United States Office of
Environmental Protection Solid Waste
0 ! . ~" Agency Washington DC 20460
Solid Waste
4>EPA Proposed Hazardous
Waste Regulations
Volume 3
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 III
Marchl3, 1979, San Francisco, California 94105
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-52p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
This prepublication copy of this transcript does not include
printed matter submitted at the time of the hearing. This material
will be included in the final printing.
-------
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
VOLUME_j.I__I
Pages 539 - 652
7:03 p.m.
March 13, 1979
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Reported by:
JERRY R. SMYTHE, CSR
(CSR No. 2393)
-------
-------
1 ,
1 INDEX
2 ARNE ROVICK, Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Phoenix,
Arizona 554
3
GEORGE HERSH, Chief, Resource Recovery Division,
California State Solid Waste Management Board 565
5 DONALD MORROW, General Manager, Agrico Chemical
Company's Mining Division 578
6
WILLIAM PARK, California Chemical Waste
Processors Association 588
8 STEVE MUSSELL, Facilities Planning Group,
Manufacturing Department, Chevron U.S.A. 616
9
SAM CHAPIN, Assistant Vice President, Voight
Walker and Company, San Francisco 626
11 ARIEL PARKINSON, private citizen (Member of
the California State Solid Waste Management
12 Board) 636
13 PATRICK H. WICKS, Chem-Nuclear Systems,
Bellevue, Washington 642
14
15 n
oOo
16 "
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
540
1 HEARING PANEL
2 DOROTHY DARRAH
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 Management 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 TIM FIELDS
Desk Officer - Section 3004
19 Hazardous V/'aste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
21 ALAN ROBERTS
Associate Director for Hazardous Materials Regulation
22 U.S. Department of Transportation
23
24
25
-------
541
___- j-.os O'CLOCK P.M.
2 MR. LEHMAN: Good evening, ladies and
3 gentlemen. My name is John Lehman, and I am the
4 Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division
5 of EPA's Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C.
6 On behalf of EPA, I would like to welcome
7 you to the public hearing which is being held to
8 discuss the proposed regulations for the management
9 of hazardous waste. We appreciate your taking the
10 time to participate in the development of these
11 I regulations which are being issued under the authority
12 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
13 better known by its acronym R-C-R-A, or RCRA.
14 The Environmental Protection Agency on
15 December 18, 1978 issued proposed rules under Sections
16 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
17 Act as substantially amended by the Resource
18 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public Law
19 94-580.
20 These proposals respectively cover: First,
21 the criteria for identifying and listing hazardous
22 waste, identification methods, and a hazardous waste
23 list; second, standards applicable to generators of
24 such waste for recordkeeping, labeling, using proper
25 containers, and using a transport manifest; and,
-------
542
1 third, the performance, design, and operating
2 standards for hazardous waste management facilities.
3 These proposals, together with those already
4 published pursuant to Section 3003 on April 28, 1978
5 for transporters of hazardous waste, Section 3006 on
6 February 1, 1978 for State hazardous waste management
7 programs, Section 3008 on August 4, 1978 concerning
8 enforcement matters, and Section 3010 on July 11,
9 1978 concerning the notification program and that of
10 the Department of Transportation pursuant to the
11 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act on May 25, 1978
12 along with Section 3005 regulations concerning
13 facility permits which are soon to be proposed under
14 40 CFR, Parts 122, 123, and 124. All of these taken
15 together constitute the Hazardous Waste Regulatory
16 Program under Subtitle C of the Act.
17 So this hearing is being held as a part of
18 our public participation process in the development
19 of this regulatory program.
20 I'd like to introduce the panel members
21 who share the rostrum with me this evening. They are,
22 from your left, Harry Trask, Program Manager in our
23 Guidelines Branch of the Hazardous Waste Management
24 Division, EPA in Washington. Harry is the principal
25 staff member responsible for Sections 3002 and 3003.
-------
543
1 Alan Corson, who is the Chief of our
2 Guidelines Branch in the Hazardous Waste Management
3 Division, EPA, Washington, and who is the principal
4 staff member for Section 3001 of our regulations.
5 Amy Schaffer, Office of Enforcement, EPA
6 in Washington.
7 Dorothy Darrah, Office of General Counsel
8 from EPA in Washington.
9 Fred Lindsey, Chief of the Implementation
10 Branch of the Hazardous Waste Division in Washington.
11 Tim Fields, who is Program Manager in the
12 Assessment and Technology Branch of our Hazardous
13 Waste Division in Washington and who is the principal
14 staff person for Section 3004 of the regulation.
15 And Alan Roberts, who if I can get your
16 title right, Alan, I believe is Assistant Director
17 for the Hazardous Materials Transportation Bureau of
18 the Department of Transportation. Something close
19 to that. Also from Washington, D.C.
20 As noted in the Federal Register, our
21 planned agenda is to cover comments on Sections 3001
22 through 3004 this evening. And this session is
23 planned primarily for those who cannot attend during
24 the day sessions which have been ongoing for the
25 last two days and will conclude tomorrow.
-------
544
1 The comments received at this hearing, and
2 the other hearings as noted in the Federal Register,
3 together with the comment letters we receive, will be
4 a part of the official docket in this rulemaking
5 process. The comment period closes on March 16th for
6 Sections 3001 through 3004, and the docket may be
7 seen during normal working hours in Room 2111D,
8 Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, Southwest in Washington,
9 B.C.
10 In addition, we expect to have transcripts
11 of each hearing within about two weeks of the close
12 of the hearing. These transcripts will be available
13 for reading at any of the EPA libraries, and a list
14 of these locations is available at the registration
15 table.
16 With that as a background, I'd like to lay
17 the groundwork and rules for the conduct of this
18 hearing.
19 The focus of a public hearing is on the
20 public's response to a regulatory proposal of an
21 Agency, or in this case, Agencies, since both EPA and
22 the Department of Transportation are involved.
23 The purpose of this hearing is to solicit
24 comments on the proposed regulations, including any
25 background information used to develop the comment.
-------
545
1 This public hearing is being held not
2 primarily to inform the public nor to defend a propos-
3 ed regulation, but rather to obtain the public's
4 response to these proposed regulations, and thereafter
5 revise them as may seem appropriate. All major
6 substantive comments made at the hearing will be
7 addressed during preparation of the final regulations.
8 This will not be a formal adjudicatory
9 hearing with the right to cross-examination. The
10 members of the public are to present their views on
11 the proposed regulation to the panel, and the panel
12 may ask questions of the people presenting statements
13 to clarify any ambiguities in their presentations.
14 The Chairman reserves the right to limit
15 lengthy questions, discussions, or statements. And
16 we would ask that those of you who have a prepared
17 statement to make orally to please limit your
18 presentation to a maximum of 10 minutes so we can get
19 all statements in a reasonable time. If you have a
20 copy of your statement, please submit it to the court
21 reporter. We will also accept written statements at
22 the end of the hearing, and if you wish to submit a
23 written rather than oral statement please make sure
24 that the court reporter has a copy. The written
25 statements will also be included in their entirety in
-------
546
1 the record.
2 Persons wishing to make an oral statement
3 who have not made an advance request by telephone or
4 in writing should indicate their interest on the
5 registration card. If you have not indicated your
6 intent to give a statement and you decide to do so
7 later on, please return to the registration table,
8 fill out another card, and give it to one of the staff
9 As we call upon an individual to make a
10 statement, he or she should corne up to the lectern,
11 identify himself or herself for the court reporter,
12 and deliver his or her statement.
13 The Chairperson will inquire as to whether
14 the speaker is willing to entertain questions from
15 the panel. The speaker is under no obligation to do
15 so, although within the spirit of this information-
17 sharing hearing it would be of great assistance to the
18 Agency if questions were permitted.
19 I have a few housekeeping announcements
20 here. Restrooms and drinking fountains are located
21 on this floor, and we ask you to refer to a floor map
22 located behind the reception desk in the sixth fllor
23 lobby.
24 Also, you can get coffee from vending
25 machines located also on this floor. Unfortunately,
-------
547
1 we do not have public phones on this floor. You must
2 go to the first floor lobby if you wish to make a
3 public telephone call.
4 Also, if you wish to be added to our mailing
5 list for future regulations, draft regulations or
6 proposed regulations, please leave your business card
7 or name and address on a three-by-five card at the
8 registration desk.
9 The regulations under discussion at this
10 hearing are the core elements of a major regulatory
11 program to manage and control the country's hazardous
12 waste from generation to final disposal. The Congress
13 directed this action in the Resource Conservation and
14 Recovery Act of 1976, recognizing that disposal of
15 hazardous waste is a crucial environmental and health
16 problem which must be controlled.
17 In our proposal, we have outlined
18 requirements which set minimum norms of conduct for
19 those who generate, transport, treat, store and
20 dispose of hazardous waste.
21 These requirements, we believe, will close
22 the circle of environmental control begun earlier
23 with regulatory control of emissions and discharges of
24 contaminants to air, water, and the oceans.
25 Subtitle C establishes a comprehensive
-------
548
1 program to protect the public health and environment
2 from improper disposal of hazardous waste. Although
3 the program requirements are to be developed by the
4 Federal Government, the Act provides that States with
5 adequate programs can assume responsibility for
6 regulation of hazardous waste.
7 The basic idea of Subtitle C is that the
8 public health and the environment will be protected
9 if there is careful monitoring of transportation of
10 hazardous waste, and assurance that such waste is
11 properly treated, stored, or disposed of either at
12 the site where it is generated or after it is
13 carried from that site to a special facility in
14 accordance with certain standards.
15 Seven guidelines and regulations are being
16 developed and either have been or will be proposed,
17 as 1 noted earlier.
18 It is important to note that the definition
19 of solid wastes in the Act encompasses not only
20 garbage, refuse, sludges and so forth, but what is
21 termed other discarded materials, including liquids,
22 semi-solids and contained gases, with a few exceptions
23 from both Municipal and industrial sources.
24 So when we refer to solid waste, we mean
25 all of these waste products, including liquids and
-------
549
1 semi-solids and gases.
2 Hazardous wastes, which are a subset of all
3 solid waste and which will be identified by regula-
4 tions proposed under Section 3002, are those which
5 have particularly significant impacts on public
6 health and the environment.
7 Therefore, Section 3001 is the keystone
8 to the Subtitle C program. It's purpose is to
9 provide a means for determining whether a waste is
10 hazardous for the purposes of the Act and, therefore,
11 whether it must be managed according to the other
12 Subtitle C regulations.
13 Section 3001(b) provides two mechanisms
14 for determining whether a waste is hazardous: First,
15 a set of characteristics of hazardous waste; and,
16 second, a list of particular hazardous wastes. A
17 waste must be managed according to the Subtitle C
18 regulations if it either exhibits any of the
19 characteristics set out in the proposed regulations
20 or if it is listed.
21 Also, EPA is directed by Section 3001(a) of
22 the Act to develop criteria for identifying the set
23 of characteristics of hazardous waste and for
24 determining which wastes to list. In this proposed
25 rule, EPA sets out those criteria, identifies a set
-------
550
1 of characteristics of hazardous waste, and establishes
2 a list of particular hazardous wastes.
3 Also, the proposed regulation provides for
4 demonstration of noninclusion in the regulatory
5 program.
6 Section 3002 addresses standards applicable
7 to generators of hazardous waste. A generator is
8 defined as any person whose act or process produces
9 a hazardous waste. Minimum amounts generated and
10 disposed per month are established to further define
11 a hazardous waste generator. These standards exclude
12 household hazardous waste.
13 The generator standards will establish
14 requirements for the following: Recordkeeping,
15 labeling and marking of containers used for storage,
16 transport, or disposal of hazardous waste; use of
17 appropriate containers, furnishing information on the
18 general chemical composition of a hazardous waste;
19 use of a manifest system to assure that a hazardous
20 waste is designated to a permitted treatment, storage,
21 or disposal facility; and submitting reports to the
22 Administrator or authorized State program setting
23 out the quantity generated and its disposition.
24 Section 3003 requires the development of
25 standards applicable to transporters of hazardous
-------
551
1 wastes. These proposed standards address identifica-
2 tion codes, recordkeeping, acceptance and transporta-
3 tion of hazardous wastes, compliance with the manifest
4 system, delivery of the hazardous waste, spills of
5 hazardous waste and placarding and marking of vehicles
6 In this regard, the agency has coordinated very
7 closely with proposed and current U.S. Department of
8 Transportation Regulations.
9 Section 3004 addresses standards affecting
10 owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
H storage, and disposal facilities. These standards
12 define the levels of human health and environmental
13 protection to be achieved by these facilities and
14 provide the criteria against which EPA or State
15 officials will measure applications for permits.
If, Facilities on the generator's property, as well as
17 off-site facilities, are covered by these regulations
18 and do require permits. Generators and transporters
19 do not otherwise need permits.
20 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations
21 under all sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979.
22 It is important for the regulating communities to
23 understand, however, that the regulations under 3001
24 through 3005 do not take effect until six months after
25 they are promulgated. That would be approximately
-------
552
1 June of 1980.
2 Thus, there will be a time period after
3 final promulgation during which time public understand
4 ing of the regulations can be increased. During this
5 same period, notifications required under Section
6 3010 are to be submitted, and facility permit
7 applications required under Section 3005 will be
8 distributed for completion by applicants.
9 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and
10 the proposed regulations to be considered at this
11 hearing, I would like to return the meeting to our
12 Chairperson, Dorothy Darrah.
13 MS. DARRAH: Thank you, Jack.
14 Let me just reiterate a couple things Jack
15 said. When I call your name, if you have an extra
16 copy of your remarks, if you would give them to the
17 court reporter before you speak, that would be helpful
18 If you do not have an extra copy but would loan us
19 a handwritten copy or your single typed copy, that
20 would also be helpful. We can Xerox or mail it back
21 to you or give it back to you tomorrow if you will
22 be here, just to insure the accuracy of the transcript
23 I will be enforcing the 10-minute limit on
24 presentations this evening as I have done for two days
25 I will repeat for all of you that this is not the only
-------
553
1 opportunity that you have for the Agency to hear your
2 views. We certainly will be accepting written
3 statements for the record at this hearing, and the
4 comment period on these regulations remains open
5 through the 16th of this month and has been extended
6 for two months on the extraction procedure. That
7 notice appeared in the Federal Register on Monday.
8 We certainly find these hearings helpful,
9 but in order to let everyone speak we do have to limit
10 you to 10 minutes.
11 I will read the names of the people who have
12 signed up to speak in the order in which I will call
13 them. There were seven people who had preregistered,
14 Mr. Sigfried, who is fist on the list, did speak
15 this morning, so he will not be speaking this evening.
16 So it will be Mr. Clay, Mr. Rovick,
17 Mr. Hersh, Mr. Morrow, Mr. Park, Mr. Mussell.
18 And then the people who have registered
19 since coming, and the order in which I wil] call them
20 is the order in which they registered: Bob Burt,
21 Kenneth Wilkins, Sam Chapin, Ariel Parkinson, and
22 Patrick Wicks.
23 If there are any people in addition to
24 these who do want to speak this evening, I would
25 appreciate it if you would go back and register and
-------
554
1 indicate that you do want to speak. All of these
2 people may not be here, but I will call each name,
3 since I am not sure who is or who is not here.
4 Is Mr. Clay here?
5 Is Mr. Rovick here?
6 MR. ROVICK: Yes.
7 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
8 MR. ROVICK: Good evening. My name is
9 Arne Rovick. I am an attorney from Phoenix, Arizona,
10 representing Phelps Dodge Corporation this evening.
11 My written comments are being typed in
12 Phoenix today and are being mailed in, so I don't
13 have them here this evening.
14 Phelps Dodge Corporation this evening will
15 address its comments to Section 3001. Phelps Dodge
16 Corporation is a copper company operating open pit
17 mines :n Arizona and New Mexico and developing an
18 underground mine at Safford, Arizona.
19 Our concern with Section 3001 is interpret-
20 ing the applicability of the definition of hazardous
21 to general mine wastes. Generally, the copper that
22 is being mined in the United States today is a low-
23 grade ore where vast quantities of overburden and
24 waste are removed to get down to the economically
25 processible ore, and these wastes are generally
-------
555
1 deposited near the mine site. The economics of
2 mining demand that the waste be deposited in or about
3 the mine.
4 In reviewing the legislative history of
5 RCRA, it is our opinion that the Congressman enacting
6 this law intended that that application of the
7 hazardous waste section to the mining industry be
8 deferred pending a study. Conversations on the Senate
9 floor where Senator Domenici was describing the
10 Kennecott Copper Mine up in Bingham Canyon, Utah,
11 asked whether the millions of tons of overburden
12 which are dug up and simply dumped over on the other
13 side of the mountain were the type of waste to be
14 regulated. Senator Randolph specifically declared
15 that mining activity of the kind that was described
16 there was not intended to be covered here.
17 Also, one of the House Committee reports
18 stated that at that time Congress did not have infor-
19 mation available on the mining industry to determine
20 what hazards, if any, existed and, therefore, declared
21 that they did not have sufficient information to enact
22 legislation with respect to mining wastes.
23 Therefore, in lieu of an enactment of
24 regulations, they put in Section 3002(f), which
25 directs the Administrator of the Environmental
-------
556
1 Protection Agency to make a study of mining wastes.
2 After this study is completed, the Administrator is
3 charged with making recommendations to Congress as
4 to whether regulation is necessary for mining wastes.
5 We believe that in the original draft of
6 Section 3001, which I believe came out over a year
7 ago, the Environmental Protection Agency followed this
8 intent. And I believe the early definition under
9 Section 3001 exempted wastes from mining and mineral -
10 or the mining and processing of ores, which would
11 include the mine overburden and tailings.
12 Subsequently, this exemption was narrowed,
13 if not written out of Section 3001 as it was finally
14 published on December 18th. I believe the December
15 18th preamble, though, still states that the
16 Environmental Protection Agency defers applicability
17 of most of the treatment, storage, and disposal
18 standards for selected high-volume, relatively low-
19 risk wastes, such as mining wastes, until information
20 is gathered and assessed to determine how they can
21 best be handled.
22 The exemption that now is written into
23 Section 3001 exempts mine overburden which is
24 returned to the mine site. This really isn't an
25 exemption for copper mining at all. I don't know if
-------
557
1 it was intended to be, but in the copper mining
2 industry, basically none of our wastes are really
3 intended to be returned to the mine site. The mine
4 is operated lor 10, 20, 30, or 50 years, and the
5 overburden is piled up around the mine.
6 Therefore, in keeping with the Congressional
^ intent, we would suggest that the exemption under
8 Section 3001 for mine wastes be worded similar to the
9 description under Section 3004 for special waste
10 material, other mine wastes, and that would be
11 discarded material from the extraction, benefication,
12 and processing of ores and minerals. We believe
13 that this comports with the Congressional intent.
14 We understand the Environmental Protection
15 Agency has commenced a study of mine wastes — I
16 think it's referred to as the Pedco Report -- and
17 that specific regulation of mine wastes be deferred
18 until that study is completed.
19 In the event that that suggestion is not
20 taken, we would like to suggest that the Environmental
21 Protection Agency make a careful study of the toxicity
22 standard and the toxic extraction procedure in these
23 proposed regulations. We believe that if our waste
24 materials are hazardous under this Act, and we don't
25 believe they are, but if they are it would only be
-------
558
1 because of the toxic test. These millions of tons
2 of rock material that are removed certainly aren't
3 ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. In viewing the
4 proposed test on toxicity, there is a direct
5 correlation to the National Interim Primary Drinking
6 Water Standards. I'd like to point out that those
7 standards already have a significant safety margin
8 built into them. So if our -wastes are determined to
9 be hazardous by the toxic test, we believe they would
10 be only marginally toxic and feel that the current
11 test is too sharp a delineation between hazardous
12 and nonhazardous.
13 We don't believe that these solid wastes
14 that are piled near the mine present an immediate
15 danger to the public. They are really no more
16 dangerous for physical contact than the state they
17 were in before they were lifted out of the mine and
18 dumped beside the mine.
19 So we believe that in determining the
20 toxicity test as well as the others, but for our
21 interest the toxicity test, that a gradient for
22 various levels be established and control standards
23 relate to the potential for damage. 1 think the
24 Congressional intent here was to control truly
25 dangerous materials and impose strict regulations on
-------
559
1 them, and we believe that the standards proposed here
2 are too broad and the delineation too sharp,
3 As to the extraction procedure, we haven't
4 had time to analyze that. I find now we have an
5 extra 60 days, so I'll defer any comments on that
6 until May 15th.
7 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Will you answer ques-
8 tions for the panel?
9 MR. ROVICK: To the extent I am able to,
10 yes.
11 MS. DARRAH: Thanks.
12 MR. FIELDS: I have just one question.
13 The comment you made regarding copper overburden
14 being returned to the mine, was that statement
15 representative of all copper mining or just your
16 company's copper mines9
17 MR. ROVICK: I can only speak for Phelps
18 Dodge Corporation, but I believe that it is true for
19 the copper mining industry, which is basically now
20 in an open pit mining operation, that the overburden
21 and the waste in the mine itself that must be moved
22 to get to the ore that can be processed is all lifted
23 out of the mine and discarded to the side. And I'm
24 not aware of any company that makes it a. practice of
25 putting it back into the mine.
-------
560
1 I think that would be true also for most
2 of the underground mining operations.
3 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Rovick, I just wanted to
4 point out to you — you mentioned our preamble as
5 citing the House Committee report concerning over-
6 burden intended for return to the mine site and that
7 your belief is the Congressional intent was that this
8 be deferred. I also call your attention to the fact
9 that in a different part of that House Committee
10 report it also states that certain mining overburdens
11 may be considered hazardous. If they are, we believe
12 the Congressional intent was that they be regulated.
13 In other words, we believe there is a distinction made
14 in the Congressional intent between nonhazardous
15 mining waste and hazardous mining waste.
16 You might want to go back and read that a
17 little more thoroughly and see if you see that other
18 dist inct ion.
19 MR. ROVICK: I have read that, and I have
20 read the legislative history that you are referring
21 to. I think, problem one, there is a loose use of
22 the word "overburden" in their return to the mine
23 site. I believe it was Senator Domenici that used
24 that phrase, and he was describing the type of
25 operation that we have atPhelps Dodge where it's 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
561
returned to the mine site. It's lifted out.
If he is using the phrase "mine site," he
means the property all around the mine where it's
deposited.
As to the hazardous nature, I think, speak-
ing just for copper -- and I note that the regulations
do set out specifically different standards for
uranium and phosphates — we haven't completed
testing and characterizing our billions of tons of
waste material that we have dug up over the last
half century. But I guess initially we don't feel
they are hazardous. They may test out to be that,
depending on what standard the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency comes out for in their toxicity test
which is up for discussion here.
MR. LEHMAN: Well, on that point --
j MR. ROVICK: We feel that the Congressional
intent was for the Environmental Protection Agency
to make a. comprehensive study of the mining industry
and based on that study to put out regulations and
not to impose regulations immediately which would
have, I think,significant effects on the mining
industry because we are dealing with such a
tremendously large volume of material. We would have
to, I think, incorporate different practices in the
-------
562
1 mining and perhaps significantly alter the way in
2 which the ore is removed.
3 So we don't think that any management
4 restrictions should be imposed until there is a study
5 and determination.
6 MR. LEHMAN: Well, can I follow up on that?
' You mentioned a little later in your
8 testimony that you believe that we should establish
° a different set of standards based on the degree of
10 hazard, or words to that effect. Basically, we
11 thought we were doing that by setting aside -- if
12 a mine waste tests out to be hazardous, that instead
13 of applying the full set of standards that we set
14 them aside and apply a relatively reduced set until
15 we are able to study this a little further.
16 Can you comment on that? I mean these
17 very limited standards, at least we consider them
18 to be very limited standards, do you believe them a
19 great burden to your industry?
20 MR. ROVICK- Well, I guess I have signed
21 up to speak tomorrow on Section 3004 on special
22 waste matters, but there are provisions under Section
23 3004 that even if our wastes tested out to be toxic
24 We don't believe some of the controls under Section
2-> 3004 are necessary.
-------
563
1 MR. LEHMAN: Maybe we can cover that
2 tomorrow.
3 MR. ROVICK: They are directed at hazard,
4 but we don't think they would be found in our
5 materials.
6 MR. LEHMAN: Thank you.
7 MR. CORSON: Mr. Rovick, you mentioned in
8 your testimony that you would request the EPA to
9 rethink its toxicity definition and its EP for mining
10 wastes. I am wondering if you might perhaps share
11 with us what your thoughts are in terms of what you
12 think might be an applicable EP.
13 If you feel at this point, in light of our
14 allowing the extra 60 days, that you will develop
15 something in that time period, we would appreciate
16 it if you could give us your thoughts as to what the
17 toxicity definition should be as applicable to mining
18 wastes if different than the one we have proposed.
19 MR. ROVICK: Well, unfortunately, I think
20 it's a technical, scientific question. I don't have
21 a background in that.
22 My understanding is that the toxicity test
23 as now determined related to drinking water, relates
24 to certain assumptions as to natural leaching, as
25 to natural movement of waters in the groundwater
-------
564
1 system, dilution of leachate as it moves through the
2 groundwater stream, and also an extraction procedure,
3 certain assumptions about what sorts of leachate
4 would be found in a dump.
5 In our dumps, I guess they are all
6 relatively homegeneous. It's the rock that was there
7 that's moved or the tailings, which are basically
8 the rock with the copper, hopefully, removed, that
9 are deposited.
10 My understanding is that the acidic acid
11 that's used in this test is acidic acid that comes
12 from a decomposition of organic materials which would
13 not be in our dumps. To the extent that our dumps
14 may contain alkaline materials or other acidic —
15 different types of acidic materials, we question the
16 validity of this type of extraction procedure as to
17 whether it would be applicable to our type of wastes.
18 Our mining operations are located in New
19 Mexico and Arizona, which are arid regions, and I
20 don't know to what extent the validity of the 10
21 factor dilution exists in our groundwater system.
