATICN
TEXAS INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS AND
ROYALTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
VIRGINIA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION
WEST CENTRAL TEXAS OIL AND GAS
ASSCCIATICN
Before the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
on
Hazardous Waste Proposed Guidelines and Regulations
and Proposal on Indentification and Listing
March 12 - 14, 1979
San Francisco, California
-------
Testimony of Francis C. Wilson, II, Chairman
Environment and Safety Committee
Independent Petroleum Association of America
Before the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
RE: "Hazardous Waste Proposed Guidelines and
Regulations and Proposal on Identification
and Listing" (43 Fed. Reg. 58946 et seq.,
December 18, 1978)
I am Francis C. Wilson, II, an independent producer of
crude oil and natural gas from Santa Fe, New Mexico. I currently
serve as Chairman of the Environment and Safety Committee of the
Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA). The IPAA is
a national association, located in Washington, D. C. , which repre-
sents approximately 5,000 independent oil and gas explorer-producers
who operate in every producing region of the United States.
We are joined in these comments fay the twenty-six unaffiliated
state and regional oil and gas associations listed on the cover page.
The combined membership of these associations includes virtually
all of the 10,000 to 12,000 independent oil and gas producers in
the United States.
The IPAA appreciates this opportunity to respond to the above-
referenced "Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations", which were
recently proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
pursuant to Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) (P.L. 94-580, October 21, 1976).
While the IPAA recognizes that careful planning and management
of certain industrial wastes are necessary to protect the human health
and environment, we believe that the hazardous waste regulatory program
-------
proposed by EPA is overly broad and burdensome and will have a
devastating adverse impact on the exploration and production segment
of the oil and gas industry. We appreciate the Agency's difficult
task of promulgating regulations to implement a statute (RCRA) that
is all-encompassing in nature yet lacking at times in detailed guidance.
Nevertheless, we believe that EPA's approach of regulating all
wastes - regardless of their degree of hazard - on equal terms is
an unwarranted and exaggerated response to its mandate.
HAZARD NOT SHOWN
Crude oil and natural gas exploration and production operations
are effected by this extensive regulatory scheme because drilling
muds and oil production brines (as well as crude oil wastes) may
be determined to be "hazardous" pursuant to EPA's criteria. While
we will defer analysis of these criteria to those with greater
technical expertise in such matters, the Association questions whether
muds and brines (and crude oil wastes) pose a serious threat of contami-
nation. According to Sec. 1004(5) of RCRA,
The term 'hazardous waste' means a solid waste,
or combination of solid wastes, which because
of its quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics may --
(A) cause, or significantly contribute
to an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious irreversible,
or incapacitating reversible, ill-
ness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environ-
ment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, or disposed of, or other-
wise managed. (Emphasis added)
IPAA submits that EPA has failed to take into account the strong
qualifying language in the Congressional definition of hazardous
waste. By using such words as "significantly contribute" and
-------
"substantial. . .hazard", the Congress clearly intended to emphasize
that only those wastes actually posing a serious threat of risk to
health and environment were to be regulated. Yet EPA has proposed
to regulate all wastes falling within its broad interpretation of
hazardous wastes without considering or demonstrating that all of
these substances pose the degree of risk contemplated by the statute.
Certainly, the Agency has neglected to establish that drilling muds
and oil production brines are "hazardous" or that they present
"significant or substantiaV'adverse effects to the human health
or environment. Until that nexus has been shown, EPA cannot pro-
ceed with its proposed regulation of muds and brines without
exceeding its legal boundaries.
This arm of the industry has a long history that is devoid of
any evidence suggesting that these substances are an actual hazard
to the environment. Undoubtedly, the inability of the Agency to
document any examples of contamination can be attributed primarily to
the facts that any "hazardous" elements present in these substances
are of low risk and in very low concentrations and that state and
federal regulations already provide adequate safeguards against any
dangers that may be present. In fact, last year two studies commis-
sioned by the Interstate Oil Compact Commission showed virtually no
evidence of contamination of drinking water sources in a five-state
area from reinjectiori of oil production brines. The five states
surveyed (Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Arkansas) have
had more wells drilled and operated within their boundaries than any
other region in the country.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Deferral From All Regulation Pending Study
The IPAA recommends that EPA defer regulation of drilling
-------
muds and oil production brines (and crude oil wastes) under the
entire hazardous waste management program until the Agency has
completed its proposed study of these substances and is able to show
that a serious hazard exists. The preamble to the regulations, as
well as the Special Waste Background Document prepared by EPA,
acknowledge that EPA has little information on muds and brines.
In fact, the Agency, in its Background Document, lists the follow-
ing rationale in support of its decision to designate certain wastes
as "special" :
1. Lack of information on waste characteristics
2. Lack of information on the degree of environmental
hazard posed by disposal
3. Lack of information on waste disposal practices and
al ternati ves
4. Very large volumes and/or large numbers of facilities
5. Limited movement of wastes from point of generation
6. Few, if any, documented damage cases
7. Apparent technological difficulty in applying current
Subpart D regulations to the waste
8. Potential high economic impact if current Subpart D
regulations are imposed
Because of this paucity of data and "the apparent technological
difficulty in applying current Subpart D regulations" (i.e., Section
3004) to these wastes, EPA has proposed to defer applicability of
some of the treatment, storage, and disposal standards for selected
"special wastes", such as muds and brines. Yet a careful reading
of the regulatory compliance burden that remains indicates that
owners/operators of facilities storing or disposing of muds and
brines are still confronted with myriad complex regulations. We will
address these in greater detail in our comments on section 3004
below.
It is our understanding that EPA expects to initiate a study of
muds and brines in the near future. IPAA would welcome the opportunity
to assist those conducting the study in any way it can. If the study
-------
proves that any or all of these substances do in fact present a
serious threat of contamination to human health and environment,
then again IPAA will be prepared to work with the Agency in devising
adequate and workable safeguards. After all, most oil and gas well
operators live near drilling and production sites, and they too have
a strong personal interest in protecting the environment around them.
We believe that the Agency should also include crude oil wastes
in the special waste category of muds and brines. Crude oil in its
naturally occurring state is biodegradable; yet crude oil residue
would fall within EPA's hazardous waste criteria. Unless similar
consideration is given to crude oil wastes, they could trigger com-
pliance with the entire hazardous waste regulatory program. In
this event, the relief ostensibly extended the industry by virtue
of the special waste deferral program would be essentially meaningless.
We firmly believe it would be more prudent to defer all regulation
of muds, brines, and crude oil wastes until the EPA study is completed
and it has been demonstrated that a clear hazard exists. Otherwise,
for a substantial period of time, those dealing with these substances
will be locked into a regulatory program which is not founded on a
full and complete understanding or knowledge of muds and brines and
crude oil wastes - and which may not be needed at all.
In the preamble to this proposal, EPA stated: ". . .even
where we have limited data the statute requires that we establish
standards and controls." We believe Congress did not intend EPA
to be so inflexible in its approach. Even though a Conference
Report did not accompany RCRA, the bill that was finally adopted
by both Houses of Congress was essentially the version sponsored
by the House of Representatives. In the House Report of its bill,
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which was the
-------
jurisdictional House body, noted that it had insufficient information
on the potential danger posed by certain wastes (e.g., mining waste)
to form the basis of legislative action at that time. Accordingly,
it mandated studies of these waste materials.
The action of the House in deferring regulation until its
need could be substantiated is logical and reasonable and should be
followed here. Until EPA gathers sufficient information regarding
muds, brines, and crude oil wastes to warrant subjecting them to
regulatory controls, it should delete these materials from its
hazardous waste management program.
Economic Impact. If EPA proceeds with its inclusion of muds and
brines in the regulatory program, the impact on the oil and gas
exploration and production industry will be substantial. Even
though EPA has not provided an economic impact analysis of the
regulations' effect on these operations, we, nevertheless, believe
the economic impact will be severe. The regulations before us,
even the "modified" version applicable to muds and brines, are
monstrous in their compliance demands. For even the largest
generator or owner/operator, the burden will be significant; but
for the small business person, they will be devastating.
Most independent producers operate as small, unincorporated
businesses. Their staffs typically are small, often consisting only
of the producer himself and perhaps some office support staff.
Generally, services of technical personnel (e.g., a geologist,
petroleum engineer, drilling contractor, etc.) are contracted for
independently. Hence, any increase in administrative burdens is
not easily absorbed or accommodated by these producers.
-------
EPA's concern that the regulations have "important economic
implications for some industries" and Us intention to conduct "more
detailed economic studies of highly impacted industry segments" are
encouraging. Although the Agency's reading of RCRA indicates it
is "not clear to what extent RCRA allows economic impact to be taken
into account", we suggest there are other, more current federal
guidelines that do call for close scrutiny of the regulations'
economic impact. For example, Executive Order Mo. 12044 clearly
reflects a continued concern by the Executive that there be some
consideration of cost burdens associated with every rajor regulatory
proposal. Moreover, the inflationary impact of environmental and other
regulations has received increasing attention from President Carter
through his recent formation of the Regulatory Analysis Review Group
and the Regulatory Council, the latter of which is headed by EPA
Administrator Douglas Costle. Because IPAA firraly doubts that the
benefits to be derived from saddling oil and gas exploration and
production operations with this regulatory burden will justify the
astronomical costs, we strongly recommend that EPA pe--form a i-ost-
benefit analysis for this business segment.
To put the magnitude of these regulations' iinp3Ct in perspecMve,
there are approximately 670,000 producing oil and gas wells in the
United States today. World Oil, Vol. 183, No. 3 (Feb. 15, 1979).
Moreover, the IPAA Cost Study Committee estimates that about 50.00C
new wells will be drilled in the coming year. Assuming each new well
drilled will have only one pit associated with it (and there are
usually at least 2 or 3 pits present at each drill site), this means
that thousands of these facilities will co
-------
Impact on En e r gy De ve 1 opmen t. A second and related area of national
concern is the adverse impact on the needed exploration and produc-
tion effort to find additional domestic energy sources. When
RCRA was drafted, one of its laudable goals was the reclamation and
reuse of wastes into alternate energy sources. It is ironic that in
practice what the Act, as proposed to be implemented by EPA, may
accomplish is a severe curtailment of the exploration and develop-
ment of this nation's two primary energy sources: crude oil and
natural gas.
It is not clear that EPA gave adequate attention to this
possibility. While the Agency did confer with Department of Energy
personnel prior to releasing its proposed rules, the preamble indicates
these discussions only focused on the utility waste provisions.
Because the regulations will have a dramatic inhibiting effect on
the development of these two major energy resources, it is incumbent
on the Agency to take cognizance of this problem.
In order to understand the important role independent oil and
gas producers occupy in supplying energy to American households, let
me cite some figures. Independents account for 9055 of "wildcat"
wells (chat is, wells drilled in areas previously unexplored and
untested), 80* of all wells drilled, 40% of industry expenditures
on petroleum exploration and field development, and about 30% of
all domestically produced oil and gas.
From the above, it is readily apparent that independents are
an active and vital competitive force in the crude oil and natural
gas exploration and production industry. Yet cash flow is an especially
acute problem for independents since the successful ventures must
finance the unsuccessful ventures. Independents depend on revenues
-------
derived from the sale of crude oil and natural gas at the wellhead
to provide the capital necessary to finance their operations.
However, because of federal price controls, crude oil and natural gas
producers (unlike other businessmen) cannot pass through additional
cost burdens. Any regulatory program that dips into the independent's
cash flow and manpower resources will result in a direct loss in
revenues and personnel available to finance increasingly expensive
exploration, development and production activities. The "dip" into
those resources that is envisioned as a result of complying with the
RCRA regulations is not inconsequential.
At least for the time being, the financial responsibility
requirements that would apply to owners/operators of facilities
storing or disposing of muds and brines have been deferred. Yet
EPA's current thinking is to require a cash deposit of those who must
fulfill this obligation. Given the number of pits involved, even a
modest cash deposit per pit would tie up large sums of money and
would amount to a substantial outlay by the industry when taken
as a whole.
Independents operate many of their properties on a marginally
economic basis. The additional economic and administrative burdens
generated by this new set of regulations could provide the final
decisive blow to the continued operation of many of these properties.
We cannot stress strongly enough that these additional burdens will
drain industry resources that would otherwise be available to explore
for and produce vitally needed domestic energy. The resulting loss
in terms of production volumes and ultimate reserves will, in turn,
assuredly further strain our fragile domestic economic posture.
