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

-------

-------

-------