22 Our rainfalls are infrequent, and to what extent they
23 percolate through the dumps or wash off and what they
24 pick up, again, I don't know whether this 10 factor
25 holds true to that or not.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
565
Speaking briefly with our engineers, it
seems to me that the type of test that has been
determined for toxicity, at least in their view, is
related more to a domestic garbage dump situation in
a humid atmosphere than it is to the homogeneous
dumps in an arid region.
MS. DARRAH: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. ROVICK: Thank you.
MS. DARRAH: Mr. George Hersh, California
State Solid Waste Management Board?
DR. HERSH: I am Dr. George Hersh, Chief
of the Resource Recovery Division, Solid Waste
Management Board, California. I am here to testify
on rules under Sections 3002 and 3003.
We are concerned with the effects on our
used oil program, and I am abbreviating slightly
from the printed text.
California has put into motion a used oil
recycling program. We have about 2,400 voluntary
stations throughout the state and a public information
program which consists of cards posted at locations
where oil is sold for due-it-yourself changers and
cards posted at the stations wh^-re oil can be
deposited for recycling, plus TV spots, a toll-free
number, and a few other things.
-------
566
1 The administrative rules for the program
2 provide for registration of used oil haulers, of
3 recyclers, of transfer facility operators with our
4 Board. We require receipts for transfers of used
5 oil and provide for the submittal of annual reports
6 by used oil haulers, recyclers, and transfer facility
7 operators so we can get an account of the amount of
8 oil that's handled and processed and where it goes.
9 The program depends on these 2,400 some odd
10 collectors, who are volunteers. They are by and
11 large service stations, but we also have automotive
12 repair shops and recycling centers.
13 We understand that under the Environmental
14 Protection Agency regulations used oil generators,
15 such as automobile and truck service stations, would
16 be considered classified as generators of hazardous
17 waste and, as such, would be required, among other
18 things, to apply for a generator's identification
19 code and either fulfill the manifest and other
20 recordkeeping and reporting requirements of a hazard-
21 ous waste generator or, in the case of used oil
22 generators, to enter into an "assumption of duties
23 contract" with the used oil hauler, recycler, or
24 disposer.
25 If that's the way that our used oil
-------
567
1 handlers would fit into the proposal, it would have
2 a detrimental effect on our program, and it would
3 effectively work against the resource conservation
4 goals of RCRA. Muffler shops, recycling centers, and
5 other facilities which are not handling used oil as
6 a regular part of their business would be likely
7 to withdraw from our collection program rather than
8 comply with the proposed Federal registration,
9 recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Also, the
10 present marginal monetary incentive for collecting
11 used oil is rather small, about one half to .7 cents
12 per gallon, and that would be reduced if stations
13 are required to pay a fee to used oil haulers or
14 disposers to assume the generator's responsibilities.
15 There is no shortage, by the way, of used
16 oil haulers in the state. We've got about 70 compa-
17 nies and about 300 trucks hauling used oil.
18 The problems we have identified could be
19 eliminated by categorically exempting service
20 stations and others that collect used oil for
21 recycling, exempting them from the requirements for
22 a hazardous waste generator. This exemption would
23 also have the effect of encouraging the recycling
24 of used oil by placing a disincentive on other modes
25 of disposal. Such a waiver of the requirements is
-------
568
1 reasonable and proper, since the used oil collected
2 for recycling is not a waste but a resource that is
3 to be put to use.
4 That's all I have. I appreciate the
5 opportunity to testify.
6 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
7 quest ions?
8 DR. HERSH: Certainly.
9 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
10 MR. CORSON: Just for purposes of the
11 record, Dr. Hersh, how are you defining "recycling"
12 with regard to oil?
13 DR. HERSH- The preferred method of
14 recycling is, of course, re-refining. We have some
15 statistics. The program has not been in operation
16 for very long.
17 One of the things that we are looking at
18 is where does the oil go and in what ways is it
19 recycled. What we would like to see, of course, is
20 the discouragement of any kind of use which is
21 classified as recycling but which does not in fact
22 protect the environment from oil, such things as
23 road oil and use of oil as a suspender for weed
24 killers and the like.
25 The thing that we are hoping to encourage
-------
569
1 is the refining and preferably re-refining that
2 doesn't use the acid lay technique.
3 Is that responsive?
4 MR. CORSON- Yes, I think that's what we
5 are looking for.
6 I think it might be well to clarify that
7 in our definition of "other discarded material," if
8 the use of the oil does not constitute disposal and
9 is not used for burning as a fuel, then it is not
10 in other discarded material and it is not a solid
11 waste and, therefore, cannot be a hazardous waste
12 and, therefore, would fall out of our system.
13 DR. HERSH: Perhaps we are already in
14 agreement and nothing need be done.
15 MR. CORSON: Yes.
16 MR. LINDSEY: Can I follow up on that?
17 Is a significant amount — I think it's
18 fair to say that there is a significant amount of
19 waste oil which is collected now, not for recycling
20 into fresh lube oil, if you will, to re-refining,
21 but rather is perhaps treated in a minimal fashion
22 and then burned in boilers, school boilers and
23 industrial boilers to some extent.
24 DR. HERSH: Yes. We have some figures on
25 fuel uses of recycled oil, and we also have some
-------
570
1 use figures on road oils and other undesirable uses
2 presently going on.
3 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. As long as the oil
4 which is destined for re-refiners is out of the
5 system, then we are accomplishing essentially what
6 you are trying to accomplish; right, do you think?
7 DR. HERSH: Yes. You would pick up -- the
8 attempt to direct the oil to the appropriate point
9 would come at the hauling stage. The hauler would
10 still be required to be registered.
11 The people that we want to get out of the
12 registration cycle are the service stations, the
13 primary collectors, and particularly the non-service
14 station primary collectors, people like recycling
15 centers and outfits which don't do their oil
16 crankcase draining that aren't set up for it, except
17 this other kind of service function.
18 MR. LINDSEY: You said you had some figures.
19 Can you tell us or can you estimate for us here
20 tonight the percentages of the waste oil which are
21 reclaimed through your system, recovered through your
22 system do go back to re-refiners as opposed to road
23 oil or what have you that are burning in boilers?
24 DR. HERSH: I can't give you numbers that
25 are good for much right now. This system has just
-------
571
1 been inaugurated as of January of this year. We don't
2 have figures coming back from our recordkeeping. I
3 do have estimates in our office that I can get for
4 you, but they are not very solid.
5 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
6 MS. DARRAH: I have one question.
7 How is it through the hauler registration
8 system that you intend to protect against the
9 situation where somebody with a truck comes along to
10 one or more service stations and says, "Look, I will
11 give you X cents more per gallon," and that person
12 intends to use it for road oiling somewhere? How is
13 that situation covered in California?
14 DR. HERSH: All right. I think the problem
15 you are talking about is somebody who is at the
Ig same time collecting from service stations and who
17 | is not reselling or otherwise performing, but
18 themselves taking the oil and putting it somewhere.
19 : MS. DARRAH: I guess the question is how
20 do you protect against that or how do you try to
21 protect against that?
22 DR. HERSH: If somebody did that and had
23 no registration, they would be performing an illegal
24 act. No1?
25 MS. DARRAH: Yes, indeed.
-------
572
1 DR. HERSH: All right. And you would have
2 the same stricture as you would have on anybody who
3 is performing an illegal act. The major problem, of
4 course, is how do you pick up on people like that.
5 The usual place you pick up on them is a complaint
6 because they have affected the water quality.
7 Somebody complains.
8 In our state, it would be the Water Resource
9 Control Board of the Region saying, "Hey, there is
10 an oil slick down here." So that someone who made
11 a business practice of doing that would probably be
12 picked up only if they made some kind of visible
13 nuisance that was then reported to a controlling
14 agency.
15 MS. DARRAH: Is it unlawful for one of
16 these collector stations to turn over the oil or to
17 sell the oil to an unlicensed hauler? I guess I am
18 just worried about the possible incentive to a
19 gas station if someone offers to pay them more money.
20 DR. HERSH: As far as I know, there is no
21 law now which forbids -- I don't think there is any
22 such provision in the State law. There could be and
23 it could be not in my head, but as far as I know, no,
24 it would be possible for one of these stations to
25 turn things over.
-------
573
1 They do, however, have to do some bookkeep-
2 ing which gets reported to the State, and we have
3 an opportunity to at least do some processing on that
4 bookkeeping and get a check.
5 I doubt that we would pick up anything
6 very small without a complaint, but a large and
7 regular infraction we pick up simply because we are
8 trying to find out where the oil goes.
9 MS. DARRAH: Okay. It's not that I have
10 any knowledge that this is a problem.
11 DR. HERSH: I think all systems have the
12 potential for small leaks, but what we are trying to
13 do is avoid big, systematic leaks and to provide
14 ways in which a small leak which is a nuisance gets
15 picked up, reported, and eliminated at some point
16 in its history.
17 MR. TRASK: Dr. Hersh, could you briefly
18 describe the paper handling system that goes on,
19 starting with the waste oil hauler, I guess you call
20 him, and what does he do for the pickup at the pickup
21 point and then what sort of reports he turns in to
22 you?
23 DR. HERSH: Wait a minute. From the hauling
24 stages on, you are back in a Federal system. You
25 are back in the kind of system which would be a
-------
574
1 manifest system for any hazardous waste. No? You've
2 got a hauler who has a license.
3 I'm sorry. The reason I am a little fuzzy
4 on that is we have just had a division in responsibil-
5 ity in the state. The recovery for hazardous waste
6 handling has been moved over to the Department of
7 Health, who now deal with the manifest system and
8 all its aspects. We still have the oil program
9 because we are primarily interested in the recycling
10 and management end of it and not — except in making
11 sure we don't make trouble for the hazardous manage-
12 ment waste aspect.
13 MR. TRASK: I didn't want to get into that.
14 What sort of records and reports do these
15 haulers have or make to you?
16 DR. HERSH: I'm sorry, that's what I was --
17 the haulers don't report directly to us. They report
18 to the Department of Health.
19 MR. TRASK: Okay.
20 DR. HERSH: The collectors report to us,
21 and our records are shared with the Department of
22 Health.
23 MR. TRASK: I guess the terms are bothering
24 me. What is a collector, and what is a hauler.
25 DR. HERSH: Let me bring it down to --
-------
575
1 MR. TRASK: Is a service station a
2 i collector?
3 j DR. HERSH: A service station is a
4 collector. A service station has a sign up that'says,
5 | "We take oil."
6 MR. TRASK: Okay.
7 DR. HERSH: A selling point -- K Mart,
8 Safeway, what have you -- has a sign in it which
9 says "Don't throw your used oil down the drain. Take
10 it to so and so service station or call this number
11 and we will give you a list of places where you can
12 dump it . "
13 MR. TRASK: Okay.
14 DR. HERSH: So, that part of the system is
15 a notification to the buyer that there are places to
16 dump. Here is a place. That place keeps a record
17 of how much they receive. They keep a record of who
18 they hand it over to. That record comes to us,
19 MR. TRASK: Okay. The collectors keep a
20 record of how much they receive, not necessarily from
21 whom they receive it?
22 DR. HERSH: No, they don't keep a record
23 of who they receive it from.
24 MR. TRASK: Just the volumes received?
25 DR. HERSH: Yes, just the volumes.
-------
576
1 MR. TRASK: Including what they generated
2 themselves?
3 DR. HERSH: Yes.
4 MR. TRASK: And then that record is sent
5 in to you as a report?
6 DR. HERSH: Right.
7 MR. TRASK: And then the haulers report to
8 the other agency in the state?
9 DR. HERSH: That's right. We do not yet
10 have a coordinated system balancing those books, but
11 we hope that it's going to be fairly easy to do that.
12 MR. TRASK: Thank you.
13 MS. DARRAH: To follow that up, though, I
14 think what you are implying is that once the hauler
15 collects the material it's then rated as a hazardous
16 material in California; is that correct?
17 DR. HERSH: Ordinarily haulers of such
18 materials are required to go through the manifest
19 system and do licensing because they don't confine
20 themselves to used oil. Even if you pull oil off
21 the list of things for hazardous waste -- I am sorry.
22 I am thinking of my own type.
23 Used oil disposed of improperly is a
24 hazardous waste. Used oil going to a recycling
25 operation is not a waste, doesn't come under the
-------
577
1 system. Unless the hauler can demonstrate that the
2 only place that he goes is an approved place and the
3 only thing that he carries is approved materials so
4 that he is not a hauler of waste at all, he is
5 simply a transporter of a commodity; if he does any-
6 thing else, if he takes some material to a dump or
7 what have you, he is automatically required to get
8 into the manifesting system and be a registered
9 hauler.
10 MS. DARRAH: Some other material, you mean?
11 I guess my question is does that used oil that's
12 picked up — would that hauler, if he or she is taking
13 it only to a recycling center, generate a manifest?
14 If this person is a licensed hauler and hauls other
15 hazardous waste but at the time is hauling only used
16 oil destined for a recycling center, does that hauler
17 generate a. manifest on that used oil?
18 DR. HERSH: All right. I was under the
19 impression that we had a mechanism to do it, but I
20 can't pull it out of my head immediately, I'm not
21 sure whether we have a separate subregulation there
22 or whether it's simply that the manifest system for
23 hazardous wastes is extended to cover the material.
24 But I can get you an answer, and we did have a method
25 for keeping a record on that.
-------
578
1 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
2 DR. HERSH: How much time have I got for
3 those two, by the way? I just promised to get you
4 two things. Do you need them by two days?
5 MS. DARRAH: We need them, if at all
6 possible, by Friday, which is the close of the comment
7 period. If they can be postmarked by Friday, that
8 would be fine.
9 DR. HERSH: Okay. Generous.
10 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
11 Mr. Don Morrow, Agrico Chemical Company?
12 MR. MORROW: My name is Don Morrow, and I
13 am General Manager of Agrico Chemical Company's
14 Mining Division. Agrico operates three phosphate
15 mines located in Central Florida.
16 Agrico is very concerned about the
17 designation of phosphate mining materials as hazardous
18 waste under the proposed regulations of the Resource
19 Conservation and Recovery Act. I thank EPA for
20 this opportunity to express our concern.
21 I am convinced that EPA would not include
22 phosphate overburden and clays as hazardous waste if
23 EPA representatives had had time to visit us in
24 Florida and learn in specific what the industry does,
25 the nature of the material handled, the method for
-------
579
1 storage of these materials, and the amount of
2 exposure risk.
3 You need to know that our industry disturbs
4 approximately 5600 acres a year. Overburden, the
5 soil above the layer of ore, is displaced and returned
6 to each acre. The sand and the clay that are removed
7 by the benefication process are also returned to the
8 mine site to be used in the reclamation procedure.
9 It is also important to know that the
10 industry reclaims each acre distrubed; that is, we
11 restore each acre to a generally more productive or
12 more aesthetic state than it was originally.
13 Reclamation, in fact, has been mandated by the State
14 of Florida since 1975.
15 So what we have is a dynamic process of
16 mining and reclamation of areas approximating 5600
17 acres or 8.7 square miles each year. Can you realize
18 how difficult it would be to impose the proposed
19 restrictions on areas as large as this, particularly
20 when these areas are moving each day?
21 The real question is: Why is it even
22 necessary? The overburden that is removed from above
23 the matrix is simply deposited about 200 feet from
24 its original location. When the land is reclaimed,
25 the overburden is returned closer to its original
-------
580
1 location. We didn't change the chemical or
2 radiological characteristics of it in any manner. We
3 merely displaced it.
4 Moving the overburden to mine the matrix
5 is analogous to the farmer moving the soil to harvest
6 his potatoes. Certainly the movement shouldn't cause
7 the material to be reclassified as a waste. Since
8 it wasn't hazardous to begin with, it certainly can't
9 be labeled a hazardous waste.
10 After the phosphate is separated from the
11 ore-bearing matrix, we are left with the other two
12 parts of the matrix, sand and clay. The sand, which
13 EPA concurs is not a hazardous waste, is pumped back
14 to the mine site for fill in the reclamation process.
15 The clays are also returned to the mined-out
16 pits, and in most cases stored to an elevation above
17 the normal ground surface by constructing earthen
18 dams around the mined-out areas. The elevated storage
19 allows the clays to dewater and, in time, consolidate
20 to a firm condition where the area can be reclaimed
21 for good pasture or agricultural uses. In the
22 meanwhile, these ponds provide wonderful habitat for
23 wildlife and some of the best fishing in Florida.
24 Let's now consider exposure. EPA's recent
25 Environmental Impact Statement on Central Florida's
-------
581
1 Phosphate Industry states, and I quote, "To date,
2 no activity of the phosphate industry has been proved
3 to cause a radiation dose to the general population
4 in excess of the guideline. Furthermore, when
5 industry average time-weighted values are used, it
6 is anticipated that no phosphate workers will receive
7 doses of radiation exceeding the guideline established
8 for the general population." So it has been establish
9 ed that there is no risk to the phosphate miner work-
10 ing in these raining areas.
11 Hoxvever, EPA wishes to classify the
12 overburden and clay ponds as hazardous waste. When
13 we consider overburden, we should recognize that
14 there's virtually no difference between our overburden
15 piles and much of the developed reclaimed land in
16 Polk County, Florida. Our reclaimed land is, in great
17 part, overburden piles that were leveled in such a
18 manner as to create useful land.
19 It is indeed a rare occasion that someone
20 would walk across an overburden pile or a clay pond
21 and, consequently, there is practically no exposure
22 when the land is in the process of mining. However,
23 m Polk County, many housing developments, shopping
24 centers, businesses, parks, recreation areas, clinics,
25 institutions, schools, and the U.S. Post Office 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
582
all located on reclaimed land. This use of the land
causes much greater exposure than our overburden
piles.
If there is a risk, we should build fences
around these reclaimed developed areas and keep
people out. We should then also construct fences
around the state oi Colorado, parts of Las Vegas,
Nevada, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the beaches of
Sarasota, Florida. These places have gamma radiation
levels as high or higher than the phosphate mines
and their reclaimed lands. If EPA is going to
protect Floridians from their own land, they should
also protect the millions of endangered people living
in these other areas.
As for alpha radiation, the respected
health physicist, Dr. Keith Shiager, has written,
and I quote, "Surveys conducted in Canada and Europe
indicate that as many as five percent of all houses
exhibit normal radon progency concentrations exceeding
.02 working levels. Based on observed distributions
of normal concentrations, approximately one percent
of all residences would exceed .03 working levels.
Consequently, it can safely be assumed that a million
or more people in the United States live in normal
radon progeny concentrations which exceed the level
-------
583
1 for which the EPA proposes regulatory or remedial
2 action."
3 Of course, the real fact is that there is
4 no appreciable hazard when the radiation levels' are
5 so low. In a study by EPA, it was determined that
6 the amount of radiation only became significant to
7 people living in dwellings on a small percentage of
8 reclaimed land if they stayed inside the same
9 unventilated house for 70 years. I submit to you
10 if I, or most other Americans, had to stay inside
11 an unventilated house for 70 years without going
12 outside, I would not be concerned about an increase
13 in my risk of having cancer.
14 The most positive proof that radiation is
15 not a problem comes from a survey by the U.S. Depart-
16 ment of Health, Education and Welfare in 1974 which
17 determined that Polk County, the primary location of
18 phosphate mining since 1880, ranked 31st of 67 Florida
19 counties in mortality rates due to cancer of the
20 respiratory system. Another study by the National
21 Cancer Institute shows that Polk County ranks 43rd
22 for 67 Florida counties in leukemia mortality.
23 These mortality rates indicate that Polk
24 County is as healthy as the average county in Florida,
25 so how can EPA conclude we have a radiation problem?
-------
584
1 A note of interest to all of you is that Polk County
2 is the residence of the oldest living American,
3 Charlie Smith, who is 135 years old.
4 All these facts, except Charles Smith,
5 support the industry's position that:
6 "The amount of radiation from phosphate
7 mining or reclaimed land is of such low
8 levels as to have no discernible or
9 significant health effects on the people in
10 the area;
11 "The proposed classification of over-
12 burden and clays as hazardous is not
13 necessary;
14 "The costs to the industry resulting
15 from this proposed classification is
16 inflationary to the American people and
17 provides no benefits to the people; and
18 "This proposed regulation represents
19 the typical inflationary overkill from
20 which President Carter has promised the
21 American people some relief."
22 And I thank you for this opportunity.
23 MS. DARRAH: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. Will
24 you answer questions for the panel?
25 MR. MORROW: To the best of my ability.
-------
585
1 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
2 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Morrow, I believe earlier
3 in your testimony you mentioned -- I believe you
4 said an EPA Environmental Impact Statement on the
5 Florida Phosphate Industry. Was that correct, or was
6 it some other Federal agency?
7 MR. MORROW: No, it was EPA. EPA made a
8 study on the Central Florida Phosphate Region, and
9 it was completed within the last couple of months.
10 MR. LEHMAN: A study or an Environmental
11 Impact Statement?
12 MR. MORROW: Environmental Impact Statement.
13 MR. LEHMAN: Do you have in your written
14 submission a reference to that document?
15 MR. MORROW: No.
16 MR. LEHMAN: Because we would like to get
17 | in touch with the people that wrote it. I've never
18 heard of it, and I am just trying to track down the
19 source of it so we can check it out.
20 MR. MORROW: I don't have the name of it
21 with me. I have a copy of it in my room, and I can
22 give it to you tomorrow.
23 MR. LEHMAN- All right. If we can maybe
24 supply the title to it and the document number to the
25 court reporter, it would be helpful to us.
-------
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
586
MR. MORROW: Certainly.
MR. LEHMAN: Thank you.
MR. CORSON: Just a quick question,
Mr . Morrow.
"We have in our proposed regulations some
listed wastes and a means to demonstrate those wastes
should not be included which relates to some elimina-
tions of radium 226, and you indicated in your
comments some lands exceed some number of .03 working
levels. I am wondering if you have any feel as to
whether the .03 working level is a better indication
of hazard or whether there is some number that you
think, as a result of the studies you have reviewed,
does represent some area where we should be concerned
that the incidence of risk is something worthy of
concern.
MR. MORROW: Mr. Corson, I can't speak to
magnitudes, but I know on our reclaimed land, I am
told that ii we reclaim a portion of land that in its
native state was higher than .02 working levels that
there is a good chance that the reclaimed land is
higher than the .02 working levels. If it's less,
it's less.
In other words, we don't seem to concentrate
it. Did I answer your question?
-------
587
1 MR. CORSON: Well, no. What I am wondering
2 is do you have any feel for what number would be
3 appropriate to exercise controls, because part of our
4 concern is that these materials that are taken from
5 one place and used somewhere else, if they are not
6 in a control system, could be used as a fill in an
7 area where houses would be built which is not the
8 area that was disturbed in order to do the mining?
9 So what is the control level?
10 We picked one in our proposal or demonstrat-
11 ed what — we chose one that said if your number is
12 less than that we won't let you out of the system.
13 We suggested in our proposed hazardous rulemaking
14 a specific characteristic against which all waste
15 would have to be evaluated if we were to adopt that
16 level at some point.
17 MR. MORROW: I can't give you that number.
18 I'm not qualified to do it.
19 But I'd like to refer you to the Florida
20 Phosphate Council summation where they spoke in much
21 detail to the numbers.
22 MR. TRASK: Mr. Morrow, in a lighter vein,
23 why is it that Charlie Smith won't support the
24 industry?
25 MR. MORROW- He does support the industry.
-------
588
1 MR. TRASK: Oh. I thought you said everyone
2 in the county supported the industry except for
3 Charlie Smith?
4 MR. MORROW: No.
5 MR. TRASK: I misunderstood that?
6 MR. MORROW: He is our oldest citizen in
7 the county.
8 MS. DARRAH: Thank you for your comments,
9 Mr. Morrow.
10 MR. MORROW: Thank you very much.
11 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Bill Park, Environmental
12 Protection Corporation?
13 MR. PARK: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you
14 for this opportunity to appear before you to make
15 verbally some of our comments.
16 I represent the California Chemical Waste
17 Processors Association, which is an organization of
18 handlers of waste either for the purpose of disposal,
19 recycling, reclaiming, or in some way process waste
20 material in California. The membership of this
21 association, which is attached to the letter directed
22 to Mr. Lehman accompanying our comments, some 21
23 regular members of the association handle approximate-
24 ly 85 percent of the hazardous waste that is handled
25 by reclaimers and off-site disposal in the state of
-------
589
1 California .
2 I would appeal to our Chairperson that in
3 the presentation of my comments -- I am representing
4 all of these people, and we by vote have decided that
5 the association would make one statement to the panel
6 which we all concur with. In fact, I am appearing
7 on behalf of quite a number of people, and if you can
8 allow me a little latitude on the 10 minutes I would
9 appreciate it very much, realizing if we had not
10 handled it this way we would have had some 20 people
11 standing in line at 10 minutes each.
r? MR. DARRAH: Can you tell me how much time
13 you'd like?
14 MR. PARK: I think I might stretch that
15 five or ten minutes if I may. It's not the intent
16 to comment orally on all of the matters mentioned
17 in our written comment. There are some 40 comments
18 there, and certainly I'm not going to touch on all of
19 those. But I would like to stress some of the things,
20 although we feel that all of them are important. None
21 of them, we feel, are of a frivolous comment nature,
22 but there are some, of course, that are more vital
23 to us than others. I would like possibly about 15
24 minutes to discuss those things which we feel are more
25 or less life or death to us.
-------
590
1 MS. DARRAH: Okay. I will grant your 15
2 minutes. If you would prefer to wait until the other
3 people who are here have spoken, we can grant even
4 more time than that. That's the choice I'll give you.
5 MR. PARK: Due to the length of the day,
6 I think I'll try the 15 minutes.
7 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
8 MR. PARK: The first item listed --
9 incidentally, we are commenting on all sections,
10 Sections 3001 through 3004.
11 The first oral comment that we have has to
12 do with the identification and listing of hazardous
13 waste which appears in the Federal Register. In part,
14 it is stated in the supplementary information on
15 Page 58947 that the "...first priority for permitting
16 to off-site disposal facilities and new facilities...'