Lost domestic energy supplies will translate into increased foreign
-------
imports, higher unemployment rates at home, and an even more inflated
domestic currency. It will also mean an additional threat to national
security as we are forced into further dependence on insecure foreign-
produced energy.
II. If Complete Deferral Not Granted, Minimize Compliance Burden
If the first recommendation of completely deferring all regula-
tion of muds and brines (and crude oil wastes) pending the outcome
of EPA's study is not accepted, we believe that certain revisions to
the proposed regulations are essential if they are to be at all work-
able. We will briefly address the remainder of our comments to some
of the most glaring difficulties found with implementing each of the
three sections of RCRA that are the subject of this rulemaking proceeding.
A. Section 3001
Without conceding in any manner that drilling muds and oil
production brines are in fact hazardous to the environment, the IPAA
will briefly comment on a few practical problems we see with the
proposed regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 3001.
Under Section 3001, generators of waste who know or have reason
to believe their waste is hazardous must test that waste against the
criteria set forth in this section. Testing is not required if the
waste is already listed on EPA's hazardous waste list or if the
generator merely elects to declare his waste hazardous ab initio.
With respect to drilling muds, one normally could assume that
companies manufacturing these products would be responsible for the
initial determination of whether or not the mud meets the hazardous
waste criteria. However, if for some reason this is not done, the
burden presumably would then rest with the owner/operator, who
possibly could be considered a "generator" for the reasons discussed
-------
below. In any event, the oil and gas operator presumably would be
responsible for analyzing brines and other crude oil wastes to
determine if they are "hazardous."
Most independent producers simply do not have the technical
expertise available in-house to perform the kinds of tests that EPA
has detailed in the proposed regulations -- for determining either
inclusion or non-inclusion. Yet the enforcement provisions reveal
dire consequences for the unsuspecting producer who deals with a
waste considered to be ha/ardous.
Moreover, provisions allowing for demonstration of non-inclusion
in the hazardous waste system raise additional questions. For example,
must this testing be performed at each individual facility where the
subject material is present and by each person utilizing that substance.
We hope EPA will recognize a procedure whereby a given set of test
results could be utilized at other sites and by other persons where
conditions and circumstances similar in degree and nature warrant such
an approach.
B. Section 3002
Section 3002 regulations require that "generators" of hazardous
waste adhere to certain prescribed standards in order to protect human
health and the environment. Although RCRA does not specifically
define a "generator," EPA's definition encompasses any person "whose
act or ;irocess produces hazardous waste." Furthermore, preambulatory
language elaborates, "... it is important to point out that a person
who accumulates hazardous waste is considered a generator because the
process of accumulation results in a hazardous waste disposal problem."
(Emphasis added) (43 F.R. 58961)
-------
Although drilling muds and oil production brines may not be
produced (in the sense of being manufactured) at oil and gas drilling
or production sites, they are "accumulated." Therefore, those dealing
with muds and brines could be considered "generators" for the purposes
of hazardous waste regulation.
EPA, in an effort to minimize the burden for those who generate
only small amounts of waste not posing a substantial environmental
threat, has proposed to exempt from this section those persons who
produce and dispose of less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste in
any one month (although compliance with § 250.29 is still obligatory).
While we support the concept, we think it should be expanded and
clarified.
First, it is not clear whether the 100 kilograms refers to the
particular element in the waste considered to be hazardous or whether
the weight determinant applies to the entire substance containing the
hazardous material, regardless of how small the amount of hazardous
component present within that substance. Second, is this figure
determined on a "cumulative basis" of total operations or on the basis
of the amount generated at each individual site location? Third, a
monthly determination is confusing and unworkable. Finally, the
exclusion should be reserved only for wastes (e.g., muds and brines)
that have a low degree of hazardous risk; we do not believe wastes
exhibiting a high degree of hazard (e.g., PCBs) should be exempt from
any stage of regulation.
Accordingly, we recommend that EPA revise the exclusion cutoff
level to a higher volume level, which would be averaged over a twelve-
month period per facility. EPA has requested comments on whether an
-------
exclusion level of 1,000 kilograms would be more appropriate. While
this figure would provide necessary and warranted relief to at least
some "generators" in the oil and gas drilling industry, it still would
not be sufficient to cover deeper drilling operations which require
much higher volumes of mud. For these latter situations, an even
higher volume exclusion could be enacted without increasing the threat
of measurable contamination to the environment.
Even if one qualifies for the volume exclusion, he still must
comply with § 250.29, which specifies that the waste material must be
disposed of at a permitted facility. Therefore, a large volume of
waste presumably will have to be transported off-site to approved
facilities. This assumes the availability not only of sufficient
transport capacity but also facilities meeting all requisite conditions
and willing to undertake this monumental task. If this assumption is
correct, we hope the Agency will then clarify questions regarding
ultimate liability for any contamination that should occur at the
final disposal site.
The proposed regulations also make allowances for those generators
who store hazardous waste on-site prior to shipment for less than 90
days in DOT specification containers or permanent storage tanks. That
is, a generator falling within this category does not have to comply
with Sections 3004 (standards applicable to owners/operators of
hazardous waste storage, treatment, disposal facilities) and 3005
(permits for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste).
IPAA recommends that the cutoff period be extended to at least
180 days. If this were done, the vast majority of drilling operations
would be relieved from complying with Sections 3004 and 3005, a
-------
compliance burden that is impractical and of questionable benefit for
these types of activities. Typically, a well can be drilled and completed
or plugged (depending on such factors as geologic depth, weather, per-
sonnel, equipment conditions) in a time period of a few days to a few
months. Most wells that are drilled do not find oil or gas in com-
mercial quantities so that they are plugged and not developed. Because
of the temporary nature of these projects, delays and extra costs
associated with permit applications and compliance requirements will
undoubtedly mean a reduction in the resources available to find and
produce needed domestic energy resources -- an especially disturbing
perception in light of the questionable benefits to be gained.
For those independent producers who must comply with the entire
list of standards in 3002, the burden will be sizeable. The reporting,
recordkeeping, and manifest system requirements will be difficult for
most of these small businessmen.
Certification of reports should be made according to one's best
knowledge. Under normal working conditions, a producer or his
"authorized representative" may not be able to inspect personally all
information to be certified and to attest in absolute terms to its
accuracy.
C. Section 3004
Section 3004 sets forth the standards that are applicable to owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. It is an especially important part of the hazardous waste
program because it establishes certain performance criteria, and these
will be used by EPA in evaluating applications for facility permits under
Section 3005. These standards will not be applicable to inactive
-------
facilities. Existing facilities, on the other hand, must conform
or close.
Ostensibly, the Section 3004 compliance burden for explorer-
producers will be less because drilling muds and oil production brines
have been designated "special wastes" and, therefore, compliance with
parts of 3004 have been deferred pending further analysis. A close
look at the applicable standards that remain, however, indicates that
any thought that the deferral means significant interim relief is
simply illusory.
The following comments are offered on those general facility
standards specifically applicable to muds and brines:
1. Waste analysis - §250.43 (f)
In line with earlier comments, this requirement will be extremely
difficult for most small producers, if the information is not already
supplied by the manufacturer of the drilling mud. Analysis of brines
should not be required.
2. Site selection - §250.43-1
Our reading of §250.43-1 (General Site Selection) indicates that
many current drilling and production sites would be "off limits" under
the criteria enunciated. For example, most of the Gulf Coast area, one
of this country's most active and vital oil and gas regions, would come
within the "wetlands" prohibition. Also, the "active fault zone"
prohibition would pose a problem for some California producers, as
would the highly restrictive "500 year floodplain" limitation restrict
development of many areas throughout the country.
3. Security -§250.43-2
This section clearly demonstrates the problem of trying to regulate
a drilling or production site on the same basis as a permanent plant
-------
or large, well-staffed facility. Requirements for fences {deviation
is allowed only upon showing a satisfactory substitute), gates and
security personnel are not practical at most of these locations.
Where precautions are needed, they are taken. Producers have always
been liable to landowners and others with access to and surface use
rights to areas surrounding drilling and production sites.
4. Manifest System, Recordkeeping and Reporting - §250.43-5(a) ,(b)(l),
(b)(2)(i),(b)(6), and (c)
Most independent producers (i.e., owners/operators for purposes
of Section 3004) contract with independent drilling contractors to
perform drilling operations. Most likely, it would be the latter group
that would receive the manifest for the drilling mud. Their failure
to comply with the manifest system reporting requirements raises
complicated legal issues regarding liability.
Certification of reports should be based on one's best knowledge
for the reasons previously noticed. Also, if an emergency does occur,
it will not be of the kind contemplated in § 250.43-3(c). For example,
should a leak or spill occur at a tank or pit site, evacuation of com-
munities would not be necessary. Spill prevention control and counter
measure plans, which are already required under federal law, would
cover most of these situations.
Regardless of the legal complexities, the excessive administrative
burdens inherent in this subsection will be monumental for the average
independent producer. As stated repeatedly throughout our comments,
he generally operates by himself with a small staff and is able to
succeed in large part because of his ability to move quickly where
opportunity presents itself. Needless to say, his movement will be
greatly impeded if his attention must be devoted to endless paperwork,
and especially of the detail specified here.
-------
5. Visual Inspection - §250.43-6
Since personnel are not permanently stationed at production sites,
visual inspections on a daily basis are unrealistic. Most production
facilities are located in unpopulated areas; they are run by automatic
systems and, hence, are left unattended except for periodic visits to
make sure operations are running smoothly. When drilling operations cease,
the associated facilities might also remain unattended for a period of
time. Therefore, inspections less frequent than daily should be approved.
6. Closure and Post-Closure - §250.43-7 (k)(l)(m)
Given the type and amount of waste involved and the extraordinarily
large number of facilities (i.e., pits), it is difficult to justify the
need for certification of proper closure by a registered professional
engineer and recordation of a survey plat certified by a registered
professional land surveyor showing the type and location of hazardous
waste disposed of.
Twenty years of post-closure care is required for those facilities
from which hazardous waste is not removed; this twenty-year period may be
reduced only upon a satisfactory showing that a shorter period of care
is needed. Again, lack of evidence of contamination in the long history
of the oil and gas industry does not justify this excessively long period
of monitoring and reporting. Also, this requirement ignores the unique,
temporary nature of drilling operations and the relationship between the
operator and the landowner. Once drilling (or production) operations
cease, the land (usually including access roads) is reseeded by the
operator, who only holds a mineral interest in the land. Continued
surveillance and monitoring could raise not only logistical and practical
problems but also significant legal problems if the landowner is unwilling
to extend access to his property.
-------
Finally, even though the financial responsibility requirements
have been deferred, we think the catastrophic effects these requirements
would have on the oil and gas exploration and production industry deserve
immediate attention. Cash deposits of the size contemplated would surely
cripple most independents. If financial responsibility is ultimately
determined necessary for these operations, it should be managed through
a bonding or letter of credit system rather than a cash deposit system.
There are currently sufficient numbers of state bonding programs in
existence with which producers are familiar (e.g., bonds secured prior to
commencement of drilling and which are secured on either an individual
well basis or a state-wide basis) and from which EPA could draw experience.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the IPAA appreciates the magnitude of EPA's mandate
to protect the environment from hazardous waste pollution. Nevertheless,
we do not believe all hazardous wastes should be regulated with the same
level of intensity. The hazard should be clearly established and the
degree of hazardous risk then considered in formulating appropriate
hazardous waste management programs.
We do not believe that there is any evidence of contamination caused
by drilling muds and oil production brines (or crude oil wastes) that
warrants their inclusion in the hazardous waste regulatory program.
Accordingly, we urge the Agency to defer all regulation of these substances
until it has completed its special waste study and until it has demonstrated
the need for regulation. Otherwise, we fear this nation's ability to
produce vital energy resources and to maintain a stable economy will have
been greatly undermined, at great cost and with no appreciable benefit to
the environment.
-------
P O BOX 4287
INTERNATIONAL HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210
ASSOCIATION OF PHONE
DRILLING CONTRACTORS
STATEMENT OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS
ON
PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS ON IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 3001-3002-3004 OF PUBLIC LAW 94-580
FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 43, NO. 243
PRESIDENT RM BUTLER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARY TREASURER
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT THOMAS S MolNTOSH ED McGMEi CHESTER 8 BENGE, Jfl
— Regional V ice . P rest d e n ti
INTERNATIONAL I J Flowers OFFSHORE J L Kllpatrick PACIFIC COAST Gary Green
TEXAS GULF COAST J C Magner ROCKY MOUNTAIN James D Craig WEST TEXAS EAST NEW MEXICO Sherman H Norton Jr
MID CONTINENT George J Matetich WELL SERVICING David M Carmichael NORTHEAST TEXAS NORTH LOUISIANA
SOUTHEAST COAST BaKer R Littlefield SOUTH ARKANSAS Chesley Pruet
-------
The International Association of Drilling Contractors is a trade group of
over 1,000 member companies directly involved in the oil/gas and geothermal
drilling process throughout the United States and around the world. 1ADC
currently represents some 470 drilling contractors, over 140 exploration
departments of producing companies and some 402 service and supplier com-
panies in allied areas.
