OOOR79002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In the Matter of:
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND
REGULATIONS
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, March 7, 1979
8:00 a.m.
Holiday Inn
4040 Quebec Street
Denver, Colorado
APPEARANCES :
DOROTHY A. DARRAH, Chairperson, Office of General
Counsel, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington. D. C.
LISA FRIEDMAN, Office of General Counsel, EPA
Washington, D. C.
JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Washington, D. C.
ALFRED LINDSEY, Chief Implementation Branch Hazardous
Waste Management Division. Office of
Solid V/aste, EPA Washington. D. C.
AMY SCRAPPER, Office of Enforcement, EPA, Washington
D.C.
'ALAN CORSON. Chief (Section 3001) Guidelines Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Branch, Offie
of Solid Waste. EPA. Washington, D. C.
JON P. YEAGLEY. Chief, Solid Waste Section, EPA,
',.-'.:\3onqy Region VIII. Denver, Colorado
Chi:.
-------
-------
» ;
2
3
4
5
&
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
• 24
25
INDEX
WITNESSES
ROGER WILLIAMS
JOHN P, LEHMAN
S* NORMAN KESTEN
HESTER McNULTY
WILEY W. OSBORNE
JIM V. ROUSE
CLARA LOU HUMPHREY
HOWARD RUN I ON
KENNETH LADD
RICHARD T. DREITH
DR. CARL J. JOHNSON
ORVILLE STODDARD
STEWART H. MILLER
STEVE ALLEN
ROBERT S. HEARON
JOHN G. RE ILLY
EARL R. WHITE
FRANCINE B. KUSHNER
KENT OLSON
RITA E. EWING
REES C. MADSEN
ROBERT N. HEI STAND
DR. JOHN E. TESSIERI
PAGE NO.
. 2
7
20
32
40
57
64
71
81
88
98
116
132
145
154
167
173
182
191
216
229
235
239
-------
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
..INDEX
WITNESSES PAGE NO.
WEND ALL CLARK 245
PHILIP W. MORTON 250
DR. JOHN T. MAKENS 260.
<
4
<
-------
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
PROCEEDINGS
MR. ROGER'WILLIAMS• I want to officially welcome
you to Denver, and to this particular hearing, which is the
fourth of five hearings that the Environmental Protection
Agency is conducting to consider comments"and testimony ori our
proposed Hazardous Waste Management program for the nation.
The hearing is going to run for three days. I suspect
there is going t o be a lot of debate and some controversy and
because of that, and because I am not really participating in
the hearing, otehr than welcoming you to Denver, I thought I
might start out on a little note. I want to play a little
game with you. We will give you a little quiz.
I would like to ask you to think about a couple of cities
that I am going to mention in a minute and to try and identify
with that city a particular reputation.
To give you an example, when we think of Washington, D.
C., we think of the Nation's Capitol, or the seat of our
government, and so forth — at least some people do. I would
like to name a couple of other cities and give you a-minute to
think about them and then I will share with you what my
thoughts are in terms of what I identify with that city, and
you can compare with my thoughts or you can just equate
yourselves with your own identify with that city, and then we
will go on from that point.
* The first city I would like to mention is Niagara Falls,
-------
1 New York. I will give you a couple of seconds to think about
2 that. To me Niagara Falls clearly identifies with the largest
3 water fall in the United States, and perhaps to some of you in
4 the audience that are younger, recently married, you might
5 think it is quite a place to go on your honeymoon.
6 Another city I would like to mention is Louisville,
7 Kentucky. I like horse racing, so Louisville, Kentucky means
8 Churchill Downs, and Kentucky Derby.
9 I understand we have a lot of industry representatives
10 from the mining community. The next city I mention would be
11 Butte, Montana, I am sure, to at least the mining interest
12 would identify with the richest hill on earth, the Anaconda
13 Copper Mine in Butte. Some others might identify it with the
14 home of Evil Knievll.
15 The next city I will mention is Denver, Colorado. I am
16 sure a majority of you can identify with Denver, clearly the
17 Mile High City, or the Gateway to the Rockies.
18 Now, you probably- think I am crazy for running through
19 that, because I didn't mention anything about hazardous waste,
20 and I know that- some of you who are familiar with the
21 hazardous waste problems in this country know that each one
22 of those cities in recent months, or over the last year, has
23 identified a major hazardous waste problem. In some cases.
24 they have identified a disaster in those particular areas.
25 in terms of the Love Canal in Niagara Palls. Mew York, the
-------
1 phosphate slag in Butte Montana, the Valley of the Drums
2 In Louisville, Kentucky, and the radioactive radium problem
3 that has surfaced recently within the last three weeks in
4 Denver. If you do have an opportunity to take a break in
5 this hearing and go outside, you will probably see one or two
6 helicopters flying very low altitude over Denver with
7 eauipment hanging below and doing radiometric surveys to
8 identify additional sites, where they have found a very
9 serious radioactive problem associated with the radon from
10 the radium development industry back in the 1915 and 1925 era.
11 These are just a few of the problems that are cropping
12 up all over the country. I think that they are to be added
13 with the more than one hundred sites that we already know
14 about associated with this PCB in the HUdson River, and PCB
15 along the highways in North Carolina, and the Ketone Problem
16 in Hopewell, Virginia. These problems are cropping up every
17 place, and the list is growing daily.
18 These are problems created by past practices, whose
19 costs to society have come due. Costs measured in the
20 hundreds of millions of dollars and perhaps even billions of
21 dollars when you consider the lawsuits and liability associated
22 with some of the problems,identified already, not to mention
23 the unauantifiable costs associated with the lost of lives,
24 disability and poor health. It is too late to minimize these
25 past problems. We can only clean them up.
-------
1 We are here today at this hearing to focus on the
2 present and the future, to consider a major regulatory program
3 to manage and control the country's hazardous waste from
4 generation to final disposal.
5 The 'Congress directed this action by passing the
6 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. and recognized
7 that the disposal of the hazardous waste is a critical health
8 and environmental probelm which must be controlled, especially
9 in light of some of these recent problems. These requirements,
10 we believe, will close the circle of environmental control
11 begun earlier with regulatory control of air emissions and
12 discharges of contaminants to our waters and lakes.
13 Vre did not underestimate the difficulty of implementing
14 these proposed regulations, rather, they reflect the large
15 amounts of hazardous waste generated, and the complexity of the
16 movement of hazardous waste in our society.
17 These regulations will affect a large number and
18 diversity of industry ranging from corporate giants to
19 neighborhood service stations. Other than non-industrial source
20 of waste, such as laboratories, hospitals and commercial
21 pesticide applicators and transporters of the hazardous waste
22 will also be included.
23 The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that a
24 minimum of 270,000 waste generating facilities, and 10,000
25 transporters will be regulated, although, only about 30,000
-------
1 of that number will require treatment storage or disposal
2 permits. Under this program, approximately 35 million metric
3 tons per year of hazardous waste, mainly from industrial
4 sources will be controlled while another several hundred
5 million tons per year of high volume, low risk waste, such
6 as certain mining and utility waste will be brought under
7 limited control, pending further.rule making.
8 Disposal of the hazardous waste presents soecial problems
9 EPA, and most of the states solid waste agencies are currently
10 studying this problem and talking with commercial disoosal
11 firms about establishing sites. The management of the hazardoui
12 waste at commercial off-site facilities is a relatively new
13 business, It has experienced increased growth in the last
•>
14 ten to fifteen years due to emergency public concern and aware-
15 nes^/about the environment, and because of new environmental
16 laws which ban other disposal methods. With the implementation
17 of these regulations, greater disposal capacity will be
18 necessary. Expansion of the hazardous waste management
19 industry for both private and public sectors face two-maior
20 obstacles.
21 First, the availability of the capital necessary to
22 control, construct, and expand and start up a facility, and
23 (2) public opposition to the siting of the hazardous waste
24 facilitv.
25 Citizen otroosition to the sitincr of facilities is exnected
-------
1 to be a-major obstacle to the implementation of these regulations
2 We are hopeful that these regulations and this type .of public
3 participation like this hearing, and other hearings across
4 the country, will instill public confidence that these facilitie
5 can coexist with other industries and communities without
6 causing any legal or environmental problem.
7 It was the intent o'f Congress that states assume and
8 run the hazardous waste programs, using EPA or federal minimum
9 standards. We have been working very closely with the states
10 and expect the majority of them to become authorized to run
11 this program in lieu of EPA. The impact of these regulations
12 will be felt by all segments of society. It is important that
13 EPA hear your views, study them and incorporate them into a
14 reasonable and effective hazardous waste management program
15 for the nation.
16 We appreciate your participation in this hearing. Thank
17 you.
18 MR. JOHN P.'. LEHMAN: Thank you Roger.
19 My name is John Lehman and I am director of the Hazardous
20 Waste Management Division of EPA's Office of Solid Waste,
21 in Washington. Again, I would like to second Roger Williams
22 welcome to you to our public hearing. We appreciate your
23 taking the time to participate in the development of these
24 regulations which are being issued under the authority of
25 the Resource Conservation and Recoverv Act— RCRA.
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
Q
0 methods, and a hazardous waste list; (2) standards applicable
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
For a brief overview of why we're here—
The Environmental Protection Agency on December 18", 1978
issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended by
. the Resource Conservation and Reco-very Act of 1976 (Pub.L.
94-580). These proposals respectively cover: (1) criteria
for identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification
to generators of such waste for recordkeeping, labeling, using
proper containers, and using a transport manifest; and (3)
performance, design, and operating standards for hazardous
waste management facilities.
These proposals together with those already published
pursuant to Section 3003, (April 28, 1978), Section 3006
(February 1, 19781, Section 3008 (August 4, 1978), and Section
3010 (July 11, 1978) and that of the Department of Transoortatiojn
pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (May 25,
1978) along with Section 3005 regulations constitute the
hazardous waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Act.
EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for facility
permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for State hazardous
waste program authorization pursuant to Section 3006 of the
Act with proposals under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System required by Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act and the Underground Injection Control Program of the
-------
1 Safe Drinking Water Act. This integration of programs will
2 appear soon as proposed rules under 40 CFR Parts 122, 123,
3 and 124.
4 This hearing is being held as part of our public partici-
5 pation process in the development'of this regulatory .program.
6 First— for the logistics of the meeting— we ask that
7 smokers sit to the right, where ash trays are located, and
8 non-smokers may wish to sit to the left.
9 The panel members who share the rostrum with me, are:
10 Dolothy A. Darrah
11 Lisa Friedman
12 Alfred Lindsey,
13 Amy Schaffer,
14 Alan Corson,
15 J&ri P. Yeagley.
16 The responsible staff person for each section will join
17 us on the panel. As noted in the Federal Register our planned
18 agenda is to cover comments''on' Section 3001 today, Sections
19 3002 and 3003 tomorrow, and 3004 the next day. Also we have
20 planned an evening session tomorrow, covering all four
21 sections. That session is Planned primarily for those who
22 cannot attend during the day.
23 • The comments received at this hearing, and the other
24 hearings as noted in the Federal Register, together with the
25 comment letters we receive, will be a part of the official
-------
10
I docket in this rulemaking process. The comment period
2 closes on March 16 for Sections 3001-3004. This docket may
3 be seen during normal working .hours 'in Room 2111D, Waterside
4 Mall, 401 M. Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. In addition we
5 expect to have transcripts of each hearing within about two
6 weeks of the close of the hearing. These transcripts will
7 be available for reading at any of the EPA libraries. A
8 list of these locations is available at the registration
9 table outside.
10 With that as background, I'd like to lay the groundwork
11 and rules for the conduct of this hearing.
12 The focus of a public hearing is on the public's response
13 to a regulatory proposa.l of an Agency, or in this case,
14 Agencies, since'both EPA and the Department of Transportation
15 are involved. The purpose of this hearing, as announced in
16 the April 28, flay 25, and December 18, 1978 Federal Registers,
17 is to solicit comments on the proposed regulations including
18 any background information used to develop the comment.
19 • This public hearing is being held not primarily to
20 inform the public nor to defend a proposed regulation, but
21 rather to obtain the public's response to these proposed
22 regulations, and thereafter revise them as may seem appropriate
23 All major substantive comments made at the hearing will be
24 addressed during preparation of the final regulation.
25 This will not be a formal adludicatoryhearing with the
-------
11
I right to cross-examination. The members of the public are
2 to oresent their views on the proposed regulation to the
3 panel, and the panel may ask Questions of the oeople oresenting
4 statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presentations.
5 Since we are time-limited, some questions by the panel
6 may be forwarded in writing to the speaker. His reponse,if
7 received within a week of the close of this hearing, will
8 be included in the transcript. Otherwise, we'll include it
g in the docket.
10 Due to time limitations, the chairman reserves the
11 right to limit lengthy questions, discussions, or statements.
12 We would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement
13 to make orally, to please limit your'nresentation to a
14 maximum of ten minutes, so we can get all statements in a
15 reasonable time. If you have a cony of your statement, nlease
15 submit it to the court reporter.
17 Written statements will be accented at the end of the
18 hearing. If you wish to submit a written rather than an
19 oral statement, please make sure the court reporter has a
20 cooy. The written statements will also be included in their
21 entirety in the record.
22 Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have, not
23 made an advanced request by telephone or in writing should
24 indicate their interest on the registration card. If you
25 have not indicated your intent to give a statement and you
-------
12
*• decide to do so, please return to the registration table,
9
* fill out another card and give it to one of the staff.
g
J As we call upon an individual to make a statement, he
or she should come up to the lectern after identifying him-
self or herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or
her statement.
At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson will
g
inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to entertain
Q
questions from the panel. The speaker is under no obligation
to do so, although within the soirit of th is information
sharing hearing, it would be of great assistance to the
19
x* Agency if questions were permitted.
Our day's activities, as we currently see them, appear
14 like this;
We will break for lunch at about 12:15 and reconvene at
1:45 p.m. Then, depending on your progress, we will either
1' conclude the day's session or break for dinner, at about 5:00.
Phone calls will be posted on the registration table at
the entrance, and restrooms are located outside to the left.
If you wish to be added to our mailing list for future
regulations, draft regulations, or proposed regulations,
please leave your business card or name and address- on a
three by five card at the registration desk.
nt
The regulations under discussion a-t this hearing are
25
the core elements of a major regulatory program to manage
-------
13
1 and control the country's hazardous waste- from generation to
2 final disposal. The congress directed this action in the
3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), . ,
recognizing that disposal of hazardous waste is a crucial
environmental and health problem which must be controlled.
In our proposal, we have outlined requirements which
set minimum norms of conduct for those who generate, transport,
treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste.
9 These requirements, we believe, will close the circle
10 of environmental control begun earlier with regulatory control
11 of emissions and discharges of contaminants to- air, water,
12 and the oceans.
We do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty
of our proposed regulations. Rather, they reflect the large
amounts of hazardous waste generated and the complexity of
the movement of hazardous, wastfe in our diverse society.
These regulations will affect a large number of industries.
Other non-industrial sources of hazardous .waste, such as
laboratories and commercial pesticide applicators,., as well
20 as transporters of hazardous waste, will also be included.
Virtuallv every dav, the media carries a story on a
22 dangerous situation resulting, from imoroper disnosal of
23 hazardous waste. The tragedy at Love Canal in New York State
24 is but one recent examnle. EPA has information on over 400
25
cases of the harmful consequences of inadequa-te hazardous
-------
14
waste management. These cases include incidents of surface
2
and groundwater contamination, direct contact poisoning,
various forms of air pollution, and damage from fires and
4 ' •
explosions. Nationwide, half of all drinking water is
5
supplied from groundwater sources and in some areas contamination
6
of groundwater resources currently poses a threat to public
7
health. EPA studies of a number of generating industries in
8
1975 showed that approximately ninety percent of the potentially
9
hazardous waste generated by those industries was managed by
10
practives which were not adequate for protection of human
11
health and the environment. . ,
12
The Resource Conservation and Recovery A'ct of 1976 was
13 I
passed to address these problems. Subtitle C establishes a
14
comprehensive nrogram to protect 'the public health and
15 • ^
environment from improper disoosal of hazardous waste.
16
Although the program requirements are to be develooed by the
17
Federal government, the Act orovides that States with adequate
18 -
programs can assume responsibility-for regulations of hazardous
19
waste. The basic idea of Subtitle C i-s that the oublic
20
health and the environment will be protected if there is
21
careful monitoring of transportation of hazardous waste, and
22
assurance that such waste is properly treated, stored, or
23 .
disposed of either at the site where it is generated or
24 l
after-it is carried from that site to a special facility in \
25
accordance with certain standards.
-------
16
17
21
25
Seven guidelines and regulations are being develooed
and either have been or will be oroposed (as noted earlier)
under Subtitle C of RCRA to implement the Hazardous Waste
Management Program. Subtitle C creates a management control
•* system which, for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires
a cradle-to-grave cognizance, including aporopriate monitoring,
recordkeeoing and reporting throughout the system.
Q
It is important to note that the definition of solid
wastes in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse,' sludges and
other discarded materials, including liquids, semisolids and
contained gases, with a few exceptions ,- from both municipal
and industrial sources.
Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid
wastes, and which will be identified by regulations oroposed
under Section 3001, are those which have narticularly significan
impacts on public health and the environment.
Section 3001 is the keystone of Subtitle C. Its purpose
is to provide a means for determining whether a waste is
hazardous for the oruposes of the Act and, therefore, whether
it must be managed according to the other Subtitle C regulations
• Section 3001 (b) provides tow mechanisms for determining
whether a waste is hazardous: a set of characteristics of
hazardous waste and a list of particular hazardous wastes.
A waste must be managed according to the Subtitle C regulations
if it either exhibits any of the characteristics set out in
-------
16
proposed regulation or if it is listed. Also, EPA is directed
2 by Section 3001(a) of the Act to develop .criteria for
3 identifying the set of characteristics of hazardous waste
4 and for determining which wastes to list. In this proposed
5 rule, EPA sets out those criteria, identifies a set.of
characteristics of hazardous was.te, and establishes a list
7 of particular hazardous wastes.
g . Also the proposed regulation provides for demonstration
g of non-inclusion in the regulatory program.
Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to generators
of hazardous waste. A generator is defined as any person
22 whose act or process produces a hazardous waste. Minimum
13 amounts generated and disposed per month are established to 4
14 further define a generator. These standards will exclude
household hazardous waste.
The generator standards will establish requirements
for: recordkeeping, labeling and marking of containers used
10- for storage, transport," or disposal of hazardous waste; use
of appropriate containers, furnishing information on the
2Q general chemical composition of a hazardous waste; use of a
manifest system to assure that a'hazardous waste-is designated
22 to a permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility;
23 and submitting reports to the Administrator, or an authorized
24 State Agency, setting out the quantity generated and its
25 disposition.
-------
17
1 Section 3003 requires the development of standards
2 applicable to transporters of hazardous wastes. These proposed
3 standards address identification codes, recordkeeping,
4 acceptance and transportation of hazardous wastes, compliance
5 with the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous waste;
6 spills of hazardous waste and placarding and marking of
7 vehicles. The Agency has coordinated closely with proposed
8 and current U. S. Department of Transportation regulations.
9 Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners and
10 operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
11 facilities. These standards define the levels of human
12 health and environmental protection to be achieved by these
13 facilities and provide the criteria against which EPA (or
14 State) officials will measure applications for permits. Facil-
15 ities on a generator's property as well as off-site facilities
16 are covered by these regulations and do require permits;
17 generators and transporters do not otherwise need permits.
18 Section 3005 regulations set out the scope and coverage
19 of the actual permit-granting process for facility owners
20 • and operators. Requirements for the permit application as
21 well .as for the issuance and revocation process are defined
22 by regulations to be proposed under 40 CFR Parts 122, 123
23 and 124. Section 3005(e) provides for interim status during
24 the time period that the Agency or-the States are reviewing
25 the pending permit applications. Special regulations under
-------
18
Section 3004 apply to facilities during this interm status
period.
Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines under
which States may seek both full and interim authorization to
carry out the hazardous waste program in lieu of an EPA-
administered program. States seeking authorization in
accordance with Section 3006 guidelines need to demonstrate
8 that their hazardous waste management regulations are
consistent with the equivalent in effect to EPA regulations
10 under Sections 3001-5.
11 Section 3010 requires any person generating, transporting,
12 or owning or operating a facility for treatment, storage,
13 and disposal of hazardous waste to notify EPA of this activity
14 within 90 days after promulgation or revision of regulations
15 identifying and listing a hazardous .waste pursuant to Section
16 3001. No hazardous waste- subject to Subtitle C regulations
17 may be legally transported, treated, stored, or disposed
•18 after the 90-day period-unless this timely notification has
19 been given to EPA or an authorized State during the above
20 90-day period. Owners and operators of inactive facilities
21 are not required to notify.
22 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all
23 sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979. However, it is
24 important for the regulated communities to understand that
25 the regulations under Section 3001 through 3005 do not take
-------
19
1 effect until six months after promulgation. That would be
2 approximately June of 1980.
3 Thus, there will be a time period after final promulga-
4 tion during which time public understanding of the regulations
5 can be increased. During this same period, notifications
6 required under Section 3010 are to be submitted, and facility
7 permit applications required under Section 3005 will be dis-
8 tributed for completion by applicants.
9 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the proposed
10 regulations to be considered at this hearing, I return this
11 meeting to the Chairperson Lisa Friedman.
12 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: We have approximately
13 35 people who want to make oral statements today, so I .would
14 like to ask you to the extent possible, to keep your comments
15 as concise as possible. I would like everyone to remember
16 that this is not the only opportunity that you will have to
17 present your views to the Agency, as Jack Lehman stated, we
18 will consider written prepared testimony which is submitted
19 at- this hearing. We will also consider any written comments
20 which are filed prior to the March 14th public comment
21 deadline. We will be taking speakers who' pre-registered in
22 the order in which they are listed on this schedule. Individual
23 who did not pre-register, but did today register, will be
24 taken at the end.
25 Our first sneaker'will be Mr. S. Norman Kesten and he
-------
20
1 represents the American Mining Congress.
2 MR. S. NORMAN KESTEN: I want to apologize to the
Panel for not having copies of this presentation. I will
have them for you by tomorrow or the next day.
My name is Norman Kesten of ASARCO, Incorporated-, where
6 I am assistant to the vice president for Environmental Affairs.
' I am also Chairman of the' Solid Waste Task Force of the American
Mining Congress, and. I appear here today in behalf of that
group.
10 The American Mining Congress is a national association
of companies that produce most of the nation's supply of
12 metals, coal and industrial and agricultural minerals, while
producing these essential materials, the member companies
necessarily generate large quantities of mine waste, rock
waster materials from mining, milling and other forms of
beneficiation, often called tailings, plus furnace slags
and other similar processing waste from later stages of
total processing towards 'useable products, as well as other
waste in relatively minor quantity.
20 The American Mining Congress is thus very interested
21 in and concerned about the economic impact upon the mineral
22 industry of any regulation promulgated for the purpose of
23 implementing provisions of this amendment to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
" in addition, we want to try to insure that during the
-------
21
1 formulation of such regulations, the Agency is fully aware
2 of the technological limitation that the very nature of its
3 waste places upon the industry and takes into account the
large number of physical and chemical variables that tend
to make each operation unique. In general, the industry has
a series of special probems in complying with proposed regulation
' because of the sheer volume of the waste that are generated,
° and the large areas of land that those waste must occupy.
Using copper and copper ores as examples, new mine
production, including beneficiation smelting and refining
11 in this country is of a magnitude that there is also produced
12 annually about 600 million tons of mine waste crop, 250
million tons of dry tons• of mill tailings, and perhaps 'five
million tons of furnace slag. If that mine waste were
distributed in two new waste dumps, each of which covers
one section of land, and I will pause here and explain for
the benefit of anybody here from the East, that a sect-ion of
land is 640 acres. Each of which covers one section of land,
the dumps would be built up to an average height of 30 feet
20 by the end of the year. If the tailings were deposited in
one new tailing disposal site, occupying one section of land,
22 the tailings would be built up to a height about 25 feet in
a year. The height of the pile of slag covering a section
of land would be somewhat less, something like six or eight-
25 feet.
-------
22
1 Obviously each type of waste from one year's operation
2 is not .accumulative in one or two mills at individual sites,
.
3 but is distributed among, and added to many existing piles.
4 The accumulative volumes are similar to those described,
5 depending upon the length of time a particular site has been
6 operated,' and the rate of production of waste.
7 Because of these volumes, the criteria for distinguishing
8 between hazardous waste and other waste are crucial to the
9 continued viability of the operations in which the member
10 companies of the American Mining Congress are engaged.
11 I have used copper as an example. Obviously the underly-
12 ing principles are applicable to operations.involving most
I _ .
13 other non-fuel minerals, including mining and beneficiation A
14 of the phosphate rock and mining of uranium ore. The smelting
15 of the iron ore generating 24 million tons of slack annually.
16 Inspite of the draft regulations and proposed regulations
17 that EPA has made available, member companies of the American
18 Mining Congress still have no idea what the cost will be of
19 solid waste disposal under the Act. If the term open dump
20 and sanitary landfill are strictly applied, and there will
21 be those who- will bring pressure to bear on the agency to
22 apply them strictly, then very many piles of waste tailing
23 accumulations and slag dumps still being used are to be
24 classified' as open dumos, to be upgraded or closed within
25 five years. In many instances, upgrading may be ohysically
-------
23
1 impossible. Replacement of the new sanitary by new new
2 sanitary landfills will be so expensive as to greatly imoair,
3 if not destroy the economic viability of the operations. If
4 what is required of a disposal site for waste, not designated
5 as hazardous is that there will be no reasonable probability
6 of injury to human health or the environment, another dimension
7 of uncertainty is added. We would be"dependent uoon somebody's
8 assessment of that probability and what is reasonable, and
9 of.how much injury is permissible. The result of such
10 assessment could be just as expensive and just as crippling
11 as the direct application of the term open dump. If.the
12 criteria for classifying waste as' hazardous and the listing
13 of ways and processing are finali2ed as now proposed, large
14 tonnage of waste rock, tailings and furnace slag might very
15 well be designated hazardous, even though those large tonnages
16 might be only a fraction of the total tonnage generated.
17 The proposed standards of performance applies to those
18 tonnages will again lead to intolerable experiences. In fact,
19 except for the paper work for hazardous waste, it might make
20 no difference to us how these large tonnage wastes are
.21 classified. ' Of course, I am speaking of accumulative worst
22 case situation.
23 one frustrating thing is, that we do not know at this
24 time, nor will be-know at the time th& proposed regulation
25 becomes final, just what their effect upon our industries will
-------
24
be. In the midst of all this, we feel there is a reasonable
probability that our current budget of the disposal method
will not endanger human health; except in minor/ easily
reasonable instances. In fact we think that EPA should
make that presumption.
In addition, we contend and are on record to this effect
that the legislative history of the Acts states unequivocably
that mining waste are at this time exempt from the provisions
of Solid Waste Regulations . •
I refer you to the comments of the American Mining
Congress on rules proposed under Section 4004 of the Act.
12 In most mining waste, the principal property 'that
determines whether they are -^hazardous or not is toxicity,
and these are the — I am referring to the waste with which
our members are most concerned. For some other waste, it is
radioactivity and the complex matters to be dealt with in
separate kinds of regulations. A waste may not be designated
18 as toxic by the simple procedure of saying it is so. It must
be. determined to be toxic because of the results of an
objective scientific test. EPA proposes a test in Section 350.
21 13 (d) (2), and we do not agree that it is a test that is •
22 appropriate "for the purpose. We believe that it flies in
^ the face of logic and reason for EPA to even attempt to
establish a single 'procedure to be applicable nationwide to
25 all kinds of waste' regardless of chemical and physical
-------
25
1 environment in which a waste is deposited without going into .
2 the entire history of the propose'd test, we should like to
3 stand with the D19.12 sub committee of the American-Society
4 of Testing and Materials in decrying the unscientific approach
5 that EPA has'followed in creating the extraction procedure. '
6 We urge strongly that EPA work closely with ASTM to
7 establish criteria for a test rather than a single test for
8 extraction procedures. This would enable a generator or
9 anyone else who is required to -d^smi.116 toxicity/ to devise •
10 a procedure within the framework of the testing criteria
11 that would be applicable to his waste through the projected
12 life history of his waste.
13 At the very least, a generator should be permitted and
14 required to set up in his testing laboratory the nearest
15 approach possible to the chemical and physical environment of
16 the disposal site'. If the generator does not chose to make
17 that test, he is free to concede that his waste is toxic'
18 as that te±m is defined', and therefore hazardous.
19 . I should like to refer the panel to a strongly worded
20 letter of last December first to the Administrator from the
21 Chairman and Secretary of- the ASTM sub-committee D19.2, and
22 to another letter from Professor O.K. Hamm of the University
23 of Wisconsin to John .Lehman of the Office of Solid Waste, -
24 dated January 24th, 1979.
25 My next point is of mostly peripheral interest because
-------
26
1 I feel sure the extraction procedure will be changed, either
2 before promulgation or possibly as a result of the judicial
' A *••
3 review sometime afterward. That point is, that the apparatus
4 to be used in carrying out the extraction procedure is not
5 existing standard equipment, nor is it readily available from
6 the sole manufacturer'listed by EPA. In Section 250.13(d) (1)
7 are listed pollutants and the threshold .values for concentration
8 in the extract whichi if exceeded, cause the waste to be
9 designated hazardous. The numbers are, of course, ten times
10 the national interim primary drinking water'standard for those
11 substances, and according to the preamble, they are listed
12 on the assumption that on the average the natural allutrate(sic)
13 from a waste will be diluted by a factor of ten before it is
14 used for drinking water.
15 This is another instance of the agency trying to
16 establish a single standard applicable to all places at all
17 times. This, of course, is indefensable. A knowledge of
18 the number of variables-and the degree of the variability at
19 any one site might make it possible to estimate for that site
20 the attenuation that takes place between the disposal site
21 and the present or future drinking water source. To arrive
22 at a generalized figure is to perpetuate a nonsense.
23 We were astonished when we examine orocessing generating
24 hazardous waste, that is 250.14(b)(2) because we find that
25 most of the listina are not processees, but the substances
-------
27
1 generated by certain processes. We were further surprised
2 that in that list, particularly in the SIC''3: prefix'with the
3 numbers 33, there are substances which are seldom waste.
4 Some are invariably, or at least very very often return to
5 the metalurgical process for capture of the contained 'metals
6 or they are stockpiled for shipment to another plant for the
7 same purpose. For them to be characterized as waste^by
8 regulation is to throw them into hazardous waste procedures
9 from which the generator might extricate them only at consider-
10 able inconvience.
11 Section 250.15 discusses how a person might, demonstrate
12 that a solid waste that has been listed as hazardous is not
13 in fact hazardous. If there is any serious doubt about the
14 toxicity or other hazardous characteristics of the substance,
15 EPA should avoid listing it or avoid putting the generator
16 or any other person to the expense and inconvenience, of
17 rebutting the presumption. EPA should rely upon the provisions
18 of the Subpart G, under- Section 3010 of the Act, to insure that
19 every hazardous waste is identified. We believe that to some
20 extent these lists are arbitrary and capricious.
21 Section 250.15 does not discuss how a person might rebutt
22 the presumption on the part of EPA that a hazardous substance
23 is a waste. The lack of understanding that exists among some
24 EPA pesonnel was demonstrated by a staff member who in a
25 related context included low grade ore in a list of waste.
-------
28
1 Of course, this is a contradiction in terms of it seems to
2 me that the Agency has two alternatives. It can leave it *
3 to the generator or other pers.ons who own or control the
4 materials to judge whether or not it has the potential to
be used or reused, and therefore whether or not it is a
waste or it can devise a set of reasonable criteria by which
the material may be judged to be waste or otherwise.
our much longer written comments on proposed Subpart
9 A will be submitted in due course. In general, we urge greater
10 clarity and consistency as well as compatibility of the
regulation with actual conditions. In addition to the points
12 that I have just tried to make, we suggest that EPA's
13 presumption that hazardous waste is mismanaged should be
14 rebuttable on a case-by-case basis and that wastes that have
15 only a low level of toxicity and are therefore only marginally
16 hazardous might be managed under less stringent requirement
17 than those for wastes that significantly exceed the criteria.
18 We do not feel that any of the suggestions, when acted
19 urjon, will have the effect of reducing the Agency's
20 effectiveness ta carry out the directive of Congress to
21 protect human health and the environment from injury occasioned
22 by management of hazardous waste. Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kesten.
24 Will you answer questions from the panel?
25 MR. KESTEN: I will trv.
-------
29
1 MR. CORSON: Let me state if I may, Mr. Kesten, a
2 couple of points, and I would like to make just this, as a
3 matter of fact, probably more for clarification than perhaps
4 a question. One is the fact that as proposed on December 18th,
5 we have put mining waste with the exception of uranium, some
6 of the radioactive waste, which are listed in a special waste
7 category, which do not require the set of standards normally
8 required of Section 3004. I think we further, by-way of at
9 least a misunderstanding I was left with from your comments,
10 the fact that in our definition of other discarded material,
11 this provide for some reuse of materials, and that does take
12 it out of the definition of .solid waste entirely. So therefore
13 the subject is not what the regulations propose. I guess a
14 further point, and I want to make sure your understanding is
15 the same as mine. The ourpose for including the section on
16 non-inclusion was in the event that a waste is listed, and
17 the person who was generating a product has produced that
18 waste, has gone to some, treatment method, and therefore, his
19 waste does .not exhibit the characteristics identified, and the
20 listing provides a means on a case by case basis for that
21 nerson to demonstrate that that waste does not belong in the
22 system at all. Obviously the industry, and in your case, the
23 American Mining Congress, could demonstrate to us by data,
24 that looking at what we have oroposed in our background
25 document, that maybe some of your waste that have been listed
-------
30
should not be there at all. That is the nunose for our making
a proposal and asking for comments from the industry.
I do have a direct question.. You indicated
earlier there are some cases where you admit that- damage
occurs in certain well recognizable cases. I am wondering
whether that recognition is available before the disposition
' or afterwards?
8 MR. KESTENj Before.
. MR. CORSEN: Then I would appreciate it if you
could with your written comments describe to us what it is
11 that is recognizable about those waste before you do' it for
dispositions, and how that may differ-from--what we have proposed
in our regulations.
MR. KESTONr I was speaking of waste produced in
relatively minor quantities as compared with the massive
quantity of other wastes which have constituents which we note
is sufficiently soluable, and that they will fit the criteria
of hazardous waste, and I am not going to identify them now.
We. will do so under Section 3010.