17 Our comment relative to off-site being the first
18 priority is as follows:
19 This appears to be discriminatory to
20 regulate one segment of the disposal operators off-
21 site nationwide while others are given up to five
22 years interim period whereby they would only be
23 subject to a limited set of requirements.
24 It has been demonstrated that some of the
25 most technically sound operations are those defined
-------
591
1 as off-site or contracted private firms that special-
2 ize in this field. Such firms are open to frequent
3 inspection and public scrutiny, whereas private sites
4 are often virtually invisible to all but the user.
5 In that the same materials are handled, it appears
6 environmental problems are identical.
7 To allow a five-year differential in
8 implementation of the regulations uniformly will
9 place a severe economic disadvantage on those firms
10 which professionally manage hazardous waste materials
11 and also will serve to further aggravate and produce
12 a negative impact upon the initial Congressional
13 intent of RCRA.
14 We would advocate a uniform application of
15 the regulations nationwide, and that in cases where
16 problems are anticipated priority be given to poten-
17 tial public exposure, regardless of whether the
18 facility is defined as off-site or any other term.
19 We believe that this approach would best serve the
20 national interest.
21 Our next comment appears on the copy you
22 have on our Page 6. It refers to Page 18512, Section
23 250.38.
24 The transporter -- no, excuse me. Let's
25 go down to Section 3004, which appears on Page 58987-
-------
592
1 58988 in the Federal Register pertaining to financial
2 responsibility, the financial responsibility or site
3 life.
4 "EPA has interpreted the term 'financial
5 responsibility' in Section 3004 of RCRA to include
6 the ability to pay for injuries to people and property
7 which result from the escape of hazardous waste into
8 the environment ..."
9 "The proposed regulations require a facility
10 to show evidence of a minimum of $5 million of
11 financial responsibility per occurrence per site for
12 sudden and accidental occurrences during the life of
13 the site. In addition, the owner or operator of a
14 facility, or group of facilities, is required to have
15 and maintain financial responsibility for non-sudden
16 and accidental occurrences in the amount of $5 million
17 per occurrence, and an annual aggregate of $10 million
18 including legal defense costs. Both types of
19 insurance coverage in these amounts are now available
20 from the private sector.'1 This is a quote from EPA.
21 "Financial responsibility, which is intended
22 to include claims arising from both sudden and
23 non-sudden escape of hazardous waste to the environ-
24 ment, can be established by liability insurance,
25 self-insurance, a combination of the two, or some
-------
593
1 other form of financial responsibility acceptable
2 to the Regional Administrator. If a company elects
3 self-insurance, however, such insurance for all sites
4 owned and insured may not exceed 10 percent of the
5 firm's equity...
6 "The Agency also has received comments that
7 such liability insurance is prohibitively expensive.
8 EPA has discussed this point with several insurance
9 industry representatives, has reviewed the ranges of
10 premium costs for such liability insurance being
11 written today, and has concluded that insurance
12 costs are not unreasonable."
13 Our comment: After a great deal of study
14 and research on this problem, this matter has become
15 our foremost concern. It has to do with this section
16 of proposed regulations, specifically the portion
17 relating to the liability coverage of $5 million with
18 a $10 million annual aggregate coverage for sudden
19 and non-sudden pollution insurance. This coverage is
20 required of the owners or operators of a treatment,
21 storage, or disposal facility during the site
22 operation. Financial responsibility may be establish-
23 ed by any one of the previous ways mentioned.
24 These requirements may be a threat to the
25 national productive capacity of U.S. industry in
-------
594
1 general and is destructive to the very existence of
2 small business enterprises involved in waste manage-
3 ment, regardless of how well they may be operated.
4 We also believe that these regulations far exceed
5 the mandate of Congress.
6 Contrary to the assertions of EPA, no
7 insurance policies meeting these requirements have
8 been written. A policy was obtained by a member of
9 our association in the amount of $2 million per
10 occurrence and $4 million annual aggregate for an
11 annual premium of $90,000, with provisions which
12 meet only a portion of the total requirements. This
13 policy was underwritten by a foreign-owned and
14 operated insurance group.
15 After diligent effort on the part of this
16 association, we have been unable to locate a domestic
17 underwriter who will consider this type of coverage.
18 Our only encouragement that such coverage is
19 obtainable comes from a London-based group.
20 The self-insurance clause, which allows only
21 10 percent of equity to be applied as self-insurance,
22 is of little or no benefit to most members of our
23 association. In order for a company to be self-
24 insured, it would require an equity of $100 million.
25 With the exception of a very few companies, 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
595
operators of such facilities have an equity of less
than $1 mi 11 ion.
This provision, therefore, is discriminatory
against many small businesses which are presently
performing in compliance with the stringent regula-
tions which are already in force in the state of
California.
Most industries operating in the United
States produce a certain amount of hazardous waste
materials as an end product. According to these
regulations, if these wastes are to be disposed of
they must be deposited in an EPA approved site. In
order for a site to legally operate, financial
responsibility must be established and maintained.
In most cases, insurance is the only way that
financial responsibility can be established. Our
experience shows that the only source for this
coverage is foreign groups which can issue or cancel
policies at will. This places in the hands of foreign
interests an inordinate amount of control over the
productive capacity of this nation.
The mandate of Congress contained in
Section 3004 of RCRA is stated as follows, and I
quote.
"No private entity shall be precluded
-------
596
1 by reasons of criteria established (regard-
2 ing financial responsibility) from the
3 ownership or operation of facilities
4 providing hazardous waste treatment,
5 storage and disposal services where such
6 entity can provide assurances of financial
7 responsibility and continuity of operation
8 consistent with the degree and duration of
9 risks associated with the treatment, storage
10 or disposal of specified hazardous waste."
11 It is our position that the level of
12 insurance of $5 million and $10 million is not
13 consistent with the degree and duration of risks
14 associated with the treatment, storage, or disposal of
15 specified hazardous material. The level of financial
16 responsibility is a consideration that must be made
17 by site-risk analysis.
18 In other words, a large facility in an urban
19 community that handles high volumes of extremely
20 hazardous waste would have a much higher risk and,
21 therefore, should provide more financial responsibil-
22 ity than a small site remotely located and handling
23 small volumes of less hazardous material.
24 if we take only the example that exists
25 that approaches the coverage required, it is estimated
-------
597
1 that the cost for the required coverage would be in
2 the neighborhood of $150,000 per year per facility.
3 The cost of such premium must be passed on to the
4 waste generator and, thence, to the consuming public.
5 Many facilities are presently operating
6 on an annual gross revenue of less than that amount.
7 This means that the fees for disposal by a small
8 operator must be more than doubled to meet the cost
9 of this single item in these regulations.
10 On the other hand, the large operator
11 handling a high volume, thus a high revenue, will be
12 less affected, placing the small business in a non-
13 competitive situation.
14 If we assume that 200 sites may be ultimate-
15 ly permitted nationwide by EPA, it would require
16 $2 billion worth of coverage at an estimated annual
17 cost of S30 million.
18 It is our opinion that such regulations are
19 neither fair nor reasonable.
20 The reserve disposal capacity that is
21 presently provided by facility operators in the state
22 of California is envied by most states. The major
23 reason for the capacity that exists in California is
24 because of the large number of small business
25 enterprises involved. The adoption of this portion of
-------
598
1 the regulations will result in the demise of most of
2 these small businesses and, thus, greatly reduce our
3 disposal capacity.
4 We have another comment that I would like
5 to bring to your attention, and this is more or less
6 a general statement about the regulations being
7 inspecific of how to do this and how to do that .
8 Instead of telling us what you want done, you are
9 telling us how to do it. This makes it very difficult
10 when it gets into application.
11 Page 59000 and 59001, Section -- this is
12 Comment 15 on Page 16 of my account, and this refers
13 to the Federal Register Pages 59000 and 59001, the
14 General Site Selection.
15 Active portions of a facility shall be
16 located a minimum of 200 feet from the property line
17 of the facility. We strongly disagree with this
18 requirement, because it would place an undue hardship
19 upon existing facilities.
20 For example, it could reduce the usable
21 area from a 40-acre site to 20 acres. In other words,
22 if you take an 80-acre piece of ground, you make out
23 a 200-foot perimeter all the way around it, you come
24 up with 40 acres. So you have reduced the site
25 capacity in half. If you take a 20-acre site, you
-------
599
1 reduce it to about nine acres or less. Maybe it's
2 six. But it's almost nothing when you get down to a
3 20-acre parcel if you wipe out a 200-foot perimeter
4 all the way around it.
5 If the facility can demonstrate that there
6 is minimal danger to human health and the environment
7 operating closer than 200 feet of the property
8 boundary, they should be allowed to operate that
9 facility.
10 Turn to page 21 of the comments that I
11 have submitted to you, Number 25, and the page in the
12 Federal Register is 59006 and 59007, here again,
13 financial requirements.
14 In addition to the comments previously
15 made on financial responsibility, we have the follow-
16 ing specific comments:
17 a. Section 250.43-9(a)(1)(ii) Financial
18 Assurance for Facility Closure. The requirements for
19 facility closure requires that a closure trust fund
20 be established in the amount approved by the EPA
21 Administrator for each facility, to be released after
22 closure has been completed to the satisfaction of the
23 Administrator. This provision requires the operator
24 to invest the capital for closure twice, once to
25 establish the fund and then again at time of closure.
-------
600
1 i The trust fund should be available to the operator
2 j to be used for the purpose of closure.
3 i The same situation exists for the post-
4 i closure monitoring and maintenance trust fund. After
5 i closure, these funds should be automatically released
6 | for the operator's use in annual increments to cover
7 these costs.
8 I b. Section 250.43-9(b ) (2 ) Establishment
9 of Post-Closure Financial Responsibility for Hazardous
10 Waste Disposal Facilities. We urge EPA to establish
11 now the post-closure financial responsibility portion
12 of these regulations so that we know where we are
13 headed. For the disposal facility operators to put
14 their business future on the line without knowing all
15 of the rules of the game before it's commencement is
16 foolish.
17 Right now we are considering — some of us
18 are trying to figure out whether we are going to ask
19 for an exemption for rotary mud and brine water sites
20 under the facilities or whether to continue to handle
21 small volumes of hazardous waste. But we don't know
22 how to play the game. We don't know what the final
23 cost is going to be. We go ahead and try to fulfill
24 the requirements of RCRA and upgrade our sites to
25 whatever needs to be done in financial outlay, and
-------
601
1 many times thousands and tens of thousands of dollars
2 of capital outlay, to meet these regs when we know
3 that lurking behind the curtain is another set of
4 regulations coming to follow. We don't know if we
5 will ever be able to meet those or not.
6 So we are sitting here now trying to make
7 decisions for the future, whether we are going to
8 try to meet RCRA, whether we are going to ask an
9 exemption of RCRA, and we really even with -- if we
10 consider that these regs are going to be passed as
11 they are, we still don't know how to play the game.
12 We don't know what the time span is for the next
13 regulations that come about, so we don't know how much
14 time we've got to recover the cost or recover the
15 funds that we are getting ready to invest to meet
16 these regs.
17 So we urge you now to come up with a
18 total package now so that we can take a look at it
19 and know which way we can go. It'll only be a service
20 to the nation and the industry in general if you will
21 do so.
22 As I said before, you have many comments
23 before you. All of them have had a great deal of
24 thought from the practical aspect, the practical
25 applicat ion.
-------
602
1 We are very proud of the fact that we did
2 play a very effective role in developing the
3 California State regulations, which in many ways are
4 more stringent than these. We are proud of that
5 effort, because they are workable and practical.
6 We hope to work with you folks on the same basis in
7 coming up with something.
8 We do in general applaud your efforts, and
9 we are working to accomplish the same thing you are.
10 We would like, however, for you to accept some of
11 our thoughts relative to the practical application to
12 make these a practicable and workable set of rules.
13 Thank you very much.
14 MS. DARRAH: Thank you, Mr. Park.
15 Let me just state that we certainly can --
16 even though the comment period closes this Friday, if
17 we need clarification or more information from you,
18 we certainly will contact you or your association
19 and seek that. I really appreciate the time you have
20 taken to do this, and I think you probably have given
21 us enough comments that we can question you for at
22 least a short time.
23 MR. PARK: Fine. Thank you. We will be
24 delighted to help any way we can.
25 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
-------
603
1 MR. LINDSEY: Why don't I start.
2 You made some comment in your last set
3 of comments that I'm not sure I follow. You said that
4 you are worried about the next set of regulations
5 which are going to come along. It is true that we
6 have deferred a couple things in here. Which ones
1 really bother you? Is it the fact of the special
8 waste standards and you don't know where they are
9 going to come out? Is that the problem?
10 MR. PARK: No. How we are going to handle
11 the final insurance package.
12 MR. LINDSEY: Oh, the post-closure
13 liability?
14 MR. PARK: Right.
15 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. Well, the problem there
16 is, one, we have not been able to find a mechanism
17 under our authority by which we can address that that
18 is workable. I think we may have mentioned in the
19 preamble we think that what we've got here is
20 something that Congress is going to have to address
21 and probably come up with some kind of trust fund
22 or something along those lines.
23 I guess what we are saying is, with regard
24 to the post-closure liability, we have not been able
25 to find a mechanism that we have the authority to
-------
604
1 implement that will work okay. I don't know what we
2 can do about that.
3 MR. PARK: As an association, we haven't
4 taken violent issue with the trust fund concept,
5 either for closure or for post-closure monitoring
6 and maintenance. That is a known to us. That is
7 spelled out. We know what that's going to be.
8 We have, of course, taken rather strong
9 objection to the financial responsibility from the
10 standpoint of liability insurance required during
11 operation. But we still have this unknown that we
12 are looking at, and we have no idea where out of
13 left field that's going to come from and/or what it's
14 going to consist of. That is the financial responsi-
15 bility for post-closure. From that period of time,
16 after the site is closed until you folks say that the
17 monitoring and all can be — and maintenance can be
18 discontinued, during that period of time, what is our
19 financial responsibility?
20 If you say financial responsibility for
21 perpetuity, there ain't no such thing.
22 MR. LINDSEY: No. As I --
23 MR. PARK: There can't be.
24 MR. LINDSEY: No. What I was trying to get
25 to was -- and I think in the preamble we have not been
-------
605
1 able to come up with a mechanism for doing that that
2 we have the authority to handle. I think that's going
3 to probably have to take a Congressional fix unless
4 we get a stroke of genius somewhere.
5 So I'm not sure we can do much about that
6 concern before we promulgate these unless we, as I
7 say, get a stroke of genius somewhere that we don't
8 see at the moment.
9 MR. PARK: How can the businessman look at
10 it not knowing what that's going to entail? Right
11 now in my small business operation in Kern County,
12 we are investing in excess of $100,000 to meet the
13 State regs. We don't object to that because we know
14 what those State regs are. But we had hoped that
15 most of that $100,000 capital investment would meet
16 the Federal regs when they came along. Obviously, it's
17 not.
18 When I look at these regs, it means another
19 bundle of money that's going to have to be put in,
20 particularly with the premium on financial responsibil-
21 ity. Then we've got something else lurking out in the
22 darkness that we don't know. So do we make a business
23 decision based on this unknown to say, "Okay. We can
24 risk it for five years," and by that time we will
25 recover our investment when we don't know we might have
-------
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
606
two years? And we may decide when that comes out we
can't stay in business anymore.
In this case, we have thrown money down the
rat hole trying to meet regulations, all in good
will and good faith trying to meet our regulations,
| and then we find out that we just can't economically
possibly do it.
So we are asking that let's go ahead and
get Congressional action if that's what's required,
and let's put the package together and bring it out
so that we can look at the whole package.
MR. LINDSEY: I sympathize with your problem.
As I say, we think that's what we are going to have
to do .
Incidentally, there have been a couple
of statements made at these hearings which more or
less parallel to some extent our way of thinking
relative to the fact that there probably would be a
fund that would be set up at the Federal level,
Federal oversight of a fund, in which there would be
a charge on disposal of somewhere, I would estimate,
in the neighborhood of $1 per ton which would cover
everyone who was permitted and who did things right.
But, again, that would take Congressional
action, and we are considering a Congressional
-------
607
1 initiative to do that, as are the National Solid Waste
2 Management Association I happen to know is pushing
3 that sort of thing, as are some others.
4 But I can't tell you -- we just don't, have
5 the wherewithal to be able to tell you that Congress
6 is going to do something about that. If they don't,
7 unless we get some other stroke of genius, we won't
8 be doing anything with regard to these regs. We
9 haven't been able to identify anything that we can do
10 under RCRA now.
11 MR. PARK: To add another $1 a ton on top
12 of the $1 a ton the State has, the possibly several
13 dollars a ton for the premium that the liability
14 insurance will place on it, and these regulations
15 wouldn't work. They might work in New York and they
16 might work in San Francisco and they might work in
17 Los Angeles, but they won't work in Kern County where
18 you've got 8,000 square miles and 3,000 people living
19 there because, believe me, these regs will be
20 unenforceable. And EPA and the State, I don't believe
21 can put enough policemen out behind those vacuuum
22 trucks to make sure that they go to a legal site.
23 We have been working with these things for seven years
24 now, and we are still not getting compliance in the
25 state of California. And the overlay of EPA is not
-------
608
1 going to make a hill of beans.
2 So we are driving the waste into the weeds
3 and not putting it into the proper places, and this
4 is the thing that I urge you to look at very carefully,
5 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. Let me go further into
6 the insurance thing while we are discussing it.
7 You did discuss that you feel that the
8 insurance is not available, or if it is available
9 it's going to be a very high premium.
10 MR, PARK: In a foreign market.
11 MR. LINDSEY: Well, it's an international
12 consortium, the group I think you are speaking to.
13 In any event, we have had some testimony on
14 that at some of the other hearings as well, both to
15 the same point you are making and also from that
16 consortium of people that they are ready to take on
17 anybody. But that's not the argument I want to get
18 into.
19 If you are correct, what are the other --
20 do you have any suggestions on what other alternatives
21 we might have with regard to satisfying this mandate
22 that we have for financial responsibility; that is,
23 for providing protection, to the public in the event
24 of damages? Is there another option we can use?
25 MR. PARK: I think most of us at the present
-------
609
1 time, Fred, are carrying as much as $1 million or more
2 in umbrella -- public liability for accidental and
3 sudden-type insurance. Our small company carries that
4 I type of insurance. We have forever since we have
5 been in business carried $1 million umbrella or
6 liability for sudden and accidental-type occurrence.
7 But our policy is specifically restricted from
8 non-sudden pollution insurance, and I see no way to
9 cover it.
10 But if you are going to withhold the
11 financial responsibility for post-closure until you
12 get Congressional action, maybe we better withhold
13 this portion for Congressional action and try the
14 same route.
15 MR. LINDSEY: Early in your comments you
16 took exception to the fact that it says in the
17 preamble there that our policy will be to work on,
18 I think it says, new facilities and off-site facilities
19 permits get priority.
20 Actually, our policy is probably going to
21 be a little bit more involved than that, in that on-
22 site facilities who have an NPDES permit will try to
23 time the permit for RCRA permitting to coincide with
24 the repermitting of NPDES facilities so they are both
25 done at the same time, and that's probably the way 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
610
on-site facilities will be done.
With regard to off-site facilities, one of
the reasons why we wanted to give priority there was
because we were under the impression from talking to
your industry that it would be quite helpful to have
the RCRA permit in hand in terms of being able to
attract capital for expansion. As you know, we have
a shortage of capacity, particularly off-site
capacity, in this country. We are going to need
expansion of those facilities, and we were under the
impression that getting the permits to the good
people early would help them attract the capital
to expand and so forth.
And that's one of the reasons we did that
and why we have taken that policy. Maybe in
California that wouldn't be important, since you
already have permits. But in the rest of the nation
we are given to believe that that would be useful.
MR. PARK: This is the first time I've heard
that comment. It certainly didn't come out of our
association.
MR. LINDSEY: No, it wasn't your association,
MR. PARK: That's the first I've heard
anyone felt it would be any great advantage to have:
it 1J» feftnd. I can see under certain
-------
611
1 circumstances that might be true. However, the matter
2 of discrimination still stands. If you are going to
3 go under the NPDES permit, allow another five years
4 for on-site facilities, then certainly that is
5 discriminatory against the off-site operator who has
6 the expertise, has the money invested already to
7 take care of the public need, and if somebody can
8 find a loophole and get another five years by going
9 it on his own, then certainly that's how they are
10 going to go. There could be a significant savings
11 in bucks.
12 MS. SCHAFFER: Fred, could I follow up
13 on that?
14 MR. LINDSEY: Yes.
15 MS. SCHAFFER: Mr. Park, in following up
16 on that, you said that you thought we should use,
17 I think, a potential public exposure as the way of
18 setting the priorities. Could you tell me what you
19 mean by that?
20 MR. PARK: Well, I think what I'm talking
21 about there is where the need is greatest to protect
22 public exposure. If you are going to set priorities,
23 then it should be based on public exposure to the
24 waste material, as to the site location, for example,
25 this type of thing. That is a method that could be
-------
612
1 used.
2 Frankly, in all fairness, I think what would
3 be probably better is to have a deadline date for
4 everybody and say this is the cutoff date we meet
5 the regs and everybody meets them at the same time.
6 We have had a similar situation here in California of
7 meeting State Health Department regs. It was started
8 at -- one site had to meet a certain deadline date
9 and another site had to meet another deadline date.
10 Well, they came down to me with a deadline date three
11 months ahead of my competitor. I said, "No way. If
12 you are going to give me a deadline, give me the same
13 starting point as my competitor because I am not
14 running under a handicap. I am not going to run a
15 hundred-yard dash and my competitor has a 10-yard start
16 on me. "
17 So I would say that they all ought to start
18 the same, with on-site and off-site being figured
19 at the same -- have a deadline date for meeting and
20 complying with Federal regs on the same date so no
21 one can maintain that you show favoritism.
22 MS. SCHAFFER: Thank you, Mr. Park.
23 MR. PARK: Surely.
24 MR. FIELDS: Mr. Park, I have one question
25 regarding that one point, the general site selection.
-------
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
613
You gave calculations regarding how much
site acreage would be taken away by this 200-foot
buffer zone we require.
MR. PARK: Yes.
MR. FIELDS: Do you have any thoughts --
well, first of all, do you think there should be a
buffer zone, and what do you think an appropriate
buffer zone should be or whether there should be
any at all?
MR. PARK: I think that depends on the
individual situation. Now I have an 80-acre site
in the San Joaquin Valley, six and a half miles
northwest of Taft. The nearest thing to that site
facility are some oil pumping units, and the nearest
neighbor is over a half a mile away. It's sage brush,
some sheep range for a couple weeks in the spring of
the year. Otherwise, it's jack rabbits and blunt-nosec
leopard lizards that we have to worry about and kit
foxes as an endangered species. Other than that, we
have no need for a buffer zone, except enough room to
drill possibly some monitoring wells or whatever you
folks are going to require. But it certainly doesn't
require 200 feet to put down a six-inch bore hole
for a monitoring well.
So I have a site on this 80 acres where we
-------
614
1 are handling this year, projected on last year's
2 business, one and a half million barrels of fluids.
3 Now it's 42-gallon barrels on 80 acres of land. In
4 fact, we have been handling that in about 45 acres.
5 We expanded it now to 80. But by the time I get
6 through meeting your regulations I haven't added
7 anything to my site at all by developing another 35
8 acres, because I am going to wind up with less
9 acreage than I have been operating on for the last
10 year and I will be spending thousands of dollars
11 enlarging the site to be able to add additional waste.
12 And a 200-foot setback is going to cost me all the
13 acreage that I have added.
14 MR. FIELDS: So you advocate the no buffer
15 zone requirement and allow the permitting official
16 to determine on a case-by-case basis what the buffer
17 zone should be?
18 MR. PARK: That's right. I think if you
19 are in a highly urbanized area and you've got houses
20 being built or the danger of houses being built right
21 up to the perimeter, certainly there needs to be
22 thought on a buffer zone. But in a very remote
23 area such as we are in, and we are not an exception.
24 There are many, many sites that are in very remote
25 areas, and to put a categorical distance, I think, is
-------
615
1 wrong. I think we need to meet the need.
2 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Park, let me interrupt here
3 We are in a peculiar situation. I have six more
4 people here who are signed up to speak. Woul^d you
5 be willing to respond to written questions submitted
6 by the panel?
7 MR. PARK: I would be delighted to.
8 MS. DARRAH: We would appreciate that. I
9 think that's the best way to handle it.
10 MR. PARK: I will go further. You gave me
11 the offer of coming in later. I will stay until the
12 last speaker, if you desire, and answer any questions
13 that I can.
14 MS. DARRAH: It would be interesting to
15 see what shape the panel is in. We have been here
16 since 8:30 this morning.
17 MR. PARK: Thank you very much.
18 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
19 The court reporter needs a break. Let's
20 take about a 10-minute break.
21 (Short recess.)
22 MS. DARRAH: Alan Roberts, who is our
23 representative from the Department of Transportation,
24 has another hearing tomorrow. We have, of course,
25 another session tomorrow. He's asked to find out if
-------
616
1 anybody speaking tonight will be addressing the
2 Section 3003 regs and the DOT proposal. Is anyone
3 else who is speaking tonight going to make comments
4 on those regulations? Can you raise your hand if you
5 are?
6 SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR: Good-bye, Alan.
7 Nice knowing you.
8 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Mr. Mussell, Chevron
9 Corporation. Is that a correct pronunciation?
10 MR. MUSSELL: Just right.
11 I am sure the fact that you called a break
12 just as I was walking up here has nothing to do with
13 the silent protest on the price of gasoline.
14 My name is Steve Mussell. I am a member
15 of the Facilities Planning Group for the Manufacturing
16 Department of Chevron U.S.A., Incorporated. I am
17 appearing here today on behalf of Chevron U.S.A.,
18 which is the domestic operating subsidiary of Standard
19 Oil Company of California.
20 In my job, I am required to be familiar with
21 environmental issues that Chevron must address,
22 especially including the control of waste at each of
23 our company refineries, not only here in California
24 but in the entire nation.