The role of the contract drilling company is to provide the actual drilling
equipment and trained manpower to drill oil and gas wells. The same tech-
nology is employed in geothermal drilling. The drilling contractor normally
bids for the individual job and is selected by the producer (called the
"operator" in oilfield terminology) on the basis of price, capability, ex-
perience and availability. Each well is different and the circumstances
surrounding the drilling vary considerably from location to location. Wells
are drilled by the contractor for the mineral lease owner who may be an
independent producer or a major oil company or a combination of investors.
The drilling contractor has no direct contractual relationship with the land-
owner.
As a practical matter, the drilling contractor is but one of many, many sub-
contractors involved in the exploration process. The operator will separately
purchase materials or contract with geophysical crews, site preparation
crews, roadbuilders, drilling bit manufacturers, drilling mud suppliers, well
logging companies, casing companies, directional drillers and others in the
course of drilling a well. The operator is in command. The operator controls
the mud program employed and actually purchases the mud. The drilling con-
tractor handles the mud while it is being utilized in the drilling process
as directed by the operator and his representatives at the wellsite.
By contract, the various different parties will assume various liabilities
and responsibilities in connection with the process. The drilling contractor
does not select the site, nor establish the specifications for the muds to
-------
be ordered and used. The operator assumes overall responsibility.
We are, however, very much affected by the economic and practical impacts
that regulations pertaining to the well operator create for the allied
service industries. Any provisions creating unnecessary delay, burdensome
costs and more complex operating procedures for the operator (particularly
the thousands of smaller independent producers) will certainly impact upon
the drilling industry in a meaningful way.
The issuance of these extremely burdensome regulations with their novel
and unrealistic requirements, when applied to the oilfield, are unduly strin-
gent and will cause massive economic hardship and disruption of the petroleum
industry at a time when domestic energy exploration should be fostered. We
believe that much of the regulatory scheme envisioned for waste disposal was
directed at truly hazardous and environmentally significant practices of
other industries, particularly those with fixed plant or disposal sites. The
inclusion of exploratory and development drilling locations and practices,
even in a partial manner, is being proposed without sufficient regard for
the operating record of the industry throughout the years and with insufficient
analysis of the need for, or costs attendant to, the regulation. Even partial
inclusion of drilling muds under the proposed regulations will require costly
new procedures and delays which will increase the costs associated with the
drilling operation.
Without belaboring the point, we wish to state that the period for comment,
particularly since certain important background documents have been either
unavailable, available only at limited offices, or not issued in a timely
fashion, has been inadequate.
It is small comfort that the preamble admits EPA's own lack of knowledge while
it forges ahead with costly and time-consuming burdens. Much of our industry's
concern is with the permit process, yet these proposed regulations have not
even been issued while the hearing process has begun. This could be a
-------
nightmare causing major delays in the drilling programs leading to overall
loss of energy resources to this country and higher costs being passed along
to the ultimate consumer. It could cause the operator to lose his rights to
drill in some instances (where mineral rights are leased for a fixed time or
a deadline for initial action is required as a condition of the lease). Many
wells are relatively shallow and others have rapid drilling conditions, thus
the rig will be on and off a location in a matter of days. The uncertainty of
securing a permit or of knowing what sequence of wells need to be drilled could
create major problems if an individual permit is required for each well loca-
tion and mandatory review times impose delays of up to 180 or more days. Yet
a temporary exclusion of some fixed period such as ninety days may be exceeded
inadvertently by weather delays, problems with the drilling program or delays
in arrival of supplies and equipment.
We wish to remind the EPA that drilling operations are transitory and temporary.
Drilling equipment is moved onto and off of location in the quickest possible
time. The wellsite (whether a "gusher" or a "duster") is subjected to drilling
muds only for a comparatively short period of time.
Given the lack of information the EPA has on the "problem" of drilling muds,
we find it inconceivable that a "solution" is offered by imposing "only" part
of the regulatory burden.
Since 1859 through 1978, over 2,511,561 wells have been drilled in the United
States. The oil and gas industry could not have accomplished this without
the acquiescence of the landowners involved. If there were a harmful effect
from the use of drilling muds, the landowners, most of whom are farmers,
ranchers, foresters and wilderness enthusiasts, would have filled the record
book with complaints and documented testimony of some adverse environmental
impact. Instead, there is a minimuc of public controversy surrounding the use
of drilling muds and their disposition. We are not aware of any documented
evidence of industry practice or hazard in connection with the use of drilling
muds that would justify the inclusion of this material as a "hazardous" waste.
Other witnesses possess the expertise to describe the scientific composition
of the various drilling muds employed (and they are better able to determine
-------
whether the methodology set out by EPA for testing is appropriate). We can
state that our experience includes instances of farmers requesting our used
drilling muds be spread over the rangeland for its fertile, beneficial effects
and the restoration of drilling sites to their prior condition upon completion
of the drilling.
Information fr-om--the mud companies indicates that many of the drilling mud
-products in current use are also in use in agricultural and the food and drug
industries. Some examples of this follow: Base lignosulfonate is used as a
binder for pelletizing cattle feed and is approved by the FDA.. It is also used
as a chelating and dispersing agent for trace minerals in soil improvement.
Bentonite is used as a suspending agent for many medications and cosmetics and
in the manufacture of certain candies. Lignite is another form of humic acid
which is necessary for conversion of organic material into top soil as well as
for use in cosmetics. CMC is widely used in the food industry as a stiffening
agent in fluids such as gravies and sauces. Starch, another common additive,
derived from rice and potatoes, is used in the food industry and is biodegradable
Several of the polymers (especially poly acrylates) are used as soil looseners
to break up the clay content. Finally, barite is used in the medical profession
to perform upper and lower GI series tests.
Other federal, state and local regulations applicable to drilling operations
provide adequate environmental safeguards without the necessity of additional
federal intervention. For example, state regulations generally provide for
protection of fresh water sands, H_S safety'procedures, the disposal of brines
and the like. We understand that the proposed regulations are to be placed in
force where states have not enacted equally stringent standards. We believe
state controls over drilling activities are more than adequate to protect the
environment and the public from any possible hazards associated with exploratory
or production drilling. The placement of drilling muds in the "special waste"
category still subjects the whole chain of manufacturer, purchaser, user and
disposer to serious record-keeping and procedural requirements.
-------
There is a clear threat set out in the preamble when it is stated that a
future ruleroaking will be issued to deal with special wastes. There are
currently several important scientific studies underway by respected academic
institutions to review the effects of drilling muds on the environment. We
submit that further action is unwarranted until these studies can be completed
and their results verified and analyzed.
IADC wishes to address the following specific points:
1. Preamble Admits Inconclusive Data, Yet Imposes Burdens
At pages 58991-2, the preamble states:
...gas and oil drilling muds...
The Agency has very little information
on the composition, characteristics and the
degree of hazard posed by these wastes, nor
does the Agency yet have data on the effective-
ness of current or potential waste management
technologies or the technical or economic im-
practicability of imposing the Subpart D stan-
dard on facilities managing such waste.
The limited information the Agency does
have indicates that such waste occurs in very
large volumes, that the potential hazards posed
by the waste are relatively low, and that the
waste generally is not amendable to the control
techniques developed in Subpart D....
This clearly-stated assessment logically leads to the conclusion that nothing
should be required until some evidence is available showing a hazard. That
is not the conclusion reached by EPA. Our industry does not understand why
any regulation should be applied pending a determination of actual harmful
impact on the environment. There is certainly nothing to indicate the need
for immediate action when drilling muds have been used to drill 9 = million
wells across this country without a showing of adverse impact.
-------
2. General Site Selection
While we recognize that the presumptions set forth can be met
and overcome by the conditions set forth in the "notes" containing certain
exceptions which follow each provision, we wonder what areas will be available
for drilling and how the producer will be able to meet the problems of over-
coming the presumptions. In fact, the drilling sites and resultant wells are
not continuing, permanent facilities for waste disposal. They are merely
temporary working sites. If unsuccessful, they are plugged and abandoned.
If commercial levels of petroleum products are discovered, a closed system for
extraction is established and drilling muds are no longer is use. Why then
should the proscriptions apply to site selection for temporary use of drilling
muds? The format involving use of "notes" following the regulations is confusing
and may create some potential legal problems.
3. Security
Section 250.43-2 refers to security requirements at a facility.
Again, the practical need for such measures for drilling sites is not demon-
strated, while costly and impractical standards are set. The "notes" setting
forth exceptions that allow the presumptions to be overcome may be difficult
to utilize. Unauthorized entry is seldom a problem from either man or animal
at a drilling site. A drilling crew is on 24-hour duty and the access to the
location is over a right-of-way provided by the landowner.
4. Record-keeping
The burden for record-keeping appears to be on the operator of a
drilling site. We believe that the imposition of the requirements for detailed
record-keeping are, at this stage, unjustified and will create additional ex-
pense without corresponding benefits. Present industry practices concerning
record-keeping seem sufficient
5. Visual Inspection
Since drilling operations are conducted on a 24-hour basis, drilling
crews at a wellsite where Grilling mud is in use, are already performing
constant visual inspections of all the operating equipment, supplies and loca-
tion. Requiring a log notation of their activity is needless paperwork.
-------
6. Closure
Section 250.43-7 requires the certification to the Regional
Administrator with an attached certification of a registered professional
engineer that the facility has been closed in accordance with the regulations.
All well drilling in the United States today is done under strict federal
or state regulations governing the well and its abandonment with adequate
opportunity for public inspection to determine responsibility. If the facility
is not closed and the waste remains, a survey plat is required and twenty-year
maintenance care is mandated. While the owner/operator can seek an earlier
discontinance of care, the presumption is against him.
In fact, many times the drilling muds are spread out to dry and
they break down by leaching, sunshine, evaporation, etc. There is no need for
further care or maintenance.
In summation, the International Association of Drilling Contractors takes the
position that no portion of the regulations proposed for "hazardous" waste
disposal should be made applicable to drilling muds until further studies on
the actual environmental impact of such drilling muds are completed. Estab-
lishing stringent restrictions, significant paperwork burdens and new procedures
without a clear basis of need is unfair and of questionable legal foundation.
The industries concerned face a serious economic impact with consequences
that may well drastically affect the ability of the oil and gas producer to
continue his search for hydrocarbon and geothermal resources to serve the
country's energy requirements. After the drilling of 2.5 million wells, there
is no imminent need or new evidence suggesting a clear and present hazard to
human health or to the quality of life that demands hasty action.
If scientific study does indicate a need for change in types of drilling mud
ingredients or the procedures for their transportation, storage, use and ulti-
mate disposal, these matters should be addressed specifically. They should
be reviewed for their application to the technology and capabilities of the
-------
drilling industry and to the specialized operating conditions under which
exploratory and production drilling are conducted.
We pledge to work with the Environmental Protection Agency (and the numerous
state agencies which already monitor this activity) as well as other interested
federal agencies in the review, development and implementation of any appro-
priate standards.
-------
SUMMARY
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS IS A TRADE GROUP OF
OVER 1,000 MEMBER COMPANIES DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE OIL/GAS AND GEOTHERMAL
DRILLING PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND AROUND THE WORLD. IADC
CURRENTLY REPRESENTS SOME 470 DRILLING CONTRACTORS, OVER 140 EXPLORATION
DEPARTMENTS OF PRODUCING COMPANIES AND SOME 402 SERVICE AND SUPPLIER COM-
PANIES IN ALLIED AREAS.