20 MR. CORSES: Thank you.
MR. KESTON: I think that I and my colleagues are
22 fully aware of the ooints that you made,. Mr. Corsen. I don't
think there is misunderstanding.
MR. LINDSEY: I have one additional question.
Earlier in your presentation, you talked about the burden
4
4
-------
31
which the proposed regulations would have'on the mining
2 industry, and that burden would seriously hamper the economic
3 viability, I guess, of the industry. Can you be more specific
4 with regard to the other mining waste regulations, that is
5 the limited set of regulations that are here, which is among
5 those that create such an intolerable burden on the industry.
7 We thought we had limited, or eliminated most of the really
g heavy burdensome things upon this interim set of regulations.
9 - MR. KESTEN: By some quirk, certain furnace slags
are determined to be hazardous, and in fact a slag which is
not hazardous, which we really believe to be non-hazardous,
12 is listed as being a hazardous waste, if it turns out.to be
13 a hazardous waste, and the operation goes on for years and
14 years, there will be millions of tons of that material
15 generated, and if it ha's to be disposed of in a manner comoatib
with these regulations, the exnense will be very great and
17 may put that smelter out of business. Of course^ EPA has a
great many other ways -they can out smelters out of business
and are trying them all.
2Q MR. LINDSEY: I think the ooint I am trying to
make, and if you are not in a position to address it today,
22 I would appreciate it if.in vour written comments, give the
23 regulations 250.46-5 which is the special .regulations for
24 other mining waste. It is oretty much limited to security
25 and some recordkeeoing and some visual inspection and things
-------
32
1 like that, which in our belief, you know, such a huge impact
2 in itself. If you could exoand upon that in your comment, it
3 would sure be helpful to us.
4 MR. KESTON: Yes, I wasn't referring as much to
5 soecial.waste as to the others. On the other hand, if those
6 materials that are classified as soecial waste, if they are
7 hazardous, if they are not hazardous, involve a tremendous
8 expense to prevent them from EPA's regulations, and it states
9 the view from contributing some kind of injury to human health
10 and the environment.
11 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.
12 Kesten. Our next speaker is Hester P. McNulty from the League
13 of Women Voters.
14 MS. HESTER McNULTY: I - am Hester McNulty and I
15 will be speaking for the League of Women Voters of the United
16 States. Our offices are in Washington, D.C. I hapoen to
17 live here in Colorado and that is why I am appearing here
18 today. I understand that our Missouri League testified at
19 the Kansas City hearing, and later this morning our Colorado
20 League will be testifying.
21 The League is a volunteer- citizen Organization with
22 members in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, the
23 Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. The League's members in over
24 1,350 communities are deeplv involved in finding solutions
25 to solid waste oroblems.
-------
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
33
We would like to commend EPA for an excellent job in
providing supplementary -explanatory information. Considering
the difficult and technical nature of the regulations, we are
expecially pleased with the lucid introduction to Section 3001.
However, we question the wisdom of dividing the hearings into
spearate days for each section of the proposed regulations.
This means that all those interested in testifying on two or
more sections must appear two or three times. Such an
arrangement is likely to dampen meaningful public involvement
in the hearing process.
The League has been involved in the protection of our
land, air and water resources for a number of years. Our
members, after two years of study, agreed that wastes-which
cannot be reused must be safely disposed of. The League "
supported the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), and were expecially supportive of its provisions
for hazardous waste management. We have examined the proposed
regulations in light of. the principal objective of the Act—
to protect human health and the environment.
Our comments are directed primarily to Subnarts B
and D of the proposed regulations. Regarding Section 3001
and Subpart A, we commend you for your lists of specific
materaials and the characteristics of these materials, but we
urge you to constantly update the lists and consider other
materials.
-------
34
1 Section 3002
2 • Subpart B— Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste
4 The League does not agree with the exemption from these
5 regulatory requirements of hazardous waste generators that
6 produce 100 kilograms or .less per month.. The League's
7 opinion on this issue is based on three considerations. One,
8 the degree of hazard associated with a particular waste is.
9 often more closely related to concentration than volume. Two,
10 the small generator exemption sidesteps a major objective
11 of RCRA, namely, to track hazardous wastes from their creation
12 to their disposal through a manifest system. Three, there
13 is no foundation in the Act for a blanket exemption.
14 We find no support for this exemption in Section 3002
15 of RCRA which states that the standards will -apply to generators
16 identified or listed under Subtitle C of the Act. In fact,
17 Section 3002 (5) requires that the manifest system be applied
18 to all wastes identified under Subtitle C:
19 ...standards shall establish requirements respecting...
20 (the) use of a manifest system to assure that all
21 such hazardous waste generated is designed for
22 treatment, storage or disnosal in...facilities
23 for which a permit has been issued...
24 In addition, EPA notes in the explanatory information that it
25 has limited data on the numbers of small generators, the amount
4
-------
35
1
on human health and the environment. By requiring generators
3
of 100 kilograms or less per month to comply with the require-m
4
ments of Subpart B, EPA will acquire the essential information
5
that it currently lacks. For instance, the requirements would
6
allow EPA to pinpoint the small generators' disposal sites to
determine which ones are relied on heavily for disposal of
8
their hazardous wastes. So that the requirements under Subpart
9
B may not be burdensome to generators of 100 kilograms or less
10
per month of hazardous wastes, we.would urge EPA to keep record
keeping to a minimum to simplify procedures.
12
Further, the League believes that proposed section
13
250.29(1) which allows small generators to dispose in sanitary
14
landfills approved pursuant to Section 4004 of the Act is
15
inconsistent with RCP.A. Subtitle C's section. 3002 (5)plainly
states, "(A)11 such hazardous waste generated is designated
for treatment, storage-, or disposal in. . .facilities.. .for
18
which a permit has been issued as provided in this subtitle."
19
It does not include sanitary landfills developed pursuant to
20
Subtitle D of RCRA.
21
Since approximately 67 percent of the hazardous waste
22
is produced in ten of fifty states, we are also concerned
23
if generators of 100 kilograms or less per month are allowed
24
to dispose of their wastes in sanitary landfills as opposed
25
to hazardous waste sites, some sanitary landfills may receive
-------
36
1 many contributions of 100 kilograms or less of hazarous
2 wastes, thereby becoming in the aggregate major resting places
3 for these substances. Because these landfills will not be
4 as stringently developed and managed as hazardous waste sites,
5 they may pose serious problems to public health and the environ-
6 ment.
7 The proposed regulations (section 250.27) also allow
8 the hazardous waste generator -to request that certain information
9 be kept confidential. The regulations should clearly impose
10 a heavy burden on the disposer to demonstrate the need for
11 secrecy, lest this section become a loophole for avoiding the
12 intent of RCRA.
13 Section 3004.
14 Subpart D—Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators
15 of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities.
16 The League agrees with most of the provisions in this
17 subpart. However, we do not believe that the Notes in this
18 subpart, which substitute performance standards for environ-
19 mentally sound facilitv siting, will accomplish the stated
20 goals of RCRA.
21 We are especially concerned about the Note that allows
22 a hazardous waste facility to be located in the recharge zone
23 of a sole source aquifer. We believe the intent of both the
24 Safe Drinking Water Act and RCRA would be negated by the locaticr
25 of any hazardous waste facility in such recharge areas.
-------
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
37
Because tf the limited supplies of drinking water sources
it is imperative that EPA regulations ensure their protection.
We question that EPA can predict with any certainty
adequate resources over the long term — at either e EPA or
the state level — to ensure that the operation, maintenance,
and monitoring of a facility will protect a sole source aquifer
The potential social, environmental and economic costs outweigh
short-term accommodation. The League strongly urges that no
facilities be permitted in the recharge zone of sole source
aquifers.
Additionally, we are concerned with the facility
• exemptions permitted in f loodplains , wetlands , and high coastal
areas. Because of the very nature of hazardous materials,
therej^ll be a latent threat to fragile ecosystems, water
resources, and human health, if facilities are located in
these areas. Performance standards at the time a permit is
issued cannot ensure future reliability. . We ask that EPA
remove these exemptions from the regulations as the intent of
RCRA is protection of human health and the environment.
We also think that. the proposed Notes providing •
exemptions for land farms (section 250.45-5) present an
unnecessary risk, particularly to ground and surface water
auality and may lead -to possible contamination of oublic water
supplies. Demonstration of performance to the regional
administrator when a permit is issued does not preclude future
-------
38
contamination. For instance, it is almost impossible to
predict with Certainty that there will be no direct contact
with the water table when the treated area is less than five
feet above the historical high water table.
We have the same concerns with the exemptions for landfill
(section 250.45-2). We think that in no instance should a
landfill be closer than 500 feet from a -public or private
water supply. Nor should the natural soil barrier or liner
be less than five feet from the water table.
It is unclear just how EPA proposes to integrate
11 hazardous waste regulations with other programs administered
12 not only by EPA but also by other agencies— such as the
13 Strip Mining Act. It seems to us that this is extremely
important in the implementation of Section 3004 of RCRA.
Further, the League urges that no part of the hazardous
waste program be turned over to a state unless the state
program is no less stringent than the Federal regulations and
there is an assurance of sufficiant oersonnel for administratioi
Also we encourage EPA, in the interim, to provide an adequate
20 staff to implement the regulation of hazardous wastes.
And in conclusion, despite the mandate under RCRA's
22 Section 7004(b) that there will be "Public participation
23 in the...implementation, and enforcement of any regulation...
* or program," there are no proposed nublic participation
oc
guidelines included in the. proposed regulations. We strongly
-------
39
1 urge EPA to immediately begin the task of developing pronosed
2 public participation rules for its hazardous waste program and
. 3 to issue them for public 'commen-t so that they will be
4 included in the hazardous waste rules when .they are issued
5 later this year in final form. Thank you.
6 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you, very much. Will
7 you answers questions from the panel?
8 MS. McNULTY: Yes.
9 MS. DARRAH: I have a couple of questions. First
10 of all, you suggested that EPA keep"recordkeeping to a minimum
11 and simplified procedures for small generators. Will you
12 be providing us with any more specific suggestions as to what
13 you think is less burdensome but adequate?
14 MS.McNULTY: If you would like us to/ we certainly
15 can.
16 MS. DARRAH: Yes.
17 MS.McNULTY: We know from our work, that a small
18 generator may not be able to keep up with all of your paper
19 work. We think it is most important to keep track of what
20 is happening and get the important information then to fill
21 out reams of paper.
22 MS. DARRAH: Okay. I take it though that you were
23 concerned at we keep an adequate track of this. If there are
24 specific suggestions, you make'them to us as- to how you think
25 we can do it adequately to meet your environmental concerns,
-------
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
40
but also obviously everyone's concern that we not have people
filling out useless forms.
MS. McNULTY: We will certainly get back to you
before the end of the comment period,
MS. DARRAH: I just want a clarification. You said
that on confidential information, that the regulations could
impose a heavy burden on the disposer to demonstrate the need
for secrecy, unless this section becomes a loophole for
avoiding the intent of RCRA. What intent are you talking about
MS. McNULTY: The intent o-f RCRA that the public
shall know and the EPA shall know. The secrecy Act also could
be, we think, misused.
MS. DARRAH: Okay,- I guess we understand that
enough to look at the issue.
X
MS. McNULTY: They really need it.
MS. DARRAH: What you are saying, you want the
public to be informed insofar as possible within the law?
MS. McNULTY: Yes.
MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. Our
next speaker will be Mr. Wiley W. Osborne.
MR. WILEY W. OSBORNE: I am Wiley W. Osborne,
Chief, Plans and Programs Branch, Division of Solid Waste
Management, Texas Department of Health.
I am pleased to be able to offer these remarks on behalf
-------
41
1 of the Texas Department of Health and Mr. Jack C. Carmichael,
2 P.E., Director, Division of Solid Waste Management. Mr.
3 Carmichael is unable to be here today. The State Legislature
4 is in session and a number of legislative actions are pending
5 that require his attention in Austin.
6 Today, I wish to summarize our concerns regarding all
7 aspects of hazardous waste management from our perspective.
8 The State of Texas has, by legislation, delegated the authority
9 and assigned the responsibility for municipal solid waste
10 management to the Department of Health. The State Solid Waste
11 Disposal.Act further assigns to the Department of Health
12 authority and responsibility that extends to industrial solid
13 waste where it becomes involved with municipal waste in any
14 activity of collecting, handling, storing or disposal of
15 solid waste.
16 Our Texas Department of Water Resources has responsibilit;
17 for solid waste resulting from industrial, agricultural and
18 mining operations.
19 The State Solid Waste Disposal Act also establishes a
20 coordinating'mechanism between the Departments to allow
21 review of the actions of each Department as it may affect
22 the other. As the State Health Agency, we are responsible
23 for the.health aspects of all solid waste management activities
24 I mention our role in solid waste management so that
25 you may be able to better'evaluate our comments.
-------
42
1 Texas passed a meaningful solid waste disposal act in
2 1969 and over the past ten years we have built a workable
3 solid waste management program which we believe is second to
4 none. During our work with the EPA and the NGA, we have
5 based our comments on our years of experience dealing with
6 private interprise and municipalities. We have also stressed
7 the real world political problems in dealing with the general
8 public and State laws regarding public hearings and permitting
*
9 requirements.' We -believe it is imperative that the EPA in
10 its promulgation of regulations under the RCRA recognize
11 the grass roots implementation problems by providing regulatory
»
12 flexibility which allows States to continue on-going safe
13 and effective programs. As of this late date, we do not see
14 sufficient flexibility nor do we see an indication that the
15 EPA is willing to place trust in the-professional competency
16 of the States, although some flexibility has been added in the
17 notes of the latest oroposed regulations.
18 The basic problem always seems to come back to EPA's
19 basic approach, which in itself is inflexible. Packaging all
20 hazardous waste in one bag, regardless of degree of hazard
21 and then, attempting to regulate the single bag, has not worked
22 very well and cannot- orovide the needed flexibility. Today,
23 we wish to propose a re-arrangement of the past efforts to
24 orovide a more flexible framework which does not sacrifice any
25 significant regulatory control.
-------
43
1 We are concerned that closing of the comment period for
2 the rules being proposed on Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004,
3 prior to publication of proposed rules on Sections 3005 and 300
4 will not afford the States the-Proper opportunity to obtain
5 an overall view of the regulations prior to submitting comments
6 We therefore, request that comments continue to be
7 received on the proposed rules until all Subtitle C regulations
8 are proposed and comment periods are closed.
9 Within Texas there are 1156 municipal solid waste sites.
10 Fifty counties, of the 254 counties in the State of Texas,
11 comprise the twenty-five Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
12 of the State. (About 80 percent of the industries in the State
13 are located in these 50 counties.) There are 220 municipal
14 solid waste sanitary landfills operated in these 50 counties
15 which are capable of safely handling" waste which will become
16 hazardous under the proposed regulations. We accomplish this
17 through a mechanism of granting written approval on a site-
18 specific, waste-specific basis.- We consider the characteristics
19 of the waste and its volume and site conditions, design and
20 operations.
21 Mr- Thomas C. Jorling, in his January 20, 1979 memorandum
22 to solid waste directors, states, "a cost effective approach
23 . to industrial waste management requires effective State
24 regulatory programs under Subtitle D to supplement Subtitle C
I proarams." We heartily concur in this statement. In Texas, it
-------
44
is particularly true because it is over 600 miles from many
9
industries to permitted industrial solid waste sites.
Under the rules now being proposed, many sites would be
closed to receiving, such waste, forcing the movement of waste
over long distances, or the creation of new sites to accommodate
in many cases, low volumes of waste. This will introduce an
economic burden on industry that has grown to rely on municipal
o
solid waste disposal facilities, create a proliferation of
q
disposal facilities, increase transportation of solid waste
and possibly result in the illegal disposal of solid waste that
is presently being handled in a manner that protect the health
and environment.
Our assessment that these sites will be unable to cost
effectively accept even the less hazardous waste generated by
private enterprise, results from a discussion with several
of the cities' solid waste managers. Their unanimous response
is that cities will not particioate i-n hazardous waste
activities as presently proposed. Although this strong reluctanie
has not been apparent in previous workshops and public hearings,
we find that the very reasons city officials do not olan to be
involved in hazardous waste are also the same reasons they are
reluctant to take a strong public position regarding prooosed
23
M regulations.
Elected officials are concerned with the political inroact
of advocatina acceotance of hazardous waste in oubliclv ov/ned
<
-------
45
municipal solid waste sites . One of our city solid waste
managers states, It would be political suicide to even condone
acceptance of hazardous waste, much less subject ourselves to
a public hearing required to obtain a permit." It is near
5 impossible to convince the public that the issue is limited
to a truck load of rotton lemons, a few drums off.spec, vinegar
outdated, treated seed grain, or a load of sheet rock. Hazardou
Q
waste connotes all the evils that are publicized by the "Love
' Canals." The public is influenced by such things as the
political cartoon I have handed you and not the more rational
editorial that appeared in the same issue of the Austin
.
American-Statesman.
Unfortunately, RCRA places the hazard label on.all solid
waste that is a subject of these regulations.
These proposed regulations, in identifying hazardous
16 waste and establishing standards for hazardous waste management
17 fail to adequately provide for the flexibility needed to over-
18
come the objectives of city officials whose cooperation is
19
so sorely needed to obtain -a cost effective approach to
20
industrial waste management as pointed out by Mr. Jorling.
21
The flexibility proposed in the regulations, by defining
22
generators excluding retailers and farmers, setting arbitrary
23 ...
quantity limits and allowing exceptions in treatment, storage
24
and disposal standards, based on demonstration by the owner/
25
operator that less standards, are acceotable, does not adequately
-------
46
1 address our concern. When we discuss eliminating retailers
2 as a generator, we accept the fact that many retailers potentialJ.y
3 accumulate large volumes of solid waste that we would not want
4 placed in a' municipal landfill without adequate controls.
5 When a generator is defined by the quantity.of waste generated
6 alone, we are faced with a similar dilema, We can always find
7 the exception where the disposal of some waste may be acceptable
8 at one hundred or even a 1000 kg/month, we would hesitate to
9 accept other waste at much less quantities. .
10 At the same time, we see problems requiring the same
11 standards for treatment, storage or disposal of all. hazardous
12 waste.regardless of quantity, concentration and effects. The
13 notes accompanying the standards fail to provide the needed
14 flexibility.
15 My remarks today and during the next two sessions
16 and our more detailed written comments being submitted at
17 a later date, are intended to outline acceptable alteratives,
18 that can be incorporated into these proposed regulations, that
19 meet the requirement of the Act and provide what we see as
20 necessary to the implementation of a cost effective hazardous
21 waste management program. This involves a basic requirement
22 to divide hazardous waste into sub-sets, based on the degree
23 of hazard. We are recommending identifying two sub-sets
24 of hazardous waste, establishing standards for generators,
25 transporters and owner/operators commensurate with the level
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
of hazard associated with each set o.f waste.
In our letter of July 5, 1977 .commenting on draft
regulations for Section 3001, we emphasized the need to identif
two levels of hazardous waste. We reiterate that request today
My remaining comments relate to Subpart A of 40 CFR 250
and recommendations related to the requirements of Section
3001, RCRA.
Comments Subpart A:
We agree with the preamble statement that Section 3001
is the keystone to Subtitle C. We find it difficult to discuss
Subpart A without relating to Subpart B and Subpart D. And
even more difficult, discussing Suboarts B and D without
involving A.
The premise of our comments on 40 CFR, Part 250, Subpart
A, is to establish a provision within the regulation that
would allow the Regional Administrator or the authorized state
to classify hazardous waste into two sub-sets. We prooose the
*
use of the terms Primary Hazardous Waste and Special Waste.
Primary Hazardous waste refers to the mo-re noxious waste,
while Special Waste is used to refer to waste that meets the
hazardous criteria, but there is no reasonable probability of
significant adverse effect on human health or the environment
unless the waste is improperly managed..
The Congress, in defining hazardous waste in Section 1004
(5) of the Act, establishes the requirement for classifying
-------
48
1 hazardous waste by its effect and potential hazard resulting
2 from improper management.
3 We propose that the following definition be incorporated
4 into Section 250.11:
5 (b)(3) "Hazardous Waste" has the meaning given in
6 Section 1004(5) of the Act as further defined and identified
7 in this Subpart.
8 (i) "Primary Hazardous Waste" means a sub-set of hazardous
9 waste which causes, or significantly contributes to, an increase
10 in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
11 incapacititating reversible, illness.
12 (ii) "Special Waste" means a sub-set of hazardous
13 waste which poses a substantial present or potential hazard
14 to human health or the envioronment when improperly treated,
15 stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
16 It should be emphasized that the proposed definitions
17- will not result in any. loss of control. • All waste will be
18 subject to manifesting, but special wastes on a selected
19 basis may have greater exempt quantities and/or may not require
20 as rigid or inflexible construction standards.
21 Primary hazardous waste will include waste that have an
22 accute toxicity criteria with an LD50 value equal or less
23 than 500 mg/kg or an LC50 value equal or less than 100 ppm.
24 -Waste characterized by significant persistence in the
25 environment, bioassumulation, carcinogenicity, mutagencity ,
-------
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
49
or teratogenicity would be included under primary hazardous
waste. Hazardous metals in Section 250.13(d) whose extract
levels contain more than 100 times the EPA National Iterim
Drinking Water Standards shall be primary hazardous waste.
Under Section 250.13, our proposal is to use the followin
characteristics of hazardous waste- to describe the characterist
of special waste.
250.13(a) Ignitable waste is a special waste if a
representative sample has the characteristics of subsection
(1) (i) and (1) (iij .
250.13(b) Corrosive waste is a special waste if a
representative sample has the characteristics of subsection
(1) (i).
250.13(c) Reactive waste is a special waste if a
representative sample has the characteristics of subsection
(1) (ii).
250.13(d) Toxic .waste is a special waste if the acute
toxicity LD50 is greater than 500 mg/kg or the LC50 is greater
than 100 ppm. Heavy metals in Section.250.13(d) whose extract
levels contain less than 100 times the EPA National Interim
Drinking Water Standards shall be considered special waste.
The heavy metals classification is consistent with the final
report of the Hazardous Waste Management Task Force of the
National Governors' Association. Because of their quantity,
or characteristics, snecial wastes may become a nrimary waste
-------
50
1 if designated by the appropriate regulatory agency.
2 Examples from the list of hazardous waste in Section. 250.
3 Subsection (a), that would normally be special wastes are:
4 . 1. Waste nonhalogenated solvent (such as methanol,
5 acetone, isopropyl alcohol, polyvinyl alcohol, stoddard
6 solvent and methyl ethyl ketone) and solvent sludges
7 from cleaning, compounding milling and other processes
8 (1,0);
9 2, Waste lubricating oil (T,0);
10 3= Waste hydraulic or cutting oil (T,0);
11 4. Paint wastes (such as used rags, slops, latex
12 sludge, spent solvent) (T,I,0);
13 5. Waterbased paint wastes (T).
14 Infectious waste is a hazardous waste is it is included
15 in Class A or class B, as classified by the Commission on Hosp-
16 ital certification that will be referenced in the final report
17 of the Hazardous Waste Management Task Force of the National
18 Governors' Association (NGA). Infectious waste is a saecial
19 waste if it is Class B, as classified by the Commission on
20 Hospital certification. We noted, at the hearing in St. Louis,
21 that a number of industry and State agencies spoke to the need
22 to apply different standards to different levels of waste
23 quantities, concentrations and -effects. The National Governors'
24 Association Hazardous- Waste Management Task Force unanimously
25 supoorted this concent. The EPA regulations do not orovide
-------
51
1 sufficient flexibility for safe and realistic management of
2 hazardous waste primarily because- EPA does not have flexibility
3 in its criteria for identification. Significant problems will
4 be encountered in the application of controls unless the issue
5 of the level of hazard is addressed.
6 A workable system for the identification of hazardous
waste by level of hazard has already been developed by the
Department of Ecology of the State of Washington. The Texas
Department of Health is actively working upon details of a
system to achieve this purpose.
11 What we propose to identify as special waste is not
12 removed from the hazard category, but offers an opportunity
13 to make a simple variance in generator requirements and standard
for the treatment, storage or disposal.
15 The special waste identified by the characteristics we
16 have chosen, although representing a lower level of hazard,
17 should be controlled through the solid waste management chain.
18 However, as will be evident from our comments oft Subpart B
19 and D, we would on a site-specific basis vary the standards
-20 for special waste from those currently proposed to regulate
21 all hazardous waste.
22 Removing or minimizing the stigma of the term "hazard"
23 and identifying more flexible standards for a large portion
24 of the hazardous waste stream and allowing written approval
25 for special waste in lieu of repermitting will make available
-------
1
2
3
4 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.
* Osborne. Will you take questions from the panel?
6 MR. OSBORNE: Yes.
' MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Osborne, part of your commentary
Q
0 involves the recommendation for sub-dividing the regulatory
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
municipal solid waste landfills for the continued safe disposal
of a majority of the hazardous waste stream.
Thank you.
definition of hazardous waste into two sub-sets. The question
is, under the current or regulations from the State of Texas,
do you sub-divide the hazardous waste by regulation' now into
more than one set, and if so, how does that work?
MR. OSBORNE: Yes, we don't have a definition of
liazardous waste. We have adopted in our statutory provisions
what EPA will define as hazardous waste. In our industrial
waste, it is classified as a Class I, II, or III waste, and,
of course, municipal waste has no further classification other
than to suggest municipal. We do have regulatory controls
over industrial waste through the Class I,-II, III designation.
MR. LEHMAN: Could I pursue that just a little bit.
Which is the most hazardous' industrial waste? Is Class I,
the most hazardous?
MR. OSBORNE; Yes.
MR. LEHMAN: What is the distiction between Class
I and Class II?
-------
53
1 MR. OSBORNE: I think that the basic division is
2 on the LT50 milligrams per kilogram.
3 MR. LEHMAN: If the distinction then is based on
4 LT50, then it is related to some analysis of the waste for
5 a chemical constitutent?
6 MR, OSBORNE: Yes.
7 MR* LEHMAN: How does one account for the -
8 concentration of those materials in the waste under that
9 system?
10 MR. OSBORNE: I think what it is, Mr. Lehman,
11 going back to my earlier remark, the Department of water
12 Resources regulates industrial waste. We regulate any industrial
13 waste that goes into a municipal landfill. If it is in the
14 Class I category, the owner/operator of that site, must by
15 our regulation submit a request to receive that specific waste,
16 and then we will evaluate that specific waste. It is not
17 open to all Class I industrial waste, but it is on a -waste-
18 specific and site-specific basis.
19 MR. LEHMAN: So what I gather is that you have no
20 basic definition of hazardous waste, and everything is done on
21 a case-by-case basis?
22 MR. OSBORNE: Yes. Now, it would be in a form of
23 a special waste category that we would select from your list
24 of hazardous waste.
25 MR. LINDSEY: One more question on a slightly
-------
54
different topic. You indicated that there is roughly some
2 220 plus or minus municipal land fills in Texas which you
3 permit on a case-by-case basis to dispose of certain wastes
which would fill the bill of hazardous under our regulations,
and you felt those particular facilities would close as a result
of these regulations. It seems to me there are three reasons
why such a facility might close. One, because they don't meet
the minimum standard we have, or can't demonstrate equivalency,
9 or (2) because of the regulatory burden they might chose not
10 to, and (3) the public participation problem of being involved
11 with hazardous waste. Is-that what you were referring-to when
12 you talked about political problems?
13 MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I think so.
14 MRy LINDSEY:. In your system, let me ask you a
15 question about that. If that is the basic problem with regard
16 to these facilities 'and the reason why the counties or cities,
17' whoever controls them, -would chose not to receive hazardous
18 waste, how do you handle that then in Texas, because you do
19 permit those facilities, you said, to handle certain of these
20 wastes. Why would our regulation be any different?
21 MR. OSBORNE: In our regulation, we have the
22 requirement for a permit. Well, in the Department of Health,
23 all municipal solid waste facilities go through a public hearinc
process under our State Administrative Procedures Act. Any
25 waste that is in this too one, that is our highest order of
-------
55
I site, provides for the Acceptance of certain classes of
2 industrial waste, based.-on a written approval from the Departme
3 of Health. Now, we do not go back through another permit
4 procedure.
5 MR. LINDSEY: I still don't think I follow that.
6 Forihese 220 municipal sites, they have been through a hearing,
7 right?
8 MR. OSBORNE: Right.
9 MR. LINDSEY: And in that hearing, it came out
10 they would be receiving on a case-by-case basis certain.
11 industrial waste?
12 MR. OSBORNE: Yes. It is understood.
13 MR. LINDSEY: That is Class I waste?
14 MR. OSBORNE: It is understood they may.
15 MR. LINDSEY: Well, I fail to see how our regulatior
16 would impose any additional burden because of public uproar
17 then what you are already doing?
18 MR. OSBORNE: I think what this would require,
19 would be to go back to a public hearing process, and using
20 the term hazardous waste, would be of public concern. We are
21 not proposing to take this special waste out of the hazardous
22 category. We would propose that this would be defined, to
23 include only the least hazardous waste. There is a number of
24 agencies that have spoken to the need to define waste by level
25 of hazard, and we feel this is absolute necessity that you can'
-------
56
have a requirement to have all sites meet strict requirements
2 just to receive some of the least hazardous waste.
3 MR, LEHMAN; Mr. Osborne, the way I understood
you to say, you are proposing, that the term principal hazardous
waste be used for materials that have an LD50 of less than 500
milligrams per kilogram; is that, correct?
MR. OSBORNE: Yes. • '
MR. LEHMAN: And that is the same definition
that you use for Class I industrial waste at the present time
10 in Texas?
11 MR. OSBORNE: Yes, it is not defined in the
12 regulations, but I think they use that as a guideline.
13 MR, LEHMAN: Well, let's'assume that is the same
guideline, and yet you are saying, and from what I can under-
15 stand from what you are saying then, that Class I waste in
16 Texas, you have less problem with public reaction by calling
17 it a Class I industrial waste then by calling it a hazardous
18 ! waste, even though the basic criteria is the same? That is
19 what you are saying?
20 MR. OSBORNE: I think the connotation of hazardous
21 has gotten connected with the Class I waste. I am not that
22 familiar with the Department of Water Resources Ooerations,
23 but I know they have had a number of difficulties in trying
24 to permit a Class I hazardous waste, because of public
25 opposition. I think some of this we might be able to discuss
-------
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
57
in more detail when we get into Subpart D requirements.
CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. Our
next speaker will be Jim Rouse from Envirologic Systems, Inc.
MR. JIM V. ROUSE: By way of clarification, would
you prefer if I addressed strictly 3001 today, and come back
subsequent days?
CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: You have ten minutes, You
can do whatever you want.
MR. ROUSE: Let's first off go to 3001.
I am grateful for the chance to address this hearing
to present my views on the effect the regulations, proposed
December 18thl-1978 under the Authority of Subtitle C of the
amended Solid Waste Disposal' Act would have on the mining
industry.
These comments are not prepared from the viewpoint of
their-specific impact on any single facility, but rather reflect
the views of an individual with a 16 year history with the EPA
and its predecessor agencies as a mining waste specialist, now
serving as environmental consultant to a number of mining
operations. The views offered thus draw on experience (resume
attached) with regulatory agencies and with industry, and are
presented in an attempt to develop fair and workable regulation
which will not needlessly damage the industry.
I recognize the difficult task facing the agency, to
prepare far-reaching regulations under a short time limit on
-------
58
the basis of very limited data. I also recognize, from reading
2
the regulations, that the drafters had little or riot working
knowledge of the mining industry and its practices. I would
• recommend that the agency•personnel make a tour of representative
sites prior to the preparation of'the final regulations. I
stand ready to assist in the organization and conduct of
such a tour.
8
I had been encouraged by the approach taken in the
Q
February 6, 1978 proposed "Solid Waste Disposal Facilities",
in that recognition of the variations in site conditions and
waste characteristics were allowed, and an allowance made
12
for the tremendous capacity of the vadose zone to sorb metals
or radionuclides from percolating vadose water. This is
similar to the approach taken by the recently" developed New
Mexico -Environmental Improvement Division ground-water
protection regulations.
i then was very disappointed to find that the Subtitle C
regulations did not take this progressive approach, but
rather fell back to a single approach incorporating rigid
design criteria, which does not recognize variations in waste
or site characteristics, or the sorbtive ability of the vadose
zone. As they now stand, the regulations would require the
23
same care for radium in a Florida gypsum on limestone, with
24
no vadose zone and in a sandstone waste rock der>osited on
25
shale in central Utah, with a 2000 ft. thick vadose zone.
-------
59
1 The regulations should be written- to allow for waste and site
2 characteristic variations.
3 The design criteria are copied from other regulations
4 such as the Texas Railroad Commission, and do not reflect
5 demonstrated need, or even the practicability of measurements.
6 I would recommend that specific design criteria be omitted, and
7 the operator be permitted to tailor the design to the specific
8 site and waste conditions.
9 The designation of "hazardous waste" is highly subjective
10 and lacking in valid demonstrated hazards. There are discrep-
11 ancies between the approach specified in the preamble, and
12 the wastes listed in 250.14. For example, the preamble states
13 wastes will only be listed on the basis of their, ignitability,
14 corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, but the'first five
15 wastes listed under 250.14 (b)(2) are listed because of their
16 proported "radioactivity",• which is the subject of a notice
17 of proposed rulemaking.- Thus it is obvious that EPA has
18 developed a de facto criteria for radioactivity, a criteria
19 so stringent as to include almost all waste generated by the
20 mining industry. We would recommend omission of the first
21 five wastes in 250.14 (b). (2) until a reasonable radioactive
22 limit is developed.
23 The criteria for a "corrosive" waste is defined by
24 250.13 (b) to include any aqueous was.te with a pH equal to or
25 less than 3.0. This would include manv streams of -Rocky
-------
60
1 Mountain spring water draining areas of sulfide mineralization,
. 2 which frequently have pH values of 2.3 to 2.8. It would
3 also include Coca-Cola and other similar soft drinks. A value
4 of 1«5 pH units would be more reasonable.
5 A "reactive" waste is specified by 250.13Ccj to include
6 "cyanide or suLfide bearing waste which can generate toxic
7 gases, vapors, or fumes when exposed to mild acidic or basic
8 conditions." This definition is vague, does not meet the
9 intent of 250.10 (a), and would probably include virtually all.
10 mining waste, depending on how tightly one applies the-
11 definition. More definitive criteria for reactive wastes are
12 required.