25 I appreciate the opportunity to present our
-------
617
1 views on the proposed regulations under Section 3001,
2 3002, and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and
3 Recovery Act of 1976.
4 The petroleum industry shares your concern
5 for the protection of human health and the environment
6 against improper waste management practices. Our
7 comments today are intended to assist you in preparing
8 the most effective regulations possible to achieve
9 these common goals.
10 I would like to briefly discuss several
11 specific points covered in the regulations which
12 should be reconsidered or revised. In addition to my
13 oral testimony, Chevron will submit written comments
14 in more detail for your consideration.
15 Under the proposed regulations, most of the
16 petroleum industry's surface impoundments are likely
17 to be classified as hazardous waste treatment
18 facilities. A very high percentage of these
19 facilities, although designed in accordance with
20 good engineering practice, probably will not meet the
21 requirements of the proposed regulations. It has been
22 estimated that it will cost $3 billion to upgrade
23 facilities for the petroleum industry refinery sector
24 alone.
25 As an example, the proposed regulations
-------
618
1 require that the bottom of the surface impoundment
2 liner system be five feet above the high water table,
3 and that is impossible to attain in many coastal
4 areas where the majority of petroleum facilities are
5 located. The bottom of many of these existing
6 impoundments are below the water table.
7 Several of these surface impoundments are
8 located over brackish or otherwise non-potable
9 aquifers. Furthermore, the discharge from these
10 ponds is currently regulated under the National
11 Pollution Discharge Elmination System.
12 The EPA should not regulate NPDES surface
13 impoundments under RCRA regulations at this time.
14 The Agency should conduct an in-depth study to deter-
15 mine the number of surface impoundments that potential-
16 ly are affected by these regulations, the environmental
17 risks associated with these facilities, and the
18 costs and benefits of various degrees of control.
19 Alternatively, the EPA should designate
20 petroleum industry surface impoundments for regulation
21 under the Special Waste Standards Section. As a
22 special waste, these ponds should be administered
23 under the NPDES program. This will avoid confusing
24 administrative problems, especially in California
25 where the Regional Water Quality Control Board has the
-------
619
1 responsibility to administer the NPDES program, and
2 the Department of Health Services has a responsibility
3 to control hazardous wastes.
4 If the EPA proceeds with regulation of
5 NPDES surface impoundments, it should be on a
6 category-by-category basis, giving consideration to
7 the specific waste in the impoundments, its degree
8 of hazard, the site hydrogeological conditions, and
9 the costs and benefits of any additional controls
10 which may be required. The proposed, detailed
11 requirements of Section 250.45-3 should be removed
12 and incorporated as part of the Special Waste
13 St andards.
14 The proposed regulations fail to consider
15 relative toxicities of different hazardous wastes.
16 One pound of crude oil tank bottoms is not equal in
17 toxicity to one pound of PCB. We recommend that
18 hazardous wastes be classified by toxicity and the
19 control be commensurate with the degree of hazard.
20 The requirement for an up-front trust fund
21 for each disposal site would create a large and un-
22 necessary financial burden on the petroleum industry.
23 The EPA states that trust funds are a good idea and
24 have an advantage because they grow while a facility's
25 income is greatest. However, the large quantities of
-------
620
1 hazardous wastes are treated, stored, and disposed
2 of on site by generators, and such activities do not
3 create any income.
4 The financial requirements for closure and
5 post-closure monitoring may be appropriate for a
6 firm that's dedicated to hazardous waste management.
7 Trust funds are inappropriate for other industrial
8 enterprises that are not in the hazardous waste
9 management business for profit.
10 It is estimated that a large oil company
11 would be required to place as much as $100 million in
12 a trust for closure of a producing or exploration
13 site or a like amount for a single large refinery.
14 The regulations should be revised to provide
15 a self-insurance option to meet closure and post-
16 closure requirements. Where the public is protected
17 by standard legal process, a company with substantial
18 assets should be permitted to be self- insured. This
19 will also have the added benefit of freeing capital
20 from an idle trust, allowing its productive use in
21 locating and developing oil resources.
22 Chevron U.S.A. urges the EPA to revise the
23 proposed regulations to:
24 Re-study the cost/benefit of regulat-
25 ing petroleum industry surface impoundments
-------
621
1 under RCRA;
2 To consider the relative toxicity of
3 hazardous wastes and control the wastes
4 accordingly; and
5 To establish a self-insurance option
6 to satisfy the financial requirements of
7 closure.
8 Thank you.
9 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
10 questions from the panel?
11 MR. MUSSELL: If I can.
12 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
13 MR. FIELDS: I have one question regarding
14 your existing surface impoundments.
15 You indicated these facilities are located
16 in a lot of cases above the water table. Have you
17 done any analyses of the groundwaters?
18 MR. MUSSELL: I indicated that for some of
19 the facilities the bottom surface impoundment is
20 located below the water table.
21 MR. FIELDS: Okay. I meant that. Right.
22 Have you done any groundwater monitoring
23 at these sites to determine whether any contamination
24 of groundwater resources is occurring?
25 MR. MUSSELL: The groundwater in some 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
622
the locations, the ones that we are talking about in
the coastal areas, the groundwater is above 10,000
parts million of solids or higher. Actually, what I
am saying is a salt water aquifer is not potable or
not usable as fresh water.
MR. FIELDS: How about around usable
aquifers? Surely, some of these impoundments are
located above usable aquifers.
MR. MUSSELL: Yes. The argument is that if
there is a usable aquifer underneath a facility, then
there should be regulations or should be a method for
making sure that leachate does not contaminate usable
aquifers.
The point that we'd like to make is that
if we can show that there are no usable aquifers
underneath surface impoundments we shouldn't have
to be classified as a waste treatment facility and
fall under all of the proposed provisions of the
regulations.
MR. FIELDS: So you are saying if the water
is unusable you shouldn't have to comply with the
operating requirements in Section 3004; that's your
argument?
MR. MUSSELL: Correct.
MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Mussell, I need a point of
-------
623
1 clarification. You said that it would cost $3 billion
2 to upgrade existing NPDES lagoons to meet the surface
3 impoundment standards we have. Is that for your
4 company, for —
5 MR. MUSSELL: No.
6 MR. LINDSEY: -- the entire industry, or
7 what?
8 MR. MUSSELL: The origin of that estimate,
9 and it is an estimate, is from the Solid Waste
10 Management Committee of the API who is trying to put
11 together some idea of the cost to the petroleum
12 industry. That's not just Chevron.
13 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. I believe that they
14 did mention they were going to give us figures on that
15 MR. MUSSELL: Yes. The $3 billion number
16 is a rough estimate, as I heard it last week.
17 MR. LINDSEY: Okay. In another vein here,
18 you said that you felt that the closure trust fund
19 would be as large as $100 million for one of your
20 large sites. I think that's what you said. That's
2i a much, much higher figure than we were thinking.
22 I mean most of the large sites which we have estimated
23 we have been talking in terms of $100,000 or something
24 like that.
25 What is it that you are going to do to close
-------
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
624
a site that is going to cost $100 million?
MR. MUSSELL: The numbers that I quoted —
I don't have the background with me. I'd be happy
to provide you with that.
MR. LINDSEY: That would be most interesting
to us. I just can't imagine what you could do that
would cost you those kinds of figures. If you can
give us the background for that number, that would be
very helpful.
MR. MUSSELL: Okay.
MR. LINDSEY: You also indicated we should
set up relative hazards and set different standards
for handling wastes based on that relative hazard.
We have heard this from others before today and almost
every day we have had these hearings that we should
classify waste based on hazard and then, presumably,
treat them in some different fashion.
Do you have any thoughts, specific kinds
of thoughts -- assuming we were able to do that, come
up with degrees of hazard and set several classifica-
tions, what is it that we would do differently in the
management of those wastes, given that we have
extremely hazardous, seriously hazardous, hazardous,
and maybe hazardous, or whatever, however many classes
we've got? What kind of things would we do differently
-------
625
1 in the management of those wastes? Do you have any
2 thoughts on that?
3 MR. MUSSELL: Well, that's a rather
4 complicated question to answer. I think that given
5 several factors of public exposure, possibility of
6 materials leaching to a usable aquifer, the relative
7 corrosivity or toxic or volatile or ignitable factors
8 of the waste would have to be looked at and some
9 realistic approach taken to understanding whether or
10 not we would take extreme care by closing in
11 facilities, requiring 200 or more feet from public
12 lands, because of varying degrees.
13 Now if you are asking how to draw up the
14 guidelines based on whether the waste is highly toxic,
15 a material like dioxin, or whether it's a waste like
lg drilling mud, which is relatively nontoxic, nonhazard-
17 ous, I'm really not in a position to answer that kind
18 of quest ion .
19 But I think that you can categorize certain
20 types of wastes and recognize that you do not need
21 to protect the environment or protect the public from
22 drilling mud to the extent that you do to very toxic
23 material.
24 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
25 MS. DARRAH: Okay. No more questions.
-------
626
1 Thank you very much.
2 Bob Burt, California Manufacturers
3 Association?
4 Kenneth Wilkins?
5 Sam Chapin?
6 For the information of the people who are
7 here, there are two people in addition to Mr. Chapin
8 who are scheduled to testify. I just want to give you
9 that information.
10 MR. CHAPIN: This statement is in support
11 of the financial responsibility requirements concern-
12 ing insurance for both sudden and accidental --
13 MS. DARRAH: Could you state your name and
14 your affiliation for the record, please?
15 MR. CHAPIN: Yes. I am sorry.
16 I am Sam Chapin, Assistant Vice President
17 of Voight Walker and Company of San Francisco. We are
18 excess and surplus lines insurance brokers, and we are
19 commenting in support of the financial responsibility
20 requirements concerning the insurance for not only
21 the sudden and accidental but also non-sudden and
22 accidental pollution resulting from the escape of
23 hazardous wastes into the environment.
24 As I have said, I am here representing
25 Voight Walker and Company. We are a member of the
-------
627
1 company of Alexander Howden Group, Limited, of London,
2 England. Alexander Howden is one of the largest
3 insurance brokers in the world, with total assets
4 of over 250 million pounds, or approximately
5 $500 million.
6 Howden Agencies is the exclusive United
7 States underwriting manager of a pool of insurance
8 companies writing environmental impairment liability,
9 also known as pollution insurance. This policy
10 specifically covers non-sudden and accidental pollu-
11 tion to air, water, or land.
12 While this insurance has been available in
13 the United States since 1975, it is not widely known.
14 A number of educational seminars have been held around
15 the company for the leading insurance brokers.
16 However, only recently has interest in gradual
17 pollution increased. Limits of $5 million per claim,
18 $10 million annual aggregate are now available in
19 order to comply with the proposed EPA financial
20 responsibility requirements for non-sudden and
21 accidental pollution.
22 I would like to briefly discuss two
23 important areas • first, a brief history of the
24 insurance pool; and, second, the potential impact that
25 these regulations would have on the insurance industry.
-------
628
1 I will not go into a technical discussion of the
2 policy at this time. However, a copy of the policy
3 is available on request through the offices of
4 Voight Walker and Company.
5 The insurance pool concept began in 1974
6 when H. Clarkson, Limited, a Lloyds brokerage firm,
7 initiated negotiations with leading European insurers
8 to discuss the concept of insuring gradual pollution.
9 These individuals were leaders at that time, in that
10 they recognized the fact that gradual pollution
11 coverage was not widely available and, in addition,
12 they were aware of the increasing social pressure for
13 this protection.
14 An elaborate technical plan was developed
15 that classified various industries by numerical value
16 on the basis of environmental hazards associated with
17 each industry. In addition, a network of environmental
18 engineers was organized to perform surveys to insure
19 uniform quality throughout the world. These surveys
20 provide on-site inspections, a review of the current
21 state of compliance with all applicable regulations,
22 and an evaluation of the ability and attitude of
23 management toward pollution control.
24 At the present time, the pool insures one
25 of the largest hazardous waste disposers in the
-------
629
1 country. In addition, another leading hazardous
2 waste disposer has ordered a survey, and a formal
3 quotation has been released. Also, interest has been
4 shown by other leading hazardous waste disposers.
5 These companies decided to seek pollution
6 insurance prior to the EPA proposed guidelines. They
7 obviously recognize the critical need for gradual
8 pollution protection.
9 Typical costs for this insurance range from
10 a minimum premium of $5,000, which would apply to a
11 relatively innocuous risk, to $80,000 or more to the
12 large hazardous waste disposer operations. The
13 hazardous waste disposer currently written is being
14 charged a premium in the area of $80,000 to $90,000.
15 It is our feeling that premium costs will
16 be reduced as insureds comply with the EPA guidelines
17 and regulations.
lg The insurance industry is conservative by
19 i nature, and while insurance for sudden and accidental
20 pollution is normally a. part of every insured's
21 portfolio, protection against non-sudden and accident-
22 a.1 pollution is generally not available through the
23 standard insurance companies. There is no question
24 that Love Canal and other horror stories that we have
25 all read about have created a changing social climate.
-------
630
1 The public has demanded action from the Government to
2 insure public safety in dealing with hazardous waste.
3 The compilation of codes, rules, and
4 regulations by the specific action of the Government
5 in response to the increasing demands of the public
6 sector is not without precedent. As an example, the
7 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
8 embodied a host of standards of performance by which
9 trustees of employees' benefits and welfare plans
10 were held accountable. A direct result of such a
11 codification of rules and regulations was the creation
12 of a measurable insurance risk: The wrongful violation
13 of such standards of performance.
14 With this reality to measure insurance
15 groups, American International Group and Lloyds of
16 London prepared liability policies to protect these
17 trustees. As rates became determinable, based on
18 loss experience, and these companies realized a fair
19 profit on this class, other insurers were attracted
20 to the marketplace. Today there are no less than 10
21 insurance groups competing for this coverage.
22 The EPA is now creating a strikingly similar
23 situation with non-sudden and accidental requirements.
24 By codifying specific rules, regulations, obligations,
25 and standards of performance, the EPA provides for the
-------
631
1 insurance industry the measurable risk, the degree of
2 compliance or noncompliance with the specific code
3 of regulations.
4 The Voight Walker Environmental Impairment
5 Policy is the first to recognize this measurable
6 risk and to provide protection. As we continue to
7 represent an equitable and responsive insurer for this
8 liability coverage, our successful participation will
9 inevitably attract other insurers into the marketplace.
JO We welcome these regulations, and we will
11 work toward providing insurance along with the rest
12 of the world insurance marketplace. Thank you.
13 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Will you accept
14 questions from the panel?
15 MR. CHAPIN: Yes.
16 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
17 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Chapin, we just heard from
18 Mr. Park that he feels that the type of insurance that
19 you just described is discriminatory against small
20 businesses in the sense of, I presume — we have his
21 statement, but I'm just trying to paraphrase it --
22 that the premiums involved, for example, are relatively
23 higher for a small business than they are for a large
24 business. In other words, the premium, the delta
25 cost, is higher for a small business than it is for
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
632
a large one.
Would you care to comment on that?
MR. CHAPIN. From my experience with this
insurance, it has not proven to be the case. Certain-
ly, the cost relates basically to the income of the
company.
In the case that I cited in these comments,
it was literally for one of the largest, if not the
largest, hazardous waste disposer, which was a
j premium of approximately $80,000. I have seen
coverages go — we have a minimum premium — the
program has a minimum of $5,000. It is certainly,
again from my experience, somewhat of a surprise to
the insured when we offer this contract that the
premiums are as reasonable as they are, which has been
my personal experience.
MR. LEHMAN- Well, I would assume that
regardless of what the level of the policy is that
the premium that is charged is directly related to at
least -- one of the factors is the size of the
operation; is that not true?
MR. CHAPIN: Yes, indeed, of course.
MR. LEHMAN: I believe the point that
Mr. Park was trying to make was that this was not a
linear relationship. Is that a fair characterization?
-------
633
1 MR. CHAPIN: Well, at this stage of the
2 development of this program, it would seem that the
3 smaller insured certainly is paying proportionally
4 a smaller premium, and fairly dramatically so, again
5 from the experiences that I personally have had in
6 this insurance.
7 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Thank you.
8 MR. LINDSEY: Given that there is a dearth
9 of actuarial experience, particularly with the
10 regulated community, and losses and so on and this
11 insurance has not been widely held in the past until
12 recently, how do you go about setting premiums for
13 this sort of thing? In other words, when a company
14 wants or shows an interest in buying this insurance,
15 | how do you set the premium?
16 MR. CHAPIN: Well, I think it is a very
17 i difficult question when there is no specific
18 ! actuarial information available as far as loss history
19 But as I stated with the Employee Retirement Income
20 Security Act, the insurance community was faced with
21 the same set of circumstances. ERISA created a
22 considerable personal responsibility on the individual
23 serving as trustee and beneficiary of employee benefit
24 plans. Before, they had largely been held harmless
25 by their employers through various exculpatory
-------
634
1 clauses. So initially the premium was difficult to
2 arrive at. I think the cost in that case was, of
3 course, based on the number of participants in the
4 plan and the asset values of the plan.
5 But as we said, if you are proposing this
6 regulation and you are making insurance one of the
7 options to meet the financial responsibility, there
8 has to be in the insurance community certain carriers
9 that are willing to accept the obligations that the
10 insurance carries and, indeed, establish what they
11 feel is a fair price very quickly, if indeed your
12 proposed requirements are made law. We will certainly
13 see other carriers in the field, and if the rates
14 that are established by the carrier that I am repre-
15 senting prove to be inadequate or excessive, we will
16 very quickly see, I am confident from my experience
17 in the ERISA field, where indeed there were only two
18 prime carriers at the inception and with the passage
19 of ERISA there are now at least ten aggressively
20 competing for this business, that the insurance will
21 seek a level that will, I think, through actuarial
22 studies and loss experience reach a just level that
23 is equitable.
24 MR. LINDSEY: Does the fact of the technical
25 regulations provide — what's the word I want?
-------
635
1 Assurance -- provide assurance to the insurance
2 industry? In other words, does it provide a base
3 upon which you can -- I'm not getting through what
4 I want to say.
5 Does it help in the setting of these
6 premiums and so on, in other words, the fact that
7 there are now technical regulations or will be when
8 we promulgate our regulations, does that help you
9 in terms of feeling safer in providing this service'?
10 Is that why we are getting into it now, or what?
11 MR. CHAPIN: Well, of course, this insurance
12 has been available since 1975, well before probably
13 the idea of these regulations were in someone's mind.
14 But it certainly will not do anything but help as
15 far as the insurance industry goes, I suppose,
16 because you -- the insurance industry, being very
17 conservative, is not going to accept a risk that is
18 not in compliance initially with the EPA requirements.
19 The fact that you are solidifying and codifying these
20 requirements still further will enable the insurance
21 industry to proceed with more confidence. Obviously,
22 the more strict you are in the compliance -- or in
23 the regulations -- I realize that there are certainly
24 two sides to that question. But the stricter you are
25 in demanding the requirements of our potential
-------
636
1 insureds the better insurance risk we have, because
2 the less likely they are to pollute and, obviously,
3 that would make a better insurance risk, and, indeed,
4 lower the insurance premiums.
5 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
6 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Thank you very much.
7 Ariel Parkinson?
8 MS. PARKINSON: My name is Ariel Parkinson.
9 I am appearing as a member of the somewhat educated
10 public, though I am a member of the California State
11 Solid Waste Management Board as well.
12 I wish to commend the regulations in general,
13 both in their comprehensiveness and in their strictness
14 I have had some experience in talking with the State
15 Department of Health during the preparation of
16 regulations for the State of California, which are
17 certainly analogous to these proposed regulations.
18 I think that the comprehensiveness and strictness of
19 the regulations are very necessary. They are an
20 essential part of what I perceive as a major strategy
21 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
22 Unlike some of the preceding Federal acts,
23 there seems to be very little direct incentive or
24 direct encouragement to resource recovery as of now
25 under RCRA. There is, however, what seems to be 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
637
major strategy of making the open dumping so difficult
or making landfill so expensive and so difficult that
there is an indirect encouragement to the recovery
of resources.
This kind of thing that's in the regulations
for hazardous waste is comparable. By making
disposal more difficult and more expensive, there is
an indirect encouragement to the recovery of resources
from hazardous wastes.
This is also, however, what I perceive
as a limitation of the regulations as they are now
promulgated. I think there should be some effort to
give them more direct encouragement to resource
recovery and, perhaps, even incentive to resource
recovery from hazardous wastes.
I think that you can draw more experience
on what has happened in California. Up until very
recently, there were only five members of the State
Department of Health who were employed to monitor the
excellent manifest system and system of regulations
that have been set up. This is an obviously
inadequate number. I believe that the number has
recently been increased by 11. That is at least what
the Department of Health was trying for. That's a
better picture.
-------
638
1 In the field of resource recovery from
2 hazardous wastes, which is also a goal and objective
3 of the State Hazardous Waste Plan, there is only
4 one person who is in charge of trying to see that the
5 resource recovery program works. I've tried to follow
6 the work that's been done in this to some extent, and
7 it seems that for man-hours spent he is something of
8 a miracle worker. And it's a difficult job. It
9 involves not just -- you can't just send out broad-
10 sides. You have to go to a plant. You have to
11 discuss with the people. You have to go to another
12 plant and take the information personally. But the
13 efforts have panned out to a tremendous extent.
14 I know that the State Department of Health
15 requested another, I think, three people in resource
16 recovery to cover the state. The last I heard they
17 hadn't received or hadn't been able to employ the
18 three people. Now I don't know how hard they worked
19 at it, but there does seem to be this tremendous
20 disproportion between even the effort spent on
21 monitoring the disposal and the effort spent on
22 encouraging resource recovery.
23 Also from my admittedly amateur explorations
24 of the field, I do believe that there is a tremendous
25 potential right now in California for the recovery of
-------
639
1 materials from hazardous wastes that has not been
2 exploited. I have been told in conversations with
3 members of the State Department of Health that it's
4 just the most hazardous wastes that are generally
5 the most valuable and that would really make the
6 best field for profitable or break-even resource
7 recovery.
8 I'd like to make, I guess, two final points
9 in closing.
10 What I have heard of the practices in the
11 Bay Area, they are somewhat archaic in view of the
12 potential for resource recovery, and that the practices
13 in the Los Angeles area are also archaic, or, in fact,
14 very minimal.
15 My other concluding point is that I think
16 there has been a great danger in this state in the
17 permission to use Class 2 wastes as a sponge for
18 receiving liquid wastes. I think that this takes away
19 the incentive for resource recovery of both types of
20 waste.
21 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Thank you. Will you
22 answer questions for the panel?
23 MS. PARKINSON: I can, but I am a generalist.
24 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
25 MR. LINDSEY: Ms. Parkinson, I don't know
-------
640
1 how well you have read all these regulations we have
2 here, but at the risk of telling you something you
3 may already know, we have chosen to exempt resource
4 recovery facilities recovering resources from hazardous
5 wastes from the regulatory program here. We did that
6 partially with the feeling that we were going to
7 encourage those facilities. However, we've heard
8 from some people -- I don't know whether it was
9 earlier yet today or yesterday -- that they thought
10 they would rather be in the system.
11 Do you have a feeling as to whether or not
12 that might be an effective approach to award
13 encouraging resource recovery, or would we be better
14 off having them in the system in some fashion?
15 MS. PARKINSON- I think that it could be
16 a help, but not a very big one. I know that in
17 discussing the State Department of Health regulations
18 that the environmentalist with whom I was invited to
19 Sacramento wanted to have part of the disposal fee
20 set aside for a fund that would give them more direct
21 encouragement to the establishment of resource
22 recovery facilities; like a revolving fund for loans
23 or an R&D Institute or something of that sort.
24 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
25 MR. TRASK: Ms. Parkinson, you indicated we
-------
641
1 ought not to allow Class 2 waste to be used as a
2 sponge for the hazardous waste. I think that's the
3 way you put it.
4 MS. PARKINSON: Yes.
5 MR. TRASK: Are there some figures on how
6 much of that is done? Do you have any feel for that,
7 or is that a wide-spread practice?
8 MS. PARKINSON: I think it's fairly common
9 in the Los Angeles or Southern California area, and
10 one of the problems is that there are not only
11 vertical monopolies but binary vertical monopolies
12 that collect and haul and dispose of the Class 2
13 wastes and collect and haul and dispose of the Class 1
14 wastes. This is such a profitable enterprise that
15 right now in the Los Angeles area there are three
16 times as much waste planned for as there is waste
17 because there's actually competition for it at this
18 point. One company wants to take Class 2 wastes and
19 recover energy from it, but another company in this
20 case is more powerful and can undercut them and wants
21 to take the waste and use it as a sponge for their
22 Class 1 operation.
23 MR. TRASK: Under the California system,
24 that means Class 2 waste is going into a Class 1 land-
25 fill along with the Class 1 waste?
-------
642
1 MS. PARKINSON: Yes, I am certain.
2 MR. TRASK: It doesn't happen the other
3 way around?
4 MS. PARKINSON: No. I have enough
5 confidence in the working of the system to believe
6 that it must be a Class 1 site.
7 MR. TRASK: I was wondering if perhaps you
8 had some ideas on the other way around --
9 MS. PARKINSON: No.
10 MR. TRASK: -- which we have sort of
11 proposed here, as you probably realized.
12 MS. PARKINSON: Yes.
13 MR. TRASK: Thank you.
14 MS. PARKINSON: I don't know that there
15 i isn ' t either.
16 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
17 Patrick Wicks, Chem-Nuclear Systems,
18 Incorporated9
19 MR. WICKS: Ladies and gentlemen, I am
20 Patrick H. Wicks, representing Chem-Nuclear Systems
21 of Bellevue, Washington. I appreciate the opportunity
22 to present our comments on EPA's proposed hazardous
23 waste guidelines and regulations which are to be
24 adopted pursuant to RCRA, Sections 3001, 3002, and
25 3004.
-------
643
1 Chem-Nuclear Systems operates two major
2 hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities in
3 the United States and is committed to the safe and
4 environmentally-sound management of chemical and
5 radioactive wastes. Since these proposed regulations
6 will have a major impact on our operations and because
7 of our good operating record, we urge EPA to seriously
8 consider our comments and our suggested changes and
9 additions that follow in revising these regulations
10 prior to their promulgation.