THE ROLE OF THE CONTRACT DRILLING COMPANY IS TO PROVIDE THE ACTUAL DRILLING
EQUIPMENT AND TRAINED MANPOWER TO DRILL OIL AND GAS WELLS. AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, THE DRILLING CONTRACTOR IS BUT ONE OF MANY, MANY SUBCONTRACTORS IN-
VOLVED IN THE EXPLORATION PROCESS. THE OPERATOR WILL SEPARATELY PURCHASE
MATERIALS OR CONTRACT WITH GEOPHYSICAL CREWS, SITE PREPARATION CREWS, ROAD-
BUILDERS, DRILLING BIT MANUFACTURERS, DRILLING MUD SUPPLIERS, WELL LOGGING
COMPANIES, CASING COMPANIES, DIRECTIONAL DRILLERS AND OTHERS IN THE COURSE
OF DRILLING A WELL. THE OPERATOR CONTROLS THE MUD PROGRAM EMPLOYED AND ACTUALLY
PURCHASES THE MUD. THE DRILLING CONTRACTOR HANDLES THE MUD WHILE IT IS BEING
UTILIZED IN THE DRILLING PROCESS AS DIRECTED BY THE OPERATOR AND HIS REPRE-
SENTATIVES AT THE WELLSITE. THE OPERATOR ASSUMES OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY.
WE ARE, HOWEVER, VERY MUCH AFFECTED BY THE ECONOMIC AND PRACTICAL IMPACTS
THAT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE WELL OPERATOR CREATE FOR THE ALLIED SERVICE
INDUSTRIES. ANY PROVISIONS CREATING UNNECESSARY DELAY, BURDENSOME COSTS AND
MORE COMPLEX OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATOR (PARTICULARLY THE THOUSANDS
OF SMALLER INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS) WILL CERTAINLY IMPACT UPON THE DRILLING
INDUSTRY IN A MEANINGFUL WAY.
-------
THE ISSUANCE OF THESE EXTREMELY BURDENSOME REGULATIONS WITH THEIR NOVEL
AND UNREALISTIC REQUIREMENTS, WHEN APPLIED TO THE OILFIELD, ARE UNDULY
STRINGENT AND WILL CAUSE MASSIVE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND DISRUPTION OF THE
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY AT A TIME WHEN DOMESTIC ENERGY EXPLORATION SHOULD BE
FOSTERED. WE BELIEVE THAT MUCH OF THE REGULATORY SCHEME ENVISIONED FOR WASTE
DISPOSAL WAS DIRECTED AT TRULY HAZARDOUS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
PRACTICES OF OTHER INDUSTRIES, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH FIXED PLANT OR
DISPOSAL SITES. THE INCLUSION OF EXPLORATORY AND DEVELOPMENT DRILLING LOCA-
TIONS AND PRACTICES, EVEN IN A PARTIAL MANNER, IS BEING PROPOSED WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT REGARD FOR THE OPERATING RECORD OF THE INDUSTRY THROUGHOUT THE
YEARS AND WITH INSUFFICIENT ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR, OR COSTS ATTENDANT TO,
THE REGULATION.
MUCH OF OUR INDUSTRY'S CONCERN IS WITH THE PERMIT PROCESS, YET THESE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ISSUED WHILE THE HEARING PROCESS HAS BEGUN .
THIS COULD BE A NIGHTMARE CAUSING MAJOR DELAYS IN THE DRILLING PROGRAMS.
SINCE 1859 THROUGH 1978, OVER 2,511,651 WELLS HAVE BEEN DRILLED IN THE
UNITED STATES. THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THIS
WITHOUT THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THE LANDOWNERS INVOLVED. IF THERE WERE A HARMFUL
EFFECT FROM THE USE OF DRILLING MUDS, THE LANDOWNERS, MOST OF WHOM ARE FARMERS,
RANCHERS, FORESTERS AND WILDERNESS ENTHUSIASTS, WOULD HAVE FILLED THE RECORD
BOOK WITH COMPLAINTS AND DOCUMENTED TESTIMONY OF SOME ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT. INSTEAD, THERE IS A MINIMUM OF PUBLIC CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THE USE
OF DRILLING MUDS AND THEIR DISPOSITION. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY DOCUMENTED
-------
TESTIMONY OF SOME ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. INSTEAD, THERE IS A MINIMUM
OF PUBLIC CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THE USE OF DRILLING MUDS AND THEIR DISPOSI-
TION. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF INDUSTRY PRACTICE OR
HAZARD IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF DRILLING MUDS THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE IN-
CLUSION OF THIS MATERIAL AS A "HAZARDOUS" WASTE.
OTHER FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO DRILLING OPERATIONS
PROVIDE ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ADDITIONAL
FEDERAL INTERVENTION. FOR EXAMPLE, STATE REGULATIONS GENERALLY PROVIDE FOR
PROTECTION OF FRESH WATER SANDS, H S SAFETY PROCEDURES, THE DISPOSAL OF BRINES
AND THE LIKE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE TO BE PLACED
IN FORCE WHERE STATES HAVE NOT ENACTED EQUALLY STRINGENT STANDARDS. WE
BELIEVE STATE CONTROLS OVER DRILLING ACTIVITIES ARE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PUBLIC FROM ANY POSSIBLE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH EXPLORATORY OR PRODUCTION DRILLING.
GENERAL SITE SELECTION
THE DRILLING SITES AMD RESULTANT WELLS ARE NOT CONTINUING, PERMANENT FACILITIES
FOR WASTE DISPOSAL. THEY ARE MERELY TEMPORARY WORKING SITES. IF UNSUCCESSFUL,
THEY ARE PLUGGED AND ABANDONED. IF COJR1ERCIAL LEVELS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
ARE DISCOVERED, A CLOSED SYSTEM FOR EXTRACTION IS ESTABLISHED AND DRILLING MUDS
ARE NO LONGER IN USE.
RECORD-KEEPING
THE IMPOSITION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DETAILED RECORD-KEEPING ARE, AT THIS
STAGE, UNJUSTIFIED AND WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE WITHOUT CORRESPONDING
BENEFITS. PRESENT INDUSTRY PRACTICES CONCERNING RECORD-KEEPING SEEM SUFFICIENT.
-------
VISUAL INSPECTION
SINCE DRILLING OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED ON A 24-HOUR BASIS, DRILLING CREWS
AT THE WELLSITE WHERE DRILLING MUD IS IN USE, ARE ALREADY PERFORMING CONSTANT
VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF ALL THE OPERATING EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND LOCATION.
REQUIRING A LOG NOTATION OF THEIR ACTIVITY IS NEEDLESS PAPERWORK.
CLOSURE
ALL VfeLL DRILLING IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY IS DONE UNDER STRICT FEDERAL OR
STATE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WELL AND ITS ABANDONMENT WITH ADEQUATE OPPOR-
TUNITY FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION TO DETERMINE RESPONSIBILITY.
IN SUMMATION, THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS TAKES THE
POSITION THAT NO PORTION OF THE REGULATIONS PROPOSED FOR "HAZARDOUS" WASTE
DISPOSAL SHOULD BE MADE APPLICABLE TO DRILLING MUDS UNTIL FURTHER STUDIES ON
THE ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SUCH DRILLING MUDS ARE COMPLETED. ESTABLISHING
STRINGENT RESTRICTIONS, SIGNIFICANT PAPERWORK BURDENS AND NEW PROCEDURES WITHOUT
A CLEAR BASIS OF NEED IS UNFAIR AND OF QUESTIONABLE LEGAL FOUNDATION.
IF SCIENTIFIC STUDY DOES INDICATE A NEED FOR CHANGE IN TYPES OF DRILLING MUD
INGREDIENTS OR THE PROCEDURES FOR THEIR TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE, USE AND ULTI-
MATE DISPOSAL, THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY. THEY SHOULD BE
REVIEWED FOR THEIR APPLICATIONS TO THE TECHNOLOGY AND CAPABILITIES OF THE
DRILLING INDUSTRY AND TO THE SPECIALIZED OPERATING CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
EXPLORATORY AND PRODUCTION DRILLING ARE CONDUCTED.
-------
WE PLEDGE TO WORK WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (AND THE NUMEROUS
STATE AGENCIES WHICH ALREADY MONITOR THIS ACTIVITY) AS WELL AS OTHER INTERESTED
FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE REVIEW, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY APPRO-
PRIATE STANDARDS.
-------
Raychem Corporation Telephone 4T5J 329 3333
300 Constitution Drive TWX 910 373 (728
Men/o Park California 94025 Telex 34 8316
March 12, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Lehman:
The following comments on EPA proposed regulations 43FR58946, December 18,
1978, have been prepared through input of the Industrial Waste Committee
of the Peninsula Manufacturers' Association (PMA).
PMA is a unified body of industrial firms located in San Mateo/Santa
Clara Counties (California) whose basic objective is to maintain the
economic vitality of the San Francisco Peninsula Area by monitoring the
governmental regulatory process. PMA not only monitors the legislative
and regulatory process but it seeks to assist government in the formula-
tion of laws and regulations which affect the business environment.
The Industrial Waste Committee's primary objective to the proposed
guidelines and regulations for Hazardous Waste Disposal is the fact
that as California based companies, our hazardous waste disposal has been
regulated for many years by the California Department of Health.
Under the Department's regulations, California industries have established
compliance procedures within their companies to ensure that hazardous
waste streams are properly identified, containerized and transported to
approved Class 1 disposal facilities. In the EPA proposed regulations,
the reporting requirements and manifest forms are significantly different
from those previously required by the California Department of Health.
An adjustment of our disposal procedures, as outlined in the Federal
regulations, would require a great deal of expense to our companies
without any increase in environmental protection. The regulation
components causing the most concern are the requirements which make
hazardous waste tracking the responsibility of the generator rather
than the regulatory agency as it is now in California. In addition to
the increase in reporting requirements for industry, this requirement
contradicts the primary objective of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and the California Department of Health's recent regulation
concerning "Recyclable Hazardous Waste," Title 22, Division 4. This
regulation requires that the Department review hazardous waste manifests
to identify recyclable waste stream. This analysis may be less comprehen-
sive if the Department is no longer required to track waste streams
from generator to disposal sites.
Other features of the California system which is supported by the
Peninsula Manufacturers' Association include: 1) the more comprehensive
Hazardous Waste Manifest, 2) provisions for Confidentiality and, 3) the
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 12, 1979
Page Two
Extremely Hazardous Waste permiting program. An across the board
exemption for quantities under 100 kg is unreasonable. For example,
dioxin is lethal in quantities many orders of magnitude less than 100
kg. A differentiation in the Federal regulation should provide for the
degree of hazard as has been defined in the California regulations.
Extremely hazardous waste should be managed in all cases, while for
less hazardous materials the exemption should be increased. This type
of system, which would more stringently regulate the most dangerous
materials while reducing the disposal requirements for less hazardous
materials, would provide for the optimum in environmental protection
for the lowest cost.
To summarize, as industries generating hazardous waste in California,
we support the efforts of the California Department of Health Hazardous
Waste Program. We feel that this program should not be substituted
with that proposed by the Federal EPA.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide in incorporating these
comments into your decision-making on this matter. If you have any
question or need additional assistance, please contact me at (415)
329-5519.
Sincerely,,
Gail Brice
Raychem Environmental Manager
Co-chairperson, Industrial
Waste Committee
Peninsula Manufacturers' Association
GB/cm
-------
PUBLIC STATEMENT
TO BE DELIVERED AT AN EPA PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT REGULATIONS
J AM JOHN SIEGFRIED, ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL FOR THE PROCTER £ GAMBLE
COMPANY. I AM DELIVERING THESE COMMENTS FOR J. FLOYD BYRD, MANAGER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, WHO DEVELOPED A CONFLICT AND COULD NOT
ATTEND. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS GROUP,
AND TO EXPRESS OUR COMPANY'S POSITION ON A NUMBER OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROVISIONS OF THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AMD RECOVERY ACT.
ALTH3UGH PROCTER 5 GAMBLE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES INVOLVE RELATIVELY FEW HAZARDOUS
WASTES, THE COMPANY HAS AN EXTENSIVE PROGRAM TO INSURE THAT ALL WASTES THAT
CLEARLY ARE HAZARDOUS,' THAT GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES INDICATE MAY BE CONSIDERED
HAZARDOUS, OR WASTES WHICH WE FEEL MAY BE PERCEIVED AS HAZARDOUS AT SOME FUTURE
DATF., ARE DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT IS ENTIRELY ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE.
WE FEEL THAT OUR PROCEDURES OVERALL ARE MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND FOR THE MOST PART
MORE RIGOROUS THAN THOSE LIKELY TO BE REQUIRED UNDER RCRA. WE ARE HIGHLY SUPPORTIVE
OF THE BASIC INTENT OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROVISIONS IN RCRA, AND OF STRICTLY
REGULATING THE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES; AND WE FEEL THAT IN MANY WAYS SUCH
REGULATIONS SHOULD BE A BENEFIT TO OUR COMPANY. HOWEVER, WE HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS
ABOUT THE REGULATIONS AS THEY HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.