13 Toxic wastes are defined on the basis of an arbitrary
14 Extraction Procedure, with no attempt to relate the results
15 to any real hazard. Two of the listed elements (arsenic and
16 selenium) are mobile under oxidizing alkaline conditions,
17 but not under acidic conditions. This could lead to a false
18 sense of security, in cases where selenium-bearing waste was
19 exposed to alkaline conditions. On the other hand, other
20 metals might be mobilized under the Extraction Procedure but
21 not under expected site conditions. The testing should
22 duplicate expected field and waste conditions.
23 Many of the "wastes" listed i-n 250.14 (b) 02) are not
24 wastes at all, but rather are returned to the process. Their
25 inclusion will needlessly generate requirements of record
-------
61
1 keeping without environmental advantages. Examples include
2 copper smelter dusts, etc. This again demonstrates a need to
3 know the industry.
4 Section 250.15 provides a mechanism to demonstrate that
5 a waste is outside the arbitrary EPA criteria, and hence should
6 not be considered as hazardous. Within this section, 250.15(5)
7 provides a mechanism to demonstrate that a waste is not
8 radioactive (a non-existent criteria under 250.12).. The
9 waste must contain less than 5 picocuries per gram radium,
10 which automatically means'that all marine shales, granites,
11 most brick's, etc, are "hazardous". In fact, almost any basement
12 excavation in Denver results in the generation of a "hazardous"
13 waste.
14 If concentrations are to be used, a limit of 25 5o 30
S • • • '
15 picocuries per gram would be more consistent with the intent.
16 However, a better approach would be to use the leach tests, to
17 see what amount of the radium- was subject to leaching, and
18 hence available to the biosphere. Such tests should be run prior
19 to regulations being drafted.
20 The definitions for "Attenuation", "Endangerment", and
21 "Underground Non-Drinking Water Source", found in 250.41,
22 indicate that, at one time, the Subpart D regulations envisioned
23 an aporoach similar to the Sanitarv Landfill Criteria, with
24 recognition of the attenuation provided by vadose and saturated
25 zone sorbtion, and allowance for naturally-occurring
-------
62
1 contamination. Unfortunately, these concepts were omitted
2 from the proposed regulations, and replaced by a rigid set of
3 design criteria which do not prov-ide for variations in site
4 or waste characteristics. In my opinion, all necessary
5 design criteri-a are contained in Section 250.42-1. Specific
6 design should be left to the various operators, with allowance
7 made for the concepts as expressed in the definitions of
8 "allenuation", "endangerment", and "underground Non-Drinking
9 Water Source".
10 Many of the subsequent sections .of Subpart D are clearly
11 not applicable for mining1 wastes. Their inclusion under the
12 requirements of Section 250.46 demonstrates a lack of under-
13 standing of the mining industry. .Again, we suggest an extensive
14 tour of representative facilities prior to preparation of the
15 final regulations, and offer our assistance in arranging for
16 such a tour.
17 There is no environmental advantage associated with the
»
18 securit-y requirements, although there are significant environ-
19 mental and economic disadvantages. The material inside the
20 fence is identical to thousands of tons of similar rock outside
21 the fence. Similarly, there is no need for a daily inspection
22 to see that the rock is still inside the fence. The closure
23 and post-closure requirements are unnecessarv except for truly
24 hazardous materials, which do not include mining wastes.
25 in closing, I recognize that the agency was faced with
-------
63
1 a tough job on preparing far-reaching regulations covering'a
2 number of industries they did .not understand. Perhaps time
3 precluded becoming familiar with the industry prior to prepa-
4 ration of -the draft regulations, but it is hoped you can
5 become familiar with the industry before you finish the•
6 ' final regulations. I would be glad to assist in this familiar-
7 ization. It is important that you understand the wide
8 variation in site'and waste characteristics, and provide
9 sufficient flexibility to design around these variations, makinc
10 use of the sorbtive capacity of the vadose zone.
11 Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. Will
13 you take questions from the panel?"
14 MR.- ROUSE: Yes, I will be glad to.
^
15 MR. CORSON: Just wondering, in terms .of -your
16 concept of site-specificity for definition, were you looking
17 at a floating system, or were you advocating the same sort of
18 thing that Mr. Osborne did, where we put in- a- special category,
19 subject to less, or whether in fact that this takes it.out of
20 the system entirely. I am wondering'what method of controls
21 you would advocate? - .
22 . MR- ROUSE: We will be.addressing on Friday some
23 points we have in mind under the Section 3004, the standards
24 aoolicable to disposal sites. However, the point I am trying
25 to make at this time under 3001 is, that manv of the wastes
-------
64
I you are listing are listing are not truly'hazardous. The
2 criteria that you have you promulgated are extremely arbitrary,
3 and I have not seen a demonstrated hazard associated, for
4 example, with the pH of Coca-Cola, but rather I think you
5 need to really start seeing what the nature.of this material
6 is with respect, not only to the waste characteristics., but
7 to the site hydrogeology, because•there is a vast difference
8 between the radium associated with the phosphate byproduct
9 of gypsum in Florida, and the same amount of radium associated
10 with a sandstone deposited on 5,000 feet of shale in Central
11 Utah, where it rains four inches a year. Each approach needs
12 to be taken. The site conditions need to be taken on a
13 site specific condition, and you would get around the problem
14 of the blanket value for radium, for example, if you did use
15 a testing procedure wherein, you would see a portion of radium
16 that would be subject to leaching and movement into the biosphere
17 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.
18 Rouse. We will take a short recess.
19 " (Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
20 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Our next speaker will be'
21 Clara Lou Humphrey. '
22 MS. CLARA LOU HUMPHREY: Good morning, my name is
23 Clara Lou Humphrey and I am speaking for the League of Women
24 Voters of Colorado.
25 The League of Women Voters of Colorado has requested
-------
65
1 permission to speak at these hearings because of our special
2 concern. The dangers of inadequate hazardous waste handling
3 were apparent to us long before there was nationwide interest
4 in the subject. Residents not far from this building had their
5 water services contaminated and subsequently abandoned because
6 because of disposal practices at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
7 Wildlife and cropland were also harmed when injection was
• 8 used as a remedy, the procedure caused the "Denver Earthquakes"
9 and had to be stopped. Colorado and Utah are currently involvec
10 in debate over the transportation-and disnosal of the "Weteye"
11 bombs currently stores, and in some cases leaking, at the arsenc
12 The Colorado Department of Health estimates that in Colorado
13 there are approximated 6,311 possible generators of hazardous
14 waste; 195 possible transporters of hazardous waste and 315
15 possible processors and/or disposers of hazardous wastes.
16 A bill (SB 121) introduced this session in the Colorado
17 legislature -states "currently wastes which are hazardous are
18 being disposed of indiscriminately in sanitary landfills in
19 the state without regard to the location of such landfills or
20 the bydrology or geography of the landfill site."
21 The League of Women Voters of Colorado under an EPA
22 grant, presented a seminar on hazardous waste last summer.
23 The purpose was to raise awareness of the problems and to
24 explore some of the ways they might be solved. The overriding
25 immediate problem identified at the seminar was the lack of a
-------
66
1 definition of what will be considered hazardous waste and
2 uncertainty as to what the standards and regulations will be..
3 We believe that EPA should set the standards and agree that the
4 states are the preferred level of government for implementation
5 of this program, so long as they meet the minimum standards.
6 We have both state and national positions that the states
7 should be allowed to be more stringent. We urge you to adopt
8 these standards and regulations as soon as possible 'so that
9 the states may set their machinery in motion to implement.
10 Our members found it very difficult to attend the public
11 meetings held by the state and the EPA prior to this hearing
12 and would suggest at least one of them should have been held
13 in the Denver metro area. We also suggest that the structure
14 of the hearings makes it very difficult for people to reach
15 an understanding of the total picture. Shorter sessions,
16 perhaps three days of the same general program might make
17 citizen participation more meaningful.
18 3001 - In terms of citizen oarticination we request that
19 oublic notice be required whenever the results of a demonstration
20 of non-inclusion in the hazardous waste system results in the
21 material being excluded. Perhaps it could be patterned after
22 the water discharge permit system in which there is public
23 notice soliciting public comment. We do not feel that a person
24 must show that he is aggrieved, but only that there is a
25 reasonable doubt as to the public health or the environmental
i
-------
67
1 effects of the decision. This would allow for the possibility
2 of new data on harm to human health to be introduced.
3 3002 - We are uncomfortable with the 100 KG exemption
4 as proposed although it may make sense to control the large
5 amounts first. Any exemptions should be based solely on the
6 protection of human health and the environment. Once the
7 orogram has been implemented as proposed,-a combination of
8 option.3 and 5 might be initiated. The exemption might be
9 based on the degree of hazard with lesser administrative
10 requirements for the generators of smaller amounts. We support
11 the requirement for annual renewal of exemption. Since
12 Colorado has a history of hazardous waste accidents we would
13 support a requirement for contingency spill plans for generators
14 which store hazardous waste less than 90 days. The "cradle
15 to grave" concept should include inclusive contingency plans.
16 The plan may be part of the contingency or emergency plan of
17 the generator.
18 3004 - We support the use of the Human Health and
19 Environmental standards and of design and operating standards
20 as a way to assist the regulated community. We do not support
21 the frequent use of notes authorizing deviations. We object
22 to the phrase at the time a permit is issued "in the notes
23 because of the effects on performance of such variables as
24 weather, instruction and makeup of the waste stream" The time
25 a permit is issued may not be representative of conditions.
-------
68
1. Floodplain: The act of building a structure in a
3
floodplain would cause that floodplain to change. If a
4 *
facility is allowed in the floodplain, what protection from
flooding is provided for those structures put in jeopardy by
the new floodplain boundaries?
2, Recharge zone of sole source aquifer: any exemptions
g
must be able to demonstrate no endangerment of the sole source
q
aquifer at any time in the future.
Special Wastes:' Colorado currently has problems with
power plant fly ash and with mining wastes. We're concerned
12
about how you will handle- those wastes.
" Our position is that the federal government should v
encourage recycling of post-industrial and post-consumer
wastes. We support assistance for recycling facilities and
*° waste exchanges.
*•' Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON FRIFDMAN: Thank you verv much, Mrs.
1Q
Humphrey. Would you take questions from the oanel?
20 MS. HUMPHREY: If there are any cmestions.
21
" MR. LIHDSEY: Ms 7 Humphrey, we talked about, or
22
you talked about being uncomfortable with the small — what
23
we call the small quantity exclusion, and suggested that to
24
some extent that probably should be reduced , but to make sense ,
25
we should have somewhat less administrative burden on generators
-------
69
1 category. I guess the problem I have is in setting up the
2 so called administrative controls, that is the recordkeeping
3 and manifest, if you will. We try to cut that to a bare
4 minimum, and you will find that that- we in fact have less
5 recording and so forth than many of the states which already
6 have programs. I wonder, with the further cuts,.if we were
7 to incorporate many many more small generators, what controls
8 might make sense to cut? We couldn't cut out the manifest,
9 for example, or we wouldn't have any control. I wonder if
10 you have any thoughts on that?
11 MRS. HUMPHREY: First of all, I have not' seen all
12 the forms that the various and sundry states have, so I am
13 only responding to your proposed guidelines, and the question
14 that was in there. Our feeling is, there will be probably a
15 need for more naper work for a larger producer; that it is
16 possible that there may be a form like the IRS, the short form
17 for those that generate small quantities. I would have to
18 look at the specific form to decide. We just wanted to
19 support consideration of having some shorten version or easier
20 method.
21 MR. LINDSEY: If you could in your written comments
22 take another look at the control form and the annual reporting
23 form of the miscellaneous forms that were involved with
24 International shiraments and the exception form when a manifest
25 is not received, and give us any ideas you may have on what you
-------
70
think might be acceptable for smaller facilities and that would
2 not be required for smaller facilities that might be necessary
3 for bigger quantities.
4 -MS. HUMPHREY: Just a wild guess. I would suspect
that some of the generators of smaller quantities would probably
be more helpful. We are especially concerned with more hazard-
ous waste that any quantity being tracted very carefully.
MS. . SCHAFFER: I have a question. Can vou give
us an example of what you mean by inclusive? What kinds of
things should be included or should we require a contingency
plan for generators, if not now, perhaps in your written
comments, we would really appreciate that.
MS. HUMPHREY: Well, again, I am responding to
a specific note in the guidelines saying that you were consider-
ing this, and we would certainly would have to have a thirty
day oeriod where there is no required olan for emergency. Our
history here is not real good of things staying safe while they
are being stored.
MS. SCHAFFER: If you could tell us in your written
comments the kinds of things we should require in the contingency
plan, we would really aopreciate that.
22 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Our next" sneaker
is Dr. Carl Johnson of the Jefferson County Health Department.
2 Is Dr. Johnson here? Is Howard Runion of the American Petroleun
25 Institute here?
-------
71
MR. HOWARD RUNION: Good morning, my name is Howard
2 Runion and I am currently employed ' as manager of the Gulf
3 Oil Corporation, Industrial Hygiene and Radiation Department,
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. My formal graduate training includes
a M.A. in Zoology and a MPH in Environmental and Occupational
Health.
I am here today on behalf of the American Petroleum
Q
0 Institute (API) to discuss the implications for inudstry and
the country of the proposed regulations under Section 3001 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as published
11 in the -Federal Register, on December 18, 1978.
12 I am joined today by Dr. Ray Harbison, a Toxicologist at
13 Vanderbilt Medical Center, Mr. Jeff.Jones, a regulatory policy
14 analyst with Industrial Technological Associates/ Inc., Mr.
15 John Fitzpatrick, an attorney with Gulf Oil Company, Mr.
16 Stephen Williams, an attorney and staff member of the American
17 Petroleum Institute and Dr. Steven Swanson, an Economist and
18 staff member with API.
19 - Since the enactment of RCRA, API has been participating
20 in the development of the proposed regulations through the
21 submission of comments to and conferences with EPA personnel.
22 We have been impressed by the serious commitment of the members
23 of the Office of Solid Waste to prepare a regulatory program
24 which addresses this complex health and environmental issue.
Furthermore, we have appeared in court to support EPA in its
-------
72
1 attempts to obtain the requisite time to promulgate realistic,
2 workable regulations. However, despite the time granted by
3 Judge Gesell, API has had a scant three months to review
4 intensively this new and comprehensive program. The thoughts
5 we share with you today require further refinement, expansion,
6 and reinforcement. We shall seek relief in the form of
7 additional time for specific projects underway, however we will
8 have substantial input ready for EPA by the March 16, 1979
9 deadline.
10 API views the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
11 as a logical extension of other environmental legislation for
12 control of environmental pollution and we are in accord with
13 the mandate of EPA to regulate the disposal, handling and
14 storage of industrial residues. The primary purpose of our
15 presentation today is to.present to the EPA our concerns about
16 the process which EPA has proposed to designate industrial
17 residues as hazardous wastes.
18 We are particularly concerned that EPA, in a sincere
19 attempt to develoo "simple" and "inexpensive" methods for
20 waste classification, has adopted an approach which"-when applied
21 will so dilute industry's and government's scarce resources
22 as to compromise efforts to eliminate the serious environmental
23 hazards. API believes that Congress in enacting RCRA, intended
24 that a flexible program be develoned which (1) identifies
25 wastes as "hazardous" based upon the degree of risk they oose
4
-------
73
1 to human health and the environment, and (2) tailors control
2 efforts that are commensurate with the degree of risk and
3 which can be expected to reduce that risk. Moreover, Congress
4 indicate that the "hazard" a waste presents is a product of
5 "its quantity, concentration, or Physical, chemical or infecti-
6 ous characteristics." (Section 100405)).
7 EPA has elected to focus its regulatory scheme on the
° physical and chemical characteristics of waste, thereby fails
9 to give proper consideration to characteristics such as volume
10 and degradability which are certainly germane to an assessment
11 of risk. Furthermore, for those wastes listed the Agency
12 has neither demonstrated with field exnerience. nor provided
13 documentation with epidemiological studies, that the designated
14 wastes have significantly contributed to an increase in
15 mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitat-
16 ing reversible illnesses. Instead they have relied upon other
17 statutes or regulatory programs, and inconclusive incidents
18 of "harm" to conclude that the wastes listed "pose a substantial
19 present or potential hazard to human health or the environment."
20 Under the proposal being advanced by the Agencv in
21 Section 3001, the definition section, most, if not all, of the
22 petroleum industry's'wastes will be designated as hazardous,
23 Our industry, like many others will then be forced to comply
24 with a series of oreordained, costly compliance standards which
25 do not differentiate degrees or tvoes of hazard posed bv these
-------
74
wastes.
The overly broad designation scheme which EPA has
proposed results at least in part from the Agency's failure
to consider seriously other factors, bearing on hazard determi-
nations such as degradability, persistence, dose and probability
of exposure. For example, exoosure. considerations are necessary
7 to determine which wastes "significantly contribute to an
8 increase in mortality and nose a substantial hazard "to human
9 health."
10 Section 3001 EPA has:
11 Identified a group- of characteristics (i.e./ toxicity,
12 corrosivity, ignitability and reactivity) to determine
13 whether a waste is hazardous;
14 Prescribed a series of tes-ts to determine whether a
15 waste possesses these characteristics;
16 Listed a series of wastes which they claim possess some
17 or all of these characteristics and then others for
18 which tests have hot been prescribed (eg. mutagenicity,
19 teratogenicitv.)
20 We cannot determine whether the wastes which are listed
21 have failed any of the orescribed test nor any other test for
22 characteristics for which tests have not been described. Finall
23 test results for the puroose of determining whether a waste is
24 hazardous are not used to establish a differentiated degree of
25 risk. The- disregard for deqree of risk stems from a concentual
-------
75
1 flaw, which is that the proposed regulations do not consider
2 exposure.
3 In light of these criticisms, we feel it is incumbent
4 on us- (the industry) to offer positive suggestions for correctin
5 the deficiencies we have identified. For that reason, I'd like
6 to spend a few moments describing -some of the critical elements
7 of alternative approaches to hazardous waste regulations. We
8 are continuing to refine these alternatives as the'March 16
g deadline approaches so I can only speak generally today.'
10 In broad terms, the API alternative deoends on a risk
11 assessment approach to regulation. Our risk assessment proced-
12 ures provide in the first phase for a ranking of notentially
13 hazardous wastes according to chemical and toxicological risk.
14 Rather than a simplistic hazard/no hazard designation, API
15 oroposes to distinguish more carefully among wastes of widely
15 varying hazard. We believe our aporoach more fully exoloits
17 the results of testing by taking into account all of the
18 information generated by the prescribed series of tests, in
19 order to differentiate among degrees of risk. As currently
20 prooosed EPA uses the tests only to determine whether a waste
2i passes or fails a hazardous/not hazardous determination.
22 In the second chase of our alternative EPA would combine
23 what I will call exposure factors with first chase results.
24 By exposure factors I mean particular site, operational, and
25 management factors. Our objective in this chase is to overcome
-------
76
1 EPA's across-the-board application of the 10-fold dilution
2 factor as a substitute for adequate exposure analysis. We
3 intend to develop and justify a system that provides for varyinc
4 exposure factors. Additionally, we intend that this type of
5 exposure, analysis will be utilized for all wastes whether they
6 are listed or not.
7 Under the API scheme, once the overall hazard assessment
8 is complete, EPA would tailor the regulatory requirements to
9 the degree of hazard. In other words, just as API proposes
10 a scale for hazard assessment, we also envision a system that
11 varies the stringency of regulatory requirements according
12 to the degree of hazard.
13 In addition, to the overall risk assessment approach API
14 will also propose a procedural adjustment to EPA's listing
15 process that overcomes the problems discussed earlier.
16 To correct these problems API suggests that EPA clearly
17 identify the criteria and scientific data that were used in
18 the listing process heretofore. Further, API recommends that
19 the initial listing of wastes be a presumptive listing, with
20 an opportunity for public comment. During the comment period,
21 industry would have- the opportunity to supply the Agency with
22 information that might rebut this presumption.
23 We appreciate the opportunity to offer our views in
24 this forum and we will be working diligently in the next week
25 to more fully develop the ideas I've discussed this morning.
-------
77
1 We are prepared at this time to answer any questions the
2 panel may have. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much Mr. Runion
4 Will you and the people who have accompanied you accept questions
5 from the panel?
6 MR. RUNION: Yes.
7 MR. CORSON: I have one question about your last
8 statement, Mr. Runion. You indicate that you recommend the
9 initial listing be a presumptive listing with the opoortunity
10 for public comment. I am wondering what you envision different
11 then what that list currently is, which is a listing for
12 public comment.
13 MR. RUNION: We do not understand all the parameter
14 surrounding the decision that'.was made by EPA, and in selecting
15 the various materials that happen to wind up on that list.
16 So to be able to address ourselves to subsequent questions we
17 suggested that.
18 MR. CORSON: One other question. I am just wonder-
19 ing, does your risk assessment look at waste individually?
20 Does it also provide a mechanism? I am looking forward to
21 seeing that with great anticipation. Does it also provide
22 some means for adding the risk of several waste or is that
23 oart of the exposure model?
24 MR. RUNION: I can't get into the nuts and bolts
25 of this because in fact, all the nuts have not been nut on the
-------
78
1 bolts, but essentially, we have three general categories
2 here. One is you have the physical chemical properties or
3 characteristics. Some material expose with greater ease and
4 greater movement, if you wish, then others, and the same thing
5 in all these other categories. One must look at the matrix
6 of the physical chemical properties, then the biological.
7 Then looking at all these factors, come up with some decision
8 as to what the net risks will be. And part of the concern
9 that you speak of inescapably then filters into this. None
10 of us have the answers to all the questions about synergism
11 and so forth that come to mind.
12 MR. LINDSEY: I am a little troubled, and I am havi4g
13 a little trouble following you through that. Apparently then
14 the approach which you are going to propose will include
15 classes of waste based on some hazard level as the point some
16 things exclude more readily than others, then that will be
17 coupled on a case-by-case basis presumably with how the waste
18 how in fact handled; is that correct?
19 " MR. RUNION: You have to look, not only at the
20 potential of the waste,- but you have to in both respects,
21 chemical and biological. You have to look at it in light of
22 where it is setting, where it is in relation to people, how
23 it is being managed and so forth, and then you come up with
24 a bottom line assessment of risk.
25 MR. LINDSEY: The wav, as I read the Act that is
-------
79
1 set up, is for Section 3001 to decide that there should be
2 potential harm, and then the individual case-by-case analysis
3 of risk proposed is handled under the regulation, under 3004,
4 and then, of course, the permitting requirement that go along
5 with that.
6 MR. RUNION: As we have evolved our thoughts, we
7 recognize that.
8 MR. LINDSEY: It doesn't seem fit.
9 MR. RUNION: It does it if you look at it from a
10 total system approach. It is just the way you have your
11 regulations written down. You have to reshape your approach
12 a little bit, but if you really want to deal with this problem
13 as a total system problem, then you simply have to rearrange
14 some of the way that the text of your regulations came out.
15 MR. LINDSEY: It is a big comnlex operation.
16 MR. RUNION: This is a complex problem and complex
17 problem, as we both know, don't have easy answers.
18 MR. LINDSEY: I will be looking forward to whether
19 or not you can characterize it.
20 MR. RUNION: We will do our very best. We are
21 trying to be helpful. We really are.
22 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Runion, I have a question about
23 the first part of your proposed scheme. This is concerning
24 the ranking in terms of chemical toxicological risk. Now, this
25 implies, as I understand it, any scheme based on that approach,
-------
80
I implies a fairly rigorous chemical evaluation of the waste for
2 its constituent followed by an evaluation of the chemical and
3 toxicological evaluation of those risks. This implies a barely
4 substantial testing cost to do this as opposed to the approach
5 we were going on. So it appears to me that we have a tradeoff
5 situation here where you are talking about substantial increase
7 in the testing cost over what we have proposed. Would you
8 care to comment on that?
g MR. STEVE SWANSON: I am Steve Swanson and I am a
10 member of the API staff. First of all, I think that one of
11 the things we tried to make clear in .Mr. Runion's statement
12 was that EPA is not using the results of the tests they have
13 already prescribed. So in one sense, you can talk about a
14 leachate containing some quantity of "X", and the way you se
15 up 3001,, you have made it a dichotomy determination, it is
ig hazardous or not hazardous. So we are saying you can use
17 the results of tests already prescribed within 3001 to make
lg a finer determination of the degree of risk. It does not
19 necessarily imply that you do further testing, that is, further
20 in terms of most sophisticated testing. However, we also pointed
2i out that the listing of the substance should be rebuttable
22 resumption, so therefore, if industry choses to attempt to
23 rebut that presumption, based on whatever procedure it wishes
24 to follow, there should be that opportunity to rebutt the
25 presumptions.
-------
81
1 MR. LEHMAN: The way I understand the Act is
2 structured, you have that opportunity at the present time
3 through Section 250.15, the non-inclusion section, plus the
4 section 7002, with respect to petition.
5 MR. SWANSON: You want me to respond to that?
6 MR. LEHMAN: Yes.
7 MR. SWANSON: It seems to me that the path one
8 takes, and I think we have to go back to what Mr. Runion
9 said, we don't have all the details down at this point. We
10 are really trying to make some broad generalization. I don't
11 think the path to rebut' or a presumption is very clear.
12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Our
13 next speaker is Mr. Kenneth Ladd of.the Utility Solid Waste
14 Activities Group.
15 MR. KENNETH LADD: Good morning. My name is Kenneth
16 Ladd. I am employed as Senior Environmentalist by the Southwest
17 Public Service Company of Amarillo, Texas. I am also Chairman
18 of the Resources Recovery & Utilization Technical Committee
19 of .the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG") , and am'
20 appearing today on behalf of USWAG and the Edison Electric
21 Institute.
22 For those of you not familiar with USWAG, let me
23 briefly describe the group. USWAG is an informal consortium
24 of electric utilities and the Edison Electric Institute.
25 Currently, over 70 utility operating companies are participants
srr
-------
82
1 in USWAG. These companies own and operate a substantial
2 percentage of the electric generation capacity in the United
3 States. EEI is the principal national association of investor-
4 owned electric light and power companies.
t
5 The Technical Committee that I chair focuses on issues
6 relating to the reuse of utility by-products, including fly
7 ash, bottom ash, scrubber sludge, and boiler slag. Encouragement
8 of these reuses is both environmentally and economically
9 significant. For example, at Southwestern Public Service
10 Company — a relatively small utility — we generate 400 tons
11 a day of ash. If reuse were impossible, we would be required
12 to spend — even without RCRA subtitle C requirements — twenty
13 to forty dollars per ton to dispose of this ash, and to dedicate
14 many acres to this purpose. Fortunately, however, all of this
15 ash is marketable in our area, and, although we do not makeaa
16 profit on its sale, we have substantially lowered our "disposal"
17 costs.
18 (I might note parenthetically at this point that we
19 occasionally find it necessary to accumulate ash for considerable
20 periods of time in order to have enough to make marketing
21 feasible. This fact seems to have been ignored by EPA in its
22 arbitrary proposal of a ninety day cutoff to distinguish when
23 a person accumulating waste on-site engages in "storage" and
24 becomes a TSDF. At least as to utility by-products, this
25 period is totally inappropriate, and would certainly impede
-------
83
our resource recovery efforts if implemented.)
2 As I mentioned a moraerit ago, Southwestern Public Service's
3 activities represent only a small portion of the reuse of
utility by-products. Reuses have been growing remarkably over
the last ten years. In 1966, 3.1 million tons of fly ash, bottom
ash and slag were reused; j.n 1977, this figure had increased
to 14 million tons.
Q
0 This represents an increase of from three percent of the
* total material generated to 20.7 percent. This increase in
reuse has largely been possible because, after great effort,
11 we have managed to see major, recognized specifications for
concrete products and similar materials revised to allow use
13 of ash. This effort has greatly benefited from strong
endorsements of the use of ash from the Federal Highway
Administration, the Army Corpos. of Engineers, the Bureau of
Mines, and other Federal and State government agencies.
Besides the replacement additive'for concrete, there
are numerous other uses that have to do with fillers and
road base, material additives to manufacturing processes,
aggregate, highway icing control, sheetrock and a number of
other types of reuses that these utility by-products are used
22 for.
23
I understand that in a number of previous hearings on
these proposed RCRA regulations, members of the panel have
25
asked why the utilitv industrv is concerned with the Subtitle
-------
84
I C regulations. It has been suggested by the panel that there
2 is no reason to believe that fly ash and other utility by-
3 products are "hazardous"/ and thus regulated under these rules,
4 and that therefore the utility industry should not be concerned.
§ But let me indicate today one important reason why we are
6 concerned: the proposed regulations on their face presume
7 the hazardousness of utility by-products, and have hung a
8 label of "hazardous" on them, and thus may severely limit or
9 even eliminate the reuse of these materials.
10 For example, in the preamble to the oroposed regulations,
11 EPA presupposes the "hazardousness" of fly ash. The preamble
12 states that "the Agency (has) realized that some portions of :
13 certain high volume wastes" — including utility wastes —
14 "Will be hazardous under Subpart A," and continues. "The
S
15 Agency is calling these high volume hazardous waste "special
16 waste",. . ."(pp. 58991-92). In short, the EPA is assuming
17 that large volumes of fly ash are "hazardous".
IQ In addition, the proposed interim regulations for utility
19 wa-stes are buried in the regulations implementing "section
20 3004" of RCRA — which regulations aoply only to "hazardous
21 waste." Again, EPA seems to-be endorsing the conclusion that
22 utility bv-products are hazardous, rather then simply indicating
23 it isn't sure about these materials.
24 (We hasten to note that we strongly believe that the
25 Agency in fact has no basis for concern with regard to utility
-------
85
1 wastes, which, we submit, constitutes no substantial threat
2 to human health or the environment whether reused or disoosed
3 of.)
The result of these proposed regulations is to hang a
public label of "hazardous" on fly ash and other utility by-
* products. This will have a number of inappropriate effects.
' First, it will substantially 1 imit the market for these
materials: one simply cannot expect a home owner to be willing
to use "non-spec readi-mix concrete" in the foundation for his
new home after EPA has labeled a major constituent of the
readi-mix as "hazardous." Second, it will deter development
12 of new uses for utility by-products, despite considerable
promising R&D work. Third, it will deter many potential customer
from even considering the substitution of ash for virgin or
alternative materials, in order to avoid the nighmare of
paperwork that is likely to. result under RCRA.
This paperwork problem is an important one. When we
try to develop markets for fly ash and bottom ash, we are
competing with other, locally-available products, including,
^ in some cases, dirt. We do not have any substantial price
advantage over these alternative products. Thus, every
2 additional penny per ton cost that is added to ash, and every
33
J extra regulatory complication, decreases the potential reuse
24
of this material.
We believe this result directly contradicts the intent
-------
86
1 of Congress in enacting RCRA, which was, after all, to promote
2 resource conservation and recovery.
3 Of course, there are substantial regional variations in
4 costs of reusing utility by-products. For example, a major
5 element in ash marketing costs are transportation costs. For
6 this reason, we strongly object to the portions of the proposed
7 Section 3003 regulations that would require shipment of fly
8 ash in soecially-designed and placarded vehicles. There simply
9 is no need for this. There generally isn't even a need for
10 tarps on top of dump trucks carrying ash, since once wetted,
11 the ash does not create dust or cause any other environmental
12 problem.
13 Ladies and Gentlemen, there is an enormous potential
14 market for fly ash and other utility by-products in the United
15 States. Speaking in Atlanta, Georgia, on February 26, 1979,
16 Ms. Penelope Hanson of the EPA cited figures that indicated
17 that the reuse of fly ash in federally-soonsored concrete
18 construction could save tax-payers ten to fifteen percent of
19 the cost of those projects. She also indicated that a twenty
20 oercent use of fly ash in cement would result in a fifteen
21 percent savings in the amount of energy used to produce that
22 cement. As a result, a different division of EPA than the
23 one holding this hearing has put fifty percent of its effort
24 in developing regulations to promote the use of ash in Federal
25 construction. Yet these oolicies will be substantially undercut
-------
87
1 by the regulations now proposed under Subtitle C of RCRA.
2 USWAG will file detailed comments with EPA that will
3 set forth a number of alternatives to the arbitrary approach
4 to implementation of RCRA reflected in these proposed regula-
5 tions. Le me just summarize a few of our suggestions today:
6 First, EPA should adopt an appropriate method tti define
7 "hazardous waste," based on a recognition that-only discarded
8 materials are wastes, and reflecting realistic consideration
9 of the actual environmental impacts from disposal of wastes.
10 Second, EPA should include in its proposed regulations
11 a "commercial product standard" that will allow use of
12 recovered materials in place of virgin materials, if the
13 recovered materials have no significantly different impact on
14 the environment than the virgin materials, and that will not
15 subject the reused materials to any regulatory requirements.
16 Third, if EPA concludes that it cannot yet make a
17 decision as to whether some utility waste nroducts may be
18 hazardous in some situations, EPA should adoot only such
19 regulations as are necessary to keeo track of utility waste
20 disposal — at the least possible economic and operational
21 impact — until the Agency's concerns have been factually
22 addressed. The Agency should set forth these regulations in
23 a subpart of regulations that clearly establishes that no
24 decision has yet been reached as to the "hazardousness" of
2$ utility wastes, and should assure that no steps are taken in
-------
88
the interim period, before completion of any review of utility
waste disposal, that will interfere with the marketing and
reuse of environmentally innocuous fly ash, bottom ash, and
other utility by-products
I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning, and
would be happy to answer your questions to the extent I am able
Thank you,
8 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Ladd, for the benefit of the
9 audience, I think it is fair to say, we have heard essentially
10 the same presentation in three previous hearings, and rather
11 than respond at each one, and rather than take the time to do
12 that here, I think we will just pass.
13 MR. LADD: Real fine. We appreciate it again.
14 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Our
15 next speaker will be Mr. Richard H.Dreith.
16 MR. RICHARD H. DREITH: My name is Richard H.
17 Dreith, I am a Staff Engineer in the Environmental Affairs
18 Department of the Shell Oil Company. Shell Oil and its
Divisions are pleased to comment on the proposed "Hazardous
20 Waste Guidelines and Regulations" appearing in the 'December
21 Ji
'18, 1978 "Federal REgister". Shell Oil Company is an integratec
22
oil company involved in oil and gas production, refining,
chemical manufacturing, transportation, marketing, and mining
activities. We have facilities for producing, transporting,
pc
manufacturing and marketing of Shell products in fortv -four
-------
89
1 of our fifty states. Activities of our subsidiaries are
2 involved with products that range from- agricultural chemicals
3 to plastics. Because of our wide range of activities nationally
4 we are vitally interested'in the development of workable national
5 solid and hazardous waste guidelines and regulations.