11 With respect to Subpart A of the regulations
12 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, we
13 have three basic comments:
14 1. Section 250.13(a) (1). There appears to
15 be a problem in (i) and (ii) because the term "liquid"
16 is not defined in the Act or in the definition
17 ' section of 250.11. It would seem appropriate that
18 sludges as well as liquids be included in (i) but
19 perhaps not in (ii). It would also be useful to
20 define "liquid" in the definition section.
21 2. It is suggested that the following
22 change be made to Section 250.14(b) (2 ) , SIC 1099
23 listing: "T" should be added after "A" due to the
24 presence of significant quantities of heavy metals
25 in clarifyer sludge, including chromium and lead and
-------
644
1 others that are toxic to aquatic organisms.
2 The third comment on this Subpart deals
3 with our suggestions for additions to that listing
4 of SIC's and specific waste. I won't repeat those.
5 , There are 10 or 12 there in my comments.
6 Subpart B - Standards Applicable to
7 Generators of Hazardous Waste.
8 The only significant comment on this
9 section is in response to EPA's request for comment
10 regarding the proposed regulations as they apply to
11 generators producing less than 100 kilograms per
12 month as addressed in 250.20(c)(5), 250.23, and 250.29.
13 We believe the proposed regulations as written are
14 satisfactory and reasonable. In addition, EPA may
15 want to consider allowing generators of greater than
16 100 kilograms per month to apply for exemptions from
17 reporting, recordkeeping, and manifest provisions
18 if their waste is approved by EPA or the appropriate
19 State agency to be disposed in a Subtitle D facility.
20 Subpart D - Standards for Owners and
21 Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and
22 Disposal Facilities, Sections 250.40 to 250.46-6.
23 1. 250.43(h). In Subsection (iii) add,
24 "if applicable," since pH will not be applicable to
25 all wastes. In addition, the Note following (iv)
-------
645
1 should be expanded to allow less frequent sampling at
2 off-site facilities for shipments which are received
3 only once on an infrequent basis and which are small
4 in quantity, such as no more than 5,000 pounds, or
5 which have received a detailed analysis by the
6 generator. In certain cases, it may be hazardous
7 to perform the inspection analysis required under
8 this section, such as sodium or other reactive wastes
9 and toxic pesticides which would be expected to be
10 received in relatively small quantities.
11 2. 250.43-l(h). The Note following this
12 subsection should be expanded to allow a buffer area
13 less than 60 meters where no residences are closer
14 than 500 feet from the property line. This is
15 necessary since facilities located in a remote area
16 or an industrial area should not need a large buffer
17 area.
18 3. Section 250.43-3(c)(1). I think you
19 should insert the words "outside the facility" after
20 the word "environment" in the sixth line; this is
21 necessary due to occasional minor spills that might
22 occur at facilities which would not have an impact
23 on human health or the environment outside the
24 facility.
25 4. Section 250.43-5(a)(2). We recommend
-------
646
1 that you change the 30-day requirement to five days
2 to provide for more rapid notification to waste
3 generators of waste receipts at an authorized
4 facility.
5 5. 250.43-5(b)(2)(i)(C). I believe you
6 should add the unit cubic feet to the quantities
7 listed, since this is a commonly used waste unit.
8 6. 250.43-5(c) (1) . Insert "outside the
9 facility" at the end of the subsection for the same
10 reasons I indicated in a previous comment.
11 7. 250.43-5(c)(5)(iii)(F) . Add the unit
12 cubic feet to the list of units in this subsection.
13 8. 250.43-5(c)(5)(iii)(H). Insert
14 "to the best of my knowledge" after "complete" in the
15 first sentence and the word "only" in the second
16 sentence after the word "for."
17 9. 250.43-5(c)(6)(vii). Add the unit
18 cubic feet to the units listed in this subsection.
19 10. 250.43-5(6)(viii). Insert "to the
20 best of my knowledge" after "complete" in the first
21 sentence and the word "only" in the second sentence
22 after the word "for."
23 11. 250.43-7(e)(3). It appears that this
24 provision should read "Of completion of closure within
25 180 days after closure."
-------
647
1 12. 250.43-9(a)(2)(ii). A method for
2 determining the "period of payment" is not provided
3 in this subsection for use in calculating annual cash
4 payments to the post-closure monitoring and maintenance
5 trust fund.
6 13. 250.43-9(b)(1)(i) . It is suggested
7 that the phrase "exclusive of legal defense costs"
8 be deleted from this provision.
9 14. 250.44(g). I believe you should
10 delete the last part of this provision, starting with
11 "in accordance with occupational safety and health
12 administration's..."; OSHA requirements would apply
13 in any case to flammable and combustible liquids,
14 but OSHA requirements may not be suitable for
15 nonflammable or noncombustible liquids.
16 In addition, it is suggested a Note be
17 added at the end of this section as follows: "Note.
18 These requirements may be partially waived if the
19 owner/operator of a storage facility can demonstrate
20 adequate health and. environmental protection to the
21 satisfaction of the Regional Administrator."
22 15. 250.45-3(d). Again, we suggest the
23 addition of a Note as follows' "Note. An owner/
24 operator may use modified operating and maintenance
25 procedures if he can demonstrate to the Regional
-------
648
I Administrator that an equivalent or greater degree
2 of waste containment would be achieved."
3 I have four general comments that really
4 respond to the request in the preamble of the
5 regulations for comments.
6 One deals with post-closure liability for
7 hazardous waste sites which EPA has requested comments
8 on the desirability of a Federal fund. Chem-Nuclear
9 recommends the formation of such a Federal fund with
10 contributions from facility operators. The size
11 of the fund should be on the order of $100 million
12 to $500 million in size. Payments for each claim
13 should be limited to $5 million to $10 million, and
14 there should be a Federal guaranty established for
15 such payments.
16 In addition, it is suggested that EPA seek
17 appropriate legislation to require that permitted
18 hazardous waste landfills be deeded to the Federal
19 Government or appropriate State Government at the
20 end of closure or sometime before that point. We
21 believe this will provide substantial credibility to
22 such sites that is now often absent and will provide
23 much better control of waste disposal practices.
24 Moreover, it will settle the question once and for
25 all of who has the liability in perpetuity, because no
-------
649
1 corporation can do that.
2 Regarding the financial responsibility
3 section of the regulations, EPA has requested comment
4 as to whether the several trust funds to be
5 established under the regulations should be interest-
6 bearing or not. It would seem only prudent that
7 they be that way; that is, interest-bear ing.
8 In addition, there seems to be no reason
9 for establishing separate requirements with respect
10 to financial responsibility for publically or
11 privately owned facilities. Also in the financial
12 responsibility section, the required review of costs
13 should be either on an annual basis or once every
14 two years, since conditions affecting such costs
15 would not be expected to change rapidly.
16 In various sections of the Subpart D
17 proposed regulations, reference is made to facilities
18 within a certain distance from water wells. It is
19 presumed that this reference is to wells that are
20 in existence or would be in existence at the time a
21 permit is issued and that installation of new wells
22 after the initial permit would not cause cancellation
23 or modification of the permit for that reason.
24 Finally, in response to a comment to the
25 possible combination of PCB regulations with RCRA
-------
650
1 regulations, we support your intentions to combine
2 those two regulations and merge those regulations
3 into these.
4 That's the end of my comments.
5 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. For the benefit
6 of the panel, can I ask you to clarify a couple
7 things for me?
8 MR. WICKS: Yes.
9 MS. DARRAH: First of all, are you providing
10 us written justification for the various specific
11 suggestions that you made in the beginning of your
12 presentation where that --
13 MR. WICKS: I can. If there is a specific
14 ' question, I certainly can.
15 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Let me ask: Given the
16 nature of your suggestions -- that it was sort of
17 by number and that it was fairly quick and we do not
lg have copies — would you be willing to answer in
19 writing any questions that we may have once we
20 get copies of your comments?
21 MR. WICKS: Certainly.
22 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Even so, would you be
23 willing to answer some questions now?
24 MR. WICKS: Sure.
25 MS. DARRAH: Okay.
-------
651
1 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Wicks, I just want to
2 clarify something. Your comment on Section 3002
3 seemed to imply -- I just want to get this right --
4 that you feel that the small quantity exlcusion of
5 100 kilograms per month should be raised on a case-by-
6 case basis, is about the best I can put it. That's
7 what I got from what you said. Is that what you
8 meant?
9 MR. WICKS: What I meant there is that I
10 i can foresee cases where small quantities are generated
11 | and they will be permitted to be disposed of. These
12 will probably be relatively low-hazard materials, but
13 they will meet the criteria and will be classified
14 as hazardous waste. And those will be allowed to go
15 into a central landfill, for example. And these are
16 only maybe one-time situations or whatever.
17 MR. LEHMAN: Even above 100 kilograms?
18 MR. WICKS: Yes, even above 100 kilograms.
19 I am suggesting, if that is the case, you
20 might want to waive those reporting and recordkeeping
21 procedures for those cases.
22 MR. LEHMAN: But you are limiting your
23 remarks to a one-time kind of situation, not a routine
24 generation of --
25 MR. WICKS: It would depend on the situation,
-------
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
652
I think, but I can foresee cases where it might be
an ongoing thing and you could waive those requirements
in some cases on a case-by-case basis.
MR. LEHMAN: Thank you.
MS. DARRAH: I guess we don't have any
more questions right now. Thank you.
Is there anybody else in the audience who
would like to offer comments on the regulations
tonight?
Mr. Park, I note that you are still in the
audience. The panel has indicated to me that they
are pretty well burned out, and I think we would ask
you if we do have questions if we might submit them
to you in writing. You did indicate you would be
happy to respond in writing, and I think we will use
that opt ion.
MR. PARK: Yes.
MS. DARRAH: We appreciate it.
Thank you very much for everyone who stayed
and offered us comments, and we will close this
session of the hearing now. We will be reconvening
tomorrow at 8:30 to take comments on Section 3004.
(Whereupon, the hearing recessed
at 10:05 o'clock p.m.)
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN JR,
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
1020 NINTH STREET, SUITE 300
PO. BOX 1743
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95808
(916) 322-6194
March 16, 1979
Ms. Dorothy Darrah
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Darrah:
Thank you again for the opportunity that was given me to testify at the
Hearing held in San Francisco about the rules for controlling hazardous
wastes developed under Sections 3001 - 3004 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976. As you will recall, my testimony dealt with the
impact of the proposed rules on California's used oil recovery program.
The following additional information is submitted as requested by the Hearing
panel.
The attached rules and regulations for our used oil program were adopted
by the Solid Waste Management Board on October 6, 1978, and are a part of
the California Administrative Code, These regulations provide for
registration of used oil haulers, recyclers, and transfer facility operators
(Section 18611), provide for the documentation of all transactions of
used oil (Sections 18642 and 18652), and prohibit the transfer of used oil
to anyone except another registered hauler, a used oil recycler exempted
from registration, or to a person outside the State (Section 18641).
Recycletrs exempted from registration are those that recycle less than
5,000 gallons annually.
Receipts used to document exchange of used oil are required to be retained
by used oil haulers., recyclers and transfer facility operators for two
years and must be made available to the Solid Waste Management Board, upon
request, for review and audit. Also, annual reports are required to be
submitted by these people indicating the amount of used oil possessed at
the beginning and end of the reporting period, the total amount received
and transferred, and in the case of used oil recyclers, the amount recycled
including the quantity of final product produced, the quantity lost in the
process, and the amount of residues produced. These requirements for
receipts and for annual reports were included in the regulation to help us
assess the effectiveness of the collection program and to help assure that
the used oil collected is ultimately transferred to a registered used oil
recycler.
OD
-------
March 16, 1979
Page two
Ms. Darrah
Although our regulations do not specifically prohibit a collector (service
station) from selling the used oil to a non-registered hauler, such haulers
would be in violation of the law, and would be subject to prosecution and
assessment of civil penalties.
.
The fourteen used oil recyclers in California proce
gallons of used oil during 1978. This total includ
fornia processed about 30.1 millio
total includes 10.5 million gallon
I trust that the above information will answer the questions raised by the
Hearing panel. If any further clarifications are needed, please call me
at (916) 322-6194.
Sincerely,
jf t/n i~~\} f\^~~'
George L. ^rstt, Cni.
Resource Recovery Division
Attachments
LSatow/ad
-------
TITLE 14 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 493
(Register 78, No. *3—10-28-78)
CHAPTER 8. USED OIL RECYCLING PROGRAM
Article
1. General Provisions and Definitions
2. Registration
3. Requirements for Oil Retailers
4. Requirements for Used Oil Collection Facilities
5. Requirements for Used Oil Haulers and Used Oil Transfer Facility
Operators
6. Requirements for Used Oil Recyclers
7. Enforcement
Detailed Analysis
Article I. General Provisions and Definitions
Section
18600. Scope and Authority
18601. Objectives
18602. Definitions
Article 2. Registration
Section
18610. Scope
18611. Registration of Used Oil Haulers, Used Oil Transfer Facility
Operators and Used Oil Recyclers
18612. Prerequisite for Application for Registration
18613 Application for Registration
18614 Issuance of Registration
18615 Notification of Registration
Article 3. Requirements for Oil Retailers
Section
18620. Scope
18621. Display of Signs
18622. Specification for Sign
Article 4, Requirements for Used Oil Collection Facilities
Section
18630. Procedures for Being Listed as a Participating Facility
18631. Operation of the Facility
Article 5. Requirements for Used Oil Haulers and Used Oil Transfer
Facility Operators
Section
18640. Registration
18641. Operation Requirements
18642 Records of Transactions
18643. Annual Report
Section
18650.
18651.
18652.
18653.
Section
18670.
18671.
18672.
18673.
18674.
18675.
Article 6. Requirements for Used Oil Recyclers
Registration
Product Quality
Records of Transactions
Annual Report
Article 7. Enforcement
Scope
Inspections
Order of the Board
Suspension or Revocation of Registration
Enforcement Actions
Petition for Reinstatement
-------
494 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14
(Register 78. No. *3—10-28-781
Article 1. General Provisions and Definitions
18600. Scope and Authority. This chapter is adopted by the
State Solid Waste Management Board pursuant to and for the purpose
of implementing the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1977, Article 9, Chapter
1 (commencing with section 3460), Division 3 of the Public Resources
Code as it may be amended from time to time. These regulations,
together with the Act, regulate oil retailers, used oil collectors, and used
oil recyclers. Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the authority
of any other state or local agency in its proper exercise of regulatory
authority over oil retailers, used oil collectors, or used oil recyclers.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460 et seq.
History. 1. New Chapter 8 (Sections 18600-18675, not consecutive, Articles 1-7) filed
10-23-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 43).
18601. Objectives. In adopting this chapter, the board intends to
regulate the handling of used oil to encourage reuse. The board intends
that used oil shall be collected and recycled to the maximum extent
possible, by means which are economically feasible and environmental-
ly sound, in order to conserve irreplaceable petroleum resources, pre-
serve and enhance the quality of natural and human environments, and
protect public health and welfare.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18602. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the
following definitions and the definitions in Public Resources Code sec-
tion 3460 shall govern the construction of this chapter: (a) "Used Oil"
means a petroleum based oil which, after sale to a consumer through
use, storage, or handling, has become unsuitable for its original purpose
due to the presence of impurities or loss of original properties and is
suitable for recycling.
(b) "Act" means the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1977.
(c) "Executive Officer" means the Executive Officer of the board.
(d) "Oil Retailer" means any person who sells to consumers more
than 500 gallons of lubricating or other oil annually in containers for use
off the retailer's premises.
(e) "Used Oil Collection Facility" means a facility, listed with the
board where used oil may be deposited.
(f) "Used Oil Hauler" means a used oil collector, except a person
collecting used oil solely from sources owned and operated by the
person, who transports more than 500 gallons of used oil annually over
public highways.
(g) "Recycle" means to prepare used oil for reuse as a petroleum
product by refining, re-refining, reclaiming, reprocessing, or other
means, or to use used oil in a manner that substitutes for a petroleum
product made from new oil.
(h) "Used Oil Recycler" means any person who recycles 5,000 or
more gallons of used oil annually, except a person recycling solely from
sources owned and operated by such person.
(i) "Used Oil Transfer Facility Operator" means a used oil collector,
except a person collecting used oil solely from sources owned and oper-
ated by the person, who maintains any storage facility that receives
more than 10,000 gallons of used oil annually.
-------
TITLE 14 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 495
(Register 78, No. 43—10-28-78)
(j) "Registration" means an entitlement to operate, issued by the
board to a Used Oil Hauler, Used Oil Transfer Facility Operator, or
Used Oil Recycler.
NOTE Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
Article 2. Registration
18610. Scope. This article sets forth the requirements for regis-
tration of a used oil hauler, a used oil transfer facility operator, or a used
oil recycler. It also sets forth the procedures for submitting an applica-
tion, and for review and approval or denial of a registration by the
board.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18611. Registration of Used Oil Haulers, Used Oil Transfer Facility
Operators and Used Oil Recyclers. Beginning January 1, 1979, all
used oil haulers, used oil transfer facility operators, and used oil recy-
clers must be registered with the board.
NOTE: Authority cited. Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq
18612. Prerequisite for Application for Registration. (a) Any
used oil haulers applying to the board for registration as a used oil
hauler must be registered with, or must have an application pending
with the State Department of Health Services as a hazardous waste
hauler.
(b) All used oil transfer facility operators applying to the board for
registration must have a hazardous waste facility permit, or must have
an application for same pending from the State Department of Health
Services.
(c) All used oil recyclers applying for registration must have a haz-
ardous waste facility permit or must nave an application for same pend-
ing with the State Department of Health Services.
NOTE Authority cited. Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq
18613. Application for Registration, (a) An application for regis-
tration shall be filed with the board at the following address:
State Solid Waste Management Board
ATTN: Used Oil Recycling Program
P.O. Box 1743
Sacramento, California 95808
(b) The application shall require that information be supplied in
adequate detail to establish that the applicant is qualified to be regis-
tered as a used oil hauler, used oil transfer facility operator, or used oil
recycler. The application shall require, among other things, that the
applicant give the address at which process may be served upon it; the
address of each location at which the applicant maintains a place of
business associated with used oil transfer, storage, hauling, or recycling.
-------
496 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14
(Register 78. No. 43—10-28-78)
(c) All information in the application shall be certified by the appli-
cant as being true and accurate to the best of the applicant's knowledge.
(d) Within ten days after it receives an application for registration
the board shall notify the applicant of its receipt.
(e) An application for registration shall be filed on a form prescribed
by the board.
NOTE- Authority cited. Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18614. Issuance of Registration, (a) The board shall issue a reg-
istration upon review of an application if the following requirements
are met to the board's satisfaction:
(1) The applicant is currently registered with the Department of
Health Services as a hazardous waste hauler or has a current hazard-
ous waste facility's permit issued by the Department of Health Serv-
ices for the operation sought to be registered by the board. If the
applicant is not registered or permitted, as appropriate, by the De-
partment of Health Services, but does have an application pending
with such Department, the board may issue a registration which will
become effective only upon issuance of the Department of Health
Services' permit or registration.
(2) The applicant certifies in writing that it understands and will
comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter and of the
Act.
(3) The applicant proves that it is able to comply with this chapter
and with the Act.
(b) A registration issued by the board shall be non-transferable.
(c) A registration issued by the board shall be valid until surrendered
by the registrant or revoked by the board.
NOTE- Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference. Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18615. Notification of Registration. Within ten days after it is-
sues or denies a registration, the board shall notify the applicant of its
action, and shall provide to a new registrant appropriate stickers for use
in identifying its vehicles as registered with the board.
NOTE: Authority cited. Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
Article 3. Requirements for Oil Retailers
18620. Scope. The requirements of this article shall apply to any
person who sells more than 500 gallons of lubricating or other oil annual-
ly in containers to consumers for off-the-premises use.
NOTE: Authority cited Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference. Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq
18621. Display of Signs, (a) Any oil retailer shall display a sign
informing the consumer of one or more conveniently located collection
facilities For used oil.
(b) The sign shall be posted in a conspicuous manner at or near that
point within the seller's establishment where the oil is displayed for
sale.
-------
TITLK 14 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BO\RD 497
(Register 78, No 43—10-28-78)
(c) In counties where five percent or more of the population, as
determined in accordance with the latest Bureau of Census informa-
tion, speak a specific primary language other than English, the sign shall
be in such other language, as well as in English. Specific language
requirements for each county will be provided by the board. Add-on
information indicating specific location(s) where used oil may be de-
posited shall in all cases be in English.
NOTE- Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18622. Specification for Sign. The sign shall be provided by the
board or shall be an exact copy of the board's sign. The business names
and addresses of specific locations where used oil may be deposited by
customers shall be filled in by the oil retailer.
NOTE. Authority cited- Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference- Chapter 1.
'Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
Article 4. Requirements for Used Oil Collection Facilities
18630. Procedures for Being Listed as a Participating Facility.
Any person may be included in the board's list of participating facilities
by notifying the board in writing that it will receive used oil from the
general public, and by providing the business name and address (in-
cluding a zip code) of the facility. The facility shall remain on the list
until such time that the operator requests to be removed from that list,
or the board removes the facility from the list for non-compliance with
this chapter or for failure to function as a used oil collection facility.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference- Chapter 1.
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18631. Operation of the Facility, (a) The operator of a used oil
collection facility shall accept up to five gallons of used oil per day from
any person without charge, except when:
(1) the facility's used oil storage tanks are filled to capacity, or
(2) the facility operator determines that his own deposits of used
oil require the use of the remaining used oil storage capacity before
the storage tanks are emptied.
(b) The operator of a used oil collection facility shall not dispose of
used oil using any of the following methods, unless authorized by other
provisions of law:
(1) discharge to sewers, watercourses, marine waters, drainage
systems, surface or ground waters;
(2) incineration; and
(3) deposit on land.
(c) The operator of a used oil collection facility shall maintain the
facility and shall collect used oil in such a manner as is safe for users of
the facility, and shall observe all applicable safety requirements im-
posed by law.
NOTE- Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference Ch.ipU-r 1.
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq
-------
498 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14
(Register 78, No 43—10-2S-78)
Article 5. Requirements for Used Oil Haulers
and Used Oil Transfer Facility Operators
18640. Registration. All used oil haulers and used oil transfer fa-
cility operators shall register with the board in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Article 2 of this chapter.
NOTE: Authority cited. Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference- Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18641. Operation Requirements, (a) A registered used oil haul-
er or used oil transfer facility operator shall transfer used oil only to a
registered used oil hauler, a used oil transfer facility operator, a regis-
tered used oil recycler, a used oil recycler exempted from registration
or a person outside the state.
(b) A registered used oil hauler or used oil transfer facility operator
shall comply with applicable provisions of regulations adopted by the
Department of Health Services (Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 2 of the
California Administrative Code) governing the transport, transfer, and
storage of hazardous waste in a manner that would not result in a
hazard to public health, personal safety, wildlife or domestic livestock.
(c) A registered used oil hauler shall comply with applicable provi-
sions of regulations adopted by the California Highway Patrol (Title 13,
section 1160-1167 of the California Administrative Code) governing
transport of hazardous materials.
NOTE: Authority cited. Section 3470, Public Resources Code Reference- Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18642. Records of Transactions. A registered used oil hauler or
used oil transfer facility operator shall provide a receipt to any person
to whom oil is transferred; maintain a complete record of all such
transactions, documented by reproducible receipts for two years; and
make available to the board, upon request, all records and copies of
receipts for the purpose of review and audit. A used oil hauler or a used
oil transfer facility operator fulfilling the hazardous waste manifest
requirements of the State Department of Health Services (Title 22,
section 60233 of the California Administrative Code) will be considered
to "have fulfilled this record keeping requirement provided the recycler
maintains a copy of the manifest at his business address for a period of
two years and makes it available to the board upon request.
. NOTE- Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18643. Annual Report, (a) A registered used oil hauler or used
oil transfer facility operator shall submit an annual report to the board
on his activities during the calendar year. This annual report shall state
the quantities of used oil possessed at the beginning and end of the
reporting period, the total amount collected, and the amounts trans-
ferred during the reporting period. The report shall be submitted to the
board no later than February 1 of each year, commencing in calendar
year 1980.
(b) The report shall be on a form provided by the board itemizing
the amounts transferred to used oil haulers, used oil tranfer facilities,
used oil recyclers, and to those outside the state, indicating the state or
foreign country to which transferred.
NOTE. Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq
-------
TITLE 14 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 499
(Register 78, No. «—10-28-78)
Article 6. Requirements for Used Oil Recyclers
18650. Registration. Beginning January 1, 1979, no person except
a person recycling solely from sources owned and operated by the
person and except persons recycling less than 5,000 gallons annually,
shall operate a facility for recycling used oil without registering with the
board as a used oil recycler in accordance with the procedures outlined
in Article 2 of this chapter.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference- Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18651. Product Quality, (a) Any product made in whole or in
part from used oil may be represented as substantially equivalent to a
product made from new oil for a particular use if substantial equivalen-
cy has been determined in accordance with rules prescribed by the
Federal Trade Commission under section 383(d) (1) (A) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) or if the product conforms
fully with specifications applicable to that product made from new oil.
Otherwise the product shall be represented as made from previously
used oil.
(b) For the purpose of determining "substantial equivalency"
between virgin and re-refined lubricating oil, the standards tor lubricat-
ing oil contained in Article 4, Chapter 7 of Division 8, Business and
Professions Code (as amended current to date of test), enforced by the
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Measure-
ment Standards shall apply until such time that the abo%'e referenced
rules of the Federal Trade Commission are developed and implement-
ed.
(c) To assure conformance with the minimum standards for lubricat-
ing oil, the board may conduct, or may cause to be conducted, appropri-
ate laboratory analysis of samples of re-refined oil from consumer
outlets.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference Chapter 1.