IN SOME AREAS, WE FEEL THAT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERABLY MORE STRICT.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE P£G IS MORE THAN WILLING TO ACCEPT TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
WASTES, IT GENERATES, THROUGHOUT THEIR EXISTENCE, WE DO FEEL THAT THE LAW DOES NOT
IMPOSE ENOUGH RESTRICTIONS ON THE TRANSPORTER US) THE DISPOSAL AGENCY. WE HAVE FOUND
THAT WE HAVE A CONTINUING PROBLEM LOCATING DISPOSAL AGENCIES THAT MEET OUR RIGOROUS
STANDARDS AND AT WHICH WE CAN BE CERTAIN THAT OUR WASTES WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN
AN ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE MANNER. IN ADDITION WE HAVE A CONTINUING CONCERN THAT THE
WASTES THAT WE CONSIGN TO DISPOSAL AGENCIES ARE DISPOSED OF IN THE SPECIFIC MANNER
-------
DESIGNATED IN THE CONTRACT. IT IS OUR FEELING THAT THE MANIFEST SYSTEM SHOULD
INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF THE MODE OF DISPOSAL TO BE USED FOR THAT SPECIFIC WASTE,-
AND, FURTHER THAT THERE BE FEDERAL SANCTIONS IMPOSED IF THE TRANSPORTER OR DISPOSAL
AGENCY DOES NOT FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS LISTED ON THE MANIFEST. IT IS OUR
CURRENT POLICY TO SPOT CHECK OUR WASTE DISPOSAL TO INSURE THAT OUR CONTRACT
TERMS ARE BEING MET, BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE HELPFUL IN THIS EFFORT IF THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD PROVIDE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, AND PENALTIES, TO INSURE THAT
DISPOSAL AGENCIES FOLLOW THE DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS OF THE WASTE GENERATORS.
AS I HAVE MENTIONED, WE FIND THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TODAY TO LOCATE ACCEPTABLE
FACILITIES AT WHICH TO DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES. ANYONE WHO READS THE PAPERS
IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING NEW SITES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES. THERE HAVE BEEN FREQUENT ARTICLES IN RECENT MONTHS OF
STRONG CITIZEN PRESSURE, OR IN SOME CASES OF LEGAL PRESSURES, TO CLOSE SITES
WHICH ARE CONSIDERED BY STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES TO BE HIGHLY
RESPONSIBLE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND. IN LIGHT OF THIS, IT IS TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE
TO USE SITES WHICH HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR THE DISPOSAL OF TRULY TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS
WASTES FOR TYPES OF WASTES WHERE NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE INVOLVED.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT THE TESTS USED TO DEFINE HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE
DESIGNED TO DO JUST THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED TOXIC EXTRACTION
PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN CLASSIFYING SUCH MATERIALS AS PEANUT BUTTER, BABY
FOOD, AND RAW CARROTS AS HAZARDOUS DUE TO THEIR SALT CONTENT. WHILE THE TOXIC
EXTRACTION PROCEDURE HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED, IT REMAINS TECHNICALLY DEFICIENT.
THERE IS A CONTINUING DANGER THAT AN INCORRECT DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE HILL
RESULT IN THE INCLUSION OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTES AND WILL EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM
OF PROPER DISPOSAL OF TRULY HAZARDOUS WASTES.
-------
IN ADDITION, WE FEEL THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT HAZARDOUS WASTES BE
CATEGORIZED BOTH IN REGARD TO THE TYPE AND THE DEGREE OF HAZARD. FOR EXAMPLE,
IT IS ABSURD TO REQUIRE THAT GASOLINE SOAKED FLAMMABLE RAGS BE DISPOSED OF IN
A SITE THAT WAS PREPARED TO DISPOSE OF HIGHLY TOXIC PESTICIDES OR POISONS, SUCH
AS DIOXIN.
TO START WITH, THE EPA REGULATIONS SHOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WASTES WHICH
ARE HAZARDOUS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THOSE WHICH
SIMPLY PRESENT SOME DEGREE OF HAZARD TO THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYEES. WHILE BOTH
MUST BE PROTECTED, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PROVIDING
THAT PROTECTION WILL BE DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT FOR MOST
FLAMMABLE WASTES, THERE WILL BE ANY SIGNIFICANT DANGER TO EITHER THE PUBLIC
HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT. THE ONLY CONCERN WILL BE FOR THE SAFETY AND HEALTH
OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE DISPOSAL SITE. THE PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE
DISPOSAL SITE SHOULD BE EFFECTED BY WORK PLACE REGULATIONS, POSSIBLY ISSUED BY
DSHA RATHER THAN EPA, BUT IT SHOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT SUCH WASTES BE TREATED IN
THE SAME MANNER AS HIGHLY TOXIC CHEMICALS. WHILE THERE IS SOME POSSIBILITY FOR
HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT, OR THE PUBLIC HEALTH FROM CORROSIVE OR REACTIVE MATERIALS,
IN MOST CASES THIS RISK IS RATHER LIMITED. FURTHERMORE, THE RESTRICTIONS ON A
PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED SANITARY LANDFILL TO PREVENT SIGNIFICANT LEACHING TO THE
ENVIRONMENT WOULD NORMALLY BE MORE THAN SATISFACTORY. ANY RESTRICTIONS WRITTEN
AROUND CORROSIVE OR REACTIVE WASTES SHOULD TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT. ONLY A LIMITED
AMOUNT OF SUCH WASTES WOULD REQUIRE ANYTHING MORE THAN GOOD SANITARY LANDFILL
PRACTICES, AND PROPER OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY PROTECTION FOR THE EMPLOYEES0 IT IS A
SIMPLE FACT, AND ONE THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, THAT FACILITIES FOR DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES A(C A VERY SCARCE RESOURCE IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY, AND WILL CONTINUE
TO BE SO. TOXIC CHEMICALS AND OTHERS WHICH ARE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE ENVIRON-
MENT OR THE PUBLIC HEALTH ARE OF MAJOR CONCERN TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. IT IS TOTALLY
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO OUR EFFORT TO CONTROL THESE SERIOUS HAZARDS TO SQUANDER THPS
-------
RESOURCE, AND USE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES FOR WASTES WHICH IMPOSE NO
SIGNIFICANT RISK TO THE PUBLIC.
IN ADDITION, FOR TOXIC MATERIALS, THERE CLEARLY SHOULD BE CATEGORIES DEFINING
THE DEGREE OF HAZARD. FOR EXAMPLE, A CASE COULD BE MADE THAT NOT EVEN THE
RIGOROUS EPA SITE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS ARE ADEQUATE FOR SOME PERSISTENT
HIGHLY TOXIC MATERIALS SUCH AS DIOXIN. ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR MATERIALS WHICH
BIODEGRADE READILY, WHICH ADSORB TO THE SOIL, OR WHERE THE DEGREE OF TOXICITY
IS SUFFICIENTLY LOW THAT MASSIVE DISCHARGES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENDANGER THE
PUBLIC HEALTH, CONSIDERABLY LESSER REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE IN ORDER. IT IS THE
FEELING OF OUR COMPANY THAT A WASTE CATEGORIZATION SYSTEM IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
IF THIS COUNTRY IS TO DEAL WITH THE CRITICAL HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE SITUATION
WHICH WE FACE TODAY.
ONE OTHER MATTER OF CONCERN TO US IS THE PROPOSAL TO APPLY RCRA REQUIREMENTS TO
BIOLOGICAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES WHICH HAVE NPDES DISCHARGE PERMITS. THESE
FACILITIES ARE ALREADY REGULATED, AND ALL LEGITIMATE CONCERNS CAN BE ADDRESSED IN
THE NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, APPLYING THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED
RCRA CONSTRXTION SPECIFICATIONS TO THESE FACILITIES WOULD BE EXTREMELY COSTLY,
AND PROVIDE NO MEASURABLE BENEFIT TO THE ENVIRONMENT. IT WOULD SEEM INTUITIVELY
OBVIOUS THAT IF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT RENDERS THE WASTE MATERIALS INVOLVED SAFE
ENOUGH TO DISCHARGE TO NAVIGABLE WATERS, THE FACILITIES THEMSELVES DO NOT CONSTITUTE
A THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN EITHER RCRA OR THE CLEAN
WATER ACT FOR THE POLICY. THIS IS A TRUE CASE OF REGULATORY OVER-KILL, WHICH
MISDIRECTS ATTENTIONS AND RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE REAL PROBLEMS, AND WE URGE THE
AGENCY TO RECONSIDER.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER POINTS IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WHERE WE HAVE
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS IN REGARD TO THE TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED, AMD
-------
COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE SEPARATELY AND HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE EPA. WE
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS.
2/79
RCG:VRT
CC: G. N. MCDERMOTT
C. A. BARTON
J. F. BYRD
R. E. BELLIVEAU
J. P. SIEGFRIED
R. P. LUSTIK
-------
thai
erman
Basin Petroleum Association
tan' i afford \ p I ft j p O Box 132 • (915)684-6345 • Midland, Texas 79702
(o run sftorf , . ,
Statement of
the
PERMIAN BASIN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Before the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROPOSED GUIDELINES and
REGULATIONS and PROPOSAL on IDENTIFICATION
and LISTING
March 12-14, 1979
San Francisco, California
-------
thi3i tun*, • in 01
t an l .itfore
(u r ni' sfcor
" lintri' ~|m Permian Basin Petroleum Association
an i .,tfora I pi . 1 p Q BOX 132 • (915)684-6345 • Midland, Texas 79702
\ r ** /
Vl^7
My name is A. W. Dillard, Jr., my business address is 1001 Wilco Building,
Midland, Texas, 79701. I am president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association
located in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico, and I am representing its
almost 1,500 members in the largest single petroleum producing area in the United
States. The membership is basically independent, domestic oil and gas operators,
but almost every type of business in the Permian Basin is also represented. I ait
an independent oil and gas operator, with over 32 years of experience in Oklahoma
Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas.
We acknowledge that we need rules and regulations to assure both the safe
and orderly conduct of all business operations, as well as the protection of hea
and the environment. However we also believe that the hazardous waste program, t
proposed by the EPA, is unnecessarily broad and burdensome. If implemented, as
proposed, these regulations will have a shattering pffect on the future discover;
rates and production of oil and gas in the United States.
We realize that the EPA is required by the RCRA, as substantially amended,
to promulgate regulations that are all encompassing in nature but which, by EPA'
own admission, lack specific guidance in many areas, particularly drilling muds
and production brines. Wtih this admission in mind, we strongly recommend that
gas and oil drilling muds and crude oil production brines be totally exempted
from the EPA Hazardous Waste proposals. Short of that, that they be exempted
until necessary studies are completed and specific guidance is achieved.
In reading the language of the Standards applicable to Generators, it is
plain to us that oil and gas operators were not included in the compliance
-------
requirements. We get the feeling that these regulations are, in fact, directed
at those operation? where something is manufactured and a hazardous waste is
produced. The language refers to fixed facility locations and the manufacturing
process involved. Mention is made of kilograms and gallons, but nothing is said
about barrels. Specifics to proper containerization, proper container label ing
and movement manifests are included. None of these terms are common to the oil
and gas industry.
Compliance, to protect both the health and environment, has long been under
way in Texas and New Mexico, as required by state laws and regulations, concerning
the usage of drilling mud and production brines and their disposal. We recommend
that these laws and regulations be adopted by the EPA and incorporated into the
EPA Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines.
With the energy problems already facing the domestic consumer, it is incon-
ceivable that the Federal Government would want to compound those problems. But,
by making it even more difficult for the domestic operator to look for additional
oil and gas reserves, you are compounding them. , each operator is basically
a small business, and the additional man hours and money required to be in com-
pliance can only reduce the operators time and finances needed for his drilling
and producing efforts, you are preventing them from doing their job...finding new
oil and gas reserves.
Due to an apparent oversight, we were excluded from those scheduled to speak
on Section 3001 yesterday, March 12. With your permission, we have included our
position on Section 3001 at this point and ask that it be make a part of the rtuord.
We would also appreciate the opportunity to read this part of the statement, but
will understand i1 it is not permissible.