5 Scope of Shell Comments
7 We have participated with the Agency in commenting on
S drafts and proposals throughout the solid waste regulation
g development process. We are also participating in-the preparaticjn
10 of comments and recommendations to be submitted by the American
11 Institute and the Manufacturing Chemists Association and other
12 industrial associations relating to the December 18, 1978 draft
13 of the regulation. We support the submittals of the API and
14 MCA as representing certain general and specific concerns
15 held by Shell. We wish, however/ to offer the following
15 additional comments and recommendations summarizing Shell's
17 views on the proposed hazardous waste regulations.
18 Corporate Policy, RCRA and Existing State Programs.
19 ' Our corporation's written public oolicies state that we
20 will strive to attain environmentally acceptable disposal
21 techniques for all of our wastes. In our view Shell's commitmen
22 to achieving environmentally acceptable disposal methods is
23 consistent with our understanding of the legislative intent
24 to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as it
25 applies to waste disposal.
-------
90
1 In addition, our activities in Texas and California
2 are subject to state hazardous, waste management regulations.
3 These state programs are proving to be effective in maintaining
4 acceptable control of hazardous waste activities consistent
5 with the.intent of RCRA; therefore, we support such state
6 programs.
? General Concern with Proposal Approach
° We have some concerns with specific issues that apoear to
9 permeate the proposed- regulations and would like to recommend
10 conceptual changes in the overall approach so that the regulatio;
11 will reflect more closely the mandate of the federal legislation
12 Suggest Following Path Similar to Air and Water Act
13 Implementation.
14 Your overview comments state that reliance is placed on
15 "waste specific standards versus industry specific standards".
16 Further, "EPA experts believe that most waste classified as
17 hazardous requires similar management techniques ... with
18 respect to performance, design and operating standards for
19 treatment, storage and disposal facilities". We suggest a
20 much more site-soecific and industrv-soecific aporoach to
21 standards is possible and workable. Examples of present
22 performance standards are set forth below: 1) The Clean Air
23 Act contains provisions which require that air emissions
24 meet existing ambient air standards and establish new limits
25 where standards do not exist; 2) Surface runoff is addressed
-------
91
1 under the Clean Water Act; and 3) The Safe Drinking Water Act
2 when implemented will likely contain standards relating to
3 subsurface leachate. We are suggesting that, under.these
4 existing Acts, waste disposal on and in the land would be
5 allowed to continue.
6 Regulations under RCRA should recognize the assimulation
7 and retention capacities of soil to receive and retain contami-
8 nants and that the retention can be verified by monitoring
9 wells near the disposal site. The allowable leachate quality
10 should depend on site-specific performance standards which
11 accurately reflect the potential for inflicting harm to human
12 health and the environment-based upon the specific geological
13 parameters of the particular site.
14 A site—specific based regulatory scheme would need to
15 grant considerable discretionary authority to administer an
16 effective waste management program. The effective use of
17 this discretionary authority has proven effective in the
18 implementation of the Clean Air And Water Acts and the Texas
19 Industrial Solid Waste Management orogram. A similar approach
20 would be effective in administering a workable RCRA program.
21 Burden of Proof of Compliance with Site^Specific
22 Standards, would rest with the Site Operator - Assuming site-
23 specific standards are established as disposal permit conditions
24 in order to more accurately reflect the potential for
25 contamination of usable aquifers, monitoring wells can ensure
-------
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
92
compliance with the site-soecific leachate standards. A
hydrogeological study of the area can be used to establish
monitoring well olacement and the information obtained from
such wells can be used to check compliance. For existing
facilities we recommend, that monitoring wells be allowed to
establish compliance with site-specific leachate quality stand-
ards, rather than requiring costly retrofitting of facilities
in order to meet rigid arbitrary liner thicknesses specified
to avoid any groundwater contamination.
Guidelines for designing new facilities to meet essenti-
' ally no contaminant release can specify a liner thickness to
maintain the integrity of the liner and thereby meet a performance
standard; however, for existing facilities the most practical
approach is to recognize the contamination release potential
of the specific-site and require retrofitting only -for those
facilities which cannot meet the performance standards.
Suggested General Alterations to Prooosal
Tone is too rigid - While we recognize the "note" system
which suggests that "equivalency" to rigid engineering
standards can be demonstrated, we question the legality and
workability of this approach and oronose a system similar to
that used in Texas be adopted. The Texas system sets general
oerformance standards and provides guidelines to meet those
standards.
In some instances literal comnliance with the orooosed
-------
93
1 standards appears impossible; i. e.. strict requirements of
2 proving a negative. In addition, prohibiting wastes to be
3 stores or accumulated in certain facilities places in jeopardy
4 the use of facilities considered acceptable in spill containment
5 olans called for under the Water Act.
6 Hazardous Waste Definition is too Broad - The proposal
7 defines hazardous waste characteristics so broadly that
8 essentially all wastes generated in our'industry will be
9 classified as hazardous waste. We urge a concent of "degree
10 of hazard" be adopted along with a consistent degree of
11 environmentally secure disposal. This approach would allow
12 greater flexibility in the classification of wastes and the
13 most effective use of disposal capacity which may well
14 become or is the limiting factor in implementing waste manage-
15 ment programs.
16 Specific Issues Summary - The attachments list additional
17 concerns expressed in summary form and directed to specific
18 sections and paragraphs in the proposed regulations. A more
19 detailed presentation of these and other comments will be
20 discussed in statements submitted by the API and MCA.
21 We offer these comments, suggestions and recommendations
22 with full recognition of the formidable task of promulgating
23 workable regulations. The experience with development and
24 implementation of the air and water regulations and existing
25 state hazardous waste regulations yields confidence
-------
94
1 that the task can be accomolished. Flexibility in meeting
2 performance standards coupled with discretionary authority
3 to allow a site-specific approach to compliance is the most
4 workable scheme without compromising environmentally sound
5 waste disposal.
6 We look forward to continued involvement in the regulatory
7 development activity and trust that our participation is
8 constructive.
9 Thank you,.
10 . CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Are
11 there questions?
12 MR. LINDSEYs Mr. Dreith, I have one. 'You made
13 one statement that I just didn't understand. You said that
14 some of the requirements which we have would not be possible
• " S
15 to meet. And the term which you used in describing those
16 was strict requirement of proving a negative. Can you
17 translate that for me? , .
18 MR. DREITH: A waste can be placed on a hazard
19 classification, and the testing procedure to declassify are
20 not available. So you are saddled with the difficulty of
21 declassifying a waste without the procedures available to
22 declassified waste.
23 MR. LINDSEY: In other words, the regulations
24 under 3001, 250.15 demonstrates a non-inclusion hazardous
25 waste system, which leaves out— in other words what-you are
-------
95
saying, there is no method in"here which allows something to
2 be delisted or certain things to be delisted?
3 MR. DREITH: Yes, that is correct.
MR. LINDSEY: If you could point out which ones
of those kinds of things that are listed, which there is no
6 way of getting off the list, maybe that would enlighten us.
' MR. DREITH: We are concerned about the acceptability
Q
0 of testing procedures for it.
* MR. LINDSEY: The procedures are not here?
MR. DREITH: But the acceptability of the procedures
11 to declassify waste. Once it is on the hazardous waste list,
12 how you get the declassified item off and be legally comfortable
13 that you have it in fact declassified. That is a conceptual
statement and we hope the API approach will deal with that
also. The MCA statements are also dealing with it in particular
16 MR. LINDSEY: The other point I would like to
bring out is, that you .very strongly suggested a site-specific
regulatory scheme, which I might add, we endorse, because
basically that was the intent of the note system, which I think
20 you took cognizance of, and I gather you don't think that the
note system then is sufficiently flexible?
-MR. DREITH: I use the term that we are concerned
23
M about the legality and workability of that note system, and
I fall back on what we are familiar with, and in our operation
25
in Texas, and that is a set of regulations with guidelines,
-------
96
and they are strictly guidelines, and there is no question
about the equivalency classification.
MR. LINDSEY; Let's follow through, if that is
practical. One of the problems we had in designing these
things, and one of the original approaches we were going to
be using was, to try to set UD some sort, as you put it,
performance standards from maximum contamination of ground
water, for example, say drinking water standards at the fence
line. We are unable to come up with a scheme ahead of time
which could be used to demonstrate by a company or by EPA or
11 anyone whether or not a facility would in fact meet that
12 criteria. In other words, we could find no modeling scheme
along those lines that would allow those sort of things to
14 be done.
S
15 MR. DREITH: I think what I am saying is, that
16 the expertise that exists in the hydrogological community
can vouch for or discuss the hydrology of an area, the
I8 likelihood that the waters will be used as drinking waters,
and parameters of that source, "and with discretionary authority
20 of the administrator of the program to work out a workable
21 scheme for that particular site. For example, if the waters
22 underneath the sites are on their way to a ship channel with
23 brakish water, it is inappropriate to protect the ground waters
24 for drinking water purposes. It is thus inaporooriate to
install significant liner thicknesses when that in fact is
-------
97
provable to the degree that hydrogology can prove something,
that water is moving in that direction. Does that make sense?
MR. LINDSEY: That does. That is the site
specific approach.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I notice there is-a gentleman
in the audience with a question. Sir, if you have a question,
' could you please write it on a piece of paper and bring it
° up to the panel, or if you like to make a statement, please
register with our registration clerk. Thank you.
• -MR. CORSON: Just one question, .Mr.Dreith. I
11 did notice in your statement that you made some comment that
12 support at least, operating under management programs in
13 Texas and California. We heard something on the Texas program
this morning. I guess my last review of the California program
indicates, that among other things, you do a chemical analysis
of the waste to determine whether or not there are those things
of a list of some 600 chemicals in a quantitative analysis,
that you get percentages of those waste for determining the
toxicity of the waste as the result of the concentration of
2" these toxic constituents. I am wondering if you are advocating
that sort of an approach to assessing a degree of hazards as
22 opposed to what we have done as a threshold system within the
3001 note system, which provides for a broader discretionary
24
23
program.
25
MR. DREITH: As far as classifying a waste, I will
-------
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
98
avoid it by saying, that although all that approach is in
the regulation, that the workability and how the administrators
of the program have applied that to the activity in the instate
seems to be a workable program. We have taken many materials
and classified them as hazardous knowing full well that they •
are not hazardous, and so I 'will say we have dodged the analysis
and have chosen to take the cautious way out, and a material
that I will use as an example, cracking catalyst that we
have data in the industry that the leachability of the heavy
metals of that'material is quite low, or non-existence. Howevei
it is fine, and we have chose to let it go out as a hazardous
waste. That has been the conservative Shell approach, and
we find it workable and acceptable. .
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. I
understand that Dr. Carl Johnson is now present. Could he
please come forward to the lectern.'
DR. CARL J. JOHNSON. I wish to thank the panel
for allowing me to speak.
In reviewing the Federal Register in the outline of the
oroposal for hazardous waste, I note that one group of
characteristics contains radioactive items. I have some interest
in what further details or guidelines are being developed in
relation to this property of many hazardous waste, namely,
the prooerty of radioactivity. This is of some imoortance
because one of the orincinal constituents of waste from the
I
-------
99
1 nuclear industry is Plutonium.
2 A large area of land, primarily to the east and south-
3 east of the Rocky Flats plant in Jefferson County, Colorado
4 is contaminated with plutonium (1-3). Concentrations in the
5 respirable dust on the surface of the soil on private land
6 offsite range as high as 3390 times the background from
7 fallout due to weapons testing. Plutonium 239 is the predominant
8 isotope, but the 238, 240 and 241 isotopes are also present.
9 Americium 241 is an additional contaminant, and cesium 137
10 is present in concentrations as high as 83 disintegrations
11 per minute per gram (dpm/g) 5.5 kilometers downwind from the
12 plant in the surface respirable dust, 17 times greater than m
13 similar samples collected from other parts of the state.
14 Uranium has been released by the open burning of 'over 1,000
15 barrels of lathe oil used to mill uranium metal.
16 In addition to the routine release of plutonium particles
17 in the exhaust plumes from plant stacks that began in 1953,
18 there have been other emissions of'Plutonium offsite on a
19 number of occasions, including major fires in 1957' and 1969, anc
20 accidental releases of Plutonium to the air in 1968 and in
21 April of 1974. Recorded concentrations of plutonium in air
22 leaving the main exhaust stack of the plant ranged as high
23 as 948 picocuries/M^ (pCi/M )', recorded eight days after the
24 fire in 1957, which burned out the filter system. This
25 concentration is about 19,000 times the present United States
-------
100
Department of Energy guidelines for maximum permissible stack
2 emissions (0.05 pCi/M ), and represents the equivalent of
3 124 million 5 micrometer particles of plutonium oxide released,
exceeding federal standards for a fifty year period in a
single day. There are no records of emissions for the eight
days period during or immediately after the fire. In the
year after the 1957 fire, the average concentration of
plutonium in the stack exhaust was 2.18 picocuries/M^, and
later the average annual concentration was as high as 2.33
pCi/M for 1962. In recent years smaller amounts are being
released, due to an improved filtration system, although
one air sampler on site continued to show 100 to 600 times
the monthly surface "air concentration of plutonium found in
New York City. .Much of the plutonium now present off site
became airborne between 1964 and 1970 from a spill of lathe
oil containing metal millings of plutonium leaking from
several thousand corroded barrels- stored outside at the olant
18 site.
jo - Contamination of the large Arapahoe aquifer with plutoniurr
2Q levels of 2.5 picocuries per liter (oCi/L) has been reported
as has the contamination of a stream, Walnut Creek (maximum
22 recorded level of 209 pCi/L), draining into the Great Western
23 Reservoir serving the citv of Broomfield, which at times has
24 elevated levels of plutonium (as high as 2.29 pCi/L) in the
25 "finished water" used in homes. A recent reoort confirms
-------
101
1 that plutonium in chlorinated finished water is in the Pu
2 VI form, rather than the Pu IV form, considered in setting
3 maximum permissible limits for Plutonium in finished water
4 (1600 pCi/L). Animal experiments demonstrate an uptake of
5 Plutonium from chlorinated drinking water 1570 times greater
6 than previously thought, as measured by deposits of plutonium
7 in bone and liver.
8 Part of the contaminated area is now utilized for
9 residential development and extensive further development
10 is planned, which could result in an increase in population
H of the contaminated area by as much as 100,000 people. There
12 is community concern regarding nossible health effects for
13 populations living in this area and for the safety of further
14 residential development near the plant.
15 No health effects have been demonstrated previously
16 for residents of areas contaminated with plutonium. Based
17 on work with experimental animals, the effects of low levels
18 of plutonium on man are thought to include leukemia, neoplasms
19 of- bone, lung, and liver, and genetic injury. Lymphocyte
20 chromosome aberrations in plutonium workers have- been 'found
21 to exceed tho-se of controls in the lowest exposure group
22 (1-10%.maximum permissible body burden of Plutonium). Myers
23 has pointed out that the trachiobronchial lymph nodes could be
24 considered as a critical organ for inhalation exposure to
25 plutonium and, if this were done, a maximum permissible oulmonary1
-------
102
dose for insoluble plutonium of.67 picocuries (pCi) could be
recommended. Morgan, by an entirely different approach, has
also recommended,a maximum allowable does that is similar to.
that proposed by Myers. Inhalation and retention of two
particles of plutonium oxide of respirable size (5 micrometers)
would exceed this dose.
Preliminary epidemiological evaluations of lung cancer
8 and leukemia death rates in census tract areas with measured
9 concentrations of plutonium (figure 1}, indicated that rates
10 were significantly higher near the Rocky Flats plant.
11 Method.
12 In.order to confirm earlier risk estimates "for health
13 effects from low concentrations of plutonium.in the environment,
14 and the preliminary work with death rates from leukemia and
S
15 lung cancer in persons living in census tracts with measured
16 levels of plutonium contamination, cancer incidence data was
17 required by census tract from the Third National Cancer Survey
18 (1969-1971). The census tract data has not been published,
19 but is available in computer storage. The request was made on
20 August 5, 1.977 and the data became available on February 6,
21 1979.
22 The cancer incidence data was evaluated with the same
23 approach utilized to evaluate lung cancer and leukemia death
24 rates (figure 1). Cancer incidence rates for each of the 46
25 senarate cancer sites were reported according to levels of
-------
103
1 soil plutonium concentration, selecting census 'tracts within
2 the appropriate concentration isopleths.. Areas were ranked
3 according to decreasing levels of plutonium concentrations.
4 The position of the concentration isopleths of plutonium
5 in the soil is indicated in figure 1. The 0.8 mCi/km2 isopleth
6 does hot appear in Figure 1. The area between the 1.3 and the
7 0.3 isopleths was divided approximately midway, following
8 census tract boundaries (listed in Table 1). The area within
9 the concentration range 50-1.3 millicuries per square kilometer
2
10 (mCi/km ) lies between 2 and 10 miles in distance from the
11 center of the Rocky Flats plant site along the.principal
12 wind vector (Figure 2)." The area between isopleths 1.3 to
13 0.8 mCi/km2 extends from 10 to about 13 miles, the 0.8 to 0.3
14 mCi/km2 area, from 13 to 18 miles and the 0.3 to 0.2 mCi/km2
15 area, from 18 to 24 miles from the center of the plant site.
16 The area outside the last isopleth was utilized as a central
17 populations comprising the remainder of the Denver Standard
18 Metropolitan Statistical Area (population 423,866). Populations
19 of- the study areas are (proceeding from the plant) respectively,
20 46,857 for area la, 107,313 for area lb..194,190 for area II
21 and 246,905 for area III. This study represents a 100 percent
22 sample of a population of 1,019,131 people over a three year
23 period.
24 The levels of Plutonium contamination found in the soil
25 in these areas may be compared to some of the current standards
-------
104
I establishing maximum permissible contamination concentrations .
2 for areas that provide risks of human exposure. Only a Russian
3 standard of 2 millicuries per square kilometer (mCi/km2, 100th
4 of the proposed U. S, Environmental Protection Agency guideline
2
5 of 200 mCi/km for plutonium in residential areas, is in the
6 same order as the concentrations of plutonium in three of the
7 areas studied (Table 2). Although the isopleth values are
8 in mCi/km2, these are also expressed in terms of disintegrations
9 of plutonium per minute per square centimeter or per gram of
10 dry soil. A comparison of units in common usage to express
11 soil contamination with plutonium is given in Table 3.
12 The contamination of soil with. Plutonium is not the only
13 source of exposure. Particulate plutonium which has been
14 released in exhaust emissions from the smoke stacks at the
15 Rocky Flats plant since 1953 are in large in the orders of size
lg smaller than .1 micron. t.hese particles are smaller than many
17 viruses, and do not settle out to cause appreciable soil
18 contamination but may be inhaled by persons who are .in the
19 exhaust plumes from the plant, no matter how great the distance.
20 Soil contamination does give some indication as to the predominant
21 direction of these plumes. A third route of exposure may be
22 through the water.
23 While the incidence rates of cancer in the more highly
24 contaminated area near the plant is of considerable interest,
25 the population there in the years studied (1969-1971) is small
-------
105
1 and also is the result of a rapid rate of development and
2 in-migration. This results in many persons having an
3 insufficient exposure to permit the expression of increased
4 rates of cancer because of the long latent period for most
5 neoplasms, i.e. two to seven years or more for leukemia, seven
6 to 30 or 40 years for bone cancer. Although the plant has
7 been releasing plutonium to the environment since 1953, any
8 effect on cancer rates would be more likely to be noticed in
9 the .larger population areas with lower rates of in-migration.
2
10 For this reason the 50-1.3 mCi/km isopleth area was combined
11 with the 1.3-0.8 isopleth area to form Area I for the comparison
12 with the areas of lesser .-concentration and the control populatioji
13 Expected numbers of cancer cases in each category of
14 age, sex, and exposure status were derived from age-standardizec
S
15 rates for all of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
16 CSMSA) for comparison with the actual cases observed". Because
17 of the higher rates of cancer observed (see results) in each
18 of the contaminated areas, the number of expected cases of
19 cancer were predominantly higher than actually observed in
20 the unexposed population. Because of this problem, a more
21 valid comparison must be made with the actual incidence rates
22 (age-adjusted) found in the unexposed population. The
23 "expected cases" figures in the tables are actually higher
24 than would be expected from incidence rates in the unexposed
25 population, in most cases. Risk rates for neoplasms in each
-------
106
category are calculated by both.methods, but the X2 and probabili
values are computed with the number of cases in each category
and the risk ratio compared to the unexposed population.
Results and Comment.
The relationship between soil levels of Plutonium and
the total Anglo incidence of neoplasms for the 46 categories
of cancer listed in the Third National Cancer Survey-are
8 shown in Table.4. The control area (Area IV) consisting of
**
the Denver S.M.S..A. outside the isopleths of contamination
10 shown in figure 1, comprised some 423,866 people. There appeared
11 to be a direct association between concentrations of Plutonium
12 in the soil and the risk ratio for cancer, for Anglo males
13 and females and for both seses combined. -The risk ratio-
14 increases in each case with greater soil concentrations of
15 Plutonium. The exception is the small population nearest the
16 plant, which because of the small numbers, rapid development
17 and influx of new residents, probably has an average period
18 of exposure much less than the areas more distant, which include
19 much of Denver. These differences are highly significant
20 when compared to the control population. Compared to the
21 control area outside the isopleths there is an excess rate
22 for cancer of 8 percent in men in Area III, most distant
23 from the plant (extending as far as 24 miles downwind), 15 Per-
24 cent in'Area II, nearer to the plant, and finally, a rate
25 of 24 percent higher in Area 1, which includes the plant and
-------
107
1
miles downwind from the plant. The corresponding values for
extends to the 0.8 mCi/km2 isopleth, located approximately 13
2
Anglo females are +4%, +5% and +10%, and for men and women
A
combined, +6%, +10% and +16% for the three year-period 1969-
1971). The higher values are statistically significant
6
(pCO.Ol to p<0.005) with the exception of the females in the
most distant isopleth area (Area III) who had cancer rates
8
only 4 percent higher than females in the unexposed population.
9
A tentative classification of the relative sensitivity
of organs and tissues to cancer induction by radiation as
suggested by the International Commission on Radiation
12
Protection is summarized in Table 5. In this 'investigation,
it was felt that lung cancer, leukemia and bone cancer might
14 '
be prominent, since plutonium is known to be a potent
pulmonary carcinogen, is concentrated in lymph nodes, and is
a bone seeker. The minute particles of Plutonium are carried
great distances in exha'ust plumes from the smoke stacks at the
18
plant, and the irritant effects of smog can result in a much
19
greater respiratory deposition rate of such very small particles
20
(as much as 60 percent greater in animal studies).
21
Because of the small population in subarea a, and the
22
rapid rate of development and in-migration, it was combined
23
with subarea b to form Area I extending as far as 13 miles
24
downwind from the plant. This area had a 1970 population of
25
134,170. Rates for all classes of neoplasms in this area
-------
108
1 were compared to the unexposed population of 423,806 persons
2 over a three year period (1969-1971). There was a higher
3 rate of lung and bronchial cancer in the contaminated area
4 for men, with a risk ratio of 1.1 compared to the expected
5 rate (calculated from standarized rates for the S.M.S.A.),
6 and 1.3 compared to the control area (X2=2.68), but not for
7 women. There were higher rates for neoplasms of the nasopharynx
8 and larynx for men and women in the contaminated area. This
9 finding was also reported by Mason and McKay. The rate for
10 men was of borderline significance compared to the control
11 area.
12 There was a significantly higher rate of leukemia among
13 men (X2=5.88). The rates were higher for women in the
14 contaminated area but the difference was not significant
15 statistically.
16 Neoplasms of the testis could be expected because of
17 the demonstrated propensity of plutonium to concentrate
18 in this organ. Rates were higher than expected in the
19 contaminated area, and when compared to the control area,
20 which had a somewhat lower rate than expected, the difference
21 was significant (X2=8.90). Neoplasms of the ovary were also
22 higher than in the control area but in this comparison, the
23 difference was not great enough to be statistically significant.
24 Neoplasms of the liver, gall bladder and "other biliary"
25 were higher in males but not in females. The difference for
-------
109
1 the males in this comparison was not significant (X2= 2.90).
2 The rates for cancer of the pancreas were higher in females
3 but not in males. Again the difference in this comparison
4 was not significant (X2- 2.40).
5 Rates of neoplasms of the stomach were higher in men,
6 but not in women. The difference in this comparison was not
7 significant (x2-2.25). Rates of neoplasms of the colon and
8 rectum however, were much higher for both men. and women than
9 for those in the control area {158 cases expected, 203 cases
10 found, X2=12.86 for men and 6.61 for women). The rates
11 compared to those of the unexposed population were a highly
12 significant statistically. Rates of other types'of gastro-
13 enteric neoplasms were not significantly higher.
14 Neoplasms of the brain and other nervous system
15 neoplasms were higher in men but not in women. The difference
16 was not signifcant, because of the'low frequency.
17 There was no evidence of elevated rates of neoplasms of
18 the bone. This could reflect a longer 'latent period required
19 for such tumors to develop. A higher rate of cancer of the
20 thyroid was found in women (18. cases expected, 24 cases found) .
21 The difference was not significant (X^-2.88). Neoplasms of
22 the breast were higher in both men and women than in the
23 control population, but not significantly so. This same was
24 true for other types of miscellaneous neoplasms.
25 In Table 7, neoplasms of nine sites are further investigated,
-------
110
Isopleth areas are combined to assist in removing non-uniformity
2 in rates of neoplasms of low frequency and to' examine the total
3 rates of neoplasms with higher' frequency compared to the cancer
4 incidence rates in the control population. The incidence of
5 cancer of the lung and bronchus in the combined isopleth
5 area 50-0,3 mCi/km2 (a 1970'population of 348,360 in an area
7 extending as far downwind as 18 miles from the plant) over the
8 three year period, 1969-1971, was much higher than that in
9 the unexposed area (1970 population 423,866). This difference
10 was very significant (X2-38.44). When the entire area of
Plutonium contamination within all the isopleths (a 1970
12 population of 595,226 in an area extending as far as--24 miles •
downwind from the plant) is compared to the population in the
14 unexposed area C1970 population of 423,866) the difference
15 persists, with 497 cases found, 462 expected. Because of the
lower-than—expected rates found in the unexposed copulation,
17 the X again is large, 33.93.
Cancer of- the testis for the combined isopleth area,
50-C.3 mCi/km2 was also higher than expected (18 neoplasms'
20 expected, 25 cases found, X2z20.98 compared to the control
population) . The difference was even more significant' when
22 the total area of contamination was compared to the unexoosed
23 population (30 cases expected 40 cases found, X2-31.12 compared
24 to the control population.) The same comparisons made for
25 neoplasms of the ovary in the entire area of contamination also
-------
Ill
1 revealed a significant difference (X2 of 3.80 in the 50-0.3'
2 mCiAm2 area, and 7.51 in the 50-0.2 mCi/km2 area, compared to
3 the unexposed population.)
2
4 Neoplasms of the liver were higher in the 50-0.3 mCi/km"
5 area for men compared to the expected rates and for both men
6 and women compared to the unexposed population. The higher
7 rates were significant when the total area (50-0.2 mCi/km2)
8 was compared to the control ponulation because of the low rates
9 in the unexposed population.
10 Interestingly, cancer incidence rates for tongue/
11 pharynx and esophagus were significantly higher for both men
12 and women in both areas compared to the' unexpo'sed population.
13 Neoplasms of bones and joints were not significantly different,
14 nor were the rates for thyroid neoplasms, except for women
15 in the 50-0.3 cMi/km2 area (X2=5.36).
16 In summary, an analysis of cancer incidence rates over
17 a three period (1969-1971) found significantly higher total
18 rates of all neoplasms'in the area contaminated with nlutonium,
19 compared to the unexoosed area. In general, the higher rates
20 appeared to have a direct relationship with increasing levels
21 of Plutonium soil contamination. Thatis, in areas with higher
22 concentrations of Plutonium in soil, higher incidence rates of
23 cancer were found. The excess rates were as much as 24 percent
24 higher for men in the contaminated area as in the unexposed
25 area. The rates were higher for women, also, about ten percent
-------
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
112
higher than for women in the unexposed area.
Sites of cancer most responsible forthe increase in
total rates are neoplasms of the lung and bronchus/ colon and
rectum, leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma in men, neoplasms of
the tongue, pharynx, esophagus, stomach, liver, and the thyroid
in women. Neoplasms in sites such as the brain and pancreas were
slightly elevated but rates were too low to be significant. An
observation of special concern are the higher rates of neoplasms
of testis and ovary in the contaminated area. This corroborates
an observation by Mason and McKay in their investigation of
death rates from cancer in the .period 1950-1969 (25).
These findings indicate the importance of continuing
complete surveillance of cancer incidence and death rates in
this area. Some types of tumors, s.uch as those in bones, have
long latent periods before development. A long period of
surveillance is necessary to monitor late effects in this
population and the investigation should be extended. A grant
application has been filed with the National Cancer Institute
to -carry out such a study.
It is important that a thorough investigation be conducted
to determine the adequacy of the filtration system presently
in use at the plant, to determine if sub-micron particles of
Plutonium and other nuclides listed in the Rocky Flats Environ-
mental Impact Statement are not being released in much larger
quantities than is being measured. This is of soecial concern
-------
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
113
in view of clans to markedly increase the operations at the
plant. Definitive actions should be taken by responsible
agencies to minimize health effects from exposure to low levels
of plutonium, including the establishment by the E.P.A. of
a much more conservative guideline for plutonium contamination
of soil.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Dr. Johnson, I would just
like to xnterrun-t you for a moment. We have had some discussion
up here on the panel, and we are not sure, based on what
you have said so far, that the kind of waste that you are
talking about is even regulatable under RCRA.
DR. JOHNSON: Because it is Federal?
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: No, because of the definition
of solid waste, which states that a solid waste is not a
source, especially nuclear or the by-product material as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act'of 1954. The material that
you are talking about, .does that fall into that category?
DR. JOHNSON: Source material? Could you define
that for me?
MR. LINDSEY: As we understand the kinds of waste,
the only types of radioactive waste which are even coverable
under RCRA are naturally occurring waste, such as naturally
occurring materials which become waste, such as overburden.
and things of that nature. If they are radioactive, such
things as ohosphate slime nits and things like that would be
-------
114
I regulatable if we chose to regulate them, and must be things
2 which are generator produced materials and things like that/
3 but not materials which are the result of fission or fusion
4 reaction, and military kind of things. '
5 DR.JOHNSON; This wouldn't include then Plutonium
6 in waste from a nuclear power plant?
7 MR, LINDSEY: No", that would be covered under the
8 Atomic Energy Act Regulation., which are covered by the
9 Department of Energy and fay the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
10 as opposed to the EPA, as I understand it. So it is very
H limited. The kinds of things which we are able to cover here
12 are very 'small and limited.
23 DR, JOHNSON: Milltailings?
j4 MR. LINDSEY: Well, the milltailings are now
15 I covered under the Mill .Tailings'Act. It was just passed, in
16 November bv Congress, and the regulations haven't been drafted
17 for that, but wastes from other uranium or radium producing
18 activities that is 'in the mine tailings, and so on from that
19 sort of activity would be covered, plus things which are the
20 result of the cyclotron accelerator waste, and that is about
21 it-
22 DR. JOHNSON: Then I think that waste would be
23 covered in the language of the nrooosed guidelines, and would
24 certainly include emitting natural wastes, so the comments i
25 am making do apolv to alpha emitters. I just have one brief
-------
. 115
1 paragraph left,
2 MR. LINDSEY: Okay.
3 DR. JOHNSON: The .total number of excess cases
4 of cancer was 501, due mostly to an increase in cancer of
5 the lung and bronchus, as high as 41 percent in men, leukemia,
6 40 percent in men, lymphoma and myeloma, 40 percent in men,
7 10 percent in women, and carcimoma of the colon and rectum,
8 43 percent in men and 30 percent in women, tongue, pharynx,
9 esophatus and stomack, mostly in men, and cancer of the testis,
10 about twice as many cases, and ovary, about 24 percent higher.
11 Higher rates were also observed for liver, pancreas, thyroid,
12 and brain. In general, the higher rates appear to -have a
13 direct relationship with increasing levels of plutonium soil
14 contamination. That is, in areas with higher, concentrations
15 of Plutonium in soil, higher incidence rates of cancer were
16 found.
17 So the point of this is, I think the guidelines should
18 address all aloha emitting ratioactive waste and would call for,
19 I think, a very adequate method of containment, and would also
20 call for potential exposure to large populations, and a
21 complete surveilance of cancer incidence rates. Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Will
23 you take questions from the panel?
24 DR. JOHNSON: Yes.
25 MR. LINDSEY: Just let me clarify one noint, if
-------
116
I can, with regard to this discussion we just had a few moments
ago. The data which you are reporting here of the increase
incidence is largely as a result of the proximity to the
Plutonium emitted from the Rocky Flats Plant; is.that the
e
3 contention, or is it from alpha emitters from home piles and
6 things like that?
DR. JOHNSON; I think this represents exposure
Q
to alpha emitters, and there are compounds in that category,
Q
' I think, in nuclear waste to address in these EPA regulations.
10 From that standpoint, I think there is a lesson to be learned
from the study.
19
if" MR. CORSON: Just one request, Dr. Johnson. This
is a chance for a commercial. At the back end of our proposal,
we did have an advance news of proposed rulemaking and we are
considering a characteristic of radioactivity to our definitions
of hazardous waste. I wish you could take the time in some
written response to give us the benefit of the translation
of the data today so it might be an implementable regulation.
DR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.
20 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Our next speaker will be
Orville Stoddard of the Colorado Department of Health.
22 MR. ORVILLE STODDARD: I am Orville Stoddard,
Engineer with the Division of Radiation and Hazardous Waste
Control. I am here speaking for Mr. Hazle, who is the Division
25
Director.
-------
117
1 • I would like to preface my comments with some brief
2 general comments in a form of a letter, and then go into a
3 few more specific comments with regard to a proposed regulation.
4 The Colorado Department of Health has received the proposefc
5 regulations under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the Resource
6 Conservation and Recovery Act. The attached comments include
7 issues and concerns expressed by members of an ad hoc hazardous
8 waste committee, comprised-of generators, transporters and
9 site operators, persons attending four regional public informati
10 meetings, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, several technical
11 and professional societies, the Intergovernmental Methane Gas
12 Task Force, Department staff members and other parties of
13 interest.
14 Public and private entities support the needs for
15 regulatory controls to apply available technology and improve
16 hazardous waste management practices. All are of the opinion
17 that regulatory control measures must be workable, reasonable
18 and applicable to meet State, local and regional needs.