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18652. Records of Transactions, (a) A registered used oil recy-
cler shall provide a receipt to any hauler or used oil transfer facility
operator from whom used oil is received, maintain a complete record
for two years of all such transactions, documented by reproducible
receipts; and make available to the board, upon request, all records and
copies of receipts for the purpose of review and audit. A recycler fulfill-
ing the hazardous waste manifest requirements of the State Depart-
ment of Health Services (Title 22, section 60235 of the California
Administrative Code) will be considered to have fulfilled this record
keeping requirement provided the recycler maintains a copy of the
manifest at the business address for a period of two years, and upon
request, makes it available to the board.
-------
500 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14
(Register 78, No. 41—10-28-78)
(b) In addition to maintaining records of the quantities of used oil
received for recycling, the recycler shall maintain records of the quanti-
ties of the final product (s) produced, the quantities lost in the process,
and the amount of residues produced (in gallons). The recycler shall
make available to the board, upon request, all records and copies of
receipts for the purpose of review and audit.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18653. Annual Report, (a) The registered used oil recycler shall
submit an annual report to the board on his activities during the calen-
dar year. This annual report shall state the quantities of used oil pos-
sessed at the beginning and end of the reporting period, the total
amount received, and the amount recycled during the reporting peri-
od. The report shall be submitted to the board no later than February
1 of each year commencing in calendar year 1930.
(b) The report shall be on a form provided by the board itemizing
the amounts prepared for reuse as a lubricating oil, as a fuel, as a road
oil, used in the manufacture of asphalt, and for other uses, specifying
each type of use. It shall also indicate the amounts consumed in the
process of preparing the used oil for reuse including the waste gener-
ated.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
Article 7. Enforcement
18670. Scope. This article applies to the enforcement of the
provisions of this chapter, including inspection of used oil recycling
facilities and their records inspection of the records of used oil haulers,
and used oil transfer facility operators.
NOTE: Authority cited- Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18671. Inspections, (a) The Executive Officer or his duly au-
thorized representative, upon presentation of proper identification,
may enter the plant of a used oil recycler to obtain samples for the
purpose of making laboratory analysis, or may, during regular business
hours, enter the business offices of either a used oil recycler, a used oil
hauler, or a used oil transfer facility operator to inspect and copy perti-
nent records, reports, information or test results relating to the require-
ments of this chapter.
(b) A report listing any deficiencies found during the inspection
(and subsequent laboratory tests if applicable) shall be prepared by the
inspector and shall be kept on file by the board. A copy of the report
shall be provided to the used oil recycler, used oil hauler or used oil
transfer Facility operator.
(c) If corrections are needed, the used oil recyclers, hauler, or used
oil transfer facility operator shall provide the board with a written plan
of correction which states the actions to be taken and the expected
dates of completion.
-------
TITLE 14 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 501
(Register 78. No. 43—10-28-78)
(d) When obtaining samples from a used oil recycler, the inspector
shall obtain a sample large enough to allow the operator to retain a
portion for separate analysis.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference. Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq
18672. Order of the Board. After hearing, the board may issue a
cease and desist order to any person who has or is about to violate the
provisions of this chapter.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18673. Suspension or Revocation of Registration, (a) The board
may, after hearing, suspend or revoke registration as a used oil hauler,
recycler, or used oil transfer facility operator for:
(1) Violation of any applicable requirements of this chapter.
(2) Aiding, abetting or permitting the violation of any provisions
of this chapter.
(3) Misrepresentation or omission of a significant fact either in the
application for registration or in information subsequently submitted
to the board.
(4) Failure to comply with any order.
(5) Failure to maintain a valid registration with the State Depart-
ment of Health Services as a hazardous waste hauler or to maintain
a hazardous waste facility permit with the State Department of
Health Services, as appropriate.
(b) The suspension shall remain in effect until the violation has been
corrected to the satisfaction of the board, or until the board makes a
final determination based on the outcome of a hearing.
NOTE. Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference- Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq
18674. Enforcement Actions. Should the board find that good
cause exists for the filing of an action to enjoin a violation or to recover
civil penalties, the board may take such an action.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
18675. Petition for Reinstatement. A used oil recycler, a used oil
hauler, or a used oil transfer facility operator, whose registration has
been suspended or revoked may petition the board for reinstatement
after 30 days or more have elapsed from the effective date of the
decision or from the date of the denial of a similar petition.
NOTE. Authority cited: Section 3470, Public Resources Code. Reference Chapter 1,
Division 3, Public Resources Code, Section 3460, et seq.
-------
-. ,1S£AU ,;SL|£ T .ONES..3
PWOENIX ARIZONA 9SOO3
March 14, 1979
REVISED COMMENTS
I 310-9511369
Mr. John P. Lehman
Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
rJ. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Proposed Regulations - Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
§§ 3001 and 3004
Dear Mr. Lehman:
Phelps Dodge Corporation is pleased to submit
the following comments on the December 13, 1978 Proposed
Regulations under §§ 3001 and 3004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 95-580). These pro-
posed Regulations appeared in the Federal Register, Vol.
43, No. 243 at pages 58946-59022.
Phelps Dodge Corporation is engaged in the mining,
milling and smelting of copper bearing ores in the south-
west. Ic. presently has, in active operation, open pit cop-
per mines at Ajo and Morenci, Arizona, and at Tyrone, New
Mexico. It also has an underground copper mine in the de-
velopment stage at Safford, Arizona.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
SECTION 3001
Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency to
develop and promulgate criteria for identifying the char-
acteristics of hazardous wastes, and for listing hazardous
wastes which will be subject to the hazardous waste regula-
tions promulgated under the Act.
It is Phelps Dodge Corporation's concern that the
proposed regulations, in their present form, impose an un-
authorized and certainly unnecessary economic burden on the
operations of the domestic copper mining industry. An
examination of the legislative history discloses that the
Act was primarily intended to regulate the disposal of
municipal and industrial waste. It was not intended to
regulate mining operations.
Most of the copper domestically produced in the
United States is now produced from porphyry copper mines
which consist of low grade disseminated ore bodies. The
mining process of the ore bodies is such that enormous
amounts of useless overburden may overlie the ore body and
have to be removed. In addition to the initial overburden,
it is typical that for every ton of ore removed from the
mine, that from 1-1/2 to 5 tons of other unusable rock and
alluvial materials are generated. This latter material is
uneconomic to process and must likewise be handled and dis-
carded in the same manner as the overlying overburden.
Both the overburden and unusable mine material
generated on a daily basis are deposited by truck, rail
or, in rare cases, by conveyor as close to the mine itself
as possible. The mine operator must keep his transporta-
tion of unusable mine material to as short a distance as
possible because of the economics of mining. Accordingly,
most storage areas for such unusable material are within a
mile or two of the mine itself. There is no alternative
method of handling and storing these enormous quantities of
unusable mine material. They must be deposited in the
vicinity of the mine.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
* Although the term "solid waste" is defined in
the Act as including "discarded material, including solid,
. . . material resulting from . . . mining . . . opera-
tions," it is clear from the legislative history of the
Act that Congress did not intend mining wastes to be
classified as "hazardous", and thereby subject to regula-
tion as a hazardous waste. The Senate Report of the Com-
mittee on Public Works states that the hazardous "[mlate-
rials of major concern are arsenic wastes, insecticide and
pesticide residues, waste oil, explosive waste, sludge
contaminated with metals such as chromium and zinc, and
radioactive waste." (Senate Report Committee on Public
Works, S.R. 94-988, p. 3). Furthermore, in a colloquy
which took place on the Senate floor when the bill was
being considered on June 30, 1976, Senator Randolph, in
answer to a question from Senator Domenici, specifically
and uncategorically stated that "[mlining activity of the
kind you describe would [n]ever be regulated under this
bill." Senator Randolph also commented to Senator Domenici
that "[tjhere is nothing in this bill to regulate mining."
These comments were made to Senator Domenici when he de-
scribed to Senator Randolph the process followed by Ken-
necott Copper Corporation in its porphyry copper operation
in Bingham Canyon, Utah, in which "millions of tons of
overburden are simply dug up and dumped over the side of
a mountain."
In addition to the legislative history consist-
ing of the aforementioned Senate Report and exchange be-
tween Senators Randolph and Domenici, the House Report of
the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee states that
"Committee information on the potential danger posed by
mining waste is not sufficient to form the basis for legis-
lative action at this time. For this reason, the Committee
has mandated a study of mining waste." (emphasis added)
(House Report, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. 14496, p. 15). Congress frankly admits that
it lacks sufficient information to determine the hazards
associated with mining waste. Accordingly, section 8002(f)
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
of the Act requires the Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior, to conduct a comprehensive
study of mining waste and make findings and recommendations
based upon the results of that study. It was anticipated
that Congress would then determine what additional legisla-
tion, if any, is needed with respect to mining waste.
Thus, it appears clear that the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
does not apply to mining overburden and unusable mine mate-
rial, at least not until after completion of the special
study on raining waste mandated by 5 S002(£). The proposed
regulation of mining waste under the Act is therefore
unauthorized. As stated in the House Report of the Com-
mittee on Science and Technology, the intent and purpose of
the special study on raining waste is "to generate documents
which will be the basis for decisions and plans concerning
research, development and demonstration. It is conceiv-
able, for example, that a study might conclude that no
action under this bill is called for in a certain subject
area. . . ." (emphasis added) (House Report, Committee on
Science and Techonolgy, H.R. 74-1461, p. 13). Accordingly,
until the special study on mining waste is completed,
regulation by the EPA of mining waste is premature and
without statutory authority.
Nonetheless, in drafting its criteria for clas-
sification of hazardous wastes, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency has applied the criteria to all "solid waste"
with three exceptions; one of which is "overburden result-
ing from mining operations and intended for return to the
mine site." 43 F.R. at 58955, § 250.10(d)(2)(ii) .
The above cited exception is no exception at
all when applied to open pit copper mining operations
(nor indeed for that matter to underground operations).
Phelps Dodge Corporation knows of no open pit copper
mining operation where any part of the O"erburden or un-
usable mine material is returned to the mine or is intended
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
to be returned to the mine. Likewise, in the case of
underground mines, the unusable mine material produced in
sinking new shafts and driving development headings is
typically not discarded underground.
For the reasons hereinabove discussed, Phelps
Dodge Corporation strongly recommends that the exemption
should be amended to read: "overburden resulting from
mining operations and discarded at the mine site." Phelps
Dodge Corporation further recommends that the following
definitions be added to the proposed regulations to clarify
the scope of this exemption:
(A) "Mine Site" — a mine and related prop-
erty necessary for the conduct of mining operations;
(B) "Overburden" — discarded material from the
extraction, beneficiation and processing of ores and
minerals.
The proposed amendment and additional definitions would
make it clear that, in keeping with Congressional intent,
overburden discarded at the mine site would not, at least
for the present, be subject to regulation under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
Phelps Dodge Corporation believes that it was
Congress ' intent that the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act should not apply to mine wastes, at least
not until after completion of the special study mandated
by § 8002(f) of the Act. However, in the event that this
intent is not recognized by the Environmental Protection
Agency, Phelps Dodge. Corporation believes that the pro-
posed definition of toxic should be given careful study.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
The vast amount of wastes generated in the mining
of copper are the naturally occurring rock removed diractly
from the mine, together with the tailings which result from
the concentrator process. This material annually con-
stitutes billions of tons. If this material is to be
regulated at all under the Hazardous Waste Regulations,
Phelps Dodge Corporation believes that it will be regulated
only because of the test for toxicity which is being pro-
posed. Such wastes are neither ignitable, corrosive or
reactive. If they are determined to be toxic, Phelps Dodge
Corporation is confident that such wastes will not test out
significantly greater than the proposed standard.
The proposed toxicity test is based upon the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. The
standards adopted under the Safe Drinking Water Act were
based upon an assumed consumption of two liters of potable
water per day. A significant margin for safety was built
in.
"(Clritical maximum contaminate levels
have substantial safety factors. The
safety factors for persons drinking un-
usually large quantities of water are
not as high as those of the majority of
the population, but they do provide a
reasonable degree of protection under
the circumstances." 40 Fed. Reg.
59575, December 24, 1975.
Therefore, any waste which would violate the proposed
toxicity standard by a small increment certainly would not
present a significant hazard to public health and the
environment. Phelps Dodge Corporation therefore submits
that the standard proposed for determining toxicity is too
sharp a delineation and that various levels of toxicity
should be recognized and different handling and treatment
standards applied. This concept has already been recog-
nized to some extent by classifying mine wastes as special
wastes.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1S79
SECTION 3004
Section 3004 of the Act concerns itself with the
regulation of hazardous waste treatment, storage and dis-
posal facilities. The Section 3004 draft regulations set
forth general facility standards. Certain waste cate-
gorized as "special waste" has been exempted from some
general facility standards. Proposed regulation 250.46-5
defines a category of special waste as "other mining
waste." Such wastes are "discarded material from the ex-
traction, benefication, and processing of ores and min-
erals, "
Phelps Dodge Corporation in its mining of copper
ore displaces several hundred thousand tons of other mining
waste each day. These wastes are in the form of mine over-
burden (as defined above) and tailings. Phelps Dodge Cor-
poration has not yet completed testing of these wastes to
determine their chemical characteristics. However, Phelps
Dodge Corporation believes that if these wastes are deter-
mined to be hazardous under the provisions of these pro-
posed regulations, they would be hazardous only by reason
of the proposed toxicity standards. The wastes are not
ignitable, corrosive or reactive.
Depending on the final determination of standards
for toxicity, the mining wastes may or may not be classi-
fied as hazardous. Phelps Dodge Corporation believes that
its mining wastes do not constitute a hazard to the en-
vironment. In this regard, the Environmental Protection
Agency obviously agrees with Phelps Dodge Corporation in
that the draft regulations repeatedly state that mine 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 de-
veloped in Subpart D (disposal facility regulations)." 43
Fed. Reg. at 58992.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
Therefore, prior to the imposition of costly
controls on Phelps Dodge Corporation and other companies
similarly situated, it must be asked whether the "rela-
tively low" hazards do exist and whether costly controls
should be imposed at this time which offer no protection
to the public health and the environment. Phelps Dodge
Corporation submits that the regulations of Subpart D
cannot and need not be applied to mining wastes. The
Environmental Protection Agency's policy in this regard has
been to defer
"applicability of most of the treat-
ment, storage, and disposal standards
for selected high volume, relatively
low risk waste categories (i.e., min-
ing waste . . ) until information is
gathered and assessed to determine how
they can best be handled." 43 Fed.
Reg. at 58943.
Pursuant to proposed § 250.46-5, the disposal of
mine waste would be subject to standards with respect to
sampling, site selection, security, record keeping and re-
porting, visual inspection, closure, and groundwater moni-
toring.
Sampling provisions for special waste are set
forth at § 250.43(f). Obtaining a "representative sample"
of the several hundred thousand tons of material that are
removed each day by Phelps Dodge Corporation and of the
many billions of tons that have been removed in the past
is a problem in itself. This problem is magnified by the
fact that Phelps Dodge Corporation is but one of many in
the copper mining industry. The sampling procedures set
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
forth in these regulations simply do not address this
problem for the mining industry. The characteristics or
the rock may vary from region to region of the mine.
Certainly the rock varies in one respect since only that
portion of the rock containing an economically recoverable
amount of copper is actually processed. An acceptable
sampling technique for analyzing the hundreds of millions
of tons of rock must be ascertained. Certainly each rail
car or truckload of waste cannot be independently analyzed,
and certainly no one rock sample from a waste dump can give
a true test for the entire mass. Therefore, it is sub-
mitted, that the waste analysis tests as set forth in these
regulations were designed for other types of wastes and
cannot be generally applied to mining wastes.
Section 250.43-1 sets forth standards for general
site selection. These standards are logically inapplicable
to the mining of ores. It is quite possible that the ore
body itself may be located within a "500-year floodplain."
The ore must be mined where it is found. The mine operator
does not have a choice of relocating the mine to an area
on higher ground not within a 500-year floodplain. Sim-
ilarly, the economics of mining demand that the waste
materials be discarded as close to the mine as possible.
In addition,, many areas of the southwest in
which mining activities are conducted are in rugged, arid
regions subject to sudden violent thunderstorms with rapid
runoff. In many cases, the gulleys, ravines and arroyos
through which these flood waters rush are the gulleys,
ravines and arroyos into which mine wastes have tradi-
tionally been dumped. It is physically impossible to
pile the hundreds of millions of tons of mine wastes on the
narrow ridges which rise between these gulleys, ravines
and arroyos. Normally dry arroyos have been and must con-
tinue to be used as a primary site for the disposal of
mine wastes.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
Similarly, the restriction that a waste area not
be located in the recharge zone of a sole source aquifer is
again a condition which cannot be imposed on the mineral
extraction industry. If an economically recoverable ore
body has been found, it must be mined where it is located.
The mine operator does not have alternatives for waste dis-
posal sites. The wastes must be discarded close to the
mine. If that region happens to be above a sole source
aquifer, then that is where the mine waste must be dis-
carded.
Just these requirements, that mine wastes not be
disposed of in a 500-year floodplain or above a sole source
aquifer, if imposed on future mines sites, could well pro-
hibit unnecessarily the opening of additional ore bodies.
Certainly, such severe restrictions cannot be imposed at a
time when, by the Environmental Protection Agency's own ad-
mission, not enough is known about the effects of mine
wastes to establish specific guidelines.
The regulation on site selection also provides
at § 250.43-1(h) that active portions of the waste areas
be located at least 60 meters from the property line of the
facility. Such a requirement is, again, totally unneces-
sary for the disposal of mine wastes. For instance, at the
Phelps Dodge Corporation Morenci mine, US Highway 666 runs
over an active mine dump. The public of course has access
to this highway and has driven over the dump for many
years. The public has not been subjected to risks from
"unexpected discharges or releases from fires, explosions,
spills, and underground leaks." The safety factor which
the Environmental Protection Agency seeks to impose around
waste areas containing hazardous wastes are for those
wastes which by their very nature present a potential for
immediate harm to the public health and the environment.
The hundreds of thousands of tons of rock which are dis-
carded day in and day out around a mining area, certainly
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
do not pose a danger to the public from fires, explosions,
spills and underground leaks. The rock in its natural
state poses no threat. The imposition of at least a 60
meter buffer zone around a mining area removes from pos-
sible use an area which could receive considerable waste
material. Such an imposition substantially increases the
costs for the operation of a mine.
The security provision at § 250.43-2 again seeks
to protect the public from those highly hazardous mate-
rials which could pose immediate danger to the public
health and environment. Again, the mine overburden and
tailings produced by the copper mining industry do not pose
a hazard of this type. Therefore, requiring a two meter
fence around the waste facilities, if they are deemed to be
hazardous, is totally inappropriate for this type of acti-
vity. In the United States, mine dumps containing billions
of tons of material cover hundreds of square miles of area.
Mine dumps are frequently located in areas of rugged ter-
rain. Requiring the operator to place an expensive six
foot barrier over miles of rugged terrain benefits no one
but the party who sells the fence to the mine operator.
Certainly, the removal of rock from one place and deposit-
ing it in another creates no mere danger to animal life and
human life than that which existed before the rock was
moved. The imposition of the expensive security require-
ments set forth at 250.43-2 are absolutely unnecessary
since the mine overburden and tailings, even if determined
to be hazardous under the § 3001 toxicity test, do not
pose the type of hazards that require security fencing.
The record keeping requirements set forth at
§ 250.43-5 again are drafted with the concept of keeping
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
records for numerous containerized quantities of hazardous
wastes. It is submitted that if records are kept for
mining wastes that a map designating the area where the
materials are deposited should be sufficient. An annual
report of total tonnage should be adequate. The chemical
composition of the wastes does not vary significantly
from day to day and therefore it should not be necessary
to make a daily analysis and keep records on a daily basis.
The closure requirements at § 250.43-7(k), (1)
and (m) are directed at those facilities which contain
highly hazardous materials. Subsection (k) appears to
incorporate by reference all the provisions for closure
while the intent of the proposed regulations is to exempt
special wastes from most of the closure and post closure
requirements. Hone of the special waste categories appears
to be subject to the closure and post closure financial re-
quirements. This should be clarified. Certainly the re-
quirements that the facility "be secured so that human and
animal life cannot come into contact with hazardous waste"
is not necessary for mining wastes. As discussed above,
there is no danger from physical contact.
The groundwater monitoring and reporting re-
quirements at § 250.43-8 are designed to monitor hazardous
wastes with a high potential for contaminating the ground-
water. Until there is some evidence that the high volume,
relatively low risk mine wastes are endangering groundwater
aquifers, the expensive monitoring requirements should not
be imposed. A single well should provide adequate sur-
veillance to indicate whether a problem exists or not.
Only if a danger is discovered should the extensive mon-
itoring and reporting requirements be imposed.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 14, 1979
In conclusion, Phelps Dodge Corporation submits
that the regulations have been drafted with the objective
to regulate domestic and industrial wastes which are
truly hazardous, that is they pose imminent danger to the
public health and the environment. Trying to apply one
general standard to all types of waste is inappropriate.
The extensive regulations should not be applied to the
mine overburden and tailings produced by the copper mining
industry.
Very truly yours,
XES, P.C.
JFB:blb
-------
TESTIMONY FOR PRESENTATION
AT PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
March 12, 13, & U, 1979
San Francisco, California
By
Dr. George Hersh
State of California, Solid Waste Management Board
I am Dr. George Hersh, Chief of the Resource Recovery Division, Solid Waste Management
Board, State of California, I am here to testify regarding rules proposed under
section 3002 and 3003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. My comments are directed to the regulations
proposed for generators of used oil and to the impact of the proposed regulations on
California's used oil recovery program which began on January 1, 1979.
California's used oil recycling program was authorized by Senate Bill 68 of 1977 and
is administered by the State Solid Waste Management Board. Briefly, it includes
about 2400 voluntary used oil collection stations, throughout the State, where the
do-it-yourself oil changers can deposit their drainings, and a public information
program (t.v. spots, signs posted by oil retailers, etc.) to encourage the
do-it-yourselfers to use these stations. The administrative rules for the program
provide for registration of used oil haulers, recyclers, and transfer facility
operators with the Board, requires receipts for transfers of used oil, and provides
for submittal of annual reports by used oil haulers, recyclers and transfer facility
operators accounting for the used oil handled or processed during the year.
The program depends upon 2400 used oil collection stations to help alleviate the
problems associated with the indiscriminate dumping of about 12 million gallons
of used oil annually by the do-it-yourself oil changers. Most of these collectors
are service stations that have yolunte_er_ed_ to provide this extra service. There
are also a number of automotive repair shops and recycling centers that have
volunteered as collection stations.
We understand that, under the proposed regulations, used oil generators such as
automobile and truck service stations would be considered generators of hazardous
wastes, and as such, would be required (among other things), to:
1. Apply for a generator's identification code; and
2. Either fulfill the manifest and other record keeping and reporting
requirements of a hazardous waste generator or in the case of used
oil generators, to enter into an "assumption of duties contract"
with a used oil hauler, recycler, or disposer.
The regulations, as presently proposed, would have a detrimental effect on our program,
and, contrary to the resource conservation goals of the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act, would discourage the recycling of used oil. Muffler shops, recycling
centers and other facilities not handling used oil as a regular part of their business
would be likely to withdraw from our collection program rather than comply with the
proposed federal registration, record keeping, and reporting requirements. Also, the
present marginal monetary incentive for collecting used oil (.05C to .07c per gallon)
-------
Testimony
would be reduced if stations are required to pay a fee to used oil haulers or
disposers to assume the generator's responsibilities. Incidentally, there Is
no shortage of used oil haulers in the State. There are 70 companies in the
business with about 300 trucks hauling used oil.
The problems we have identified could be eliminated by categorically exempting
service stations and others that collect used oil for recycling from the
requirements for a hazardous waste generator. This exemption would also have the
effect of encouraging the recycling of used oil by placing a disincentive on
other modes of disposal. Such a waiver of the requirements is reasonable and
proper, since used oil collected for recycling is not a waste product but a
resource that is to be put to use.
I appreciate this opportunity to testify.
-------
Statement of
DON R. MORROW
GENERAL MANAGER, MINING DIVISION
AGRICO CHEMICAL COMPANY
P. 0. BOX 1110
MULBERRY, FLORIDA
before the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
concerning
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS OF THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
San Francisco, Calif. March 13, 1979
-------
Good evening. My name is Don R. Morrow and I am General Manager
of Agrico Chemical Company's Mining Division. Agrico operates three
phosphate mines located in Central Florida.
Agrico is very concerned about the designation of phosphate
mining materials as "hazardous waste" under the proposed regulations
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. I thank EPA for this
opportunity to express our concern.
I am convinced that EPA would not include phosphate overburden
and clays as hazardous waste if EPA representatives had had time to
visit us in Florida and learn in specific what the industry does,
the nature of the material handled, the method for storage of these
materials, and the amount of exposure risk.
You need to know that our industry disturbs approximately 5,600
acres a year. Overburden, the soil above the layer of ore, is
displaced and returned to each acre. The sand and clay that are
removed by the beneficiation process are also returned to the mine
site to be used in the reclamation procedure.
It is also important to know that the industry reclaims each
acre disturbed; that is, restores each acre to a generally more
productive or more aesthetic state. Reclamation, in fact, has been
mandated by the State of Florida since 1975.
-------
So we have a dynamic process of mining and reclamation of areas
approximating 5,600 acres (8.7 square miles) each year. Can you
realize how difficult it would be to impose the proposed restrictions
on areas as large as this, particularly when these areas are moving
each day?
The real question is, why is it even necessary? The overburden
that is removed from above the matrix is simply deposited about 200
feet from its original location, when the land is reclaimed, the
overburden is returned to its approximate original location. We
didn't change the chemical or radiological characteristics of it in
any manner. We merely displaced it.
Moving the overburden to mine the matrix is analogous to the
farmer moving the soil to harvest his potatoes. Certainly the movement
shouldn't cause the material to be reclassified as a "waste." Since
it wasn't hazardous to begin with, it certainly can't be labeled a
"hazardous waste."
After the phosphate is separated from the ore-bearing matrix,
we are left with the other two parts of the matrix, sand and clay.
The sand, which EPA concurs is not a hazardous waste, is pumped back
to the mine site for fill in the reclamation process.