-------
A country
thai runs on oil
can't afford
to run short
Permian Basin Petroleum Association
PO Box 132 • (915)684-6345 • Midland, Texas 79702
3001
The 1500 members of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association - could well
be more concerned with the protection of Potable Groundwaters than our friends
in Washington, D.C., since we live in a semi-arid region, and our living depends
on these groundwaters. Although our average annual rainfall in the Midland-Odessa,
Texas, area is 14.12" per year, in 1977 (the last year available) we received only
6.82".
Drilling operations in search of crude oil and gas have been carried out in
this area since the early 1920's. The Texas Railroad Commission and the Texas
Department of Water Resources (who oversee drilling and producing operations,
mapping groundwaters and specifying casing, cementing and plugging programs) have
no documented records, or complaints, in their files to show any subsurface water
contamination from rotary drilling muds. Instance* of groundwater contamination
from produced brines have occurred in Texas, but these were noted and corrected.
The oil and gas producing industry works closely with the State Regulatory Agencies
to develop, implement, and continuously monitor improved field practices, so that
there is no predictable hazard to health or land productivity under currently
administered rules and regulations.
In the definition of Hazardous Wastes in Sec. 3001, no differentiation is
made between 100% pure, known poisons (ie: certain chemicals) and trace amounts of
some metals and other substances that can be found in drilling muds and produced
brines only by some of the most sophisticated, technical analysis methods currently
available. It might well be noted that during a typical, dusty, spring day in
-------
3001
the Permian Basin, the air we breathe exceeds certain E.P.A. purity specifications
by a multiple of 5000 to 1, or more (airborne silicates).
The proposed definitions under Sec, 3001 would classify as Hazardous Wastes
the following:
a) Crude oil and/or crude oil wastes (although naturally
biodegradable) because of ignitability tests, and because
of trace amounts of materials listed in Appendix (V).
b) Well drilling muds - because of trace amounts of
contaminents of heavy metals.
c) Oil production brines - because of trace amounts of
contaminents of heavy metals.
Although the total volumes of drilling muds and produced brines that our
industry deals with is large, the volume at each well site (or production facility)
is small, and the trace amounts of materials classified as objectionable, although
measurable, do not materially affect the quality of the groundwater, or the safe
productivity of the soil. We would refer the E.P.A. to the Interstate Oil Compact
Commission Studies on the quality of drinking water in areas of Oil and Gas
production.
May I point out, that a major water supply source field for the city of
Midland, Texas, has 26 producing water wells which were drilled in the late 1950's.
In the past seven years more than this number of oil wells have been drilled in
this water supply field. The engineer in charge of this water field operation,
Mr. John Lowe, stated to me that they have not detected any contamination of the
water due to these oil well operations. Also due to the soil conditions, it is his
opinion that there is no way leaching, of surface contaminates from pits used in
such operations, could even reach the water sand at a depth of 200 feet. Also,
-------
3001
Mr. Lowe stated that the re-charge of this water formation, being the Ogallah
Formation is practically zero. We're attaching a copy of the Railroad Com-
mission letter to this statement.
In the Permian Basin, 5,422 wells were drilled in 1978, and because of
what we think is improper classification of drilling muds as Hazardous Wastes
in the proposed regulations, each of these wells would face an additional first
year cost of $ 75,000 or more, and a long term cost of $135000 or more, for a
total cost in excess of $210,000 per well. This totals $1,138,620,000 and exceeds
the dry hole cost of the wells drilled in 1978 in the Permian Basin. The same
drilling budget, in 1979, would produce less than half as many wells, seriously
jeopardizing the search for domestic oil and gas supplies so desperately needed
for our country's survival.
The Permian Basin contains many thousands of "stripper" and'\narginal"
wells which account for 14% and 24.1%, respectively, of our areas current total
production. These wells are very close to the economic limit of production, and
could by no means bear the estimated per well cost of something in excess of
$65,000 per well (without leachate monitoring) ^ .^ -vould have to be plugged and
abandoned prior to the inception date of the regulations. How can this nation
afford to throw away potentially 50% or more of its proven reserves of oil and gas,
and the thousands of jobs that these reserves will support for many years. We
find nothing in the Federal Register regarding economic impact of these proposed
regulations - a requirement under current law.
The intent of our Nation's Congress was to provide protection against known
Hazardous Wastes. The E.P.A. by its own admission, states that very little is
known about the hazards to groundwater, land productivity, or human health - if
any hazard actually exists - from drilling muds and produced brines. The Permian
Basin Petroleum Association strongly recommends that no definition as a Hazardous
-------
3001
Waste need be applied to drilling muds or oilfield produced brines, or, in any
case, not until adequate studies of the industry and its practices have been
concluded and thoroughly analyzed.
-------
JOHN H. POERNER. Chairman
MACK WALLACE, Comm lilio,
JAMES E. (JIM) NUGENT, Coi
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
OIL AND GAS DIVISION
.f^J""'--
.•'%
BOB R. HARRIS, P. E.
Chief Engineer
PHILLIP R. RUSSELL, P. E.
Director, Field Operation*
February 12, 1979
AUSTIN, TEXAS 7871 1
Mr. Ed Thompson
Permian Basin Petroleum Association
10U Western Unit Life Buildin/?
Midland, Texas 79701
Dear Mr. Thompson:
A review of our records on a statewide basis shows but four incidents
where there was a possibility of a water sand being affected by the
drilling of a nearby oil well.
We have had numerous problems relative to drilling mud escaping from
reserve pits, but almost nil of fresh water strata being affected by mud
or salt water during drilling.
Please advise if additional information is needed.
Yours v / truly,
PRH:mz
cc: Bob Harris
DirecTOr of Field Operations
-------
Pcrmian Basin P^roleum Association
can't afford \ STJL ..! J PO Box 132 • (915)684-6345 • Midland, Texas 79702
to run short ^ m ' "' '
3004
The 1500 members of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association (small, independent
businessmen and producers of crude oil and gas in West Texas and Southeastern New
Mexico) would be among the first to say that it is important to protect the environ-
ment in areas that produce oil and gas, because that is their home. This region
produces almost 1/3 of the oil and gas produced in the United States.
However, it is our belief that the standards applicable to owners, or operators
of Hazardous Waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, as proposed under
Section 3004, are inappropriate, unnecessary, overly burdensome, have infinite
cost/benefit ratios, or cannot be accomplished by the industry and the manpower and
machinery currently available in the country.
Site selection and design for a drilling or producing well are dictated by the
natural occurrence of crude oil or gas in commercial quantities and by many State
Regulatory Rules and private contractual obligations. If"wetlands" and "500 year
floodplains" are excluded as potential drill sites, 1/4 to 1/2 of this country's
potential sedimentary basins would be left unexplored. We can also envision certain
technical problems with trying to rig up a rotary on top of Pikes Peak, and tap a
deposit of oil or gas near Corpus Christ! by directional drilling.
There are strongly differing opinions as to whether the financial requirements
are in truth removed in the case of drilling muds and brines, or what might be added
on at any subsequent time. These financial requirements could shut down nearly all
the domestic drilling and producing industry with no true, or proven benefit.
-------
3004
Of the 600,000 or more producing oil and gas wells in the United States today,
probably fewer than 200 have any need for round the clock surveillance or security
because of any public health or environmental contamination danger. The balance
of the wells are generally inspected on a daily basis for any problems. To accomp-
lish site security and around the clock surveillance would require the hiring and
training of a work force of 60,000 complete with transportation vehicles at a cost
that would cause most of these wells to be plugged.
The filing of SPCC type plans with all local and state agencies would benefit
only the manufacturer's of paper and file cabinets and storage warehouses. This
volume of reports would inundate the recipients to the point that they would be
valueless and the recipients would not have the people to even file or comprehend
them. Witness the fact that the Texas Railroad Commission has to get an emergency
additional appropriation of $500,000 to initiate compliance with the State's portion
of the NGPA of 1978.
The oil and gas producing industry is a capital intensive industry that requires
well trained workers with above average capabiliti -r The training of our existing
personnel is a continuous ongoing job. We would question again, however, any reason-
able cost/benefit ratio of the proposed training and record-keeping under Section
3004.
The closure and long term care of a variety of "facilities" that would come
under regulations in the proposed Section 3004 would present significant legal
problems that might well prove unsolvable. Our economic impact statements address
the prohibitive costs involved.
Most technical problems can be solved, in this day and time, if the money
required does not run out. So it is with the surface water, groundwater and leachate
monitoring proposals in Section 3004. We would state again that no proof has been
-------
3004
brought forth of any significant contamination of surface or subsurface waters
by drilling muds and only a very few isolated instances of contaminations from
produced brines. Current practices by the industry, under existing State or
Federal Regulatory agencies, (which agencies EPA seems to have ignored or not
contacted during its previous 3 years work), are producing no known or predictable
hazards and so the enormous costs proposed by Section 3004 produce zero benefits.
The storage requirements set forth for ponds, tanks, and containers of Hazardous
Wastes would include all oil and gas production vessels and would necessitate a
complete moving and rebuilding of all facilities currently in use. These requirements
would seem to fit large chemical plants rather than isolated wells.
The proposals in Section 3004, to deal with the Treatment and Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes, again seem designed for stationary plants or sanitary landfills
dealing with highly toxic materials or deadly poisons. The many requirements here
that would point out the wrong classifications of drilling muds and brines, crude
oil or crude oil waste, or produced brines under Section 3001, which we addressed
before.
The Permian Basin Petroleum Association would strongly recommend that no re-
quirement under Section 3004 be applicable to drilling muds, crude oil or crude oil
wastes, or produced brines unless, and until, the currently proposed 2 year study
has been completed and thoroughly analyzed in all aspects. Prior application of
these proposed regulations could initiate the shut down of a great portion of our
industry, the premature plugging of hundreds of thousands of wells, which could
never be redrilled for the remaining reserves, and the complete loss of our national
security because of added dependence on overseas, unreliable sources of energy.
The basic conception that all government regulators should be free from any
industry experience in the area that they deal with is laudable to some degree.
-------
3004
However, this lack of industry experience carries with it the very heavy burden
of che responsibility for 24 hour, 7 day a week study to become knowledgeable
enough, without bias, to propose proper regulation. The E.P.A. has been working
in this area for 3 years, but from the presentation of these proposed regulations,
with regard to oil field operations, we can conceive no first hand knowledge of, or
any attempt to learn, the workings of the oil field - drilling, exploration or
production.
Thank you for this opportunity to publicly express our position on this
proposal.
-30-
-------
Statement of Edward G. Gladbach
on Behalf of
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
and
The Edison Electric Institute
Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations to
Implement Section 3003 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
and Proposed Amendments to the Hazardous
Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 171 to 177
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation
March 13, 1979
San Francisco, California
My name is Edward G. Gladbach. I am employed as a
civil engineer with the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, and am responsible for the Power System's water
quality and solid waste programs.
I am appearing today on behalf of the Department
of Water and Power, the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group (USWAG) and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) .
For those of you not familiar with USWAG, let me
briefly describe the group. USWAG is an informal consortium
of electric utilities and the EEI. Currently, over 70 utility
operating companies are participants in USWAG. These
companies own and operate a substantial percentage of the
electric generatior capacity in the United States. EEI is
the principal national association of investor~owned electric
light and power companies; And as you know, the Department
is municipally-owned.
-------
Over the last several weeks, USWAG representatives
have testified regarding the importance of coal to the electric
utility industry, and the impact of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) on that industry. I will not
reiterate the various points covered in our previous testimony.
Indeed, we will soon be submitting written comments on the
proposed regulations which will cover our concerns in detail.
However, I will comment today on something we have
not fully addressed before — certain aspects of the regula-
tions proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Department of Transportation (DOT) which concern the
transportation of hazardous waste materials under Section 3003
of RCRA and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974.
I should point out initially that USWAG firmly be-
lieves that the great bulk of utility wastes are not hazardous.
If this should turn out to be the case, then the utility
industry will not be concerned with regulations regarding
transportation of hazardous wastes promulgated by either EPA
or DOT. However if utility wastes -- or any significant
bulk of utility wastes — are hazardous under the criteria
established pursuant to S 3001 of RCRA, then we do have major
concerns. These concerns are what I would like to address today.
USWAG has a fundamental problem with regard to the
applicability of EPA's proposed 3003 regulations to utility
-------
wastes. Specifically, is concern centers on the relation-
ship between those regulations and EPA's proposed "special
waste" rules under 3004. As now drafted, the 3004 regulations
appear to suggest that only waste transporters who also qualify
as owners or operators of special waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities will be regulated under the "special
waste" rules. If so, those transporters who are not also
treatment storage and disposal facilities (TSDF) owners or
operators will not be covered by the special rules. A fur-
ther question is raised from the proposed 3004 regulations
regarding whether even owners or operators of TSDF sites in
their roles as "transporters" would be subject to the full
panoply of 3003 requirements, even though in their capacities
as owners or operators of TSDF sites they would be regulated
under the special rules.