19 - The proposed regulations define and list hazardous waste
20 without providing for categories that differentiate between
21 hazardous waste and marginal or moderately hazardous waste.
22 The exemption of 100 kg/mo, should not be annlicable to
23 extremely hazardous waste. This categorization would enable
24 the establishment of priorities to effectively control and
25 manage hazardous waste.
-------
118
I The format of the processed regulations includes "notes"
2 after requirements that allow for deviation from stated
3 requirements. The notes describe allowable alternatives that
4 should be included' within the regulation.
5 The proposed "extraction procedure" to determine toxic
6 properties of possible leachate is a laboratory procedure
7 designed to simulate -landfill conditions. This proposed
8 procedure is questioned as the testing of some special waste
9 categories such as utility waste may indicate disposal as
•
10 a hazardous waste regardless of actual disnosal conditions.
11 The need for perpetual monitoring and surveillance of
12 sites receiving extremely hazardous wastes may require sites
13 and facilities be located on federal lands with provisions
14 for monitoring .by a federal agency.
15 The financial requirements for private entities or
16 public agencies and high costs for ooerating acceptable
17 treatment, storage and disposal sites and facilities are
18 significant. Financial considerations and the notential risk
19 factors are constraints that discourage the location and
20 operation of accentable facilities by either private firms
21 or public agencies.
22 I am concerned that the total financial impact of these
23 orooosed regulations has not been determined. This financial
24 impact should include the costs of conducting a regulatory
25 program.
-------
119
1 The position of federal agencies that essentially
2 prohibits the location of hazardous waste treatment storage
3 and disposal sites and facilities on federal lands has consider-
4 able impact on the availability of suitable sites in Colorado
5 as approximately 1/3 of Colorado is under the jurisdiction of
6 federal agencies.
7 1. Page 58953 reads:
8 "For the purposes of calculating the dilution
9 that a leachate olume would undergo between
10 the time it enters the underground aquifer
11 until it reaches a well, it was assumed that
12 wells will be situated no closer than,500
13 feet from the disposal site. Examination of
14 the available data indicated that a 10-fold
15 dilution factor, while probably conservative,
16 would be reasonable. It should be emphasized
17 that there are instances where dilution has
18 been higher as well as cases where it has been
19 ' lower at a distance of 500 feet.
20 Based on this model, before human exposure is
21 expected to occur, the leachate from the waste
22 would become diluted by a factor of 10. Thus,
23 in order to protect human health, the maximum
24 allowable contaminant concerntration permissible
25 in the EP extract would be 10 times the level that
-------
120
I " would be acceptable in drinking water/ Con-
2 sequently, waste whose EP extract shows more
3 than 10 times the-' levels of certain contaminants
4 allowed by the EPA National Interim Primary Drink-
5 ing Water Standards '(40 CFR Part 141) will be
6 considered to be hazardous."
7 In groundwater, assignment of "dilution factors" is
8 questionable because formational variations (i.e. lateral and
9 vertical facies changes within the formation) as well as the
10 fact that the formation could be completely unreactive whereby
11 the only dilution is by diffusion. Conversely, the "toxic
12 substances" may be diluted or detoxified within a few feet
13 but the subsequent chain o-f chemical reactions can produce new
14 totally different toxic substances as well as disturbing the
15 overall useability of the aquifer.
16 The plume of contamination has a characteristic, somewhat
17 bell shaped plot and is dependent upon time and distance.
18 In some instances a^10'X peak may not be allowable.
19 The allowable dilutions should be determined on a site
20 specific basis and other parameters of measurements in
21 addition to 10 X. The drinking water standards should be
22 considered.
23 Section 250.11 (b) (5) page 58955 reads:
24 "Representative sample" means any sample
25 of the waste which is statistically equivalent
-------
121
1 to the total waste in composition, and in
2 physical and chemical properties. Representative
3 samples may be generated using the methods set
4 out in Appendix I of this Subpart."
5 This definition of a representative is neither practical
6 or achievable in most instances.
7 This definition should be modified to include "selected
8 portions of the components of the waste which indicate the
9 physical and chemical properties of the total waste"".
10 Section 250.13 (a) (ii) page 58955 reads:
11 "Hazardous waste characteristics, (a) Ignitable
12 waste. (1) Definition - A solid waste is a
13 hazardous waste if a representative sample of
14 the waste:
15 (i) Is a liquid and has a flash point less -^
16 than 60°C (140°F) determined by the method
17 cited below or an equivalent method, or
18 (ii) Is not a liquid_and is liable to cause
19 . fires through friction, absorption of moisture
20 spontaneous chemical changes, or retained heat
21 from manufacturing or 'processing, or when
22 ignited burns so vigorously and persistently
23 as to-'create a hazard -during its management, or"
24 A non-liquid material.... "when ignited burns so vigorously
25 and persistently as to create a hazard during its management"..
-------
122
I This characteristic could be construed to apply to non-hazardous
2 solid waste such as "corrugated".
3 It is recommended the -above phrase be more specific as to
4 the wastes being referred to or deleted.
§ Section 250,13 (d)(1) page 58956.reads;
6 " (d) Toxic Waste. (1) Definition - A solid
7 waste is a hazardous waste if, according to the
8 methods specified in paragraph (2), the extract
9 obtained from, applying the Extraction Procedure
10 (EP) cited below to a representative sample
11 of the waste has concentrations of a contaminant
12 that exceeds any of the following values:
13 Contaminant: Extract level.
milligrams per liter
14
Arsenic 0.50
15
Barium 10.0
16
Cadium n.10
17
Chromium " 0.50
18
Lead 0.50
19
Mercury 0.10
20
Selenium 0.10
21
Silver 0.50
22
Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexacloro-6,7,
23
Eooxy l,4,4a,5,6,7, 8 , 8a,-octahydro-l
24
thalene 0.002
25
-------
123
, Lindane ................ (1,2,3,4,5,6-
2 hexachlorocyclohexane gamma
3 isomer) ..... .. ......... • 0.040-
Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trichloreoethane)
2,2-bis (p-methoxyphenyl) . . 1.0
Toxaohene (Cin H, Cl--technical chlor-
7 inated camphene, 67-69 percent chlo-
3 rine) ................ 0.050
2,4-D, (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid ) ................. 1.0
2,4',5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-
Trichloroohenoxyproplonic acid 0.10
Note:- Extract levels specified for the above
substances equal ten times the EPA National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards for
these substances. These standards are being
revised. Extract levels specified above will
be changed to reflect revisions to these standards
Also, EPA is considering use of the Water Quality
20 Criteria under the Clean Water Act as a basis
for setting extract levels, in addition, to the
22 FPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water
23 Standards.
25
In determining the allowable parameters, it was. assumed
that wells would be no closer than 500 feet. Examination of
-------
124
1 data indicated a 10' fold dilution would be reasonable.
2 Therefore, the maximum allowable toxicant concentration
3 permissible in the extraction procedure would be ten times
4 the level acceptable in drinking water.
5 The assumptionsdo not consider any flow rate in the
6 underground aquifer, permeability and porosity. There are
7 no exceptions to the "rule of ten".
8 Testing solely for the contaminants listed in-drinking
9 water standards may be too limited. A hypothetical leachate
10 containing sodium chloride in the range of 1,000 mg/1 would
11 be acceptable by this definition. There are no limitations
12 on factors such as B'.O.D. (bio-chemical oxygen demand.) ; C.O.D.
13 (chemical oxygen demand); T.O.C. (total organic carbons) and
<
14 free carbon dioxide.
15 It is.recommended other chemicals and parameters be
16 considered.
17 Section 250.13 (D) (E) page 58957 reads:
18 "(D) Add to the extractor a weight of
19 deionized water equal to 16 times the weight
20 of solid material added to the extractor. This
21 includes any water used in transferring the solid
22 - material to the extractor.
23 (E) Begin agitation and adjust the pH of the
24 solution to 5.0+_0.2 using 0.5N acetic acid.
25 Hold the pH at 5.0+0.2 and continue agitation for
-------
125
1 24+J).5 hours. If more than 4 mi of acid
2 for each gm of solid is required to hold the
3 PH at 5, then once 4 mi of acid per gm has been
4 added, coirrolete the 24 hour extraction without
5 . adding any additional acid. Maintain the ex-
6 tractant at 20-40° C *68-104°) during extraction.
7 It is recommended that a device such as the
8 Type 45-A pH Controller manufactured by Chemtrix
9 Inc., Hillsboro, Or 97123, or equivalent, be
10 used for controlling pH. If such a device is
11 not available then the following manual procedure
12 can be employed."
13 The toxic extraction procedure does not explain the
14 justification for dilution of the waste 1:16 nor is there
15 justification for selection of pH 5 and the use of acetic acid
16 in the adjustment of pH.
17 This is a crucial test in that special waste categories
18 such as "utility waste" could leach toxicants and be classified
19 as a toxic waste. Acetic acid does not occur naturally.
20- It is requested the toxic extraction orocedure be
21 amended to allow a closer simulation of conditions that could
22 be exDected on a site snecific basis.
23 Section 250.14 (b) Hazardous Waste Sources and
24 Processes.1) Sources generating hazardous waste. (i)(A)
25 Health Care Facilities, oaqe 58958 reads:
-------
126
"(b) Hazardous waste sources and processes.
(1) Sources generating hazardous waste. The
following sources generate hazardous waste
unless the waste from these sources does not
contain microorganisms or helminths of CDC
Classes 2 through "5 of the Etiologic agents
listed in Appendix VI of this Suboart.
8 V Cil' Health care facilities. CA) The
following departments of hospitals as defined
1° by SIC Codes 8062 and 8069, unless the waste
11 has been treated as specified in Appendix VII of
12 this Subpart.(H)
13 Obstetrics department including patients'
rooms.
S
Emergency departments
Surgery department including patients'
1' rooms.
Morgue
' Pathology department
Autopsy department
Isolation rooms
Laboratories
Intensive care unit
Pediatrics department
25 Wastes from health cara facilities normally discharged
-------
127
1 into the sewage collection system should be specifically
2 excluded from autoclaving and incineration requirements.
3 The autoclaving and incineration facilities specified
4 are not available at many health care facilities. The costs
5 of providing these facilities will be extensive.
6 There are potential health hazards pertinent to on site
7 storage of infectious wastes and transporting to treatment
8 storage and disposal facilities. Each generator should be
9 equipped with appropriate facilities.
10 The list of infectious organisms such as E. Coli and Staph
11 A. are prevalent throughout health care facilities. Therefore
12 the criteria proposed may be excessively stringent as all
13 wastes from health care facilities (including tissue or
14 handkerchiefs containing nasal discharge) would be infectious
15 requiring incineration or autoclaving.
16 Section 250.14 (b) Hazardous Waste Sources and
17 Processes. 1) Sources generating hazardous waste, (i)(B)
18 Venerinary Hospitals, page 58958 and Aooendix VII - Infectious
19 Waste Treatment Specifications, nage 58964 reads:
20 "(B) The following deoartments"of veterinary
21 hospitals as defined by SIC Codes 0741 and 0742
22 unless the waste has been treated as specified
23 in Appendix VII.(N).
24 Emergency deoartment
25 Surgery department including oatients' rooms
-------
128
1 Morgue
2 pathology department
3 Autopsy department
4 Isolation rooms
5 Laboratories
6 Intensive care unit *
7 (ii) Laboratorities, as defined by SIC Codes
8 7391, 8071 and 8922, unless the laboratories
9 do not work with CDC Classes 2 through 5 of
10 Etiologic Agents as listed in Appendix VI. (N)
11 Appendix VII - Infectious Waste Treatment
12 Specifications
13 Infectious waste from departments of health
14 care facilities as defined in 250.14(b)(i) may be
15 rendered non-hazardous by subjecting the waste
16 to the following autoclave temperatures and
17 dwell times:
18 Steam Autoclave
19 -' (1) Trash: 250 F (121 C) for 1 hour with 15
I
20 minutes prevacuum of 27 in. hg.
21 (2) Glassware: 250 F (121 C) for 1 hour with
22 15 minutes: prevacuum' of 27 in.Hg. for filled
23 NIH Glassware can-
24 (3) Liquids: 250 F (121 C) for 1 hour for
25 each gallon.
-------
129
(4) Animals: 250 F (121 C) for 8 hours with
2 .15 minutes orevacuum of 27 in.Hg.
3 (5) Animal Bedding 250 F (121 C) for 8 hours
with 15 minutes prevacuum of 27 in. Hg. -
* or equivalent treatment methods such as gas
" sterilization or oathological incineration.
' Temperatures and dwell time will vary in relation
o
0 to the volume of material, moisture content
'and other factors."
The proposed rules beginning on page 58957 (250.14)
11 apparently apply to various departments in veterinary hospitals
^ *> i
12 as facilities that discharge hazardous etiologic agents
13 according to CDC classification. The proposed rule appears
applicable if such a facility does not discharge waste into
an approved sewerage system but does perhaps utilize a trash
16 pickup service, then the requirements on page 58964-Appendix
VII Infectious Waste Treatment Specifications would aoply.
The various listed deoartments of veterinary hospitals
would discharge microbial agents including bacterial, fungal,
20 viral, rickettsial and chlamydial up to and including a Class
III hazard. Any such patheogens would have to be treated as
22 per Appendix VII by steam autoclave or equivalent treatment
23 methods. This would require all veterinary hospitals to
install at least an incinerator to process material such as
25
3 trash, glassware, liquids, animals, and animal beddina and
-------
130
1 render it non-infectious. The economic impact of these
2 proposed rules could result in an investment for each facility
3 or hospital 53,000 to 510,000 'for adequate incineration
4 and/or autoclaving equipment.
5 The data base which defines the present hazard from
6 etiologic agents in waste effluents as classified^in Appendix
7 VI is not mentioned. Observations have been that occupationally
8 exposed people - the trash collectors themselves - do not
9 appear to suffer any higher disease rate than other tseople
10 in the public sector. Our epidemiological investigations
11 generally have not revealed disease transmission that has
12 occurred from waste material whether properly improperly
13 disposed of, but it is admitted that a potential hazard exists
14 in a sanitary landfill disoosal -system for disease transmission.
15 Nevertheless, the need for these oronosed rules is
16 questioned based on the actual incidence and subsequent
17 reporting of disease. Also, other problems such as air
18 pollution may be created by drastically increasing the
19 number of incinerators necessary to adequately treat such
'20 hazardous waste.
21 Section 250., Subpart A, Appendix XI cage 58966 regarding
22 the oersistance of chemicals. What is a biodegradation assay
23 and does it really represent conditions of -actual release?
24 No biodegradation assay is specified. Certain compounds with
25 allegedly short half lives have'- inexnlicably oersisted
-------
131
1 (ex.chemical five incident and parathion) over a period of
2 years,
3 It is recommended the degradation option be deleted
until more data is obtained.
Section 250.15 pages 58959-60. Demonstration of
Noninclusion in the Hazardous Waste System.
1. Wastes from certain manufacturing process and
other sources listed are considered hazardous unless proven
non-hazardous by the generator.
2. The testing procedures listed are extensive and
specific. It would be costly for generators, especially
12 small generators without laboratory testing capabilities to
13 conduct tests to confirm or deny the generation of hazardous
wastes. There are few if any private laboratories equipped
15 and capable of performing the tests specified.
16 3. When in doubt generator may be expected to consider
the waste generated as hazardous rather than perform tests.
This will place a considerable burden on hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facility and require more
20 testing by the facility operator.
21 Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Would you answer
23 questions from the panel?
24 MR. STODDARD: Yes.
25 MR. LINDSEY: I have one point I would like to cret
-------
132
i clarified. You mentioned that you were orohibiting location
2 on Federal land. These regulations don*t do that. Is that
3 correct?
4 MR. STODDARD: No, they do not. This is more or
5 less a governmental'policy that we have been confronted with
@ in Colorado. The BLM, for instance, certainly has taken a
7 position that they do not want this disposed of on their land.
8 MR, YEAGLEY: That is specifically listed in BLM
9 regulations.
10 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank-you very much. Our
11 next speaker will be Stewart H. Miller from the Electro-Phos
12 Corporation.
13 ' MR. STEWART H. MILLER: Mr. Chairman and ladies
14 and gentlemen, my name is Stewart: H. Miller. I am manager
15 of Electro-Phos Corporation's phosphorus furnace facilities
15 at Pierce, Florida. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
17 to vou today. I missed you in Washington. Unfortunately, the
18 weather was inclimate.
ig . I propose to address my comments to the classification
20 of phosphorus furnace .slag as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR
21 Part 250 subpart A of the proposed regulations. In addition
22 to the remarks I will make 'here, I am attaching a more detailed
23 analysis of our position, with support documentation, to be
24 considered as electrophos corporations official statement of
25 record. I agree that indiscriminate and irresponsible disposal
-------
133
1 of hazardous wastes must be prevented, and I commend the EPA
2 for their efforts in this regard. However, I must point out
3 what I consider to be significant errors.in the identification
4 and listing rationale in 40 CFR'Part 250 Suboart A.
5 First, I submit that calcium silicate slag from electric
6 furnace smelting of phosphate rock is not a waste. Electro-.
7 Phos Corporation co-produces calcium silicate slag in the
8 approximate ratio of 8.5 tons of slag per ton of elemental
9 phosphorus produced. All of the slag produced at Electro-
10 Phos is sold to a processing and marketing company as produced.
11 The slag rock coproduced in the manufacture of phosphorus
12 is very hard and durable. It is chemically inert in soil
13 acids and weathers well in surface applications. It is also
14 easily wettable with asphaltic compositions. These attributes,
15 plus the fact that there is no other locally available aggregate
16 possessing these superior qualities within 500 miles of the
17 producing area make calcium silicate slag the first and sometime
18 only choice in Central Florida.for:
19 • ' Highway paving and roadbed stabilization
20 Railroad Ballast and Roadbeds.
21 Septic tank Drainage Fields.
22 Commercial and utility use for roadways, Sub-stations
23 and soil stabilization.
24 Municipal sewage treatment plants
25 Parking lot and driveway naving
-------
134
1 Private use for Driveways/ patios and drainage
2 . Built up roofing aggregate
3 Concrete products uses.
4 of special interest is the use of coarse slag in the
filter beds of Tampa, Florida's,-new municipal sewage treatment
plant which incorporates the very latest technology for
treatment of waste effluents entering Tampa Bay.
Assuming the currently proposed regulations are interpreted
so as to remove slag from the market place the economic impact
1° will be at least three-fold.
11 A vital three million dollar aggregate processing and
12 marketing industry will be eliminated with the direct loss of
13 thirty (30) jobs and an immediate write off of capital investmen
14 The Central Florida area will feel-ripple effects from:
15 Loss of truck driving jobs associated with distribution
16 and hauling of slag.
17 Higher costs to consumers for imported out of state
18 aggregate materials.
19 - Loss of revenues to the local service industry and
20 heavy machinery business.
21 There will be a net cost to Electro-Phos of approximately
22 $1.0MM per year, an inflationary increase which the
23 ultimate.consumers would have to bear.
24 Second, I submit that calcium silicate slag from electric
furnace smelting of phosphate rock is not a hazard.
-------
135
1 The EPA final draft document, "identification and listing
2 of hazardous radioactive-waste pursuant to the resources
3 conservation and recovery Act of 1976", expresses a concern
4 for airborne radiation from radon gas and its progeny in
5 h omes built on reclaimed land. The EPA measured radium
6 concentration in soil materials and attempted to relate these
7 measurements to interior radiation working' levels that might
8 be anticipated in structures built upon these soils. However,
9 the data upon which the subject regulations are based apparently
10 does not include the latest EPA "studies, and does not adequately
11 define such a relationship. The EPA's graph purporting to show
12 such a correlation shows extreme data point scatter and an
'13 almost meaningless correlation factor.
14 Among the many factors affecting the nrecision of a
15 correlation of radium content and radon gas flux is the
16 emanating power of the particular material involved. The
17 emanating Dower may be defined as the ratio of the radon gas
18 escaping from a material to the total amount of radon gas
19 being generated in the material from the* decay of radium 226.
20 if for example, we take two different materials each with the
21 same radium concentration, but different emanating powers, the
22 one with the lower emanating power will*give off or diffuse
23 a lower amount of radon gas into the atmosphere.
2^ Since the measure of airborne-radiation is a measure
" of the amount of radon gas and its orogeny, it is evident that
-------
136
1 we have to look at the total radon flux present to properly
2 evaluate health exposure risk. This is especially significant
3 in evaluating slag as a health exposure risk\ Industry data
4 shows that slag has an extremely low emanating power, ranging
5 from 16/1000 of one percent to 42/100 of one percent depending
6 on material sizing. Compared to the proposed standard of
7 5 PCI per gram for soil, on which the standard was based, to
8 obtain an equivalent radon flux from slag would require that
9 the slag contain a minimum of 227 PCI per gram (for fine- • '•"
10 particles) and up to 6000 PCI per gram for lump aggregate,
11 relating this to the real world in Central Florida, slag
12 which nominally contains radium 226 at a level of 50-70 PCI
13 per gram has a radon flux equivalent to soil at well under 1
14 PCI per gram.
15 Further, the results of independent studies on airborne
16 radiation at phosphorus furnaces, where the accumulation of
17 slag is many .times greater than any known commercial or private
18 use site, indicate working levels 1/10 to 1/20 of the nuclear
19 regulatory commission standard of 0.03 WL. Obviously, it is
20 completely irrational to classify calcium silicate slag as a
21 hazard.
22 In summary,
23 Calcium silicate slag is not a solid waste and therefore
24 cannot under the provisions of the Act be declared a hazardous
25 waste.
-------
137
1 The proposed radiation activity level of 5 PCI/GM.
2 was derived from reclaimed land measurements primarily for
3 protection against indoor airborne radiation and is not
4 applicable to the vast majority of Florida slag use.
5 No allowance or consideration was made in establishing
6 the 5PCI/GM. standard for the extremely low emanating power
7 of dense slag.
8 Airborne radiation working level measurements made at
»x
9 plant sites with heavy slag concentrations are well below
10 the NRC limit 0.03 WL for continuous public exposure (168
11 hours per week).
12 - The potential ,SI.OMM/year increased production cost
13 impact on elemental phosphrous due to the classification and
14 regulation of slag is inflationary.
15 The proposed classification and regulation of slag
16 could shutdown the vital slag aggregate industry in Florida,
17 eliminating 30 jobs and increasing aggregate costs for Central
18 Florida consumers.
19 . We believe the above technical and socio-economic
20 conclusions form an overwhelming basis for the elimination of
21 the classification of slag as a'hazardous waste. No evidence
22 has yet come to our attention indicating that Florida slag
23 poses anything other than a raerfectly acceptable health risk
24 to radiation exnosure.
25 Thank you.
-------
138
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
2 questions for the panel?
3 MR. MILLER: Yes."
MR. LINDSEY: Let me see if I understand this
5 correctly, Your problem is with the fact that it-is listed
"6 as a hazardous waste and listed as a hazardous waste presumably
because of the five PicoCuries.
8 MR. MILLER:/ Yes.
MR, LINDSEY: Do you feel the five PicoCuries
10 per gram is too strict? I think the figure you used is 220.
MR, MILLER: I think the five PicoCuries per gram
12 is arbitrary number and does not take into account the emanating-
13 account of the various materials.
14 MR. LINDSEY: How would we set a standard. How do
15 you set a standard? I am. not a nuclear engineer, but how do
16 you consider them emanating power?
17 MR. MILLE"R: There are tests which are known
18 and proven which can evaluate emanating - power of material.
19 That is how we got our data.
20 MR. LINDSEY: Would you in your written presentatior
21 or maybe now, if you can, discuss what significant or rather
22 appropriate concentration levels or emanating oower level,
23 or whatever you call the emission level would be?
24 MR.'MILLER: I have not included recommendations,
25 in that within the Appendices, which indexes the various items
-------
139
1 I used in the report. However, I will try and get back within .
2 the next week and comment on that.
3 MR. LINDSEY: If you would, it would be helpful.
4 .MR. CORSON: I have one question, Mr, Miller, and
5 I am just wondering, .because you didn't indicate in both your
6 earlier remarks and your summary of the relationship to our
7 concern about protecting against indoor airborne radiation.
8 i agree that is our concern. Now, it would just seem to me
9 without some level of control, some of the uses to which you
10 cite in your comments, that slag might be used,, could- possibly
11 end up causing some of these problems, because once you allow
12 it, for example, in these concrete or whatever, there is no
13 way to ensure that does not become the base for a house. I
14 am wondering If you would suggest- that perhaps- for those
15 concrete placed in this fashion, there should be some restricte
16 use categories?
17 MR. MILLER: If the''basic problem is indoor, 'and
18 by the way, I understand EPA is currently undergoing, and I
19 alluded to this, but they are doing a tremendous amount of
20 additional testing in the Florida area. There is a serious
21 question as to whether the original data, which was found,
22 which was very limited, is actually and factually correct.
23 But the basic data that was taken was based agaon on reclaimed
24 land, and had nothing to do, and had no relevancy with slag
25 at all, and I am told, and I feel you can indicate in some
-------
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
140
manner that slag and radiation from slag does pose a problem.
, Then it really should not be regulated. If you can find it
does pose a problem, then I think you should severely limit
or completely eliminate its potential use withint the home
market. Ninety percent.of the slag used in Florida is not
used in home building today. It is used for road paying and
a lot of other areas.
MR. CORSON: That leaves me with an interesting
ten percent that I am very concerned about. If ninety percent
is not used, that implies that perhaos the ten percent is
used in home building. • •
MR. MILLER: There is another gentleman here today
who I hope can fully clarify that for-you, but I am not going
to say, because I don't positively know that the other ten
oercent is used in the home building market, or .if i-tf is even
a problem. If it is used in that market, I think that is what
needs to be determined.
MR. CORSON: Following up on Fred's question with
regards to the fact we didn't show these damages came from
slag as opposed to reclaimed land, I am wondering if in
addition to the emanating power, there is some difference
between the radioactivity from the phosohorous slag as opposed
to whatever else there was in Florida.
MR. MILLER: There is different concentrations
of radium within, for example, overburden slime, slag and all
-------
141
1 the various chemicals, and the point being made is, it is not
2 really how much is chemical, but what is it emanating power
3 and how much'is given off, and that is the point I alluded to
4 in stating that it was based on five PicCuries, which supposedly
*,
.5 equates to a working level of .03, but does not take into
6 account the emanating power.
7 MR. YEAGLEY: In order to consider your concerns
8 as far as emanating power, would you be satisfied with the
9 standard that was an either/or type standard, either five
10 PicoCuries per gram or say .03 working level?
*
11 - MR. MILLER: I would suggest that since our main
12 concern is in environment, that.the working levels of the
s
13 material really ought to be.the criteria, if our concern truly
14 is for the environment and health protection, why not set the
15 standards based on what would people's exposure be as opposed
16 to what the material might contain.
17 MR. YEAGLEY: One other comment relative to the
18 ninety percent of material today that is not being used in
19 housing or construction related. The fact that the radium
20 has a half life of 1600 years, can you give some assurance
21 that property which is used in effect for roadbeds and railroad
22 beds, once in the future time it will not be used for residentic
23 construction?
24 MR. MILLER: Basically, and here again, I am not
25 an expert in that area, there is somebody here who deals in that
-------
142
1 area, but you are dealing with different sized aggregate,
2 based on its end use, and primarily something that size is
3 not necessarily or could readily be used for another type.'
4 I don't think anybody can give that kind of assurance,, Nobody
5 can guarantee anything 1600 years from now.
6 MR. LINDSEY: Leaving for a moment the question
7 of whether or not this kind of way should or should not be
8 listed, as you pointed out, there is a number of studies going
9 on, including within the Agency, and by others concerning
10 this whole thing, and hopefully that will clear that up.
11 However, let's assume for the moment that it is listed, and
12 we have the special waste'.regulations.. You indicated earlier
13 that these special wastes that the regulations, if implemented,
14 and I presume you are talking about the special waste regulatior
15 would cause your waste not to be reused, and that would cost
16 your company a million dollars a year?
17 MR. MILLER: You keep on referring to what is a
18 waste product, which we sell.
19 . MR. .LINDSEY: Whatever. The point is, that you
20 then said that the material which you sell has something like,
21 I think you said one-fifth or one-tenth of .03 working level
22 unit. If that is the case, I don't see which of these standards
23 are going to cause you any problem.
24 MR. MILLER: In fact, two things combined. What
25 I said was, that there had been studies 'at ohosnhorous furnace
-------
143
I locations, which obviously, by the nature of their production,
2 contains large volumes of slag, which have been there for many
3 many years, and then in tests .run at those areas, including
4 our plant, the working level was found to be from one-tenth
5 to one-twentieth of the NRC regulations. I am talking about
6 a building which houses the offices at the Electro-Phos Corpor-
7 ation, which sets on about three feet of slag, and the emanatior
8 studies were run inside of that building, and found working
9 levels, as I say, one-tenth to one-twentieth below Federal
10 requirements.
11 MR. LINDSEY: Well, even'if it was listed, none
12 of the regulations would limit the use of those things.
13 MR. MILLER: You can go back to the five PicoCuries
14 MR. LINDSEY: No, you would still be listed in the
15 frontend, but the regulations under 250.46-3, which say what
16 you can do with it wouldn't apply.
17 MR. MILLER: These specify specifically five Pico-
18 Curies.
19 . MR. LINDSEY: They soecify .03 working levels.
20 MR. MILLER: They specify both, unless I misunder-
21 stand.
22 . MR. LINDSEY: Well, the listing itself is based
23 on the five PicoCuries, but then the regulation with regard
24 to what you can do with the waste once it is listed, and as
25 I read this, anyway— let me suggest something. Why don't you
-------
144
1 go through 25CK46.23, and for your company, determine in your
2 own mind, and then let us know whether or not any of these
3 create the problem that you are talking about.
4 MR. MILLER; I carl see- one problem, which I can
5 address right now, and which I think one of the'former speakers
6 mentioned, and that, is simply the fact of classifying this
7 material as a hazardous wasteland then going out and trying
8 to seel that material and trying to use that material. That
9 right there presents a major problem.
10 MR. LINDSEY: It is guilt by association as opposed
11 to any standard or.requirement there...
.
12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. We
13 will recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:45..
14 (Whereupon the'noon recess was taken.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
145
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2
T *'" ' CHAIRPERSON DARRAH.: We can now begin our afternoon
session. Our first speaker is Mr. Steve Allen, President of
5 Southern Stone Company.
6 MR. STEVE ALLEN: I am Steve "'.Allen, President of
the Southern Stone Company and SI Minerals, both of which
8
are wholly owned subsidiaries of Southern Industries of Mobile,
q
y Alabama.
My comments will be on the expansion of the speaker that
was right before lunch, Mr. Miller's comments concerning
12 phosphorus furnace slag.
Southern Industries commends the EPA in its endeavors
" to limit or eliminate any irresponsible disposal of hazardous
wastes/ however, based upon scientific, and technical studies
conducted by various producers and others in the Florida
1' and Tennessee areas, we feel that phosphorus furnace slag
cannot be classified under 40 CFR Part 250 Suboart A as a
ha-zardous waste.
on
tw There are two reasons for this:
21
1. Phosphorus furnace slag is not a "waste".
22
2. Phosphorus furnace slag is not hazardous.
23 Slag is Not A "Waste"
24
At the present time Southern Industries purchases 100
25
oercent of all phosphorus furnace slag generated by two
-------
146
1 elemental phosphorus producers in Florida and two elemental
2 phosphorus producers in Tennessee. The combined annual tonnage
3 amounts to approximately 1.3 million tons. Before selling this
4 material into a diversified market,.which will be outlined be-
5 low, it is crushed and sized into several di'fferent grades or
6 sizes, each supplying a vital product source for its particular
7 market. To process this material for market required a sub-
8 stantial outlay of capital investment in land, plant equipment
g and material inventories. It also requires the services of 78
10 employees, along with many outside contractors and industrial
11 supply vendors.
12 In 1978, Southern Industries sold phosphorus furnace
13 slag into the following market areas:
14 1. Railroad Ballast 236,907 tons 18%
15 2. Road Aggregates 788,740 tons 60%
16 3. Sewage Treatment 154,018 tons 12%
17 4. Concrete Blocks 90,498 tons 7-%
18 5. Roofing ' 40,034 tons 3%
19 . 6. Misc. (Driveways, etc) 377 tons
2Q 1,311,074 "tons 100%
2i This tonnage represents approximately 70% of all
22 phosphorus furnace slag in Tennessee and 100% of all phosnhorus
23 furnace slag in Florida that is generated by the various
24 elemental phosphorus producers.
25 Gross sales of phosphorus furnace slag in 1978 amounted
-------
147
1 to 55,934,206.
2 Phosphorus furnace slag is marketed and shipped in
3 Florida, Alabama, Tenn., Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana,
4 Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Indiana by SI
5 Minerals and Southern Stone Company, both wholly owned
6 subsidiaries of Southern Industries.
7 Unlike limestone, which is the primary construction
8 aggregate in the Southeastern United States, it has non-
9 polishing characteristics and is specified in lieu of limestone
10 by the Federal Bureau of Roads .for use in non-skid bituminous
11 wearing surface pavements. This greatly enhances the safety
12 characteristics of asphalt highway pavements.
13 Another unique feature of slag versus limestone is
14 the non-cementing properties which is possesses. This is a
15 very important quality/Vhen- used as railroad ballast. This
f .
16 feature insures good drainage on railroad beds and greatly
17 increases the life expectancy of RR crossties and railroad
18 track life, which'in turn is a definite safety 'factor.
19 If the 1.3 million annual tons of phosphorus furnace
20 slag is witheld from the marketplace, not only will the
21 replacement cost be exorbitant, but, in some cases, an aggregate
22 of equal qual'ity is simply not available.
23 How could a vital product such as this be designated as
24 a "waste"?
25 Slag is not "Hazardous".
-------
I
148
I The EPA evidently lists Phosphorus furnace slag as
2 hazardous because of its concern for airborne radiation from
3 radon gas and its progeny, arising from earlier EPA studies
4 of the phosphate industry, 'and in particular homes built on
5 reclaimed land.
g Since Florida slag shows a higher radium 226 decay
7 activity (40-70 pci per gram), than Tennessee slag (3-5 pci
g per gram), our comments are directed to results of studies
9 relating to phosphorus furnace slag generated by Florida
10 elemental phosphorus producers...