The clays are also returned to the mined-out pits, and in most
cases, stored to an elevation above the normal ground surface by
constructing earthen dams around the mined-out areas. The elevated
storage allows the clays to dewater and, in time, consolidate to a
firm condition where the area can be reclaimed for good pasture or
agricultural uses. In the meanwhile, these ponds provide wonderful
habitat for wildlife and some of the best fishing in Florida.
-------
Let's now consider exposure. EPA's recent Environmental Impact
Statement on Central Florida's Phosphate Industry states that, "To
date, no activity of the phosphate industry has been proved to cause
a radiation dose to the general population in excess of the guideline.
Furthermore, when industry average time-weighted values are used, it
is anticipated that no phosphate workers will receive doses of
radiation exceeding the guideline established for the general
population." So there is no risk to the phosphate miner working in
the mining area.
However, EPA wishes to classify the overburden and clay ponds
as hazardous waste. When we consider overburden, we should recognize
that there's virtually no difference between our overburden piles
and much of the developed reclaimed land in Polk County. Our
reclaimed land is, in great part, overburden piles that were leveled
in such a manner as to create useful land.
It is indeed a rare occasion that someone would walk across an
overburden pile or a clay pond and, consequently, there is practically
no exposure when the land is in the process of mining. However, in
Polk County, many housing developments, shopping centers, businesses,
parks, recreation areas, clinics, institutions, schools, and the
U.S. Post Office are all located on reclaimed land. This use of the
land causes much greater exposure than our overburden piles where
nobody goes.
If there is a risk, we should build fences around these reclaimed
developed areas and keep people out. We should then also construct
fences around the State of Colorado, parts of Las Vegas, Nevada,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the beaches of Sarasota, Florida.
-------
These places have gamma radiation levels as high or higher than the
phosphate mines and their reclaimed lands. If EPA is going to "protect"
Floridians from their own land, they should also "protect" the millions
i> "
of endangered people living in these other areas.
And as for alpha radiation, the respected health physicist,
Dr. Keith J. Schiager, has written, "Surveys conducted in Canada and
Europe indicate that as many as 5% of all houses exhibit normal radon
progeny concentrations exceeding 0.02 wl. Based on observed
distributions of normal concentrations, approximately 1% of all
residences would exceed 0.03 wl. Consequently, it can safely be
assumed that a million or more people in the U. S. live in normal radon
progeny concentrations which exceed the level for which the EPA proposes
regulatory or remedial action."
Of course, the real fact is that there is no appreciable hazard
when the radiation levels are so low. In a study by EPA, it was
determined that the amount of radiation only became significant to
people living in dwellings on a small percentage of reclaimed land,
if they stayed inside the same unventilated house for seventy years.
I submit to you, if I, or most other Americans, had to stay inside
an unventilated house for seventy years, I would not be concerned
about an increase in the risk of having cancer.
The most positive proof that radiation is not a problem comes
from a survey by the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
in 1974 which determined that Polk County, the primary location of
phosphate mining since 1880, ranks 31st of 67 Florida counties in
mortality rates due to cancer of the respiratory system. Another
-------
study by the National Cancer Institute shows that Polk County ranks
43rd for 67 Florida counties in leukemia mortality. These mortality
rates indicate that Polk County is as healthy as the average county
in Florida, so how can EPA conclude we have a radiation problem?
A note of interest to all of you is that Polk County is the residence
of the oldest living American, Charlie Smith, who is 135 years old.
All these facts support the industry's position that:
The amount of radiation from phosphate mining or
reclaimed land is of such low levels as to have no
discernible or significant health effects on the people
in the area;
The proposed classification of overburden and clays
as "hazardous" is not necessary,
The costs to the industry resulting from this proposed
classification is inflationary to the American people and
provides no benefits to the people;
This proposed regulation represents the typical
"inflationary overkill" from which President Carter
has promised the American people some relief.
I thank you again for the opportunity to present my views.
Respectfully submitted,
J^c-^ ]\. fty?l>si,isV~+.<->
Don R. Morrow
-------
CALIFORNIA CHEMICAL
WASTE
PROCESSORS
4S75 PACHECO BOULEVARD, MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 (41S) 228-5100
March 12, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman
Director, Ha2ardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Lehman:
Attached are comments compiled by the California Chemical
Waste Processors Association relative to Sections 3001,
3002, 3003, and 3004 of the "Proposed Rules" for the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580).
These comments are the result of many hours of discussions
by the members of our Association and represent the collective
opinions of the companies involved (see membership list
attached).
Although in general it is felt that these regulations would
provide a valuable standard for performance within the haz-
ardous waste management industry and would improve the general
environment, it is further felt that some of the specific
requirements proposed would be extremely costly to the general
public, technically infeasible based upon the types of materials
handled, or would result in significantly reduced participation
in the industry by small operators. The California Chemical
Waste Processors Association would like to extend the opportunity
to discuss the attached recommendations with your staff at any
opportunity. If there are any questions, please contact me for
further information, backup data, or potentially a meeting with
members of the Association.
Thank you for this opportunity to present these items to you
for you review.
Very tru
WHP/jk
Enclosures (2)
William H. Park
President
-------
CALIFORNIA CHEMICAL
WASTE
PROCESSORS
3040 19TH STREET, SUITE 10, BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA 93301 I805) 327-96; 1
MEMBERSHIP LIST - MARCH, 1979
REGULAR MEMBERS
Aurignac Industrial Waste Plant
P. 0. Box 331
San Ardo, CA. 93450
(408) 627-2434
BKK Corporation
3031 East I. Street
Wilmington, CA. 90744
(213) 775-3607
Casmalia Disposal
P. O. Box 5275
Santa Barbara, CA. 93108
(805) 969-4703
Chemical Processors Inc.
5501 Airport Way So.
Seattle, Washington 98108
Ronald S. West
(206) 767-0350
County of San Diego
County Operations Bldg.
Bill Davis MS-0380
5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92123
(714) 565-5635
Environmental Disposal Service
P.O. Box 1071
430 W. Elm Avenue
Coalinga, CA. 93210
(209) 935-2002
Environmental Protection Corp.
3040 19th Street
Bakersfield, CA. 93301
(805) 327-9681
Geotherma1, Inc.
P. 0. Box 480
Middletown, CA. 94561
(707) 987-3305
IT Environmental Corporation
4575 Pacheco Blvd.
Martinez, CA. 94553
(415) 228-5100
Liquid Waste Management
Drawer L
Taft, CA. 93268
(805) 763-3141
M. P. Oil Company
175 Ray Street
Bakersfield, CA. 93308
(80S) 393-1151
McAuley Oil Company
P. 0. Box 16014
Long Beach, CA. 90806
(213) 595-6595
Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 156
San Ramon, CA. 94583
(415) 426-7160
Oakland Scavenger Company
2601 Peralta Street
Oakland, CA. 94607
(415) 465-2911
Oil & Solvent Process Company
P. O. Box 907
Azusa, CA. 91702
(213) 334-5117
Operating Industries, Inc.
2425 South Garfield
Monterey Park, CA. 91754
(415) 726-3202
Richmond Sanitary Svc.
205 41st Street
Richmond, CA. 94805
(415) 236-8000
-------
Romic Chemical Corporation
2081 Bay Road
East Palo Alto, CA. 93202
(415) 324-1638
Ventura Regional County Sanitation Dist.
P. O. Box AB
Ventura, CA. 93001
(805) 659-2130
Zero Waste Systems, Inc.
2923 Poplar Street
Oakland, CA. 94608
(415) 893-8257
Aqua Clear Farms, Inc.
2510 West Orange Avenue
Anehiem, CA. 92804
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Chancellor and Ogden
3301 East I Street
Wilmington, CA. 90744
(213) 432-8461
Dorado Growth Industries
dba C.P.S.
3487 Noell Street
San Diego, CA. 92110
Elkins Ranch Company
P. 0. Box 695
Fillmore, CA. 93015
(805) 524-1781
Oscar E. Erickson, Inc.
249 Tewksbury Avenue
Richamond, CA. 94801
(415) 235-1393
Gasch & Associates
4302 Madison Avenue
Sacramento, CA. 95842
(916) 334-8400
Industrial Environmental Services
4575 Pacheco Blvd.
Martinez, CA. 94553
IT Corporation
4575 Pacheco Blvd.
Martinez, CA. 94553
(415) 228-5100
Liquid Gold Oil Corporation
9957 Medford Street
Oakland, CA. 94607
Lowry and Associates
17748 Sky Park Blvd.
Irvine, CA. 92714
(714) 751-3820
McKay Trucking
P. 0. Box 376
Coalinga, CA.
(209) 935-0851
J. J. Magana, Corp.
P. O. Box 579
San Pablo, Ca. 94806
Nash Salvage, Inc.
16211 Placid Drive
Whittier, CA. 90604
John P. Nash
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.
17921 Sky Park Circle, Suite G
Irvine, CA. 92714
(714) 557-9450
0. James Pardau
4309 Vista de Lago Way
Fair Oaks, CA. 95628
(916) 967-8351
Penfield & Smith Engineers, Inc.
P. O. Box 98
Santa Barbara, CA. 93102
(805) 966-7156
Rodi, Pettker, Galbraith, Bond &
Phillips
A Law Corporation
611 W. 6th Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA. 90015
(213) 680-0823
Rudy Bonzi, Inc.
2650 West Hatch Road
Modesto, CA. 95351
SCS Engineers
4014 Long Beach Blvd.
Long Beach, CA. 90807
(213) 426-9544
-------
Trotter-Yoder & Associates
3730 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Lafayette, CA. 94549
(415) 284-2980
Turner & Sullivan
5;:0 Capital Mall, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA. 95814
(916) 441-1116
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA. 94111
AFFILIATE MEMBERS
California Regional Water Quality Control
Central Valley Region
3201 S. Street
Sacramento, CA. 95816
County of Fresno Health Department
1246 L. Street
Fresno, CA. 93721
Department of Health
Vector and Waste Management Section
714 P. Street
Sacramento, CA. 95814
Kern County Health Department
1700 Flower Street
P.O. Box 997
Bakersfield, CA. 93302
State Solid Waste Management Board
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1335
Sacramento, CA. 95814
California Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
1000 Coddingtown Center
Santa Rosa, CA. 95401
Tulare County Health Department
Civic Center
Visailia, CA. 93277
Kern County Public Works Department
2601 "0" Street
Bakersfield, CA. 93301
Department of Environmental
Health Services
San Bernadino County
1111 E. Mill Street, Bldg. 1
San Bernadino, Ca. 92415
Stanislaus Co. Department of
Environmental Resources
820 Scenic Drive
Modesto, CA. 95350
Department of the Army
U.S.A.E.H.A. R.D.-W, FAMC
Denver, Colo. 80240
Contra Costa County Health Dept.
100 37th Street, Room 1500
BoardRichmond, CA. 94805
Solano County Dept. of
Public Health
355 Tuolumne Street
Vallejo, CA. 94590
Environmental Quality Board
City of Los Angeles
City Planning Department
Room 517 City Hall
200 No. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA. 90012
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
By the California Chemical Waste Processors Association
March 9, 1979
A. Section 3001 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
1. Supplementary Information: Introduction, page 58947
"...first priority for permitting to offsite disposal facilities
and new facilities..."
Comment: It appears to be discriminatory to regulate one segment of the
disposal operators (offsite) nationwide while others are given up
to 5 years interim period whereby they would only be subject to
a limited set of requirements.
It has been demonstrated that some of the most technically sound
operations are those defined as offsite or contracted private
firms that specialize in this field. Such firms are open to
frequent inspection and public scrutiny whereas, private sites
are often virtually invisable to all but the user. In that the
same materials are handled it appears environmental problems are
identical.
To allow a five year differential in implementation of the
regulations uniformly, will place a. severe economic disadvantage
on those firms which professionally manage hazardous waste
materials and also will serve to further aggravate and produce
a negative impact upon the initial Congressional intent of RCRA.
We would advocate a uniform application of the regulations nation-
wide, and that in cases where problems are anticipated, priority
be given to potential public exposure regardless of whether the
facility is defined as offsite or any other term. We believe
that this approach would best serve the national interest.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979''
2. Section 250.10 (d)
Comment: Certain wastes are excluded from regulation because they are
called reclaimable or are considered not to be discarded. We
disagree with this philosophy and urge that all hazardous
materials be regulated. Too many examples have occurred where
waste products destined for reclaiming ended up in the wrong
place and have caused irreparable damage to both human health
and the environment.
Again, we strongly urge that these materials be regulated and
tracked even though they may be legitimately reclaimed.
Likewise we strongly disagree with the exclusion for generators
of less than 100 kilograms per month. Extremely hazardous
materials such as cyanides, dioxin, or PCB's should have very
tight control and an exclusion does not make any sense.
We urge that E.P.A. adopt a classification system based upon
degree of hazard. Perhaps then small quantities of the least
hazardous could be excluded.
In a related vein we do not understand why E.P.A. has refused
to designate wastes by degree of hazard. We are quite concerned
that without a proper identification logic we will be over-
whelmed with quantities of waste that could otherwise go to
sites with less stringent requirements than our Class I sites.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
2. Section 250.10 (d) (Continued)
We have operated in California quite rationally with a two-step
hazard classification system for years. We urge E.P.A. to adopt
a similar approach for a national program.
Regarding the section dealing with identification and testing
of materials to determine whether or not they are hazardous, we
are concerned with the cost of implementation. In Washington,
D.C. at the February 23 hearings an Environmental Engineer with
the Association of American Railroads testified that the full
analysis would cost approximately $6000 per sample. He was told
by an E.P.A. panel member that this seemed much too high as E.P.A.
estimates were only about $390 per sample.
This approach by E.P.A. seems completely irresponsible by our
Association. The low cost of $390 given by E.P.A. is actually
more costly to the generator than if he were to go ahead and
actually dispose of the waste material. What E.P.A. is advocating
is that generators merely call everything hazardous and handle
accordingly because the testing requirements to prove other-
wise are actually more costly than disposing of the waste at
a Class I facility. We urge that some less costly testing
procedure be offered by E.P.A.
B. Section 3002 Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
1. Section 250.22 Manifest, page 58977
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979~
"Samples shown on pages' 58980 and 58981 do not contain suffi-
cient information for proper management of hazardous materials."
Comment: We would recommend adoption of a report that more closely
follows that used in California.
2. Section 250.29 Exemption for Generators of Less Than 100 Kilograms
Per Month of Hazardous Waste; Retailers; and Farmers
Comment: We would recommend that E.P.A regulate these sources and adopt
a degree of hazard classification system. It is our concern
that too much waste will go uncontrolled by the proposed
exemptions and endanger human health and the environment.
C. Section 3003 Standards Applicable to Transporter of Hazardous Waste/
Published in the Federal Register April 28, 1978.
1. Page 18509, Placarding of Vehicles
"E.P.A. is considering recommending to D.O.T. the development of
a new placard for such substances."
Comment: Due to the range of placards for display on vehicles carrying
hazardous waste, it is strongly recommended that no further
placards be required. The current terms utilized provide ample
warning to emergency response personnel approaching a
vehicle or to the general public in observing the vehicle.
The use of further categories such as carcinogenic, biocumulative,
netogenic, or other such terms would provide no additional
information even to an experienced individual, and would tend
to confuse or not be understood by the uninformed public.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
1. Page 18509, Placarding of Vehicles (Continued)
Additionally, the logistics of replacing all of the conforming
sign holders to allow for additional categories would be expensive
with very minimal if any advantage.
2. Page 18511, Section 250.34 through 250.36
Comment: It is strongly recommended that the waste materials consigned to
a transporter provide for flexibility in the location to which it
is hauled. Due to a number of factors, such as traffic conditions,
hours of operation, capacity, haul distance and price, the use of
one or another approved sites may be necessary or economical. The
elimination of this flexibility through the requirement to
dispose of the material at one facility and only one facility
without written approval would result in loaded vehicles being
tied up adding transportation expenses to the generator. It
is agreed that the generator has the right to require the
material to be hauled to a sole facility and be handled in a
specific manner through the disposal contract between the
generator and disposal facility. This does not, however,
require that this procedure be required for all materials, such
as oil and water, muds, and other less hazardous materials.
Analysis of this section indicates that it serves no specific
purpose and would result in increased cost of disposal to the
generator who will out of economic necessity be forced to pass
these costs on to you and me, the consumer.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
3. Page 18512, Section 250.38 A Transporter Shall Mark Each
Vehicle with the City or Community Where It Is Based
Comment: We do not see any reason for this. Perhaps a telephone number
would be of more use.
D. Section 3004 Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Proposed Regulations dated December 18, 1978.
1. Page 58987 and 58988 Financial Responsibility
"...Financial Responsibility: site Life Liability. E.P.A. has
interpreted the term financial responsibility in Section 3004
of RCRA to include the ability to pay for injuries to people and
property which result from the escape of hazardous waste into the
environment..."
"The proposed regulations require a facility to show evidence of
a minimum of $5 million of financial responsibility per occurrence
per site for sudden and accidental occurrences during the life
of the site. In addition, the owner or operator of a facility,
or group of facilities, is required to have and maintain financial
responsibility for non-sudden and accidental occurrences in the
amount of $5 million per occurrence, and an annual aggregate of
$10 million, including legal defense costs. Both types of
insurance coverage in these amounts are now available from the
private sector.
Financial responsibility, which is intended to include claims
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
arising from both sudden and non-sudden escape of hazardous
waste to the environment, can be established by liability
insurance, self-insurance, a combination of the two, or some
other form of financial responsibility acceptable to the
Regional Administrator. If a company elects self-insurance,
however, such insurance for all sites owned and insured may not
exceed 10 percent of the firm's equity..."
"The Agency also has received comments that such liability
insurance is prohibitively expensive. E.P.A. has discussed
this point with several insurance industry representatives,
has reviewed the ranges of premium costs for such liability
insurance being written today, and has concluded that insurance
costs are not unreasonable."
Comment: The foremost concern of our Association has to do with this
section of the proposed regulations, specifically the portion
relating to the liability coverage of $5 million with a $10
million annual aggregate coverage for sudden and non-sudden
pollution insurance. This coverage is required of the owners
or operators of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility
during the site operation. Financial responsibility may be
established by any one of the following:
A. Evidence of liability insurance.
B. Self-insurance with level of such insurance not
exceeding 10 percent of equity.
C. Other evidence of financial responsibility acceptable
to the Regional Administrator
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION MID RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
These requirements may be a threat to the national productive
capacity of U. S. industry in general and is destructive to the
very existence of small business enterprises involved in waste
management regardless of how well they may be operated. We
also believe that these regulations far exceed the mandate of
Congress.
Contrary to the assertions of E.P.A., no insurance policies
meeting these requirements have been written. A policy was
obtained by a member of our Association in the amount of $2
million per occurrence and $4 million annual aggregate for an
annual premium of $90,000. with provisions which meet only a
portion of the total requirements. This policy was under-
written by a foreign owned and operated insurance group.
After diligent effort on the part of this Association, we have
been unable to locate a domestic underwriter who will consider
this type of coverage. Our only encouragement that such
coverage is obtainable comes from a London based group.
The self-insurance clause, which allows only 10 percent of
equity to be applied as self-insurance is of little or no
benefit to most members of our Association. In order for a
company to be self-insured it would require an equity of $100
million. With the exception of a very few companies, the
operators of such facilities have an equity of less than $1 million.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
This provision, therefore, is discriminatory against many small
businesses which are presently performing in compliance with the
stringent regulations which are already in force in the state of
California.
Most industries operating in the United States produce a certain
amount of hazardous waste materials as an end product. According
to these regulations if these wastes are to be disposed of they
must be deposited in an E.P.A. approved site. In order for a
site to legally operate, financial responsibility must be
established and maintained. In most cases insurance is the
only way that financial responsibility can be established. Our
experience shows that the only source for this coverage is
foreign groups which can issue or cancel policies at will.
This places in the hands of foreign interests an inordinate
amount of control over the productive capability of this nation.
The mandate of Congress contained in Section 3004 of RCRA is
stated as follows: "No private entity shall be precluded by
reasons of criteria established (regarding financial responsibility)
from the ownership or operation of facilities providing hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal services where such
entity can provide assurances of financial responsibility and
continuity of operation consistent with the degree and duration
of risks associated with the treatment, storage or disposal of
specified hazardous waste."
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
It is our position that the level of insurance of $5 million
and $10 million is not "...consistent with the degree and duration
of risks associated with the treatment, storage or disposal of
specified hazardous waste." The level of financial responsibility
is a consideration that must be made by site risk analysis. In
other words, a large facility in an urban community handling a
high volume of extremely hazardous waste would have a much
higher risk and therefore, should provide more financial
responsibility than a small site remotely located, handling
small volumes of less hazardous material.
If we take the only example that exists that approaches the
coverage required, it is estimated that the cost for the
required coverage would be in the neighborhood of $150,000 per
year per facility. The cost of such premium must be passed on
to the waste generator and thence to the consuming public.
Many facilities are presently operating on an annual gross
revenue of less than this amount. This means that the fees
for disposal by a small operator must be more than doubled
to meet the cost of this single item in these regulations.
On the other hand, the large operator handling a high volume,
thus a high revenue, will be less affected, placing the small
business in a non-competitive situation.
If we assume that 200 sites may be ultimately permitted
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
nationwide by E.P.A., it would require $2 billion worth of
coverage at an estimated annual cost of $30 million.
It is our opinion that such regulations are neither fair nor
reasonable.
The reserve disposal capacity that is presently provided by
facility operators in the state of California is envied by
most states. The major reason for the capacity that exists
in California is because of the large number of small business
enterprises involved. The adoption of this portion of the
regulations will result in the demise of most of these small
businesses and thus greatly reduce our disposal capacity.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
2. Page 58993, NPDES Permitted Facilities
The Association recommends that all hazardous waste be handled in
accordance with these regulations for the receiving, storage, and
reporting requirements up to the point where the material is either
treated such as to be no longer hazardous or is injected into a
domestic sewage system covered by an NPDES permit.
The Association also recommends that NPDES permitted industrial
facilities should operate under the proposed regulations for all
materials being deposited into ponds and lagoons similar to the
permitted RCRA facilities. If this requirement is not imposed,
facilities, whether a generator or off site disposal facility, with
an NPDES permit would be capable of avoiding regulation under RCRA.
3. Page 58996, Section 250.41, Definitions
The Association strongly recommends that the definitions and respon-
sibilities of owners and of operators be distinguised and delineated
separately. Due to the complexities of the various ownership and
operator relationships, it is difficult and in some cases contractually
impossible for both the owner and the operator to jointly comply
with all of the requirements. The Association's recommendation is
that the owner or the operator, whichever is filing for and
receiving the hazardous waste facility permit, be responsible for
any and all actions under these regulations to the permitting agency.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
It would then be that parties responsibility to show both financial
responsibility and all other requirements for obtaining the permit
through whatever means might be employed satisfactory to the
permitting agency.
4. Page 58996, Section 250.41 (2), Active Fault
It is recommended that the definition for active fault be changed
to conform with the California definition of an active fault as
follows, "A fault in the earth's crust that has been active
during Holocene time (last 11,000 years)." Alquist-Priolo,
Geologic Hazards Zones Act. No disposal area or hazardous waste
storage or handling facility shall be located on the trace of an
active fault, Section 15002.1 California Education Code.
5. Page 58996, Section 250.41 (7), Basin
The definition of an artificial material has not been provided and
is hence confusing. It should be clarified whether this phrase
indicated man-made, manufactured, not natural in place, or other
depending on the intent.
It is recommended that the definition of disposal be reinserted to
read: "means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into
or on any land or water."
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION ftHD RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
7. Page 58997, Section 250.41 (44), Incinerator
This definition should be expanded to include means of thermal
reduction other than controlled flame combustion, such as pyrolysis,
molten salt, etc.
8. Page 58997, Section 250.41 (45), Incompatible Waste
This definition should be deleted and the following definition
should be substituted, "means incompatible waste as defined by
Subpart A criteria". By placing this definition in Section 3004
regulations would put the same term with the same definition
in two sections of the RCRA regulations.
9. Landfill
It is recommended that this definition be reinserted to read:
"means an excavated, engineered, and proper facility whereby hazardous
waste is deposited or covered."
10. Off Site
It is recommended that this definition be reinserted to read:
"means any facility where a public road must be utilized for
transfer between the generator and the disposal facility or where
the facilities are not under common ownership."
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
11. Page 58999, Section 250.41 (83), Storage Facility
It is recommended that the period during which generators may store
waste should be shortened to thirty or sixty days making them
subject to the standards for a storage facility. As an alternative,
standards for generators storing hazardous waste should be proposed
for the period under ninety days.
12. Page 59000, Section 250.43 (f) General Facility Standards
This section is vague about the frequency, detail, and need for the
"detailed analysis of each type of waste from each source". It
should indicate that this information must be supplied in the
manifest and be a requirement imposed on the generator.
13. Page 59000, Section 250.43 (g) and (h) General Facility Standards
The frequency of collection, detail of analysis, retention period,
method of collection, and items to be analyzed are vague. No
indication is provided for the use of this analysis which may cost
more than the cost of the disposal. If limited to general
character, such as ph, explosive range, and sample retention for
one week, it could be manageable.
14. Page 59000, Section 250.43-1, General Site Selection
The statement should be made that this section applies to new
site selection and should not be utilized as a basis for rejecting
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
a permit on an already operational facility. It is also recommended
that in Subparagraph (a) and that the word "in" an active fault
zone be defined.
15. Page 59000 and 59001, Section 250.43-1 (hi General Site
Selection
Active portions of a facility shall be located a minimum of 200
feet from the property line of the facility.
Comment: We strongly disagree with this requirement because it would place
an undue hardship upon existing facilities. For example, it
could reduce the usable area from a 40 acre site to 20 acres. If
the facility can demonstrate that there is minimal danger to
human health and the environment operating closer than 200 feet
of the property boundary, they should be allowed to operate that
facility.
16. Page 59001, Section 250.43-3 (4) Contingency Plan and Emergency
Procedures
"At all times when the facility is in operation, there shall be
at least one person present with the responsibility of coordinating
all emergency response measures."
Comment: Would request that this be modified to read: present or on-call.