We do not believe that such a regulation is sensible;
nor do we believe that it was intended. We thus urge that
the language be clarified to provide that all transporters
I/
of "special" utility wastes be subject to the same regula-
tory requirements (i^.e^. , those contained in Section 250.46)
2/
as owners and operators of TSDF sites for special wastes.
I/ I.-S. , hazardous special waste as described in proposed
Section 250.46.
2/ This same approach should be taken with regard to gener-
ators of special wastes.
-------
In fact, we question whether EPA should be in the
transportation business at all. As we read the transporter
regulations proposed by EPA, they seem to duplicate and over-
lap the DOT transporter regulations. Such redundancy is not
V
called for by RCRA and we suggest that transporter regula-
tions may well be properly within the jutisdiction of DOT,
I/
rather than EPA.
Should EPA ultimately decide that it must pro-
mulgate transporter regulations to carry out its RCRA obliga-
tions, we cannot stress strongly enough that EPA and DOT must
have a coordinated regulatory approach. Unfortunately, it
appears that the proposed EPA transporter regulations over-
look three areas which are essential to this coordination.
First, the EPA proposals do not contain exemption
provisions for those transporters who demonstrate that alter-
nate transport practices (not called for by Subpart C) achieve
an adequate level of safety. DOT already has an established
V See Section 3003(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6923 (1976).
See alsc), Executive Order 12044, which imposes an obliga-
tion on every regulatory agency to avoid duplicative and
overlapping regulations.
_4/ The transportation of PCB's may present a special prob-
lem. PCB's are comprehensively regulated under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. EPA and DOT must take care that
any regulations under RCRA or the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act do not interfere with the regulatory
scheme already in place.
-------
I/
exemption procedure in its current regulations; in order for
EPA regulations to be consistent, we believe that Subpart C
must also have similar provisions, or at the very least must
give full recognition to any DOT exemption.
Second, EPA has failed to include a preemption pro-
vision in its proposed regulations. We are concerned about
the possibility that various states will pass their own regu-
lations covering the transportation of waste, and that such
regulations will be more stringent than those proposed by
EPA. For instance, proposed Section 250.32 requires a
transporter to have an identification code number from EPA
or an authorized state. Authorized states might adopt dif-
ferent coue systems; thus, an interstate transporter would
be required to comply with various state code systems. In
addition, various states might adopt more stringent packaging
and containerization requirements. In fact, it is theoreti-
cally possible that a transporter would be faced with 50 dif-
ferent state transporter requirements. USWAG fully endorses
DOT'S proposed amendment to its transporter regulations, which
would preempt inconsistent state or local transporter require-
i/
ments, and urges that EPA follow suit.
V See 49 C.F.R. § 107.101 et seq. (1977).
y See 43 Fed. Reg. 22628 (May 25, 1978), proposed amendment
to 49 C.F.R. § 171.3(e).
-------
Thirdly, we are concerned that the EPA transporter
regulations have been proposed without regard to degrees of
hazard. Thus, utility wastes, if they are declared "hazard-
ous" under the 3001 tests, would be fully subject to the
Subpart C requirements, despite the absence of any evidence
indicating that they pose any substantial present or poten-
tial risk to health or the environment when transported.
EPA has not structured its proposed transporter regulations
to make any differentiation between deadly poisons, on the
one hand, and innocuous substances such as fly ash on the
other. Identical requirements are proposed for all wastes
categorized as "hazardous" when transported. On the other
hand, DOT's current regulations do take this into account.
For example, DOT placarding requirements are not imposed on
every hazardous material whereas the EPA proposals would re-
quire placarding and marking for every vehicle moving more
y
than 1000 pounds.
I would now like to comment upon a proposed DOT
"packaging" requirement that could be unduly burdensome to
7/ Furthermore, it appears that proposed DOT regulations will
permit differentiation. DOT suggests a definition of
"hazardous waste" as follows: "[A]ny material that may
pose an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property
when transported . . . and which is subject to the EPA
requirements specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 250." 43 Fed.
Reg. 22631 (May 25, 1978), proposed amendment to 49 C.F.R.
§ 171.8 (emphasis added).
-------
transporters of special utility waste and would, in our view,
yield no environmental benefit. DOT has proposed to prohibit
the transport of bulk waste in the "Other Regulated Material"
I/
category in open-top vehicles such as dump trucks.
Many utilities transport ash and sludge in open dump
trucks. Our dry ash is conditioned with moisture which causes
the ash to form a crust. This practice has proven to be a
satisfactory method for dust control and prevents the ash
from being dispersed during transport. Our scrubber sludges
are dewatered and fixed in a solid state. We are unaware of
any case where transporting special utility wastes by this
method has resulted in environmental harm. Clearly, if open
hauling is flatly prohibited as proposed, overall waste man-
agement costs will dramatically increase. Also, reuse of
utility wastes will be hampered because many reuses are al-
ready economically marginal. We urge that this proposal not
be adopted with respect to high volume utility wastes.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning.
8/ 43 Fed. Reg. 22630 (May 25, 1978), proposed amendment
to 49 C.F.R. § 173 .510.
-------
Burlingame
March 13, 1979
TO: Environmental Protection Agency
FROM: California Trucking Association
SUBJECT: HM Docket 145-A -- Transport of Hazardous Waste
Material
Gentlemen:
My name is John P. Hellmanri,! am employed as Executive
Assistant to the Director, Transportation Economics Division,
California Trucking Association, P.O. Box 923, Burlingame,
California.
The CTA is an organization whose members cover every field or
type of trucking operations conducted within the state of
California. Each type of trucking operation may at some
point in time be asked to haul a hazardous waste material.
Our main concern with the regulations that have been proposed
by your agency, is that they must be uniform and follow the
same guidelines as to descriptors that are applied to all
forms of transportation by the U. S. Department of Transporta-
tion.
The trucking industry is the most flexible of all types of
transport used by industry within the U. S., therefore the
regulations that your agency may impose on us, must conform
with those of the U. S. DOT, our local State Health
Authorities and with the enforcing agencies.
Thank you for allowing us the time and opportunity to tell
you of our chief concern.
Me
-------
BEFORE THE
MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DOCKET NO. HM-145-A NOTICE NO. 78-6
MARCH 13, 1979
EPA REGIONAL OFFICE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
STATEMENT OF: RICK ROSE
IN BEHALF OF: NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE
-------
My name is Rick Rose and my position is Transporta-
tion Manager, Hazardous Materials for International Minerals
& Chemical Corporation.
I am representing the National Industrial Traffic
League; an organization composed of domestic and international
shippers located throughout the United States; whose primary
concern is safe and economical transportation of people and
property.
Addressing the "Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act" for general application, is extremely difficult because
of the many faceted approaches to compliance. The Govern-
ment has offered the several states several options as how
to enact a program for hazardous v/aste disposal. These
options, combined with "import bans", intimate it apparently
will be many months before total regulations will be promul-
gated that will contain enough uniformity so that "cradle-to-
grave" mandates are enforceable throughout the United States.
There is in effect, however, Federal Regulations,
although still in refinement stages, that have provisions to
regulate a substantial portion of the necessary regulations
for hazardous waste materials disposal. These regulations
are found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts
100 thru 199.
-------
The requirements for: identification and classifica-
tion of product, documentation, labeling, placarding, packag-
ing and certification, though designated for commercial pro-
ducts, could readily apply to waste materials. Because of
foreign matter in the waste, descriptions will not be pre-
cisely accurate but should be close enough that the properties
of the waste materials could be identified by emergency response
personnel in case of incident, and, by environmentalists for
incident and disposal.
Section 3003 (b) of Public Law 94-580 advocates
consistency with the "Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(Public Law 93-633) for compliance. Section 3003 is dedi-
cated to "standards applicable to transporters of hazardous
waste". When that statement becomes an integral part of
49 CFB, with reference to Section 3003, it v/ill clarify
the intent.
The contradiction of Section 3003 (b) lies in
Section 3001 (a) "Criteria for Identification or Listing".
This section grants the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency authority to establish criteria for identi-
fication of hazardous materials waste though this authority
to classify hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials
-------
Transportation Act was mandated to the Department of Transpor-
tation .
Representative James J. Floria (D-NJ) titled the RCRA
action as the "sleeper" issue of the year. We respectfully
pray that this already complex subject will not be further com-
plicated by inter-agency disagreements.
On behalf of the NIT-League, I thank you for the
opportunity to voice our opinion.
-------
5-
Fr.t.
-f |\(Lh«-,
rcK tAcltAitrial t>° ' (•t.r-t ^Mfc'j^cf' cxt'u ^c iv\*^KVr r* ov*" iKcliAClV i^ . l r\i<^ |)l"C.^ ri'c
IS WnoM1^ )v\ <-C i~, so r\cvv\c-< v^i'A ^ K-«
l"~|0) I 'cl f~ )ITN IfKt ft t/' a IJ S'-Ppc-Kt-il )o
j>ronc,s-te| (--te.xjtvhont urj^.,- Sto
prAt/jcc.^' <^ I'^^-c w K-« — • w«,
u
Hon 3OO2. vf/c
r^
«.CcrKi-MC
Cci4AfVo..
rfsr J fs/^-v^s i w
-< I* e*f-c-*- V^eu
i*«>.4 I— c« J«tho'/>
11 «
cf
,
F I
N
ri^ So/v-i^f w£-«J tv,
iii
IP is f«<-i
t» l-ic-
f"k»
'^r
x-« «lvi
i« ^»
' "'*
l'ic^ ( OL J Sn^c-
m'v,<, 1/vJ^y/Vu ^«.|
o,dl« ( s.^t ^N
~i»i's iVf. <*4
Ur, oT f
-------
v 2.SO.|f-
£wl,A ur-t<
^ o«l*^ t-u J-J.-.ih.. 0/
C«^ I' P~*- <\ssvw^-cu ik*' -* r&r
c /
cu*-i
i - ibfA.^ ^ i\o-^, ^4t^*Al(i»\&
tk ,'s •w •S^rvJ^Y''" A"^ '
IKol -^l-^r-.t^(" of f"k-l Slv*c|ert. wU
r«s>j-t (-<-«\c I' ts/-C or ("exit »
I ^1'^ \1 p^-^Jp-C^V of I^K<- W
'w^-ir. 5"C* ^rJ ',J"0-0 <^ HorM 0-^r-
irfj— frtt- P«/"il«. K-«^Ki r«.^vici ( /A
l-c l2)tr««jl(i>syy«cAt'ts
^<< -f SO /ts,. f ^4-
rr*r
ex u_^^-«-^
ts /) r «
|00
5 t-cci ti
i»\A Va^ti-o */^^
s « r^<-«r ol
'l^y ">J«
ss. c e-**t- *v h c^s « r^<-«r ol
lr
o f
-------
v-1
n$>i
-fo
T(OM NICOLAS
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
RICHARD S. YOSHIKAWA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
-f l
U5 "people,
"H\
(JosVxf
l
-------
«»tif!np * I
'«; *!!!;. !iii!;ii;! s-i
£»§ *:sss E-sa-.s!- *sg
&i? jgs^s. sa^^sw
|§a &|I|I I**II3
^- —ao «
H ?i3Ba II
-------
Valime Inc. Intends r> Comply
With Magnesium Warning Request
Officials of Valimet Inc. say they
intend to comply with a state request
to fence off and post warning signs
around two sites on their property at
431E. Sperry Rd. where magnesium
and magnesium wastes are buried.
Plant Manager William Lang in-
sists, however, the buried magne-
sium poses no particular hazard.
William Jophng, acting assistant
chief of the hazardous materials dis-
posal section of the State Depart-
ment of Health Services, says that
oxidation of buried magnesium prod
uces explosive hydrogen gas, but he
concedes that the possibility of an
explosion on the Valimet property is
"pretty remote.'
Jopling has asked Valimet to
monitor for escaping gas from the
two sites and to provide an inventory
of all unburied magnesium wastes.
Lang says Valimet sold off or in-
cinerated most of the magnesium
which was left on the property when
Valimet acquired it from Hudson
Meralurgical Inc. in 1975. The rest of
the magnesium, most it wastes, was
bulled m accordance with "normal
procedures" for such disposal
through oxidation, Lang says,
pointing out that the burial was done
with the knowledge of the French
Camp Fire Department.