11 A major contributing factor concerning the concentration
12 of radon gas in a particular area is a direct function of the
13 emanating power of the particular material involved. The
14 emanating power is defined as the ratio of the radon gas
15 escaping from a material to the total amount of raaon gas
15 being generated in the material, from the decay of radium 226,
17 A study made by one Florida company reveals the fallowing
18 conclusion as we quote:'
19 "Data available to us shows that slag has an extremely
20 low emanating power, ranging from 16/1000ths of 1 percent to
21 42/100ths of 1 percent, depending on material sizing. Compared
22 to the proposed standard of 5 pci per gram for soil, on which
23 the standard was based, to obtain an equivalent radon flux
•
24 from slag would require that the slag cojitaih a minimum of 227
25 pci per gram (for fine particles) and up to 6000 pci per gram
-------
0 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
149
for lump aggregate. Conversely, slag which nominally contains
radium 226 at an activity level of 40-70 pci per gram would
have a radon flux equivalent to soil at -well under 1 pci
per gram."
Three other studies of airborne radiation were made,
including one in 1976. by U.S.E.P.A. with the following results:
Universitv of Florida New York -University U.S..E.P.A.
(External) (External & Internal) (Internal)
> .
.003 WL .0012 WL .0006 WL
.007 WL .0011 WL .005 WL
.0006WL .0022 WL .003 WL
.0011 WL .005 WL
.0010 WL
,0003 WL
The results of these studies made at phosphorus furnace
sites where the accumulation of slag is many times greater
than any commercial or private use site, shows airborne,
radiation at working levels 1/10 to 1/20 of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission standard of 0.03 WL for continuous
-
public exposure (168 hours per week) .
A further study to determine the concentration of
radium 226 in water at a particular elemental phosphorus olant
site gave the following results :
Sample Identification Radium 226 nci/liter
1. Floridan aquifer well 0.25
2. Hawthorne aquifer well n.79
-------
150
1 3. Recirculated pond water 0.08
2 4= Slag cooling water 6.12
3 5. Slag Processing water 0.25
4 6= Leachate from slag storage area 4.30
5 These results are well below the 50 pci/liter proposed
6 standard and all but one is below the 5 pel/liter EPA standard
7 for drinking water.
8 Other tests have been conducted by the University of
9 Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences on sugarcane
10 fields in the South Florida area. These tests indicate no
11 trace of any measurable radiation in sugarcane fields where
12 phosphorus "furnace slag had been applied to the soil to
13 increase sugarcane production per acre.
14 In Summary, Southern Industries maintains that:
15 1. EPA has no authority under RCRA to regulate slag
jg sold as a oroduct since it is not a solid waste.
17 2. EPA has no authority to list slag as' hazardous
13 because of radioactivity without first establishing aooropriate
19 radioactivity hazardous waste characteristic criteria.
t
20 3. The classification of slag as a hazardous waste would
21 eliminate slag from vital markets creating:
22 a. The loss of 78 jobs
23 b. Substantial assets to be written off
24 c. The loss of $5,900,000 in annual gross sales to
25 Southern Industries.
-------
151
1 d. Loss of revenue to outside contractors and
2 industrial vendors
3 e. Loss of jobs and revenue to small private trucking
firms.
f. An increased inflationary cost of vital construction
aggregates.
g. An increased inflationary cost to elemental phosphorus
producers which may jeopardize their continued
operation and thus the source of our business.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: My name is Robert Gallagher
12 and I am president of Applied Health 'Physics in Pittsburg,
13 Pennsylvania. I have worked in this phosphate industry,
*
14 radiological aspect for some'thirty years. The EPA evidentially
15 lists phosphorus furnace slag as hazardous because of its
16 concern for public exposure to airborne radiation from radon
17 gas, and the progeny, the so called radon daughters.
18 Now, their concern was the result of an admitted inconclus
19 ive- earlier study, which is still continuing in Florida, and
20 in particular homes, and especially those homes in Florida
21 which were built on reclaimed land. However, from a review
22 of the documents purported to prove the scientific justificaion
23 or rationale for EPA's inclusion of the phosphate slags as
24 hazardous and has radioactive, and further as waste, it fails
25 to indicate any measurements of radon from nhosphates slag,
-------
152
1 neither has the EPA's laboratory in Las Vegas, or Montgomery,
2 Alabama, ever been asked to measure radon from phosphates slag0
3 I think it is important for us to realize that the five Pico
4 Curies per gram limit, which has been established by the EPA,
5 is the main criteria as to whether or not the slag would be
6 included as a radioactive material, has been derived on the
7 materials ability to release radon, and inert radioactive gas
8 from the amount of .03 working levels.
9 Unfortunately, the EPA has not done the necessary
10 analysis to prove or'disprove that other radium bearing
11 materials do or do not emit radon to the same extent. Our
12 own tests show that radon remains trapped to varying degrees
13 on several orders of magnitudes less than the material then
14 they have indicated as the basis for their supposition of
15 five PicoCuries per gram limit.
16 Our major concern here must be addressed to the ability
17 of the material to release radon. The so called emanating-
18 power, which the previous speaker, Mr. Stewart Miller defined
19 it.more correctly as the ratio of gas escaping from the material
20 to the total amount of radon gas being generated in that
21 material into radon 226.
22 We have found on the basis of numerous test that the
23 low emanating power of phosphate slag can be 1600-thousanths
24 of one percent to 42/100th of one oercent, deoending uoon the
25 moisture, particulate size, temperature and so on of 'the materiail
-------
153
1 being evaluated, arid we need to have a factual scientific basis
2 for claiming something, is hazardous, not an1 assumption
3 predicated on the administrator's judgment. When you think
4 the slag that we are talking about here normally contains
5 from 40 to 70 PicoCuries oer gram, the material to release
6 .03 working levels of radon, would have to be from 127 Pico
7 Curies per gram up to 6>r)00 PicoCuries per gram. We have
8 conducted airborne radon studies, and have found a few
9 measurements that the-EPA field people made, but never bothered
10 to include in their reports, which further eirrohasize the
11 fact that the highest working level of radon that they found
12 over several feet of phosphate .slag was from .03 to .006 working
13 levels, well within the standard.
14 So, to continue, we also checked the amount of radium
15 that would come from these phosphate slags. They are fired
16 at very high temperature. Their ability to release soluable
17 radium into the water stream is miniscule. In fact, well
18 within the limit that the EPA has postulated. Our study will,
19 be" included in a formal presentation within the deadline.
20 We have also done tests and followed the test by the
21 University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural
22 Science on sugarcane fields in Southern Florida. These test
23 indicate that no trace of measurable radiation in sugarcane
24 field were phosnhorus furnace slag had been applied to the
25 field to increase sugarcane nrodnction oer acre.
-------
154
1 In conclusion the technical aspects, we feel the EPA
2 has no authority under RCRA to regulate slag to be sold as
3 a product, since it is not to be considered a solid waste.
4 Secondly, the EPA has no authority to list slag as
5 hazardous because of its radioactivity without first establishing
6 approoriate radioactive hazard characteristics, and that as
7 a technically valid finding which can be confirmed by independ-
8 ent scientific tests.
9 Thirdly, that slag is not released in any way shaoe
10 or form as uncontrolled waste product. Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Mr. Gallagher, will you
12 accept 'questions .
13 MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
14 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I guess there aren't any
15 questions. Our next speaker is Mr. Robert S. Hearon
16 representing the International Minerals and Chemical Corporatior
17 MR. ROBERT S. HEARON: My name is Robert Hearon
18 and I represent the Florida Phosphate and Mining Division of
19 the International Minerals and Chemical Corooration.
20 • We have been mining in Central Florida since 1907, and
21 last year we produced right at-13 million tons of phosphate
22 rock, which makes us the larges independent producers of
23 phosphate rock'-in the world. During the course of that production,
24 we generate or or less on a one-to-one basis, 13 million tons
25 of Phosnhate, and move or disturb approximately 20 million tons
-------
155
of sandy soil overburden in getting to the ore matrix. So we
2 are talking about, as you can see, millions of tons on an
3 annual basis of materials which have been, as of December 18th,
4 classified as hazardous waste.
At the same time, we are reclaiming about 7,000 acres
a year of land as required by law. We are required to reclaim
every acre that we'mine, so that much of the phosphate tailings
Q
0 and other materials are either just redistributed where they
were initially disturbed, or recycled directly from the plant
back to the mine site for active reclamation.
11 About four years ago we were visited by the Office of
12 Radiation Program, probably as one of their initial contacts
13 in this study of reclaimed land in Florida, and cooperated
14 quite extensively over a two-year oeriod. At the same, or
following that initial contact, we were already contacted
16 by Federal Environmental scientists who were doing a study
for EPA on mining and waste proglems. T"re sat oatiently for
those reports for almost two years, and instead of those
reports being published, were presented with the regulations
20 as you saw on December 18th.
21 The EPA states in 40 CFE Part 25o Subpart D of the
22 proposed regulations that "The agency has very little informatioi
23 on the comoosition, characteristics, and degree of hazard
oosed by these wastes, nor does the agency yet have data on the
25 effectiveness of current or ootential waste management
-------
156
I
imposing the Subpart D standards on facilities managing such
3
waste," The phosphate industry agrees with this statement
4
and submits that any "rule of reason" would require that this
5
information be compiled and evaluated by the EPA before
6
standards are proposed even under a limited "special waste"
7 ^ .
designation.
8
The EPA states in a final draft document entitled
9
"Identification and Listing of Hazardous Radioactive waste
10
11
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976" (December, 1978), that:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"Data are not available to demonstrate unequivocably
a linear, non»-threshold dose-effect relationship at
doses as low as those usually found in the environment.
However, the data from the miner studies are
consistent with a linear non-threshold hypothesis
down to the higher levels measured in some structures
in Grand Junction, Colorado, and in Central Florida,
It is therefore prudent to assume that on the basis
of this as well as more general experience with
radiation exposure, that individuals occupying
structures containing elevated levels of radon are
subject to a potential hazard from lung cancer
industion in proportion to the total accumulated
exposure."
-------
157
1 This comment points out several facts which the phosphate
2 industry feels are critical:
3 None of the materials generated during the mining of
4 phosphate ores present any significant hazard to the
5 environment or to public health so long as they remain
6 confined on industrial property. The word "significant"
7 ' in this case implies any risk that would exceed the
8 variability of the natural radiation background, assuming
9 that any radiation exposure represents some risk. The
10 assignment of a hazardous waste label to mining waste
11 • because of the definition written into RCRA has a
12 punitive effect on industry far greater than is warranted.
13 The word "hazardous" connotes to the general public some-
14 that that is immediately dangerous to life or health,
15 whereas low levels of radioactivity should be considered
16 in terms of remote chances of detrimental health effects,
17" The EPA's proposed application of Section 250.43-2
18 security orovisions to mining wastes illustrate the ease
19 with which individuals lose sight of the relative risks
20 involved.
21 The evaluation of historical epidemiological surveys and
22 the calculation of extrapolated health risks are both
23 subject to the aonlication of "qualifying factors: and
24 assumptions. . Their assigned-significance depends to
25 a large degree on the individual doing the study.
-------
158
A bv-product of the Natural Radiation Exposure Assessment
2 being conducted on the phosphate area by the University
3 of Florida is a graduate.-dissertation by Darrell Reed
4 Fisher entitled "Risk Evaluation-and Dosimetry for
5 Indoor Radon Progeny on Reclaimed Florida Phoabhate
Lands," Mr. Fisher presents a detailed discussion
on the data on uranium miners and other radon daughter
related cancer research with the conclusion:
9 . "The-strong/evidence "of" the" important role'of
10 uranium^dust, other "carcinogens in uranium
11 mines, and smoking on the incidence of lung
12 cancer among uranium miners refutes the claim
13 that the additional lung cancer mortality
14 resulted from the inhalation of radon daughters
15 alone. This is an important concept which-must
16 be remembered when applying uranium miner risk
17 data to non-mining populations exposed to radon
18 progeny, For-extension to the general population,
. a risk coefficient determined from uranium
20 miner data probably estimates a cautious over-
21 estimate rather than a nearest approximation of
22 the biological effects 'of the inhaled radioactivity."
23 Also certain health risk "factors" were ignored by the
24 EPA in their calculations. For instance, health statistic
25 for uranium miners to be related to the general oublic
-------
159
1 should address the fact that their exposure included
2 "heavy work" respiration rates and mine atmosphere
3 oarticulate loadings. Working respiration rates calcu-
4 lated to be approximately three times normal were applied
5 on a twenty-four hour basis in the EPA risk evaluation.
6 This already conservative epidemiological data is when
7 subjected to additional exaggerated calculations by the
i
8 EPA to suoport the proposed limitations. For instance,
9 instead of calculating excess cancers and years of life
10 lost on the basis of 100,000 people exposed to 0.03
11 working level for a lifetime, it would be much mpre
12 realistic to calculate the health detriment to a population
13 of 100,000 in which the -maximum exposure might be 0.03
14 working level, but the average might be one-tenth of
15 that.
16 We disagree that the data from miner studies are consistert
17 with a linear non-tnreshold" hypothesis. In the •
18 Lundin studv of American uranium miners, no increase
19 in lung cancer mortality was found in the group with a
20 cumulative exposure of less than 120 WLM, and the
21 oossibility of a threshold does was suggested. We recog-
22 nize the- possible existence of some risk at lower
23 exposure levels and that work published since the
24 Lundin study has indicated lower thresholds. The
25 point is that existing epidemiological data on uranium
-------
160
. miners and its application to the general public is
2 not as black and white as the EPA seems to indicate
2 at times. One must realize that at levels this close
M to background, the health effects are stochastic, I.E.,
the kind of health effects in which a probability of the
effect occurring may be calculable, but for which there*
is no way of determining when or where the effect will
occur. We are talking in terms of statistical additions
or substructions from statistical lives- or health, not
from the health or well-being of any identifiable
.. individuals. This is- illustrated by the fact that,
after ninety years of phosphate mining in Polk County,
13 Florida, the county ranks 31st (41.3/100,000_ among
«, the 67 Florida counties with respect to the average
annual age-adjusted mortality rates due to malignant
neoplasm of the trachea, bronchus and lungs (ICD 162 & 163
' for the years 1950-1969 as reported by the National
Institute of Health. The porjected health effects
have thus not been sunoorted by epidemiological studies
2Q of the population at large even though thousands of
«. • the people in Polk County have been exposed as employees
2« in the industry 'in.addition to living in the area since
the late 1800's.
Perhaps the most significant point which must not be lost in •
the pages of supnorting documentation, especially when
-------
10
161
developing regulations under Sectiort 3004, is that the exposure
route under consideration is long term radon progeny inhalation
in residential or other structures constructed on radium
bearing soil (primarily reclaimed land) or the use of radium
bearing by-products in home construction- The key words here
are structure and long term.
The attempt to establish-secondary standards (i.e.,
external gamma exposure rates or radium concentrations in
materials) in order to control exposures to airborne radon
progeny leads to a regulation that is both unfair and unscientif
.c
Recognizing that indoor radon progeny concentrations are
12 determined by a large number of variables, the EPA insists on
oversimplifying to a point that makes the standard almost
I4 meaningless. Adding to this the fact that the proposed criteria
levels are only slightly above natural background-/ the appli-
cation of proposed levels on a site or material specific
basis is undefined and the limits are being applied prior to
land reclamation and potential residential development
industry must conclude that the regulations are unwarrented
2° and essentially unsupported by existing data. The EPA draft
21 development document states:
22 »it is recognized that measurement error (+25% for
23 TLD air sampling) and the relatively small sample
size are qualifying factors in drawing firm con-
25 elusions as to a defined correlation between soil
-------
162
radium and radon progeny concentrations in structures,
However, the relationship is sufficiently defined to
permit broad projections for radium concentrations
in excess of 5 pCi/g."
"Sufficiently defined" is a subjective opinion which the
industry does not share with the author.
' Similar correlation work done by the University of Florida
° on the relationship between surface soil radium-226 and indoor
radon progeny levels showed considerable data scatter (degree
™ of FIT R - 0.64) and a significantly different line slope.
The question is should a relationship "sufficiently defined
12 to permit broad projections" be utilized to set standards
slightly above background to meet health risk projections based
on many "qualifying factors" at cost of hundreds of thousands
of dollars to the industry? We think not. ^
It should be noted.that a small number of houses on
high activity overburden or debris, reclaimed land accounted
for 38 percent of the total population exposure identified in
the Polk County study. In term "debris" identifies the type
20 of coarse waste product generated by the industry prior to
the advent of froth flotation in the late 1940's. Technological
advances in metallurgical recovery techniques in recent years
have resulted in higher and higher plant recoveries leaving
less and less radioactive material (complexed with the phosphate
25
in plant waste streams. Land reclaimed with these materials
-------
163
should continue to exhibit lower 'soil radium content and any
2 effect on present and future mining is of a considerably
3 lower magnitude than wyould be- inferred by merely reviewing
survey data from existing Central Florida structures-.
250.43-1 General Site Selection - new sources.
The phosphate industry would' feel safe in saying that
virtually no other industrial concern receives any more
environmental surveillance than a new phosphate mine in Florida.
Floodplain concerns, wetlands, endangered species, recharge
zones, property line setbacks, reclamation, dam construction
11 and many other areas are covered in detail both in the Federal
12 Environmental Impact Statement and the Florida Department of
13 Regional Impact Document. Recent new source mines have
14 averaged close to four years time and spent in excess of three
15 million dollars each just to address environmental questions
16 and obtain the necessary permits. • We feel- strongly that
another layer of permitting and reporting under RCRA is
18 redundant, unnecessary,"inflationary, and in direct opposition
19 to the stated policy of the Federal Administration.
20 250.43-2 Security
21 On the basis that the only hazard tentatively defined
22 for mining waste involves long -term occupancy of structures
23 constructed on reclaimed land, it is ludicrous to require
security measures against unauthorized entry above the normal
" posting procedures employed
-------
164
250.43-5 Manifest System, Recordkeeping and Reporting
The reclamation of all lands mined by the industry have
been mandatory since 1975. The sand tailings generated in
the process are returned in a continual basis to the mine sites
to meet this requirement. Clay wastes are pumped to 'settling
areas which are.reclaimed on a longer timetable using one of
7 several techniques. All reclamation is controlled and super-
8 vised as to the location and type by the county and Florida
Department of Natural•Resources. Detailed maps are submitte
10 on an annual basis 'and site specific criteria" must be approved
11 before initiation of individual projects.
12 we feel this is sufficient to document reclamation
such that no additional reporting: or recordkeeping is required.
250.43-6 Visual Inspection
15 visual inspections are conducted on all clay settling
16 areas on a minimum of once per week by trained personnel.
17 Active areas receive almost constant surveillance by various
18 personnel during the regular course of various duties, i.e.,
19 recycle water control, normal mine traffic. Detailed
20 inspections are conducted once a year by a professional
21 consulting engineer with appropriate records and resorting
22 of each phase. All of this is in compliance with existing
23 state regulations. Specific state requirements must also be
24 met for abandonment or.reclamation of the older settling areas.
25 250.43-7 Closure and Post-closure
-------
165
1 State and county reclamation regulations are very specific
2 and stringent enough to cover any closure or post-closure
3 considerations of the proposed applicable subsections.
4 250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring . •
5 Very little factual basis for groundwater monitoring exists
6 when the radium-226 content of mining -recycle water including
7 that in the settling areas is within the EPA Drinking- Water
8 Standard. None of the recent studies on radiation has provided
9 a rationale for this requirement. It should be deleted.
10 250.46-3(c)(1) Reference Maps
11 Reference maps of reclaimed areas are currently submitted
12 to the State on an annual basis as previously stated.
13 250.46-3 (c) (2) Residential Development
14 The industry feels that the 0103 working level unit above
15 background restriction is reasonable as a limit for homes on
16 reclaimed land and supported by work by the Florida Department
17 of Rehabilitative Services. The proposed regulations are not
18 clear, however, as to whether the 0103 WL is intended to be an
19 individual dose limit and.if so, how it could be predicted
20 with any degree of certainty before construction, monitored
21 or enforced in most situations. An -exposure to 0.03 WL for
22 .60 years at 25 WLM per WL-yr= 45 WLM as the lifetime exposure.
23 Accepting the relative risk of 3 percent per WLM applied to
24 lifetime accumulated exposure, this maximum exposure would'
25 indicate an increase of 135 percent in lung cancer risk after
-------
166
i sixty years. In other words, at this proposed upper limit for
2 continuous exposure, the risk of lung cancer death would
3 approximately double. However, the risk of lung cancer prior
4 to age sixty would be rather small because of the extended
5 induction-latent Period that appears to be related to low
6 concentration exposures, beyond age sixty, the risk of death
7 from all causes increases rather rapidly so -that the increase
8 in risk of lung cancer, is not such a large fraction of the
9 total risk. Considering today's mobile society, it is also
10 highly unlikely that an individual would spend sixty years
11 in the same residence.
12 We have not reviewed any information or recommendations
13 in background or supporting documents to justify the 5 uH/hour
14 gamma restrictions other .than the EPA's goal of exposure as
If low as reasonably achievable (AtARA). The correlation between
16 gamma levels and indoor radon progeny is even poorer than the
17 soil radium correlation? no definition is given for measurement
18 location (indoor or outdoor) or methodology and gamma exposure
19 is-only mentioned briefly in general terms in the EPA back-
20 ground document.
21 An addition of 5 uR/hour represents an approximate
22 doubling of the Central Florida background. Specification
23 of this limit with respect to an individual industry is
24 discriminatory in that there are lilely to be instances of
25 building and fill materials from non-phosphate sources that
-------
167
1 result in indoor levels exceeding this value including a
2 large percentage of the beach sand in the State. An exposure
3 level of 5 uR/hour is, in effect, an order of magnitude more
4 restrictive than the National Council on Radiation Protection
5 and Measurements (NCRP) recommended-maximum dose above back-
6 ground for individuals of the general public.
7 I would also like to say I agree and back up the comments
8 made by the Phosphate Council at the hearing in Washington.
9 • CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
10 MR, CORSON: Will you be providing us some support
11 data-of the material that you referenced in your oral comments
12 today with your written material?
13 MR. HEARON: It depends on which particular point.
14 MR. CORSON: You said there was some reports in.
15 ther e that may or may not be part of our background documentation
16 and I think in order for us to consider it in any reevaluation,
17 we should have those before, and some further citation 'to
18 enable us to get those 'reports.
19 MR. HEARON: If you will let me know. It is
20 Dr. Fischer's report, or something like that, I will be glad
21 to provide you with a copy.
22 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Is Mr. J. E. Reill]
23 here?
24 MR. J. G. REILLY: My name is John G. Reilly, I
25 am Director of Environmental Control, Mining Division, St. Joe
-------
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
168
Zinc Company, and in this instance, I am representing St. Joe
Minerals Corporation.
St, Joe Minerals Corporation operates mine, mills and
smelters in the lead and zinc industries, and operates mines
and processing facilities in the coal industry.
We are seriously concerned with some of the aspects of
the proposed hazardous waste regulations, which can seriously
.
and unnecessarily impact our present and future operations.
Some of our particular concerns are in the potential
requirements for compliance with hazardous waste regulations,
for waste which are not hazardous. Those portions of the
proposed regulations that are more stringent than necessary
according to the Act. We appreciate the difficulty and the
task undertaken by the Agency in developing regulatio-ns to .
cover all of the solid waste situation in the entire United
States.' It is understandable, and therefore, that conditions
and situations exist where the prooosed regulations are not
applicable, not effective or not practical. Some of the defects
are identified in our comments and suggestions which have been
made, where we think they may be of help. -It is our intent to
be included within the context of the more extensive comments
submitted by the American Mining Conference, except where those
comments might conflict with our own. We will be sending you
our detailed comments by the deadline period.
I have a few more important aspects of the proposed
-------
169
regulations that I would like to address at this time.
2 In our comments that we will be submitting to the -EPA,
3 we have also tried in each case to give suggestions on how
we thought they might 'be improved. This is off the record.
• " (Whereupon a discussion was had off the record.)
~ ••
In Section 250.13(d) hazardous waste characteristics,
7 toxic waste, and this section the Agency has proposed a defini-r
3 tion and identifying methods with toxic waste. We are strongly
objecting to the methods proposed in defining and identifying
10 toxic waste. As an operator of mines, mineral processing and
smelter facilities,- we are particularly concerned with proposed
12 criteria regarding metals leaching from waste piles. The
13 method proposed to determine toxic waste and subsequent
assignment of hazardous waste categories goes beyond the
15 purpose stated in the Act, which attacks human health and the
lg environment.
17 The reason that the proposed toxic test for metals is
more stringent than necessary, is because it is based on a
19 serious worst case assumption. The assumption was aoplied
2Q that the facility was improperly managed, and arbitrary factor
of ten compared to drinking water standards was selected and
22 stated to be "probably conservative". A drinking water well
23 was assumed to be located within 500 feet, and lastly, the
24 proposed leach extraction test assume an acid pH of five would
25 develop within those waste oiles similar to a garbage dump.
-------
170
I This test for toxic determinability makes no allowance for
2 relative site conditions as to whether or not a waste is actualljy
3 hazardous or not. For example-, no opportunity was proposed
4 to consider the location that the distance to populated areas
5 and underlying soils and rock cbnditions, rainfall', the
6 existence of and the characteristics of an aquifer, of any,
7 the degree of'toxicity and so forth.-
8 Our suggestion is, that a provision should be included
9 in the existing section 250.15, which is entitled, "Demonstratiojn
10 of non-inclusion in the Hazardous Waste Category." -And this
11 would be to allow the right to demonstrate by considering all
12 the facts that are particularly waste, althought "Determined
13 to be Toxic" by extraction leach"screen test is not a hazardous
14 waste. In other words, we are suggesting that by whatever .
15 method a hazardous waste is identified, a person may have the
16 opportunity 'to show that in his site for his waste and for
17 his conditions, this is not a hazardous waste. This is what
18 we are suggesting.
19 Our second major point in this section is all those number
20 there in the extraction procedure. This section describes
21 proposed extracted leach test procedure which would determine
22 whether a waste is toxic, and therefore is subject to hazardous
23 waste regulations. We are objecting to the proposed extraction
24 tests because it is unrealistic and compounds the worst case
25 definition assumed in the definition of a toxic waste. The
-------
171
1 test has not been scientifically evaluated, and the most
2 unrealistic feature of the test is duplicated landfill and
3 open dumps, which specified the solution of a pH of five with
4 acetic acid during 24-hours. • \
5 Our Missouri tailing piles consisting principally of
6 dolometic limestone will turn 'acidic.
7 Our New York tailing piles contain major quantities of
8 calcite, which neutralize any acid forming tendencies.
9 Number three is the silicate comprising the lead blast
10 furnace, slag pile are not acid forming.- I wonAt go any
11 farther into this, except to tell you that wa have tried to
12 run simulated EPA leach test with our various waste piles,
13 and we compared them in some cases to water leach tests.
14 We were concerned in most cases with lead and cadmium. We •
15 have found that our dolometic tailings in the Missouri area
16 will report to be hazardous waste by using acetic acid,
17 according to the definition given in the guidelines, perhaps
18 ten parts per million of lead in the leachate. We went out
19 to; an old tailings pile that runs pretty near as. much lead
20 in that old tailings pile as our current tailings pile, and
21 we got a realTleachate that was running out underneath the pile,
22 and we find it to be less- than .1 milligrams per liter.
23 Now, that is a real live situation, but if that tailings
24 pile was to be judged under this leach system, it would be
25 hazardous waste, and here it is less than a tenth of a percent—
-------
172
pardon me, less than a tenth of a millimeter per liter of lead.
2 Another extreme example was a lead smelter blast furnace
3 slag which is a two million ton pile, which have been accumulat-
4 ing since the early 1900's, and very similar to this phosphate.
5 It is a glass type calcium silicate furnace product. It does
g have some lead in it with a simulated EPA-leach test, we got
7 100 milligrams per liter of lead. One lab got that and another
g lab got 22, and yet we run a similar water leach test to it,
and we are getting .5 and less.."
Here again is the situation- with a pile that will never
turn acidic. No way that it can. This data will be submitted
with our comments.
13 I am going to say a couple of things about part 3 004.
One of our major thrust will be to ask that EPA consider to
have the furnaceyslag products be incorporated with special
waste. " They all into every category of factors for which
17 the waste that were put into special waste. We are talking
about some very large piles and we don't consider them to be
19 toxic, but if they are declared toxic, they should be declared
20 under the special waste.
With the time left to me, I will address the groundwater
22 monitoring that is .being proposed by the EPA, and we are
23 objecting to it, which we believe is unrealistic when based
24 on a test well sampling which "significantly differed" as
25 determined by the students.
-------
173
I For example, if a background quality for lead was
2 determined to be non-detectable, and in the course of our
3 operation of a facility, the lead content was found to be
4 .02 milligrams per liter, which is well under the drinking
5 water standard, the operation could be shut down because it
6 showed that the water was significantly different from backgrounji
7 I thank you for letting me use my ten minutes and I will
8 be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
9 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you for summarizing
10 your remarks for us. I guess there are no questions. Thank
11 you.
12 Our next speaker is Earl R. White.
13 MR. EARL R. WHITE: Good afternoon. I would like
14 to welcome the out of- state panel members and out of state
15 members of the audience to our beautiful State of Colorado.
16 My name is Earl R. White. I" am the Health and Regulatory
17 Affairs Chemist for Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc. located in Boulder,
18 Colorado. Arapahoe Chemicals is a manufacturer of bulk
19 Pharmaceuticals and fine organic chemicals with facilities
20 located in Boulder, Colorado employing 273 people and in Newport
21 Tennessee, employing 206 'people. •
22 Arapahoe Chemicals is committed to the concept of social
23 responsibility that includes active and convincing participation
24 in national pblicymaking. We have also made commitments of
25 responsibilitv in our relationships with our shareholders, our
-------
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
174
employees and our community. In responding to these proposed
measures we do not wish to imply that we are fighting the
concept of social responsibility, nor are we blind to the
real causes of environmental insults.
We appreciate the difficulties in writing responsible
regulations to enforce the technicalities of reasonable
legislation. Especially recognizable are the difficulties
encountered when dealing rn the highly complex area of
environmental protection. We believe that public-policy should
be based upon an informed view - one that is far-sighted, fiscally
responsible, realistic, supportable and non-selfserving. We
believe in facing this regulatory dilemma squarely without
resorting to exaggeration and overstatement of the possible
ramifications to EPA's proposals - a tactic which we recognize
would polarize the exchange of ideas. Furthermore, we believe
that responsible business can play a constructive role and not
just a defensive one in the formulation of regulatory policy.
In the comments to follow we have, identified and responded
to.certain technical, legal and economic issues which we feel
will have a profound impact on our business. Equally important,
however, is the fact that neither RCRA nor the orooosed imple-
menting regulations deal with the- scarcity of hazardous waste
treatment and disposal facilities or the extreme difficulties
faced by government and private industry in siting additional
facilities. It is clear that these regulations, if finalized
-------
175
1 in their present form, would place many generators in the
2 position of having no feasible means of disposing of some or
3 all of their waste. There is a good possibility that there
4 will be no approved hazardous waste disposal sites (landfills)
s *
5 in either Colorado or Tennessee. Furthermore, the' legislatures
6 of both states may refuse to fund another expensive Federal
7 program. The Colorado Legislature took that posture this past
8 year when it stopped funding COSH, the State arm of the Federal
9 OSHA program.
10 Arapahoe Chemical's principal concerns with the proposed
11 regulations contained in Section 3001 are discussed first
12 and our detailed comments follow in a section-by-section format,
13 In the ooinion of Arapahoe Chemicals, there are three bas~ic
14 problems with the proposed Section 3001 hazardous waste
15 regulations. These include:
15 (1) The potentially high cost, in both time and money,
17 of performing the tests to determine whether or
13 not a waste 'is hazardous.
19 (2) The exceptionally broad definition of a solid
20 waste, and
21 (3) The proposed controversial Extraction Procedure.
22 Our first concern centers around EPA's proposal beginning
23 with
24 Section 250.10(d) (1) (i) :
25 "Generators of solid waste may elect to declare their
-------
176
I waste hazardous and subject to the regulations of this Part.
2 In these cases, generators need not perform the specified
3 evaluation."
4 Arapahoe's Comments:
5 Since the cost, in both time and money, of performing
6 the tests to classify industrial wastes is so high and since
7 the penalty for not being in compliance is so great, the
8 tendency for small and medium sized generators is going to
9 be to declare all industrial wastes as hazardous. This in
10 turn is going to put an unnecessary and greater burden- on the
11 approved hazardous waste landfill sites in the country and
12 consequently decrease their useful life, resulting in the
13 wasting of a valuable natural resource. Furthermore, as the
14 easily accessible sites are filled and it becomes-necessary
15 for industry to haul its wastes greater distances, the S35 to
15 $4200 per metric ton EPft^disposal cost estimate, which is
17 approximately four to 43-6 times our current disposal cost,
18 will be greatly exceeded.
19 . We recommend that EPA develop-and adopt-less expensive
20 and easier tests, to make the determination of whether or not
21 a waste is hazardous. .This would surely be a good use of
22 public money.
23 Our second concern centers around EPA's proposal
24 beginning with
25 Section 250.13 (a) (1) (ii):
-------
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
177
"A solid waste is a hazardous waste if a representative
sample of the waste:...when ignited burns so vigorously and
persistently as to create a hazard during its management."
Arapahoe's Comments;
It is the intent of this section to regulate non-domestic
waste paper, cardborad, wood scraps, sawdust, etc., as
hazardous wastes? Certain wastes, such as waste paper from
office facilities of chemical companies maybe non-hazardous.
These should ndt be classified as hazardous merely -because of
the source, nor should companies have to justify by testing
that their waste paper is not hazardous. . Waste paper from
the office facilities of chemical companies should be treated
no differently than normal household refuse (Refer to Page
58969, Column 3 of these proposed regulations, which addresses
the intent of Congress).
The clause "or when ignited burns so vigorously and
persistently as to cause a hazard during its management" should
be stricken from the regulations:
Our third major concern centers around EPA's proposal
beginning with Sec. 250.13(d)(1):
" A solid waste is a hazardous waste if, according to
the methods specified in paragraph (2), the extract obtained
from applying the Extraction Procedure (EP) ^cited below to
a reoresentative sample of the waste has concentrations of
a contaminant that exceeds any of the following values
-------
178
e.g,, cadmium at 0.10 mg/1."
And Sec. 250.13 (d) (2) (E):
"Begin agitation and adj-ust the pH of the solution to
5.0+0.2 using 0.5 N acetic acid."
Arapahoe's Comments.