Even those facilities which utilize 24-hour coverage and operation
depend on a call out procedure for key emergency personnel. Rarely
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
is the on-site person the one most knowledgeable and capable to
handle a true emergency. This general situation applies to all
industry and not simply the hazardous waste end.
17. Page 59001, Section 250.43-2 (a). Security
It is suggested that this paragraph be changed to read, "operated
so as to deter unauthorized entry of persons or domestic animals..."
Also, we would like to recommend the following addition to the
"Note - A Facility...that the active portion of the facility is
surrounded by a natural, artificial barrier, or that demonstrates
there is sufficient security so as to minimize unknowing and/or
unauthorized entry of persons and domestic livestock.
18. Page 59001, Section 250.43-3 (b) (3)&(4) Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures
The specific procedures identified, although perhaps of values for
an extremely hazardous process unit, are misleading and impractical
in large storage or treatment facilities for stable materials, such
as oil water mixtures, fluids and sludges containing heavy metals,
and similar waste streams. It is of value to have a communication
system on the facility capable of contacting off site personnel,
such as a radio or telephone. To go beyond that to an alarm or
other mechanism is not considered valuable, except in extreme
circumstances. In land farming operations where the operation
is spread over several hundred acres an alarm system to alert a
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979~
a heavy equipment operator is infeasible.
19. Page 59003, Section 250.43-5 (a) (2) Manifest System, Record Keep-
ing and Reporting"
The Association recommends that the procedures for handling, number
of copies required, and distribution of the manifest be reviewed.
The procedure must encompass situations such as where the generator
is not in direct communication with the disposal site, multiple
generator lots being transported in a single truck load, blending
of multiple wastes, and requirements of other regulatory agencies
for information with regard to materials being disposed. It is
strongly recommended that efforts be made to reduce the number of
copies of manifests required to be distributed and retained in
order to minimize the cost and space requirements of this reporting
system.
20. Page 59003, Section 250.43-5 (3) Manifest System, Record Keeping
and Reporting
The Association position is that the reporting requirements as
specified under these regulations are extremely onerous, provide
very little real value to either the regulatory agency or the
operating facility, and are exceedingly costly to the disposal
facility and hence the generator. Specifically: Records required
under paragraphs (b), (2), (i) and (ii) above specifying the
location and types of disposed wastes shall be turned over to the
Regional Administrator upon closure of the facility.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9,1979
(i) Reads as follows: "A record of each hazardous waste treated,
stored, or disposed of at the facility to include the following:
(a) D.O.T. proper shipping name, etc.
(b) D.O.T. hazard class, etc.
(c) Quantity, etc.
Comment: For a site that handles in excess of 25,000 truckloads per year
and has an expected active life of 20 to 25 years this will
exceed 500,000 to 625,000 transactions that must be turned over to
the Regional Administrator upon closure. This seems excessive.
Perhaps a reporting procedure on an annual basis would be more
appropriate.
Similarly, Section (5) regarding training records reads, "...shall
be maintained until the closure of the facility" also seems
excessive and of no apparent use to save them from the previous
years of operation. We would recommend that these records be
maintained for a period of three years only.
21. Page 59003, Section 250.43-5 (b) Record Keeping
The records to be maintained until closure of the facility should
relate solely to information potentially of value in an emergency
situation on the site, such as storage or burial locations for
materials which might cause immediate danger to employees or
emergency personnel in response to an incident. Long range
information of a statistical or maintenance value only should be
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
periodically forwarded to the Administrator for determination
as to its value for permanent maintenance storage. The indication
of the specific records to be maintained should be proposed in
the permit application and agreed to at the time that the permit
is issued.
22. Page 59004, Section 250.43-5 (6) Reporting
The Association recommends that the quarterly report to the Regional
Administrator be deleted. This report is burdensome, unnecessary,
and submitted so infrequently as to make the information of
little or no value to the Administrator. An alternative is the
manifest procedure being utilized in California by the Department
of Health, specifically submitting a copy of each manifest at the
end of each month to the regulating agency in lieu of the
quarterly report and the reporting requirements.
23. Page 59004, Section 250.43-5 (6) (VII) Reporting
Thj.s specific information is not capable of being determined by the
disposal facility due to the variations in means of measurement
(i.e., tons, barrels, gallons), the inability to measure at the
disposal facility, and the inaccuracies of any such measurement.
The value of this information, if any, must be weighed against the
added cost, the delay in manpower in making the measurement, as
well as the added exposure and/or hazard to personnel at the disposal
facility while performing the measurement. Due to the fact that
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
the transporter and/or generator is paying for every gallon or
barrel of material being charged for on the manifest, it is highly
unlikely that materials listed on the manifest would have been
diverted.
24. Page 59004, Section 250.43-5 (E) Manifest System, Record Keeping
and Reporting
Reads: the quantity of each hazardous waste from each generator.
Comment: As site operators we are not always privileged to the
information of "who" the generator is, as this is protected through
the State Health Department confidentiality rulings. Therefore,
in some cases we could not completely fill out the necessary
reports.
25. Page 59006 and 59007, Section 250.43-9 Financial Requirements
The previous comments in item #D (1) also apply to this section.
In addition to those comments, we have the following specific
comments:
a. Section 250.43-9 (a) (1) di) Financial Assurance for
Facility Closure
The requirements for facility closure requires that a closure trust
fund be established in the amount approved by the E.P.A. Admin-
istrator for each facility, to be released after closure has been
completed to the satisfaction of the Administrator. This provision
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION RHP RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
requires the operator to invest the capital for closure twice,
once to establish the fund and then again at time of closure.
The trust fund should be available to the operator to be used for
the purpose of closure.
The same situation exists for the post-closure monitoring and
maintenance trust fund. After closure these funds should be
automatically released for the operator's use in annual increments
to cover these costs.
b. Section 250.43-9 (b)(2) Establishment of Post-Closure Financial
Responsibility for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities'
We urge E.P.A. to establish now the post-closure financial respon-
sibility portion of these regulations in a sensible manner. For
disposal facility operators to put their business future on the
line without knowing all of the rules of the game prior to its
commencement is foolish. This would be like entering into an
agreement to purchase a new house without knowing what the total
cost will be upon the completion of said house.
It is not in the best interest of industry, the economy, nor the
country to rush these regulations and their implementation prior
to fully assessing what the total impact will be upon the
economic future of this country.
26. Page 59007, Section 250.4 (b) Standards for Storage
This paragraph should be changed to read as follows, "Hazardous
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
waste storage operation shall be conducted in such a manner as to
minimize the potential for discharge."
27. Page 59007 and 59008, Section 250.44-1 (a)s(b) Storage Tanks
Reference to venting tanks to the atmosphere should be based upon
the quantity and concentration of harmful vapors or vapors result-
ing in violation of the air specifications rather than quantity.
As reference, the 5,000 gallon limit does not relate to the nature
or vapor pressure of the materials stored.
28. Page 59008, Section 250.45 (a) Standards for Treatment/Disposal
It is recommended that this section be deleted as it is a statement
of philosophy.
29. Page S9009, Section 250.45-2 (b) (3) Landfills
It is recommended that the requirement for exact location of each
waste in dimensions of cells refer to containerized extremely
hazardous waste, rather than all materials which might be placed
in a cell. Cell burial might be warranted for materials with
nominal hazards due to the engineering considerations, without
any benefit to be gained from the logging of exact locations.
30. Page 59009, Section 250.45-2 (b) (5) Landfills
Should be changed to read, "Containers of liquid waste shall be
surrounded by an amount of absorbent material capable of absorbing
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979 —
all of the liquid contents of the containers within that cell."
So long as the amount of material capable of absorbing the waste
is sufficient, the requirement should pertain to entire cells rather
than on a container by container basis. This still provides
the same level of security, but would drastically reduce the cost
and exposure to personnel during the burial process.
31. Page 59010, Section 250.45-2 (b) (13) Construction and Operation
Design of the liner system.
Comment: We object to a design within the regulations. What we would urge
is for criteria or performance data to be given and allow pro-
fessional engineers or geologists to design the specific facility
to meet those criteria. There is a wide variety of possibilities
and these will improve in the future. It does not make sense to
tie the entire nation down to two liner designs without the
latitude to accept technological advancements.
32. Page 59011, Section 250,45-2 (c) (31 Closure
It is recommended that the benches be at thirty foot intervals rather
than at twenty foot intervals thus conforming to the existing
California regulations.
33. Page 59015, Section 250.45-6 (q) Chemical, Physical and Biological
Treatment Facilities
(G) Reads"...waste food cutoff..."
-------
COMMENTS ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 9, 1979
Comment: This appears to be a typographical error. Perhaps should read:
waste feed cutoff.
-------
TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY STEPHEN R. MUSSELL
ON THE
PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
UNDER THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARCH 13, 1979
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
-------
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
MY NAME IS STEVE MDSSELL. I AM A MEMBER OF THE FACILITIES
PLANNING GROUP FOR THE MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT OF CHEVRON
U.S.A., INC. I AM APPEARING HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF CHEVRON
U.S.A. WHICH IS THE DOMESTIC OPERATING SUBSIDIARY OF
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. IN MY JOB I AM REQUIRED
TO BE FAMILIAR WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT CHEVRON MUST
ADDRESS INCLUDING THE CONTROL OF WASTE AT EACH OF CHEVRON'S
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, NOT ONLY HERE IN CALIFORNIA, BUT
NATIONWIDE.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS ON THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 3001, 3002 AMD 3004 OF THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976.
THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY SHARES YOUR CONCERN FOR THE PROTECTION OF
HUMAN HEALTH AND THL ENVIRONMENT AGAINST IMPROPER WASTE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES. OUR COMMENTS TODAY ARE INTENDED TO ASSIST YOU IN
PREPARING THE MOST EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE
THESE COMMON GOALS.
I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS SEVERAL SPECIFIC POINTS COVERED
IN THE REGULATIONS MUCH SHOULD BE RFCONSIDERFD AND REVISED.
IN ADDITION TO MY ORAL TESTIMONY, CHEVRON WILL SUBMIT DETAILED
WRITTEN COMMENTS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UNDER THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, MOST OF THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY'S
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT ( SECTION 250.45-3) ARE LIKELY TO BE CLASSIFIED
AS HA:ARDOUS WASTE IRLATMFAT FACILITIES. A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE
OF THESE FACILITIES, ALTHOUGH DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE KITH GOOD
-------
ENGINEERING PRACTICES, PROBABLY WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS. IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED THAT THREE
BILLION DOLLARS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO UPGRADE THE FACILITIES
FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY REFINERY SECTOR ALONE.
AS AN EXAMPLE, THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT (SECTION 250.45-2) THAT
THE BOTTOM OF THE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT LINER SYSTEM BE FIVE FEET
ABOVE THE HIGH WATER TABLE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTAIN IN MANY
COASTAL AREAS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
FACILITIES ARE LOCATED. THE BOTTOMS OF MANY OF THESE EXISTING
IMPOUNDMENTS ARE BELOW THE WATER TABLE.
SEVERAL OF THESE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ARE LOCATED OVER BRACKISH
OR OTHERWISE NON-POTABLE AQUIFERS. FURTHERMORE, THE DISCHARGE
FROM THESE PONDS ARE CURRENTLY REGULATED UNDER THE NATIONAL
POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES).
THE EPA SHOULD NOT REGULATE NPDES SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS UNDER
RCRA REGULATIONS AT THIS TIME. THE AGENCY SHOULD CONDUCT AN
IN-DEPTH STUDY TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THESE REGULATIONS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE FACILITIES AND THE COSTS AND BENEFITS
OF VARIOUS DEGREES OF CONTROL.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE EPA SHOULD DESIGNATE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS FOR REGULATION UNDER THE SPECIAL WASTE
STANDARDS SECTION (SECTION 250.46). AS A SPECIAL WASTE, THESE
PONDS SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE NPDES PROGRAM. THIS WILL
AVOID CONFUSING ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS, ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA
WHERE THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD HAS THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER THE NPDES PROGRAM, AND THE DEPARTMENT
-------
OF HEALTH SERVICE HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE.
IF THE EPA PROCEEDS WITH REGULATION OF NPDES SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS,
IT SHOULD BE ON A CATEGORY-BY-CATEGORY BASIS GIVING CONSIDERATION
TO THE SPECIFIC WASTE IN THE IMPOUNDMENT, ITS DEGREE OF HAZARD,
THE SITE HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS, AND THE COSTS AND BENEFITS
OF ANY ADDITIONAL CONTROLS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED,
DETAILED REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 250.45-3 SHOULD BE REMOVED
AND INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE SPECIAL WASTE STANDARDS.
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS FAIL TO CONSIDER RELATIVE TOXICITIES
OF DIFFERENT HAZARDOUS WASTES. ONE POUND OF CRUDE OIL TANK
BOTTOMS IS NOT EQUAL IN TOXICITY TO ONE POUND OF PCB. WE
RECOMMEND THAT HAZARDOUS WASTES BE CLASSIFIED BY TOXICITY, AND
CONTROL TO COMMENSURATE WITH THE DEGREE OF HAZARD.
THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN UPFRONI TRUST FUND FOR EACH DISPOSAL SITE
(SECTION Z50.43-9) WOULD CREATE A LARGE AND UNNECESSARY
FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY. THE EPA STATES
THAT TRUST FUNDS HAW, AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY GROW WHILE "A
FACILITY'S INCOME IS GREATEST". HOWEVER, THE LARGE QUANTITIES
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE TREATED, STORED AND DISPOSED OF ONSITE
BY GENERATORS AND SUCH ACTIVITIES DO NOT CREATE ANY INCOME.
THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MONITORING
MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR A FIRM DEDICATED TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT. THEY ARE INAPPROPRIATE FOR OTHER INDUSTRIAL
ENTERPRISES THAT ARE NOT IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
BUSINESS FOR PROFIT. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT A LARGE OIL COMPANY
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PLACE AS MUCH AS $100 MILLION IN A TRUST FOR
CLOSURE OF PRODUCING AND EXPLORATION DISPOSAL SITES OR A LIKE
-------
AMOUNT FOR A SINGLE LARGE REFINERY.
THE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVISED TO PROVIDE A SELF-INSURANCE
OPTION TO MEET CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. WHERE
THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED BY STANDARD LEGAL PROCESS, A COMPANY
WITH SUBSTANTIAL ASSETS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE SELF-INSURED.
THIS WILL ALSO HAVE THE ADDED BENEFIT OF FREEING CAPITAL FROM
AN IDLE TRUST ALLOWING ITS PRODUCTIVE USE IN LOCATING AND
DEVELOPING OIL RESOURCES.
CHEVRON U.S.A. URGES THE EPA TO REVISE THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
TO:
• RE-STUDY THE COST/BENEFIT OF REGULATING PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS UNDER RCRA.
• CONSIDER THE RELATIVE TOXICITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND
CONTROL THE WASTES ACCORDINGLY.
• ESTABLISH A SELF-INSURANCE OPTION TO SATISFY THE FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSURE.
THANK YOU.
-------
STATEMENT FOR PRESENTATION AT EPA PUBLIC HEARING,
MARCH 13, 1979, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Gentlemen, I am Patrick H. Wicks, representing Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
of Bellevue, Washington. I appreciate the opportunity to present our comments
on EPA's proposed hazardous waste guidelines and regulations which are to be
adopted pursuant to RCRA (Pub. L. 94-580), sections 3001, 3002 and 3004.
Chem-Nuclear Systems operates two major hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facilities in the United States and is committed to the safe and environmentally
sound management of chemical and radioactive wastes. Since these proposed
regulations will have a major impact on our operations and because of our good
operating record, we urge EPA to seriously consider our comments, suggested
changes and additions that follow in revising these regulations prior to their
promulgation.
-------
CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS', INC., COMMENTS ON
PROPOSED EPA REGULATIONS TO AMEND 40 CFR,
PART 350, AS PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER DECEMBER 18, 1978
General
Unless otherwise indicated in these comments, we concur with or have no
objection to the proposed regulations as written. However, our lack of
objection assumes that EPA and state agencies to be given certain authority
under these regulations will be reasonable in their interpretation of the
regulations during their implementation.
Subpart A - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, Sections 250.10 to
250.15
1. Section 250.13(a)(l): There is a problem in (i) and (ii) because the term
"liquid" is not defined in the act or the definition section in 250.11. It
would seem appropriate that sludges as well as liquids be included in (i)
but perhaps not in (ii). It would also be useful to define "liquid" in
the definition section, 250.11.
2. It is suggested that the following change be made to section 250.14(b)(2),
SIC 1099 listing: ",T" should be added after "A" due to the presence of
significant quantities of heavy metals in clarifier sludge, including
chromium and lead and others that are toxic to aquatic organisms.
3. It is suggested that the following wastes be added to the process description
list in section Z50.14(b)(2):
A. 1099 Cyanide process water for copper/molybdenum separation (T)
B. 2641 Solvents and resins from paper coating processes (I, 0)
C. 2821 Phenolic sulfurization residues (0)
D. 2869 Wood treating process wastes containing penta chlorophenol,
creosote or arsenic (I, 0, M)
E. 2891 Phenolic resin manufacturing wastes containing phenol (0)
F. 2891 Paraformaldehyde waste from resin manufacturing (0, C)
G. 3322 Caustic/phenolic foundry casting wastes (C, 0)
H. 3334 Aluminum reduction potliner (spent cathode) containing cyanide
and cryolite (R, T)
-------
I. 3334 Anodizing solution waste acids (C)
J. 3334 Air pollution control sludges containing coal tar pitches (T, 0, M)
K. 3339 Cutting oil contaminated with zirconium (I, R)
L. 3674 Silicone wafer etchant hydrofluoric acid waste (C, T)
M. 3674 Photo resist stripper and solvent wastes (C, T, I)
Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste, Sections
250.20 to 250.29
The only significant comment on these sections is in response to EPA's request
for comment regarding the proposed regulations as they apply to generators
producing less than 100 kilograms per month as addressed in 250.20(c)(5),
250.23 and 250.29. We believe the proposed regulations as written are satisfactory
and reasonable. In addition, EPA may want to consider allowing generators of
greater than 100 kilograms per month to apply for exemptions from reporting,
record-keeping and manifest provisions, if their waste is approved by EPA or the
appropriate state agency to be disposed in a Subtitle D facility.
Subpart D - Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities, Sections 250.40 to 250.46-6
1. 250.43(h): In subsection (iii) add ", if applicable", since pH will not be
applicable to all wastes; in addition, the note following (iv) should be
expanded to allow less frequent sampling at off-site facilities for
shipments which are received only once, on an infrequent basis and which
are small in quantity (such as no more than 5,000 pounds) or which have
received a detailed analysis by the generator. In certain cases, It may
be hazardous to perform the inspection analysis required under this section,
such as sodium or other reactive wastes and toxic pesticides which would be
expected to be received in relatively small quantities.
2. 250.43-1(h): The note following the subsection should be expanded to allow
a buffer area less than 60 meters where no residences are closer than 500
feet from the property line. This is necessary since facilities located
in a remote area or an industrial area should not need a large buffer area.
3. 250.43-3(c)(l): Insert "outside the facility" after the word "environment"
in the sixth line; this is necessary due to occasional minor spills that
might occur at facilities which would not have an impact on human health
or the environment outside the facility.
-------
4. Section 250.43-5(a)(2): Change 30 days to 5 days to provide more rapid
notification to waste generators of waste receipts at an authorized
facility.
5. 250.43-5(b)(2)(i)(C): Add the unit cubic feet to quantities listed,
since this is a commonly used waste unit.
6. 250.43-5(c)(l): Insert "outside the facility" at the end of this sub-
section for the same reason as indicated in the previous item No. 3.
7. 250.43-5(c)(5)(iii)(F): Add the unit cubic feet to the list of units in
this subsection.
8. 250.43-5(c)(5)(iii)(H): Insert "to the best of my knowledge" after "complete"
in the first sentence and the word "only" in the second sentence after the
word "for".
9. 250.43-5{c)(6)(vii): Add the unit cubic feet to the units listed in this
subsection.
10. 250.43-5(c)(6)(viii): Insert "to the best of my knowledge" after "complete"
in the first sentence and the word "only" in the second sentence after the
word "for".
11. 250.43-7(e)(3): It appears this provision should read "Of completion of
closure within 180 days after closure".
12. •250.43-9(a)(2)(ii): A method for determining the "period of payment" is not
provided in this subsection for use in calculating annual cash payments to
the post closure monitoring and maintenance trust fund.
13. 250.43-9(b)(l)(i): It is suggested that the phrase "exclusive of legal
defense costs" be deleted from this provision.
14. 250.44(g): Delete the last part for this provision starting with "in
accordance with occupational safety and health administration's..."; OSHA
requirements would apply in any case to flammable and combustible liquids,
but OSHA requirements may not be suitable for nonflammable or non-
combustible liquids; in addition, it is suggested a note be added at the
end of this section as follows: "Note. - these requirements may be
partially waived if the owner/operator of a storage facility can demon-
strate adequate health and environmental protection to the satisfaction
of the Regional Administrator."
15. 250.45-3(d): Add at the end of this provision a note as follows: "Note. -
an owner/operator may use modified operating and maintenance procedures if
he can demonstrate to the Regional Administrator that an equivalent or
greater degree of waste containment would be achieved."
-------
16. With respect to post closure liability for hazardous waste sites, EPA has
requested comments on the desirability of a federal fund. Chem-Nuclear
recommends the formation of such a federal fund with contributions from
facility operators. The size of the fund should be on the order of
$100,000,000 to $500,000,000 in size. Payments for each claim should be
limited to $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 and there should be a federal guarantee
established for such payments. In addition, it is suggested that EPA seek
appropriate legislation to require that permitted hazardous waste landfills be
deeded to the federal government or appropriate state government at the end of
closure or some time before that point. We believe this will provide sub-
stantial credibility to such sites that is now often absent and will provide
much better control of waste disposal practices.
17. Regarding the financial responsibility section of the regulations, EPA has
requested comment as to whether the several trust funds to be established under
these regulations be interest-bearing or not. It would seem only prudent
that such trust funds should be interest-bearing. In addition, there seems
to be no reason for establishing separate requirements with respect to
financial responsibility for publicly or privately owned facilities. Also
in the financial responsibility section, the required review of costs should
be either on an annual basis or once every two years, since conditions
affecting such costs would not be expected to change rapidly.
18. In various sections of the subpart D proposed regulations, reference is made
to facilities within a certain distance from water wells. It is presumed
that this reference is to wells that are in existence at the time a permit
is issued and that installation of new wells after the initial permit would
not cause cancellation or modification of the permit for that reason.
19. In response to EPA's request on its plans to merge the TSCA PCB marking and
disposal regulations with the Subtitle C regulations, we recommend that EPA
handle the PCB disposal regulations in this manner.
-------
. ^
-------
DATA SHEET
(Generator's Name)
Generator's I.D, No.
Manifest Document No.
CHEMICALS FOR DISPOSAL - MARCH, 1979
55-gallon DOT-17H drum #1 (300 Ib)
1x1 gal Acetone, Flammable Liquid
6x1 gal Hexane, Flammable Liquid
2x1 gal Flammable liquid, n.o.s. (Benzene-
Toluene-Xylene mixture),
Flammable Liquid
3x1 pt Xylene, Flammable Liquid
1x1 gal Dioxane, Flammable Liquid
1x1 pt Tetrahydrofuran, Flammable Liquid
2x1 pt Acetone, Flammable Liquid
3x1 gal Heptane, Flammable Liquid
1x1 gal Ethyl alcohol, Flammable Liquid
2x1 gal Methyl ethyl ketone, Flammable Liquid
4x5 pint Polystyrene case DOT-33A #2
4x9 Ib Sulfuric acid, Corrosive Material
55-Rallon DOT-17E drum #3 (450 Ib)
55 gal Flammable liquid, n.o.s. (Acetone-
Hexane mixture), Flammable Liquid
Fiberbox DOT-12A80 #4 (50 Ib)
4x1 gal Ethyl acetate, Flammable Liquid
Fiberbox DOT-12A50 #5 (25 Ib)
1x1 pt Phenol, liquid, Poison B
1x1 pt Aniline, oil, Poison B
Wooden box DOT-1SA65 #6 (30 Ib)
2x1 pt Sulfur monochloride, Corrosive
Material
1x100 g Thionyl chloride, Corrosive Material
1x1 pt Thionyl chloride, Corrosive Material
Wooden box DOT-15A25 #7 (10 Ib)
1x1 Ib Phosphorus pentachloride, Corrosive
Material
Fiberbox DOT-12A80 #8 (35 Ib)
1x5 pt Phosphoric acid, Corrosive Material
1x1 Ib Hydrobromic acid, Corrosive Material
1x1 pt Hydroiodic acid, Corrosive Material
Fiberbox DOT-12A80 #8 (35 Ib) (Continued)
1x1 Ib Sulfuric acid, Corrosive Material
3x1 pt Fluoboric acid, Corrosive Material,
Ltd. Qty.
1x1 pt Hydrochloric acid, Corrosive Material
1x1 pt phosphoric acid, Corrosive Material
3x1 pt Hydrofluoric acid, Corrosive Material,
Ltd. Qty.
2x10 ml Hydrochloric acid, Corrosive Material
2x10 ml Sulfuric acid, Corrosive Material
Fiberbox DOT-12A50 #9 (12 Ib)
1x25 g Arsenic trioxide, solid, Poison B
1x100 g Arsenical compound, n.o.s., solid,
Poison B
2x1 Ib Potassium cyanide, solid, Poison B
lx% Ib Thallium salt, solid, n.o.s.,
Poison B
FIGURE 1
-------
Mr. Harry Trask March 12, 1979
Figure 1 is an illustration of a hypothetical attachment format which
could be used to accompany the manifest for such a shipment. Please note that
this format complies with Sections 172.202 and 250.22 of Titles 49 and 40,
respectively.
Sincerely,
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, INC.
KJWrwlm
Enclosure
Kenneth J. Wirfcins, Manager
Hazardous Materials Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979O—281-147/50
------- |