Jopling maintains that his office
should have been contacted by Va-
limet before the magnesium was
buried, but he acknowledges that the
state law requiring a permit for dis-
posal of hazardous materials was not
in effect until Janaury, 1978
County officials say they refer haz-
ardous disposal matters to the
state.
Valimet's buried magnesium could
be disposed of through incineration,
says Jopling, but he adds that un-
earthing it to be burned could be
more hazardous than leaving it in the
ground.
30 Monday, Jin. 22. 1979
Stockton (Cifif.) Reeon)
-------
E OF CALIFORNIA — HEALTH A
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES D „ _ Vxr->^ ^ /£."T»^
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 ~ "* "
(916) 322-2337 -AN 2 2 1973 January 18, 1979
•"»*«**« RECEIVED
Mr. W. K. Fortman, President ' " ' •'
Dear Mr. Fortman:
This letter concerns the matter of magnesium waste storage and disposal at
the Valimet, Inc. facility in Stockton. Based on our investigation, we
have concluded that the present storage and disposal practice is not in
conformance with State law and regulations regarding the management of
hazardous wastes and constitutes a potentially hazardous situation.
With regard to the buried magnesium wastes, Valimet, Inc. must provide
interim measures to secure and monitor the disposal areas. The interim
measures must include the following:
1. Disposal areas shall be fenced with four-foot woven wire fencing
topped with barted wire and secured to heavy duty T-posts or
equivalent set at no more than 10 feet intervals.
2. Warning signs shall be posted on all sides of both disposal areas.
The signs should state: "Danger, Do Not Enter", "Hazardous Wastes",
and "No Smoking or Open Flame".
3. Vegetation around the disposal sites shall be controlled so that
the fencing and posted signs will be clearly visible and the possi-
bility of a brush fire reaching the disposal sites is minimal.
4. Valimet, Inc. shall monitor the disposal areas at least weekly for the
presence of hydrogen gas with a vapor tester and probe< A record of
the monitoring shall be maintained.
With regard to unburied magnesium wastes, Valimet, Inc. must:
1. Conduct an inventory of the location, amount and form of all magnesium
wastes at the Stockton facility. A copy of the inventory information
shall be provided to the Hazardous Materials Management Section.
The above interim measures must be carried out by March 1, 1979.
Valimet, Inc. niust provide the means for a permanent-solution for the
disposition of both the stored and buried wastes in a safe manner which
meets applicable laws and regulations. The company should investigate
-------
Mr. W. K» Fortman January 18, 1979
the possibilities of the recovery of the buried wastes now or at some time
in the future. Possible options for the disposal, incineration, inactiva-
tion, reclamation, safe storage or other means to a solution for all wastes
should be investigated. The company shall provide the Department with a
proposed plan of action and schedule on or before April 1, 1979.
Please inform this office in writing by February 10, 1979, that you will
comply with the above requirements.
A copy of our laws and regulations regarding hazardous waste management
are enclosed for your information.
Sincerely,
Acting Chief
Hazardous Materials Management Section
Enclosures (2)
cc: Kenneth Buell, Chief
Environmental Health Branch
714/744 P Street, Room 430
Sacramento, CA 95814
Office of Legal Affairs
714/744 P Street, Room 1200
Sacramento, CA 95314
James Stahler
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
San Joaquin Local Health District
P. 0. Box 2009
Stockton, CA 95201
_Js», San Joaquin County Plannlun. np|mrtmont
'" Ml/i; Mr. Del a bin
1810 F.. Hazel ton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95201
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
3201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
French Camp-McKinley Fire Department
P. 0. Box 304
Stockton, CA 95202
-------
SANJOAOUIN
COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION
1850 E. Hazelton
Stockton, California
Phone 944-2203
Supervisor Yoshikawa
T0_
fROM Dora De La Torre, Planning Dept. ^~) DATE Dec. 14, 1978
SUBJECT Burial of Magnesium at Valimet, Inc.
Following receipt of your memo concerning the burial of
magnesium at 431 East Sperry Road, Stockton, I contacted
Steve Thienes, County Fire Warden, for assistance.
Mr. Thienes contacted the French Camp-McKinley Fire District
and asked that they check for possible violations of their
requirements.
On December 12th I contacted the State Department of Waste
Management in Berkeley and spoke with Mr. Paul Williams,
Hazardous Materials Management Section, and discussed
this problem with him.
Mr. Williams promised to investigate, although he could not
promise to have someone investigate before year's end.
Due to the holidays, they are short a few people.
He indicated that permits from their department are necessary
and expressed concern that they apparently were not contacted
by Valimet, Inc.
I conveyed the information regarding location and the plant
manager's name. I also asked for a written report on the
outcome of their investigation. I explained the County's
concerns and that we would appreciate an early response.
DD:bnc
RECEIVED
"i I,- d
BOAT!) C'7 SU.W/ISOR3
-------
LIQUID
WASTE
Division of
'GIMELLI
'BROTHERS
SAN JOSE/279-2029
326 PHELAN AVENUE • SAN JOSE, CA 95112
yarch 12, 1979
U.S. dKVIRCR.SiMTAL RROCiCTlQK A^fcy
HAZARDOUS ASTE . AiNACni LHT OIVISIOi;
OfVICE OF SOLID .ASCE ('..H-.j5.j)
Waterside I-all, 4O1 .-; Street
;ashiniton U.C. 2O4^O
Attention: RCRA Co;.w0if_5 Director
Uear Director,
Trie title selected for iAio. L. 94-58O (Octooer til, 1976), the Resource Conser-
vation ana Recovery Act, inplies a stron; interest in recycliny of industrial
chemical va^tes. In onier to facilitate the resource recovery concept, the
rules should uc amcri'-'co to include provisions Tor ectaBliuiinr:, Class I
inaterials Resource Recovery sites. A Class i Resource Recovery Site is
conceptually ridl'i'erent from a Cldss I disposal site.
In a Class I material & Resource Recovery site, industrial chemical vnstes
receivei-t would, be identiTieci and classified v;ith re- ,ard to their reuse
potential. Taose materials no'./ beim conin led in c:o'rr.x>n uunyin, sites
Uiat can be econonically recycled x;ould oe stored in a discrete safe area
\;ithin the site. j\. current inventory ol' rocj/claoles and their location
i.'itliin fie site ',;ould be rmcie available to all interested reusers of toese
natcrials. I'atcr-ials '..atii hi, i'1 n&2ard risl; anc. small lii^eliJiood of sale or
economical reuse i/crola hcive to be - ivcn safe Ion.-, tenn stora ;e uacier the
provisions of 'Rao. L. 0'i~o'3Q as '..yitten in its present form.
The s/ster.i proyo^Ci', oy tie Califomi^i 'Jcot^rtracnt of '-Icaltti Services for
laentifyin'; rec^laolc industrial che.iical v/.xotca snoula oe ac^ptec; into
the .icsourcc R.ecovcr/ and Conservation j-'ct in its entirety to facilitate
rec'.'clin ,.
The liability of the mate producer for nis v.'aste materials should legally
encl ;fien he has coinpiied ",/ith all provisions of ijuo. L, 94-5JO anu turned
his materials over to a licensed entity for the .jurpose ol' rec_clin ' or
disposal. If a jrocjucerw aaerrdcal "'..tiste" stream is reusea after it is
received by an authorized, approved, liceiitseu entity, "trien the reuser
siiould not nr)J:e a lepal claim a, ^inst -Sic original "vja.ste" producer.
'ihe p'jrpose of r.nlcin:; this le ,al distinction a port of Rub. L. 04-580 is
-------
LIQUID
WASTE
Division of
GIMELLI
^BROTHERS
SAN JOSE/279-2029
326 PHELAN AVENUE • SAN JOSE, CA 95112
to remove a serious obDtocle to resource recovery; tnat is, tine fear that
the original producer often lias that he will be held liaale for his "waste"
materials in perpetuity. Obviously radioactive naterials, active carcinogens
ana eictrernely hazardous items cannot be indiscriminately reintroduced as
articles of coimerce. The vast najority of industrial chemicals can, how-
ever, be recovered, recontoined, and reused by technically conpetent individ-
uals without any Beater hazards than ilien they were oriyinallj' used.
In summary, ttie spirit and intent of the Resource Recovery and Conservation
Act should be preserved in ttie final form of Pub. L. 94-580 by inclusion
of the Resource Recovery site concept and a careful reexamination of waste
producers perpetual liability for safely recycled materials.
Jarncs H. Van Sant
'Technical ME
JHVSrpm /' /
-------
13 March 79
9:15 am
TELEGRAM READ ON THE TELEPHONE BY WESTERN UNION;
TO "HEARING OFFICER" >
RCRA draft should update mining regulations before
permit (chrome and nickle extraction Six Rivers
National Forest California — steep terrain, shallow
soils, slides, summer irrigation required — required
posting bond, ongoing monitoring of replanting,
slag controls protecting tributaries, salmon spawning
creeks of Smith River). Denied permits some vulner-
able sites (Death Valley — mining viewed February
travesty to National Monuments) add reclaimed effluent
irrigation water standards chemicals contaminants
for animals — plant safety to present (public
health 2.2 coliform in public use areas) required
on point run off containment and recycling water
before draining into water courses (Richardson
Bay Development Warin County).
Margaret Zegart, Mill Valley
(copy will be mailed by WU to 215 Fremont St. today)
-------
STATEMENT OF
JUSTISS-MEARS OIL COMPANY, INC.
JENA, LOUISIANA
ON
PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS ON INDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 243
-------
J f- JUSTtSS
JUSTISS-MEARS OIL COMPANY, INC.
FIRST STREET
P O DRAWER N PHONE 992-4U
JENA, LOUISIANA 71342
February 21, 1979
Justiss-Mears Oil Company, Inc. is a Louisiana Corporation involved in
exploratory drilling activities, primarily in that State. Additionally,
we operate 26 drilling rigs in the contract drilling segment of the Oil
and Gas Industry. These rigs work almost exclusively in the Southeastern
United States. We also operate 10 well servicing rigs and approximately
100 oil and gas wells in the North Louisiana area. All of the above
referenced departments either purchase, handle for our own or the account
of others, and dispose of, drilling mud. We employ about 900 employees
most of which are involved in the contract drilling and well servicing
operations.
Our company was formed in 1946 and since that time has drilled, for ours
and other companies, several thousand wells. We have utilized, over that
period of time, every type drilling fluid available to the Oil s Gas
Indus try, We have, on rare occasions, been accused of having left on
location a messy or unsightly condition associated with drilling activities.
These claims usually have been associated with inclement weather conditions
where proper housekeeping procedures were temporarily prohibited. To the
best of our knowledge/ we have never, as a result of improperly handled or
disposed of drilling mud, been accused of inflicting property or environmental
damages, either by the land owner or any regulatory agency responsible for
monitoring our activities in the environmental area.
In Louisiana, we have, historically, been environmentally regulated by three
State agencies: The Louisiana Department of Conservation, The Stream Control
Commission, and The Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Department, All three agencies
have policed independently and all three have legal jurisdiction over our
activities. We have the additional responsibility of reporting any mechanical
failure or accidental spill whereby contaminents could become involved with
drainage into navigable streams to the U. S. Coast Guard. Naturally this
covers all geographical areas as all drainage eventually enters navigable
streams.
With all the safeguards presently in effect regarding environmental pollution,
it seems to us that to place additional burdens on the manufacturer, supplier,
-------
contractor, and owner of a material, such as drilling mud, that has
no proven environmental ill effects on its historical record is to
further handicap an industry that is almost incapable of assuming
additional regulatory responsibilities. The resulting confusion and
delay cannot help but have an adverse effect on our company, our employees,
and the ability of a struggling domestic oil and gas industry in its
efforts to meet the energy requirements of this nation.
Our position is not to belittle a much needed environmental protection
policy to control the processing and disposal of hazardous materials.
Nor do we request exceptions for the Oil and Gas Industry on the basis
of ours being a crucial industry that must be permitted to function
efficiently. We believe all industries should be accountable for their
hazardous materials. We do contend though that a shotgun approach that
classifies such materials as drilling mud (that quite often has a beneficial
effect on its environment) as a hazardous product should not be imposed on
an industry that is reeling under the economic impact of Federal Regulations
imposed in recent months.
Thank you for the opportunity of presenting our thoughts concerning this
vital issue.
JUSTISS-ME&RS, OIL COMPANY, INC.
President
-------
-------
------- |