It appears that the intent of this section is to
incorporate discarded concrete, piping, ductwork and other
e
construction discards to the EP test. Therein, it appears
that building contractors, wreckers, etc. would be classed
1° as generators of solid waste and- would be required to apply
11 the EP to determine if their solid waste were hazardous.
12 A classic example being a fragment of concrete from drain
tile, an aqueduct, a dam, a bridge, a highway, an airport
runway, a skyscraper, a neighborhood sidewalk, the foundation
of a home, or the storage pad 'of a chemical plant which, when
subjected to the proposed EP results in a "leachate" containing
cadmium in escess of 0.10 mg/1.
18 The EP test appears scientifically unsound- in that:
(a-) This laboratory test may not be indicative of actual
20 environmental situations; (b) Two chemicals used in the
test, namely acetic acid and deionized water, are not commonly
found in nature; (c) Disposal of acid waste is not considered
state-of-the-art practice by industry; (d) The proposed
acid-extraction nrocedure will not provide a valid indication
of a waste's characteristics when landfilled in the normally
-------
179
I alkaline soils found in the arid and serai-arid Western two-
2 thirds of the nation? and (e) No consideration of soil types
3 or characteristics (other than acidity) was acknowledged or
4 dealt with in this section.
5 This concludes our public statement of concerns relative
6 to Section 3001. We appreciate the opportunity to have present-
7 ed our concerns, opinions and suggestions.
8 Thank you. I will be open for questions-.
9 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you -very much.
10 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. White, one of the comments you
11 made earlier on was that you felt that the cost of running
12 the tests, which we put in here as far as the criteria goes,
13 would be "very high, and this would potentially cause many
14 companies to simply decree their waste hazardous rather than
15 running these tests. This is a little different than what
16 the information we have is, in that the information we have,
17 and I forget the exact figures, but it indicates that tests
13 cost would run in the neighborhood of about $400 or something
19 along those lines. Do you have any information that indicates
20 that?
21 MR. WHITE: We just received the Arthur D. Little
22 Economic Impact Analysis the day before yesterday. In there,
23 it is my understanding that 450 to 500 dollars is an average,
24 that it could go to $1900, depending upon the type of business
25 you are in.
-------
180
MR. LINDSEY: Depehd;±rig on the number of waste that
2 you have to test, if you have a lot of different waste?
3 MR; WHITE: Right..
4 MR, LINDSEY; And presumably it would be -some
5 multiple of 450? is that what the figure was?
6 MR. WHITEs Yes.
7 MR. LINDSEY: I would assume that would be some
8 multiple, and you figure that is like a one shot operation,
9 isn't it, to determine whether it is hazardous?
10 MR. WHITE: I fail to comment up front that
11 Arapahoe Chemical is in the business of batch operation rather
12 than continuous processing. This is why this would affect
13 us particularly hard.
14 MR. LINDSEY: That would certainly multiply your
15 situation, but let me ask you this, can a batch speciality
lg operation— how many distinct, kinds of waste do you have?
17 In other words, every batch you run is not distinctly different
18 from every other batch? - You must produce certain product lines
19 in each one of those, which has a waste that is characteristic
20 that product line; is that the way it works?
21 -MR. WHITE: - We could .have. I am going to use some
22 ballpark figure, anywhere from six to twelve waste streams to
23 deal with over a period of time.
24 MR. LINDSEY: It would be distinctly different?
25 MR. WHITE: If we had to go through this testing
-------
181
1 requirement, we would have to isolate these separate waste
2 treatment and separate storage facilities- and hold on to these
3 until we got the testing results back, and in a batch operation
4 where maybe- you may have 6DO gallons of a waste stream off of
5 one plant process, it may be 3,000 a day off o.f another one,
6 this becomes very burdensome- to keep track of each process
7 and keep the waste separated and to monitor the testing that
8 would be required for this.
9 MR. LINDSEY: Under your current practice, that
10 is to simply mix all these waste streams together, and since
11 you run different processes simultaneously, you would have on
12 a day to day basis a waste stream that would be varying?
13 MR. WHITE: Our current process is to segregate
14 as much as possible solid and organic solvents. We are trying
15 to reclaim the organic solvent.
16 MR,. LINDSEY: They wouldn't be covered?
17 MR. WHITE: It is aquesus. material that will give
13 us the most fits under "the. oroposal.
19 MR. LINDSEY: What do you do with that material
20 now? Is it put in drums and hauled away or what?
21 MR. WHITE: The makeup of our aquesus material is
22 usually 95 percent or better water, and the remainder is made
23 up of mixed salts. To concentrate aquesus waste is a very
24 complex and sensitive orocedure. Right now we haven't
25 considered our aaueous waste as toxic or hazardous. If they
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
are contained properly at a disposal site, which we are doing
under license now,
MR. LINDSEY: It is a land disposal facility?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. LINDSEY: On-site?
MR. WHITE: Yes,
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Our
next speaker is Ms. Francine Bellet. Kushner.
MS.' FRANCINE BELLET KUSHNER: Good afternoon,
my name is Francine Bellet Kushner, Associate Director for
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Association. CSMA is a voluntary non-profit
organization consisting of more .than 400 member companies
engaged in the manufacture, processing and distribution of
chemical specialty products. Production processes in the
manufacture and formulation of members' products generate
substances that-are directly affected by the proposed regulations
for identification and listing of hazardous wastes as well
as. the proposed standards for generators and owner/onerators
of treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Accordingly,
CSMA offers the following comments regarding the hazardous
waste regulations proposed under 3001 of the Resource .
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These points and
others will be further developed in our subsequent written
submission.
-------
183
1 We welcome this opportunity to present our views to
2 the Environmental Protection Agency on issues raised by these
3 hazardous waste regulations which will have significant impact
4 on our industry. The vitality of the chemical specialties
5 industry is dependent upon"the opportunities for constant
6 innovation» We are concerned that the proposed hazardous
7 waste regulations will have a negative impact on essential
8 process and product innovation and will impact disproportionatel
9 on small companies.
10 Identification Criteria should Reflect Degree of Hazard
11 • The proposed regulations create but one category of
12 hazardous waste and lump all wastes identified as hazardous
13 in the category regardless of the differing degree of hazard,
14 persistence, degradability and bioaccumulation exhibited by
15 the wastes actually classified as hazardous. EPA's failure
16 to consider degree of hazard in identifying and, classifying
17 hazardous wastes-^violates the provisions and intent 'of RCRA
18 and will result in an irrational regulatory scheme which
19 vastly over-regulates many wastes while possibly under-
20 regulating others.
21 Both the legislative history and RCRA itself indicate
22 the degree of hazard should be considered in setting standards
23 for hazardous waste management.- Section 1004(5)- of RCRA
24 indicates Congressional i-ntent to consider relative hazard
25 in its definition of hazardous waste as a "solid waste, or
-------
184
1 combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,
2. concentration, or physical chemical or infectious character-
3 istics...". Section 3004 of RCRA recognizes that financial
4 responsibility should be based on degrees of risk. This
5 section refers to "assurances of financial-responsibility
6 and continuity of operation.consistent with the degree and
7 duration of risks associated with the treatment, storage, or
8 disposal of specified hazardous waste".
9 Any designation of hazardous waste as such, because of
10 the management standards created by the RCRA regulations,
11 should be according to relative degree of hazard. This concept
12 of relative degree of hazard.has been recognized in state
13 hazardous waste management programs of many states, including
14 Washington and Maryland, as well as in the designation of
15 special wastes under 250.46 of these regulations. Any regulator
16 system based on relative degree of hazard must recognize factors
17 of persistence, degradability, concentration form, quantity,
18 and exposure,
19 A regulatory system assessing relative degree of hazard
20 is also necessary in establishing an exemption mechanism. It
21 is more realistic to key the exemption mechanism under 250.29
22 to relative degree of hazard than to provide a blanket exemption
23 An exemption system based ucon relative degree of hazard would
24 be more likely to afford greater protection against hazardous
25 waste mismanagement than an exemption system based on an across-
-------
185
the-board exemption level. Such a ystem would provide signif-
icant relief from extraordinary economic and technical burdens
imposed by the regulatory structure' for less hazardous wastes
and would reduce the number of insignificant generators
covered by the regulation, thereby avoiding a shortage in
treatment, storage and disposal capacity while not reducing
' protection from hazardous waste mismanagement. A management
Q
and exception system based upon relative degree of hazard
•
would also improve oversight of 'hazardous waste management by
freeing the Agency to concentrate on those wastes which exhibit
t "
truly serious hazards and would establish priorities for
12 hazardous waste management review.
Criteria for Designation as Hazardous Waste Should be
Consistent with DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations
EPA criteria for designation of a substance as a
hazardous waste should be consistent with the DOT criteria
for hazardous substances. CSMA urges that these criteria be
consistent because the entire industry approach to hazardous
materials is based on th)s DOT regulations. Industry has
already geared up to deal with the DOT criteria. Any
deviation from the DOT criteria would not only necessitate
a massive reeducation effort on the part of those involved
in the hazardous waste management chain but would also be
20
22
25
9A
significantly complicated by any further deviation from the
criteria instituted in state programs.
-------
186
1 For example, 250.13(a) designates as an ignitable waste
2 subject to these regulations any substance with a flashpoint
3 less than 60°C (140°F) determined by a specified method.
4 EPA should adopt a definition of hazard based upon the DOT
5 designation of flammable substances as those with a flashpoint
6 of less-than 100°F and of combustible substances as those
7 with a flashpoint between 100°F and 200°F. Such a definition
8 would be consistent with existing DOT regulations and would
9 also recognize relative degrees of hazard. As another example,
10 both EPA and DOT establish as corrosive any substance which
11 corrodes steel in excess of one-quarter inch per year. Never-
12 theless, EPA has gone beyond existing DOT regulations to identifjy
*
13 PH, in and of itself, as"an indication of corrosivity.
14 Section 250.13 (b) adds an additional criterion for designation
15 of a waste as corrosive a pH of less than three or greater
16 than twelve. The invalidity of pH as an indicator of corrosive
17 hazard has .been recognized by the Consumer Product Safety
18 Commission and by its predecessor Bureau of Product Safety
19 within the Food and Drug Administration in detergent toxicity
20 surveys. Therefore, EPA should delete pH as a criterion
21 for corrosive waste,
22 Definition of "Other Discarded Material"
23 The Section 250.10 (b) definition of "other discarded
24 material" includes substances or wastes that are reused,
25 reprocessed, recycled or recovered, including materials treated
-------
187
1 prior to reuse. The extension of the definition to such
2 substances is clearly not contemplated by RCRA. The legislative
3 history (H. Rept. No. 94-1491,- Part I) states that the term
4 "other discarded materials" is not to include reused waste.
5 "Much industrial and agricultural waste is reclaimed or put
6 to new use and is therefore not a part of the discarded
7 materials disposal problem the committee addresses".
8 (H.Rept. No. 94-1491, Part I, p.2). Materials that are reused,
9 regardless of how, are not subject to regulation under RCRA.
10 This inclusion of material having economic value in the term
11 "other discarded material" is also inconsistent with the
12 ordinary usage of the term "discarded".
%
13 The proposed regulations should recognize that, by
14 definition, a waste has no commercial or economic value, and
15 any used substance with commercial or economic value should:
16 not be subject to these requirements.' And, this recognition
17 should incorporate "a'-presumption that- if' a"waste~has inherent
18 economic value, it will" be used for the purpose that will
19 exploit that commercial or economic value.
20 Furthermore, where the commercial or economic value
21 of a hazardous waste is based upon heat generation from
22 incineration, the current definition of -"other discarded
23 material" would result in regulation of this waste under these
24 hazardous waste regulations. This would result in making a
25 waste incinerator used for heat generation purposes, a treatment
-------
188
facility subject to the design standards proposed under 3004
*
2 and the permit requirement of 3005. Such a result was not
contemplated by Congress. Accordingly, the definition of
4 "other discarded material" should be amended to clarify that
reprocessed,.recovered, or returned reusable chemicals do
not constitute waste subject to regulation under RCRA and that
treatment of wastes prior to reuse is not subject to regulation
8 under 3004 of RCRA.
9 Regulatory treatment under RCRA of reused, recycled,
or reprocessed waste should be consistent with rules -under
11 5 of the Toxic Substances Control ACt (TSCA) which recognize
12 that exploitation of full potential of a waste or end product
does not constitute sufficient basis for regulation. For
14 example, 40 CFR 720.13 (d), a rule under 5 of TSCA, does not
classify co-products as chemical substances subject to TSCA
"if the only commercial purpose is for sale to municipal or
private organizations who burn it as a fuel". Accordingly,
waste materials burned -primarily for heat recovery should
not be considered "other discarded material" for purposes
20 of disposal under 3004 regulations of RCRA.
21 in summary, the proposed regulations under 3001 of RCRA
22 should be amended to reflect CSMA's major concerns, which are:
23 1. Identification criteria and listings to designate
24 hazardous waste should reflect relative degrees
Of hazard. The regulatory system and any exemptions
-------
189
1 thereunder should incorporate relative degrees of
2 hazard.
3 2. Criteria for designation as hazardous waste should
4 be consistent with criteria under DOT hazardous
5- materials regulations.
6 3. The definition of "other discarded material" should
7 not include wastes that are reused, reprocessed,
8 recycled, or recovered, including materials treated
9 prior to reuse..
'
10 CSMA appreciates this opportunity to share our views
and we offer our firm commitment to work with the Environmental
12 Protection Agency toward development of viable hazardous
waste management regulations. " •' •-. • ••--:- -
14 I would just like to state our membership ranges in ••
15 size from small chemical producers xvith sales in the neighborhood
lg of four to five million dollars a year on up to very very
17 large chemical companies, many.of which produce commodity
lg chemicals as well.
19 Thank you. I will now answer questions.
20 -MR. LINDSEY: The last of the 'three items had to
21 do with the definition of other discarded materials, and I
22 think maybe it is not clearly written, and maybe that is our
23 problem, but by in large, unless your use constitutes disposal,
24 recycle, reclaimed, reused materials are not subject to this.
25 That is what that says. If you would like to identify or
-------
190
suggest wording which would make this clearer, sometimes we
can't see the forest for the trees, but we know what we are
saying, but maybe it doesn't always come through tjhat way,
that would be helpful. I might go so far as to say that as
far as use constituting disposal, you recommended, for example,
that rather than have this kind, of language, that we use an'
' economic value as a criterion, and we did consider that, and
I will lay out for y.ou the problem we had and see if you can
* suggest maybe some other way we can get around it, if it
1° still bothers you. There have been a number of cases where
11 wastes materials significantly hazardous materials that we
12 have examples of, have been used to oil down, if you will,
various dusty areas. One of the most explicit cases where
all those horses were killed by the use of a material containing
waste, and oiling materials, and that had an economic value
in that case. That is one, among other cases which caused
this act to be passed in the- first place. We have to see if
we can keep this kind of thing in the system.-
19 . MS. KUSHNER: Well, I would like to call your
20 attention to certain elements in the legislative historv.
it indicated that the nurpose of the legislation was twofold,
22 and it was to encourage .resource conservation and resource
recovery. We think that clarification of reprocess,, recycle
is not contemplated but would only encourage that ourpose.
25
That is recoverv of the material.
-------
191)
1 MR. LINDSEY: But you don't in your category of
2 recovery, you don't mean the spreading of materials on the
3 ground, and say we are using them for oiling/ if you will?
4 MS, KUSHNER: Absolutely.
5 -MR. LINDSEY: Then I think we are in agreement.
6 We may not be in agreement with how the wording should be
7 spelled, but that is essentially what this says or meant to
8 say.
9 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Our
10 next speaker is Mr. Kent Olson of Rio Blanco Oil Shale
11 Company*
12 MR. KENT OLSON: Good afternoon, my name is Kent
13 Olson and I am an attorney, and I am here representing Rio
14 Blanco Oil Shale Company, Pio Blanco is a.general partnershin
15 comprised of Standard Oil Company of Indiana, and Gulf Oil
16 Corporation. Those two companies are the lessees of Track cA
17 Oil Shale Lease out in the Piceance Basin in Northwestern
18 Colorado, and it is a Federal prototype oil shale tvpe program.
19 i do have copies of our written submittal, which was
20 mailed today to Mr. Lehman. A cony has been given to the
21 court reporter. However, if any member of the nanel would like
22 to have a cony now, I will be glad to distribute them now.
23 I did attend to have one of our experts present, who is out
24 of town today, with me, if you get into some questions I
25 can't answer, we can either file'an addendum to our written
-------
192
1 comments or reapnear on Friday.
2 Rio Blanco finds itself in the posture of at best, to
3 eat a half a loaf, and maybe we should be content with the
4 half a loaf rather than a full loaf, and we certainly appreciate
5 the special waste category, and other mining waste subcategories.
6 Those of us out here who follow the Broncos, would know what
7 I mean when I characterize it as "Lou Sabin's half a load."
8 By necessity, I have to emphasize the negative because
9 I pick out tho-e things that are most concerned to us in the
10 ten minutes alloted to me. I don't mean to be, or create the
11 impression of being unduly negative. I think EPA did a fine
12 job on the Subpart B regulation on generator. We do have about
13 four comments under those, and depending on the time, I mav
14 refer to a couple of those comments. I also will not treat
15 in my verbal remarks here the trust fund concept. I think
16 there is another way to skin that cat, and that is also treated,
17 not in lieu of your trust fund, but as a supplement to it.
18 That is treated in our'-written presentation as well. Even thoucjh
19 that concept, as I understand, would not apply to other mining
20 wastes. We are trying to be helpful on that. Unfortunately,
21 part of my philosophy, to start out, we could philosophize
22 what EPA should be doing. I am trying to figure out what you
23 are doing and what Congress intended should be done. Congress'
24 philosophy, it seems to> me, after reading the legislative histoi
25 all of which is cited in our written submittal, if mining waste
-------
193
1 is not known to be hazardous or~none-hazardous, you do not
2 presently regulate, but if EPA should suddenly under Section
3 8002 of the Act, whereas EPA's. apoarent philosophy as reflected
4 in these proposed regulations, it seems to me that mining
5 waste is not known to be hazardous, then you regulate in part
6 by creating a special waste category, and then "carrying out
7 a sub-category called uranium mining waste or other other mining
8 waste, or what have you. And until the particular minina
9 industry involved accumulates data at its cost, rather than
10 as Congress has mandated EPA should accumulate that data as
11 part of this study at its cost.
12 Mining waste, the basic argument is, that it should be
13 presently subject only to the 8002(f) study.
14 With regard to oil shale in particular, I would read
15 this portion of our presentation, and that is, these oil shale
16 operations, and I am speaking only of the Federal prototype
17 oil shale lease operations, not any private oil shale operations
18 that might be anticipated in the future, that these operations
19 including any generation, transportation, storage, treatment
20 and disposal of the solid waste and hazardous waste are and
21 have been from their inception, regulated by numerous stringent
22 lease stipulations and permits, both Federal and State. These
23 operations are closely scrutinized by the area oil shale
24 supervisor of the USGS in frequent consultation with the Oil
25 Shale Environmental Advisorv Panel, which did meet quarterly,
-------
194
I believe until this moratorium, and now it is going to resume
2 meeting quarterly, I understand this April. To superimpose
3 another layer of regulation on these already regulated operations
in my view, would be the example of the kind of situation that
Congress did not intend to be subject to regulations like the
three proposed.
7 Our second point is mining overburden is not a solid
g waste, and the legislative history is very clear on that.
9 In 43 Fed. Reg 58946 - 59022 (Dec 18, 1978), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) caused to be published
certain proposed regulations under paragraph 3001 (691),
12 3002 (6922) and 3004 (6924) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
which was aassed by Congress on October 21, 1976. Submission
of written comments on these proposed regulations has been
invited by EPA and are due on or before March 16, 1979.
In response to this invitation, Rio Blanco Oil Shale
Company, a general partnership comprised of Standard Oil Company!
a general partnership comprised of Standard Oil Company
2Q (Indiana) and Gulf Oil Corporation (RBOSC), would like to take
this opportunity to submit our written comments thereon for
22 EPA's consideration. In addition,'by letter under date of
23 February 23, 1979 to Mrs. Geraldine Wyer of EPA, RBOSC has
24, requested an opportunity to make an oral presentation on these
25 proposed regulations at the Denver hearing scheduled March 7-9,
-------
195
1 1979. A cony of this letter will be submitted as part of that
2 hearing record. Mr. Kent P. Olson will make RBOSC's oral
3 presentation.
4 Before addressing RBOSC's specific concerns, perhaps
5 some background information on how our writ-ten comments are •
6 organized would be helpful. We have elected to treat the
7 outset certain fundamental legal questions which we believe
8 affect all three of these proposed regulations. For this reason
9 these legal comments do not."identify the regulatory docket '
10 or notice number" as requested in EPA's invitation to comment,
11 but they should be understood to apply to paragraph 3001 (6921)
12 3002 (6922} and 3004 (6924) collectively. Thereafter, we will
13 nresent our specific comments, whenever practical, in the
14 order in which these proposed regulations appear in the Federal
15 Register and in the chronological order in which they appear
16 within each such proposed regulation. Where, t'o't example, a
17 comment on some feature of the proposed regulation under
18 paragraph 3001 (69211) "would also certain to a concern of
19 ours on an aspect of the proposed regulation under paragraph
20 3002(6922) and/or paragraph 3004 (6924), we will attempt to
21 coordinate those comments and cross-reference the appropriate
22 subsections in a manner so as to avoid any confusion or repetit-
23 ion.
24 Fundamental Legal Comments.
25 1. It is premature to presently include "mining waste"
-------
196
1 within the coverage of paragraph 3001 (6921), 3002 (6922) and
2 3004 (6924) of RCRA and within any regulations promulgated
3 thereunder. The definition of "solid waste" in paragraph 1004
4 (27) (6903) (27)) of RCRA could be read as suggesting (erroneousijy)
5 that, because discarded material from "mining...operations"
6 is "solid waste," such waste may be presently regulated under
7 these three sections of RCRAc However, the legislative history
8 of RCRA refutes that suggestion and makes it clear that Congress
9 intended that any such regulatory effort must be preceded by
10 the study, reporting and consultation procedures in paragraph
11 8002(f) '(6982(f)).
12 "Further, there are other aspects of the discarded
13 materials problem, namely mining wastes and sludge,
14 that could pose significant threats to human life
15 and the environment. Because of a lack o^ (sic)
16 information, the Committee is unable to determine
17 the hazards associated with the improraer management
18 of these wastes.- The Committee has" therefore
19 directed the Environmental Protection Agency to
20 study the sources and composition of these wastes;
21 the existing methods of disposal; and the potential
22 dangers to human health and the environment caused
23 by the imoronjer management of these wastes.
24 "Three areas in narticular are of such a nature as to
25 require either a special study or a special program.
-------
197
These three areas are: mining waste, sludge, and
2 discarded automobile tires.
3 "A thorough study of mining waste is essential
because mining eastes represent 1.8'billion tons
of waste a year. (The second largest waste generated
by volume is agriculture'at 687 million tons,
industrial at 200 million tons, followed by
municipal waste at 135 million tons.)
The traditional theory regarding mining waste has
10 been that it is generally inert.. However, a few
11 recent studies indicate that some mining wastes can
12 be harmful; some-particularly so when mixed with
13 water. Other mine tailings, particularly those- •
containing heavy metals may be inert but nonetheless
15 toxic even in their elemental form. Committee
16 information on the ootential danger posed by
17 mining waste is not sufficient to form the basis
18 for legislative"action at this time. For this
19 reason, the Committee has mandated a study of
20 mining wastes.
21 "EPA will undertake a study of mining easte, its
22 sources, and volumes, oresent disposal nractices
23 and will evaluate the potential danger to human
health and environmental vitalitv. EPA will study
25 surface runoff or leachate from mining wastes and
-------
198
1 air pollution by dust, as well as alternatives
2 to current disposal methods and the costs.of
3 such alternatives..." ..
4 "The intent is for EPA to look at all mining waste
5 disposal practices, past and present, identify the
6 adverse effects of such wastes on the environment,
7 including people and property located beyond the
8 boundary of the mine, evaluate the adequacy of those
9 practices from a technical standpoint, including
10 the adequacy of governmental regulations governing
11 such disposal, and make recommendations for
12 .additional R&D, for improvement of such practices
13 and, where appropriate, for the development and
14 utilization of alternative means or methods of
15 disposal that are safe and environmentally "sound.."
16 Until these paragraphs 8002(f) (6982 (f)) procedures are
17 met, thereby giving to EPA the information Congress found
18 lacking to reasonably and non-arbitrarily regulate 'that
19 "mining waste" which is "hazardous," "mining waste" cannot be
20 so regulated as though it were "hazardous." In considering
21 H.R. 14496, whose provisions in this regard were essentially
22 those of RCRA as finally passed, the staff of the Subcommittee
23 on Transportation and Commerce of the House Interstate and
24 Foreign Commerce Committee (which was the subcommittee that
25 reviewed this bill) requested and received from EPA conies
-------
199
1 of all the damage reports, totalling some 400 reports, for
2 the express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from
3 what kinds of activities and facilities should be covered
4 in RCRA's definition of "solid waste." Not one of these
5 reports involved "mining waste," nor could EPA then (as it
6 probably could not now if requested under the Freedom off
7° Information Act) produce any information on "mining waste" for
8 that exhaustive sub-committee staff effort. It was precisely
9 for this lack-of-information reason that Congress mandated
10 EPA to conduct the paragraph 8002 (f) (6982 (f)) study on "mining
11 wastes."
12 This is not to say thatEPA is precluded from finding now
13 that specific mine wastes from a specific site are "hazardous1,"
14 but rather that any finding that certain mining wastes generally
S
15 are "hazardous" can occur only "at some time in the future,"
16 after the paragraph 8002(f) (6982(f)) nrocedures are met.
17 By this method, Congress sought to give EPA the latitude to
18 formulate the scientific basis and data by which "hazardous"
19 "mining wastes" thereafter could be so regulated by EPA without
20 the necessity of EPA's having to return to Congress to obtain
21 the requisite regulatory authority; once EPA has met these
22 paragraphs 8002(f) (6982 (f)) procedures, it then can promulgate
23 regulations under paragraphs 3001 (6921), 3002J[6922) and
24 3004 (6924) for such "mining wastes" without any further
25 legislation.
-------
200
I With respect to RBOSC's oil shale operations relative
2 to Federal Prototype Oil Shale Tract C-a in Rio Blanco County,
3 Colorado, these operations, including any generation, transpor-
4 tation, storage, treatment and disposal of "solid waste"
5 and"hazardous waste" are, and have been from their inception,
6 regulated by numerous and stringent lease stipulations and
7 permits (federal and state). Moreover, such operations are
8 closely scrutinized by the Area Oil Shale Supervisor in
9 frequent consultation with the Oil Shale Environment Advisory
10 Panel. To superimpose yet another layer of regulation over
11 these already regulated operations would be an example of the
12 kind of situation Congress did not intend should be subject
13 to regulations like the three proposed, unless, in implementing
14 the paragraph 8002(f) (6982(f)) study procedures, a regulatory
15 "hazardous waste" hiatus in this federal prototype oil shale
jg program was unexpectedly discovered.
17 2. Assuming, arguendo, that paragraphs 3001 (6921) ,
18 3002 (6922) and 3004 (6924) of RCRA presently are applicable
19 to "mining waste," and that EPA may promulgate regulations
20 thereunder, it is SBOSC's understanding that oil shale mining
21 waste, including processed (retorted) shale, falls under the
22 proposed "other mining waste" subcategory in paragraph 250.46-5.
23 If this, however, is not EPA's intent, RBOSC would appreciate
24 prompt notification thereof and would he res by request, without
25 prejudice to any of the fundamental legal comments herein, that
*
-------
201
a separate "oil shale mining waste subcategory," which would
include processed (retorted) shale be created under the "special
waste standards" category in paragraph 250.46. Oil shale
development, like many other kinds of mining, includes extracticjn
crushing, handling, processing and transporting steps, and
therefore should be treated equitably with other mining.
3« It is unclear if EPA intends to regulate overburden
under the "other mining waste" subcategory in paragraph 250.46-f
as it proposes to do for certain enumerated "mining eastes."
If so, any such regulation would have no basis either in RCRA
11 or in the legislative history thereof. The term "Solid waste"
12 is defined in RCRA to mean only certain kinds of "discarded
13 material." Therefore, unless a material is "discarded," it
never is a "solid waste" under RCRA, nor can it ever be a
"hazardous waste" under RCRA, because the term "hazardous
waste" is defined in RCRA to mean only certain kinds of
"solid waste." Nor can E^A's proposal to expansively redefine
18 both the RCRA term "hazardous waste" (by defining this term
to mean not only what RCRA says it means but also "as further
20 defined and identified in (this subpart by EPA)" and the
language "other discarded material" in the RCRA term "solid
22 waste" (by incorporating a "reuse" concept) circumvent this
basis statutory definition. Normallv, such overburden is
stockpiled and protected for eventual return to the mine or
other use. It is not "discarded." Moreover, even assuming,
-------
202
arguendo, that mining overburden in certain isolated instances
2 W3re "discarded," such discarded overburden would have to meet
the paragraph 1004(5) (6903(5-)) "hazardous" test in RCRA
4 before it would come within paragraph 3001. (6921) , 3002 (6922)
or 3004 (6924) of RCRA or any regulations promulgated there-
under
4. The data collection and reporting procedures proposed
to be made' applicable to "other mining waste" are at variance
9 with the paragraph 8002 (f) (6982 (f)) study procedures.
10 Those procedures require the EPA Administrator to "conduct
11 this study, "in consultation with the Secretary of the -Interior,
12 and, upon completion thereof, to "publish a report of such
13 study and.., include appropriate findings and recommendations
14 for Federal and non-Federal actions..." There is no requirement
15 in RCRA that a generator or transporter of "hazardous waste'"
16 or the owner/operator of a facility for the treatment, storage
17 or disposal of "hazardous waster" prepare or participate in
18 that study or that renort, or collect any raw data therefore,
either at the sole cost ofEPA or, as- EPA proposes, at the
20 . generatbr's, etc. sole cost. In effect, EPA proposes to force
21 a generator, etc. to work for' EPA in the preparation of this
22 study free of charge to EPA. The cost of such forced labor
23 to the generator, etc. will inflate the cost of mineral
24 development.
25 5. EPA has failed to follow the reauirement in paragraph
-------
203
1 3001(b) (6921(b)) of RCRA that any regulations "listing
2 particular hazardous wastes" and "identifying the charactefisti
3 of hazardous waste" be "based .on the criteria promulgated
4 under subsection (a) of this section." The legislative history
5 clearly discloses that Congress had three specific reasons
6 why this bifurcation, in kind and chronology, of the'development
7 of criteria, on the one hand, and the identification and listing
8 of "hazardous wastes," on the other hand/ was adopted. For
9 example, EPA has identified the characteristics of "hazardous
10 waste" and made them applicable to "mining waste." Yet, no
11 criteria have been promulgated upon which such identification
12 are supposed to be based-. It would appear, that EPA already
13 has decided on such characteristics and then, after the fact,
14 will prepare first the proposed, and then the final, criteria
15 required by paragraph 3001(b) (6921 (b)) of RCRA.
16 6. RBOSC is concerned that these proposed regulations,
17 if promulgated as presently written, could inadvertently
18 create a federal cause "of action in tort between a "generator,"
19 etc. and third-parties, and, if so, that a violation of
20 the standard could be negligence per se and/or the liability
21 therefor could be absolute. Present state case law and
22 statutes adequately cover such a cause of action, and the
23 creation of such a federal cause of action could overwhelm an
24 already overburdened federal judiciary. Nothing in the
25 legislative historv of RCRA even suggests this was Congress'
-------
204
1 intent. EPA's final regulations should make this crystal-clear,
2 ?„ EPA's use of "notes" throughout these proposed
3 regulations is, at worst, legally confusing and, at best,
4 cumbersome. It is RBOSC's understanding that these "notes"
5 would be a part of the final regulations- and therefore on an
6 equal legal footing with the other portions of these regulations
7 To avoid the potential unintended result that a cpurt might
8 rule otherwise, and to clean up this awkward syntactical-
9 approach, EPA should incorporate each "note" into the body
10 of the regulation to which it pertains through the use of
11 "unless" language or something similar, and delete the intro-
12 ductory-language portion- of the "note. "
13 Specific Comments.
14 Without waiving, abandoning or diluting any of the
15 fundamental legal comments hereinbefore, RBOSC would like to
16 show its desire to be h elpful with respect to EPA's invitation
17 to comment by now addressing certain specific asoects of the
18 proposed Subpart A, B and D Regulations.
19 Proposed Subpart A Regulations (3001 (6<*2l) of RCRA) :
20 1. 250.14(b) The "source/process" distinction for
21 listed "hazardous waste" is confusing. Why is such a
22 distinction made? Isn't the bottom line whether a particular
23 "solid waste" is or is not "hazardous," regardless of whether
24 it comes from a "source"or a "process"?
25 Proposed Subpart B Regulations (3002 (6922) of RCRA):
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
205
In general , RBOSC finds these proposed regulations
well-written and balanced, and we would like to compliment
EPA on a fine job. Our specific comments are as follows:
1. Reference is made on page 58972, column 1, to the
obligation of the "generator" to report to EPA if it fails
to receive a copy of the manifest" "within 30 days." -
Presumably, this relates to the requirement in 250.43-5 (a) (2) T
page 59003. But how does a "generator" know what this 30-day
period is and when it expires?
2. 250.20(c)(l) — -Similarly, how is a "generator" to
know if a "permitted hazardous waste management facility"
really is permitted? By. asking that facility?
3. A "generator's'* obligation to principally shoulder
the operation of this manifest system should- not be expanded
into the area of enforcement by EPA's adopting the four
options under consideration which are described on page 58973,
column 3, especially those in the fourth option,, quoted
immediately hereinafter:
. " (4) Requiring that a generator who has not
received the original manifest from the
facility designated on the manifest within
35 days after the date of shipment, or who
determines that the returned manifest is
inconsistent with the original manifest, •
must:
-------
I
206
1 " (a) Take all actions necessary to
2 determine the cause of non-receipt or
3 inconsistency; ..
4 " (b) Assure that all steps are being
§ taken to locate and receive the manifest
6 and to assure that the-waste is properly
7 disposed of;
8 (c) If he has been unable to accomplish
9 his requirements under (a) and (b) above/
10 within 30 days, the generator must prepare
11 and submit a report to the Regional
12 Administrator. This report must be submitted
13 within 65 days after the date of shipment,
14 and must contain the information required
15 in 250.23(c) except (2). In addition,
16 this report must'include:
17 "l. The name, address and identification
18 code of the designated facility;
19 "2. The actions which have" been or will
20 be taken by the generator to determine
21 the reason the original manifest was not
22 retuned;
23 "3. The results of the generator's
24 investigation, including any and all
25 information involving the shioment and
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
207
cause of non-receipt; and
"4. The identity of all parties who may
be responsible for the non-receipt of the
manifest."
It is one matter for a "generator to be required to reasonably
keep records and report to EPA, and quite another matter for
a "generator" to be coniDelled to work for free as a policeman
for EPA. In this connection, please see-also the last sentence
in 250.43-5Ca) (4).
• 4. 250.20(c)(2) Storage of a "hazardous waste" by a
"generator" for more than 90 days should not necessarily
mean that that "generator" is an "owner/operator of .a facility
for the storage of hazardous waste" under paragraph 3004
(6924) and 3005 C6925) of RCRA and thus subject to all of the
Subpart D and E Regulations. In this connection, olease see
also paragraph 250.41(b) (83). Some flexibility should be
injected into this- absolute "90-day standard," especially in
view of the far Beaching" implications of one's being subjected
to the sweeping Subpart B, D.and E Regulations if this "90-day
standard" is absolute, instead of only the Subpart B Regulation:
Proposed Subpart D Regulations (3004 (6924) of RCRA):
1. The following four comments pertain to the paragraph
250,4Kb) definitions:
(a) "contamination" (19) — To define this term
solely as a "degradation" is vague, overly broad and simplistic,
-------
208
| (b) "fugitive dust" (36) — For consistency, this
2 term should be defined identically to the definition thereof
3 in EPA's PSD Regulations and in EPA's " Emission Offset
4 Interpretative Ruling."
§ (c) "hazardous waste facility personnel" (40) •—
6 This term is defined, in part, as those persons "whose actions
7 or failure to act may result in damage to human health or the
8 environment" This "damaae" standard is vague, overly broad,
9 and ignores the definition of "hazardous waste", in RCRA,
10 which uses the qualifying language, inter alia, "significantly,*
"'serious" and "substantial."
12 W) It would be helpful if paragraph 250.41(b) includ
a definition of "landfill" (.cf. definition of "surface
impoundment" C851). . •
15 2, 250.43(f) RBOSC fails to see any reason for
determining in detail what the chemical or physical properties
of any waste rock might be, because the only change in the
waste rock from its natural state is its location.
3. 250.43-1— With respect to this "general site
2Q selection" requirement, it should be recognized that, unlike
most sited facilities, a mineral developer does not have
22 much, if any, flexibility in "selecting" a site. It is
23 difficult enough to find a commercial ore body; the "selection"
24 of a site follows the "find," not vice-versa. These standards
25 should reflect this reality. Also, the term "new sources"
-------
209
1 should be very carefully defined and should exclude all mining
2 activities currently in existence and any expansion of such
3 existing activities.
4 4* 250.43-2(a) — The requirement herein for a "2-meter
5 (6 foot) fence completely surrounding the active portion of
6 the facility capable of preventing the unknowing and/or
7 unauthorized entry of persons and domestic livestock" or
8 "a natural or artificial barrier" equivalent thereto is
9 unrealistic. Flexibility should be provided for those mining
10 sites which are remote and isolated, which is usually the case.
11 Is it EPA's intent that this fence be constructed to "float,"
12 i.e./ to move with the "active portion of the facility" as
13 mining progresses? If so, this will greatly inflate mining
14 costs.
15 5. 250.43-6(a) — RBOSC fails to see the need for a
16 detailed daily inspection of materials which EPA lists or
17 requires to'be characterized as "mining wastes." Most mines
18 are in operation seven "days a week, 24 hours oer day, so the
19 "facility" is in use. In the semi-arid regions of the West,
20 frequent inspections during the rainier months might orove to
21 be desirable, but daily visual inspections are unnecessary.
22 6. 250.43-7 (b) — An "operator" is without any legal
23 right to insert such a covenant in an "owner's" deed.
24 7. 250.43-8 (a) Note — This Proposed regulation properly
25 recognizes there may be times when the rigorous requirements
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
210
of 250.43-8(a) are unnecessary to ensure groundwater is being
properly protected. However, the Note provides relief only
where there is no potential for a discharge to groundwater.
If there is not such potential, no monitoring is necessary.
The provision for a lesser degree of monitoring should apply
when there is a low potential for contamination. RBOSC suggests
the addition of the words "little or" after the word "indicate"
at the end of line 7 of the Note.
8. 250.43-8 (c) — This requirement would entail much
unnecessary work and expense. Section 250.43 (f) requires
a detailed analysis of .the waste to be treated, stored or
disposed of. It seems unreasonable to require such comprehensiv
constituent data on groundwater background when the possible
pollutants may be only certain items. - It would appear to be
/ more useful- to require a background determination only on
those constituents that have caused the wastes in question
to be classified "hazardous." Certainly the determination of
the long laundry - list of interim primary and proposed
secondary drinking water standards for dirt and rock that is
merely being relocated will generate a lot of data that will
be of little or no value.
9. 250.43-8 (c) (4) — RBOSC would recommend that a
different identification of "a statistically significant
amount" be utilized. The student's T sinqletailed test at
the 95% confidence level is too restrictive. Very minute
•
-------
211
fluctuations in baseline levels not attributable to the facilit
2 would be encompassed by this level of significance. One
3 consideration which makes the. T-test inappropriate here is
that to use a T-test, it has to be assumed that the mean
background level is constant over time so that all of the
variation in sampling for the background level comes from
special variation, because otherwise there would not be
independent sampling. This is particularly severe because the
9 proposed rules require three monthly samples to establish the
10 background levels. This is much too short a time period to
11 determine sampling error where there are seasonal variations,
12 no matter how the data is analyzed. Another problem with the
13 method here is that the confidence level of 95% is too low.
Even assuming'there were independent samples and that there
15 was no change from the background levels after the facility
16 went into operation, Tyt>e I error would occur 5% of the time.
17 In other words, because there are six measurements to be made
18 quarterly and an additional six to be made annually, it would
19 be-expected that about once or twice a year there would be
20 a significant result and the orovisions of this subsection
21 would go into effect, including the requirement in (c)(4)(iii)
22 that the "facility" discontinue operation until the EPA
23 Regional Administrator determines what actions are to be taken.
24 10. 250.43-8 (c) (4) (iii) — the "Owner/onerator" should
25
not be required to idefinitely ("until the Regional Administrate
-------
212
1 determines what actions are to be taken") shut down the
2 "facility" without due process, e.g., a hearing, unless an
3 emergency situation exists.
4 11. Although the "trust fund" financial security
§ concept for closure and post-closure of a "facility" in paragrapji
6 250.43-9 is not proposed to be made applicable to "other mining
7 waste" by 250.46-5, RBOSC would respectfully offer the
8 following comments on this "trust fund" concept in case EPA
9 finds them helpfuls
10 (a) An "owner/operator" should be given the option of
11 posting a surety bond. EPA's fear that no one would qualify
12 for such a bond is unfounded. If an "owner/operator" can-
13 qualify therefore, the proof is in the pudding; if not, then
14 the "trust fund" concept should kick in. EPA's further fear
15 that surety bonds are subject to year-to-year renewal and
16 therefore are insecure can be overcome by requiring that
17 such a surety bond provide for no cancellation without 30
18 days' prior written notice to EPA. Following receipt of any
19 such cancellation notice by FPA, the "owner/operator" would
20 have to comply with the "trust fund" concept.
21 (b) Re post-closure secruity, no funds should be releasec
22 to EPA upon notice of a violation, as provided in 250.43-9(a)
23 (2) (ii); due process, e.g., a hearing, first must be afforded
24 the "owner/operator."
25 (c) Provision for a 2% annual inflation factor in
-------
213
calculating the amount of both the closure and post-closure
"trust funds" is unrealistic. It is noteworthy that EPA,
relative to re-evaluating the ''adequacy of the amount in these
"trust funds" would require a bi-annual evaluation. The
annual inflation factor should be tied to an escalator,
realistic at the outset and adjusted bi-annually, based on
the actual inflation rate.
RBOSC appreciates this opportunity to submit these
9 written comments to EPA, and we hope-'that EPA will give them
10 its most serious consideration. Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Will you answer questions?
12 MR. OLSON: Yes.
13 MR. LINDSEY: The whole question of oil shale,
14 as it fits under these regulations is something which I guess
15 we can own up to that we haven't fully considered. In order
16 to be covered, it would have to fail one of the criteria,
17 or the test under whatever that section is, 250.13. In other
18 words, it would have to be the ignitable, which the waste
19 isn't, or the exolosive or reactive, which it wouldn't be.
20 MR. OLSON: If it-meets one of those tests, it
21 should have been listed by EPA?
22 MR. LINDSEY: It wouldn't necessarily have to be
23 listed, but it would be covered whether or not it is listed.
24 in other words, if a waste meets these criteria.
25 MR. OLSON: Are you talking about the first four?
-------
214
1 MR. LINDSEY: Yes.
2 MR. OLSON: Okay.
3 MR. LINDSEY: Plus, toxicity.
4 MR. OLSON: Explosiveness and reactive?
5 MR. LINDSEY: Yes, as I recall, the oil shale
6 industry, this is an in situ process, which is the drilling
7 sort of thing, right, and then there is mining operation, where
8 you mine hardrock, bring it out, crush it and extract it?
9 MR. OLSON: You oversimplified. There are three
10 basic processes, and one is true, in situ, which all of the
11 oil shale rock, which is rubbelized underground, would be
•
12 retorted, burned underground. There is a modified in situ,
13 which is my understanding that both tracks, cA and CB, and
14 my client and Occidental track cB are oroposing to follow,
15 where you would take out approximately, this is just a
16 number out of the air, twenty-five percent of the rock,
17 store it above ground. You would then rubbelize the remaining
18 seventy-five percent, and you would burn it.
19 MR. LINDSEY: Underground?
20 MR. OLSON: Underground. With respect to the
21 twenty-five percent you take up on top of the ground, you
22 could retort that above ground at some future date, if and
23 when you go commercial, using a toxic tvne two process, the
24 lurgi process, and a number of other processes.
25 The fourth wav is just all above ground retorting.
-------
215
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
Take it all up above ground and retort.
MR. LINDSEY: Then it would be, I imagine, the
waste which is left over from-those above ground retorting,
that would be what we are .'considering here?
MR. OLSON: You would not be considering the
waste left over from below ground retorting. Do I.read that
into your question?
MR. LINDSEY: That is a very good question.
I will reserve an -answer to that.
MR. OLSON: That was just a~-question- It wasn't
cross examination.
MR. LINDSEY:- I am not sure we can respond to
that right away, but anyhow, you can give us whatever
information you can give us on 'these retorting processes
and it may help us make up our own minds on it.
MR. OLSON: We regard the whole thing part and
parcel of the mining and retort as one process, if you will,
and in the definition of other mining wastes, you use the
term extraction, beneficiatibn and processing of ores and
minerals, and that seems to me what we are doing by your
very own language, but I would surely like some confirmation
on that, because if I have'to deal with all of the Subpart
B and D regs, then we are in surface impoundment and some
other problems.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you verv much. Our
-------
216
next speaker is Rita E. Ewing representing Utah International,
Inc.
MS. RITA E. EWING..' Good afternoon, my name is
Rita Ewing. I am Senior Environmental Supervisor at Utah
International, Inc., whose headquarters are located in San
" Francisco, California. Thank you for the opportunity to
' appear before you today.
g
0 Utah International Inc. is an diversified mining
* company with surface mining operations in the western United
States. We shall be submitting written technical contributions
11 addressing the Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and
Regulations. Today we would like to offer our general comments,
giving a few specif-ic examples relating to the proposed
regulations.
Before beginning our comments, we would like to express
our appreciation to EPA for the tone and format which the Agencv
has offered in soliciting constructive public comment. We
18 fully support the premise that the disposal of hazardous waste
is a crucial environmental and health problem that, if
20 regulated, must be regulated by a sound and balanced program.
21 We h ope the following comments will assist in formulating
22 the roost desirable strategy for 'phasing implementation of the
23 Resource. Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
24 our comments today address the following issues:
25 Subpart A - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes
I
-------
217
1. Extraction Procedure
2. Definition of a Toxic Waste
3. Uranium Mining Waste Rock and Overburden
Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste
1. Conditional Exclusion Based on Volume of Waste
7 ' produced per Month.
o
2. Alternative Means of Regulating Small Quantities
of Wastes
1° Subpart D - Standards Applicable to Treatment, Storage and
11 Disposal Facilities
12 i. "Notes" Category for Standard Deviation
2. Duplication in the Regulation of Mining Wastes
3. Conflict between Regulations
4. Assurance of Post-Closure Costs
A recurring theme in our comments is the need for standards
1' based on the degree of hazard which depends on the character
istics of specific wastes and the environment in which thev
are deposited.
20 Subpart A — Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes
l. Extraction Procedure
22 The legislative history of the Resource Conservation
23 and Recovery Act of 1976 makes it evident that EPA
24
is responsible for determining and listing all hazardous
25
wastes using criteria developed by EPA (see e.g., H.
-------
o
21 8
I Report 94-1491,pp5,25).
2 While in some cases it may be appropriate to require
3 industry to determine which wastes are hazardous
4 ' according to EPA criteria, we feel that industry
5 should also be afforded the flexibility to use
6 alternative tests, methodologies and techniques
7 which, in fact, may be more appropriate for a particu-
8 lar waste and also meet the EPA criteria.
9 We cite the "Extraction Procedure" specified in 250.13
10 Cd)(2) as an example. This Procedure has been
11 designed to "model" improper management by
12 simulating the leaching action of rain and ground-
13 water in the acidic environment present' in open
14 dumps and landfills. However, this "model" just
15 does not reflect all possible conditions, circumstances
15 or processes. Mining wastes, for example, are usually
U disposed of without the mix of non-mining wastes as
18 in the case of public landfills. In-fact some mining
19 operations have alkaline rather than acidic wastes.
20 Therefore, the flexibility of allowing alternative
21 tests should be included in the regulation.
22 • 2. Definition of a Toxic Waste
23 The proposed identification criteria define a broad
24 array of materials as hazardous based upon reactivity,
25 ignitability, toxicity and corrosivity, These various
-------
219
1 "hazardous substances" are all subject- to-the same
2 performance standards. However, some -of the
3 identification, design -and operating standards
as presently drafted are based on certain assumptions
and specific conditions which are not necessarily
universal for all kinds of hazardous wastes and
disposal environments.
For example, a waste is defined, as toxic and therefore
hazardous if application of the specified Extraction
Procedure to a representative sample of the waste
yields an extract having concentrations of contaminants
12 that exceed ten times the National Interim Primary
13 Drinking Water Standards for those particular
14. substances. The attenuation factor of 10 is
15 qualified in the preamble as being based upon the
16 assumption that the waste is in a "nonsecure landfill"
17 located over a fresh water aquifer and that a pumning
18 well is located 500 feet down gradient. These
19 assumptions may not, in fact, be correct or
20 appropriate for analysing o'ther disposal circumstances.
21 Therefore, we recommend that the identification
22 orocedures and performance standards be made specific
23 to the waste and the disposal environment.
24 3. Uranium Mining Overburden
25 The orocedure under which uranium mine waste is
-------
220
1 regulated as a hazardous waste needs clarification.
2 At present, waste rock and overburden from uranium
3 mines are listed as hazardous because of inherent
4 radioactivity, A "non-hazardous" .classification
- 5 can only be attained if tests show that a
6 representative sample has an average concentration
7 of less than 5 PicoCuries per gram.
8 We believe that a judgment of the allowable measure
9 • of radioactivity based on a single radium concentration
10 value is questionable, because overburden characteristics
11 such as density, moisture content, particle size and
12 soil type all effect the .amount of radon emanation
13 and the gamma dose generated by uranium mining
14 waste. These factors must be considered in forecasting
15 the degree of radiation hazard.
16 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently made this
17 same observation in the issued Branch Position paper
18 entitled, "interim Land Cleanup Criteria for
19 Decommissioning Uranium Mill Sites." The paper states,
20 and I quote, "The interrelationshio between radium
21 226 soil concentrations, radon 222 flux and gamma
22 dose rates is a complex function of many factors—
23 therefore, since no simple numerical criteria in
24 terms of radium 226 concentrations in soil is applicable,
25 no attempt has been made to exoress criteria directly •
-------
221
in terms of radium 226."
2 EPA also makes this same observation in the background
3 document for radioactive, waste. Your agency states
that the relationship between soil radium concentrations
5 and the resulting radiation levels observed in
6 Florida phosphate lands (on which the 5 PicoCuries
per gram criterion was based)- "may not", and I
quote, "be representative -of radium/indoor radon
progeny relationships- in a more extensive sample
obtained from a wide geographic area."
11 I might add that the preamble (p. 58950) states
12 and I quote, "EPA proposes to rely only on consid-
13 eration of the first four characteristics because
14 those are the only ones for which the Agency
15 confidently believes test protocols are available."
16 Radioactivity is not one of these; therefore, we
17 would argue that the radiation criterion as proposed
18 is inappropriate.-
19 . We recommend that radon flux and gamma dose be
20 designated as the limiting factors in setting the
21 radiation standard to circumvent the proven
22 difficulties of relating radium concentration
23 to actual radon and gamma levels.
Subpart B - Standards. Aoolicable to Generators of Hazardous
25 Waste.
-------
222
1. Conditional Exclusion based on Volume of Waste
Produced.
We feel that determination of conditional exclusion
4 on the basis of waste volume produced should be
5 replaced by a more scientific determination based
g on the characteristics of the specific substance,
7 and the conditions under which those substances
g will be disposed.
g A broad range of wastes have been identified as
hazardous, and within this category, toxic potentials
vary widely. We believe that the amount of toxic
12 waste'that can be disposed of legally should be
13 determined on the basis of the level of hazard
14 inherent in 'a specific waste. Further, the site for
15 waste disposal should also be considered in determin-
ing appropriate levels.
For example, one hundred kilograms per month of a
lg specific substance may be an appropriate limit in an
industrial metropolis where thousands of industrial
2Q facilities may cumulatively affect the same hydrologic
and air quality systems. However, the effect of
22 disposing of that same one hundred kilograms might
23 be minimal and insignificant in a more remote, less
24 industrialized area that does not have to accommodate
25 large amounts of hazardous wastes.
-------
223
1 Further, the degrees of danger involved in disposing
2 of 100 kilograms of waste oil per month is very
3 " different from the danger inherent in disposing
of the same amount of PCB's per month.
We recommend that the regulations be altered to
reflect both site-specific and waste-specific
conditions. Moreover, we feel that the individual
states have a better idea of local tolerances and
9 that each state should' be given the flexibility
10 to administer and enforce a hazardous waste disposal
11 program that not only meets the environmental
12 intent of RCRA but also considers the economic
13 impact on the specific disposal site.
2. Alternatives Addressing Regulation of Small Quantities
15 of Hazardous Waste.
16 In response to your invitation for comment oh the six
17 alternatives, addressing small quantities of hazardous
18 waste, we propose a combination of alternatives three
19 and four, which would provide for:
20 Unconditional Federal exemption for small quantities
21 of hazardous wastes.
22 Cutoff quantities based on degrees of hazard,
23 State responsibility' for regulations of exempted
waste groups under the approved state plan and
regulatory program under Subtitle D of RCRA.
-------
224
1 Subpart D - Standards Applicable to Treatment, Storage and
2 Disposal Facilities
3 1. "Notes" Category for Standard Deviation
4 in the preamble, EPA admits that very specific
5 requirements "might" discourage the development of new
6 technologies or that different design and operating
7 requirements might be necessary for a oarticular
8 facility which is disposing of only one kind of
9 waste".
10 Recognizing this problem, EPA has offered the "Notes"
11 category to allow for standard deviation. We find
12 this approach unsatisfactory. Although a note may
13 have the same degree of legal significance as the
14 regulation it follows, the practical effect is
15 to subordinate the note to the regulation. A clearer
16 procedure would be to incorporate the body of the
17 note into the standard qualified by the word "unless".
18 A specific example demonstratina this suggestion (as
19 . it relates to 250.43-1(g)) will be provided in our
20 written comments.
21 2. Duplication in the Regulation of Mining Waste.
22 The tone and format of the EPA invitation for comment
23 imply that EPA agrees with industry's sense of
24 operating in an environment of over-regulation.
25 EPA apoears to be seeking to remedy this situation,
-------
225
1 but we feel that the guidelines and regulations
2 may actually have the effect of compounding the
3 over-regulation problem...
4 The guidelines and regulations as proposed require
5 mine and mill operators to obtain hazardous waste
5 disposal permits for certain mine wastes,' including
7 overburden in the cases of uranium and phosphate
8 mining. The permits would be conditioned by •
9 compliance with EPA's-proposed "Standards for Owner
10 ' and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage
H and Disposal Facilities."
12 In the case of coal mining,activities, some of the
13 requirements duplicate the Surface Mine Control
14 and Recalamation Act regulations administered by
15 the Department of Interior. "Duplication of regulations
15 and thus of industry permit applications also exist
17 because several states already have reclamation
.•
13 programs that adequately address the disppsal of all
19 mining wastes, toxic or otherwise. In fact, some
20 state laws require that open nits be backfilled
21 by returning overburden to the pits and this may not
22 • be acceptable under RCRA.
23 ' We believe that additional regulation in this area
24 by RCRA is a duplication of effort. Additional
25 regulation will cause more work for both the public
-------
226
I sector and private sector, perhaps without sub-
2 stantive benefit to either. Thus, we urge EPA
3 to function as a coordinator among the Department
4 of the Interior and the various states to avoid
5 this duplication with other regulations.
6 3. Inconsistency with Other Regulations
? In addition to the problem of duplication of
8 regulations, there is also inconsistency and conflict
9 between the proposed -regulation and other existing
10 regulations.
11 Sections 250.43 (c) , 250.44-1, -2 and 25.45 - 3 (d)
12 (2), for example, specificy a 24 hour-25 year .design
13- storm, .which conflicts with the 24 hour-10 year storm
14 required by the Clean Water Act regulations (40
15 CFR, Subchapter N, Effluent Guidelines and Standards).
16 As a result, an approved treatment oond designed
17 pursuant to an NPDES permit would still be in non-
18 compliance with the hazardous waste regulations This
19 . kind of inconsistency should be avoided.
20 4. Assurance of Post-Closure Costs
21 We would be remiss without mentioning the necessity
22 for a provision to allow for the assurance of post-
23 closure costs by alternative means such as the use
24 of surety bond guaranties. Although eligibility
25 for surety bonds is often regulated stringently,
-------
227
1 and is thus limiting to many owners and operators/
2 we believe that owners and operators who can obtain
3 bonding should not be handicapped by a provision
4 that assumes bonding will not be available. In-
5 reality, the availability of insurance covering
6 "non-sudden and accidential occurrences", as
7 required by regulation, is equally difficult to
8 obtain.
9 Although we recognize that the responsibility of
10 developing a viable insurance market does not rest
11 with EPA, inherent in the proposed regulations is
12 the requirement that owners and operators obtain
13 "non-sudden and accidental" insurance policies which
14 are very .difficult, if not impossible, for most owners
15 and operators to acquire. It would therefore be ex-
16 tremely helpful as we attempt to comoly with the
17 regulation if insurance companies, through government
18 encouragement, we're educated on the positive cost/
19 benefit ratio of providing this coverage on a less
•20 restricted basis.
21 In summarizing our general comments today, we urge the EPA
22 to be more specific in addressing' the hazardous levels of
23 specific wastes and factor into your regulations consideration
24 for the disposal site. We urge you to function as the coordi-
25 nator among Federal Deoartments and State agencies to achieve
-------
228
1 a Hazardous Waste program that does not duplicate other
2 regulations and result in more work for both the private and
3 the public sector. We urge you to create regulations
4 appropriate for the environmental goals you are trying to
5 achieve, and regulations that are appropriate for the sub-
6 stances addressed and feasible for the companies that must
•7 work with the regulations to dispose of hazardous wastes.
8 We again refer you to our technical written comments, and
9 we thank you for the opportunity to assist you in the formulaticjn
f
10 of these regulations.
11 Thank you for your time.
12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you
13 answer questions?
14 MS.'. EWING: Yes.
15 . MR, LEHMAN: Ms. Ewing, you mentioned in your
16 opinion some of the requirements in the proposed regulation
17 duplicate those of the Office of Surface Mining Regulations.
18 We have made an attempt" to make sure that didn' t happen. In
19 other words, we reviewed their regulations, and they have
20 reviewed ours, but evidentially you feel that you found
21 places where there are duplications, and so I would just urge
22 you to highlight those in any written submission that you make
23 to us. If you will cite chapter and verse so we can ferret
24 those out.
25 MS. EWING: We should submit additional comments
-------
229
1 before March 16th?
2 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Yes. Thank you very much.
3 Let's take a recess.
4 (Whereupon a recess was taken.)
*
5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH':' Mr. Frank Lee, Independent
6 Petroleum Association. Is he here? I guess he is not here.
^
7 I will next call Mr. Rees Madsen of the White River Shale
8 Project.
9 MR, REES C. MADSEN: Good afternoon, my name is
10 Rees Madsen and I am manager of the White River Shale Project.
11 Our office is located in Vernal, Utah at this time. •
12 The purpose of my appearance here is to transmit our
13 comments concerning the subject proposed rules as published
14 in the 43 CFR, 58946, on.December 18th, 1978. Our review
15 has shown that the proposed rules pose a severe potential
16 impact on our planned shale oil production operations.
17 By way of background, the White River Shale Project
18 (WRSP) is a joint venture of Phillips Petroleum Comoany,
19 Sohio Natural Resources Company and Sunoco Energy Development
20 Company. WRSP was formed by these companies in order to
21 develop two Federal oil shale leases located in Utah. No
22 processing operations are currently occurring on the leases.
23 But plans have been prepared for the construction and operation
24 of a 100,000 barrel-per-day commercial shale oil aroduction
25 facility. Such a facility would require the underground mining,
-------
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
230
crushing and processing of 160,000 tons per day of oil shale
rock. . • . •
Processing the rock involves heating the crushed material
to over 930°F in some type of equipment. At this temperature
most of the organic material in the rock separates from the
inorganic matrix and is recovered,,
The rock, holding much less organic material than before,.
will then be discharged for ultimate disposal. Aboutl29,000
tons-per-day of processed shale rock will need to be disposed
of under WRSP'S planned 100,000 barrel-per-day shale oil
production rate. This processed shale will be disposed of
above ground on WRSP leases near the shale oil production
facility.
The processed shale, in our opinion, constitutes a low
risk nonhazardous waste, the disposal of which can be adequately
handled under existing and proposed mine waste disposal
regulations.
However, the proposed Subpart A regulations under Section
3001 "identification and listing of hazardous wastes" 'could
erroneously show processed shale to exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic.
This characteristic 'is "toxicity" as established by
the proposed "extraction procedure" for determination leachate
concentrations of several contaminants. The fundamental
problem with the extraction orocedure is that it assumes an
-------
231
1 acidic environment in the waste pile* As noted in the preamble
2 "The EP (extraction procedure) that is included in the proposed
3 rulemaking has been designed .to 'model' improper management
4 by simulating the leaching action of rain and groundwater in
5 the acidic environment, present in landfills or open dumps."
6 We recognize that some screening mechanism is necessary,
7 But we have a real concern with the acidic assumption, since
8 processed shale, or raw shale for that matter, produces
9 alkaline leachate waters. .-This is important because the
10 leachability of the contaminants of interest are generally
11 affected by the pH.
12 A report distributed by Region VIII of the Environmental
13 Protection Agency in May 1.977 entitled "Trace Elements
14 Associated with Oil Shale and Its Processing" discussed the
15 leachabijklty of several trace elements. The report noted
16 that data showed Selenium, Molybdenium, Boron and Fluoride
17 are present in processed shale in only partially soluable
18 forms. This is primarily because these materials can form
19 water soluble anionic species under alkaline conditions
20 (e.g., Se04=, Mo4=, Bo3 ,F~). In contrast, Cadmium, Arsenic,
21 Chromium, Copper, Zinc and Iron are present in essentially
22 insoluble forms. Th is is so because, except for Arsenic,
23 these elements form insoluble hydroxides, oxides, or sulfides.
24 It is generally understood that as the alkalinity of the
25 leachate as produced by processed shale materials increase,
-------
232
most metals exist in less soluble forms„
It should also be recognized that the oil shale rock
is a common material found in ..Utah and Colorado. Nature is
eroding oil shale formations continuously. It is important,
in ouroopinion, to recognize the similarities in quality
^ ' v
between the leachate from a processed shale pile and the leachat
.or runoff produced from natural dissolution of the extensive
o
0 parent rock formations around the disposal area. It would be
unreasonable, in our opinion, to severely regulate a processed
1° shale disposal site when natural deposition of similar materials
* is occurring on a large, scale all around the site.
F0r these reasons we take strong exception to the use of
the extraction procedure as proposed -in Part 250, Subpart A
14 250.13 (d), for determining whether processed shale'exhibits
^a hazardous waste characteristic-.
16 Further to this concern of ours, we note that EPA feels
a quantitatively stringent extraction procedure "is"necessary,
because only waste designated as hazardous is subject to
transport controls as well as disposal controls." Apparently,
20 EPA desires to be conservative in identifying and regulating
hazardous waste sources so as to prevent serious accidents
22 during transport even though ultimate disposal could be
23 adequately regulated for some "hazardous" wastes under Subtitle
D of RCRA, Section 4004.
nc
In this regard we would like to point out that processed
-------
233
1 shale will not be transported far. Handling costs are too
2 great. In the case of WRSP, for example, the material will
3 be diposed of near the oil production facility on WRSP leases.
4 So a stringent extraction procedure is not required in the
»
5 interest of getting processed shale under the "hazardous"
6 waste umbrella for the purpose of insuring the rock reaches
7 a disposal site safely.
8 It seems advisable for the EPA to build more flexibility
9 into the toxicity hazardous waste characteristic test. We .
10 suggest EPA consider providing for alternate tests that can
11 be shown to more closely duplicate the actual disposal condition
12 expected.
13 At this time we have no specific comments regarding
14 Part 250, Subpart B, regarding proposed regulations pursuant
15 to Section 3002 (Standards Applicable to Generators of
16 Hazardous Wastes).
17 However, bur review of Part 250, Subpart D, pursuant
18 to Section 3004 (Standards Applicable to-Owners and Operators
19 of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities)
20 did result in some comments.
21 • First, if processed shale were to be classified as a
22 hazardous waste, we assume it would be handled as some type
23 of special waste, and more specifically some type of an
24 "other mining waste" as described in 250.46-5. It would
25 seem that a unique classification comprised of a modified
-------
234
I "special other mining wastes" type would be advisable. We
2 understand that rulemaking concerning treatment, storage
3 and disposal of special wastes will be developed in the
4 future. We very much want to have the chance to participate
5 in this development.
6 We fully expect processed shale to not be considered as
7 a hazardous material. This should occur if the "toxicity
8 characteristic" is evaluated using a realistic procedure that
9 recognizes processed shale's.alkaline nature and the
10 continuously occurring natural decomposition of shale rock
11 in the disposal area vicinity. The disposal of processed
12 shale should be adequately controlled by applicable regulations
13 for disposal of nonhazardous wastes and State mining waste
14 handling regulations.
15 We appreciate your consideration of our comments.
16 Thank you. I will be happy to resoond to questions.
17 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very-much.
13 MR, LINDSEY:: You seem to have reason to believe
19 that the toxicity test method that spent shale would fail
20 the toxicity requirement for heavy metals. Do you have data
21 on that/ or what makes you reach that opinion?
22 MR. MADSEN: I think it is more uncertainty at
23 this point time time. The work we have done has been done
24 using natural waters or distilled water, letting the nH fall
25 where it will during leachate test. I have no data on pH 5,
-------
235
EPA extraction procedure, but the fear is that the~EPA procedure
2
as proposed would erroneously result in exceedence, We have
no data to show that would be the case, but we are also
4
concerned that this material is expected to be used for other
tests beyond just comparison with drinking water standards,
6
and it seems advisable at this point to set up a test which
will resolve in a most realistic leachate water being developed
8
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. I will
9
next call Mr. R. N. Heistand, Vice president Development
10
Engineering, Incorporated.
MR, ROBERT N. HEISTAND: I am Robert Heistand,
12
president of DEI, Development Engineering, Inc., which is
a subsidiary of Paraho Development Corporation.
14
Since 1973, DEI has been engaged in oil shale retorting
15
This research has proved the operability of the Paraho retort
research at the Anvil Points Oil Shale Research Facility.
16
and has produced 100,000 barrels of crude shale oil for
18
refining into fuels for further testing and research. The
19
next step in the development of the Paraho technology is the
20
construction and operation of a module which could produce
21
6,000 barrels of shale oil per day.
22
During the past five years of research and production,
23
many retorted shale studies have been directed towards the
24
evaluation of its chemical and physical properties and the
25
assessment of disposal techniques. DEI has been directly
-------
236
involved in many of these studies and has cooperated with
many researchers and "investigators working under contract
with the EPA and other government agencies (see references).
Our comments expressed in this letter are based on our experience
and knowledge of Paraho retored shale properties and the geography
of the Colorado-Wyoming-Utah shale country and the data
" 'obtained from studies of the Paraho operations at Anvil Points.
° CA) The proposed extraction procesure (EP) outlined in
10
Section (P250.13) used distilled water maintained to pH=5.0 + O.|
This criterion is unreaslistic for oil shale operations in
11 Western U.S. First, the pH of various ground and surface
12 waters range from 7.5 to 8.1. Second, the leachate from
vegetation lysimeters using Paraho retorted shale and Colorado
River water and from laboratory studies ranged from pH=6.5 to
15 II 11.6.
(B) Retorted shale, as produced by the Paraho operations,
is not a hazardous waste. It does not appear in lists
18 II presented in P 250.14 of the proposed regulations. Paraho
^ -
19 retorted shale does not have the" characteristics of a hazardous
20 waste as identified in P 250.13 o.f the proposed regulations.
21 CP 250.13a) Paraho retorted shale is not an'-ignitable
22 waste. No autoignition potential was noted. During a one-
year monitoring orogram, temperatures within a compacted shale
24 disposal site ranged from 45°F to 35°F.
25 (P 250.13b) Paraho retorted shale is not a corrosive
2.
-------
237
waste. The pH leachates, obtained under three sets of
conditions, ranged from 615 - 11.60. These data meet EPA
proposed specifications.
(P 250.13c) Paraho retorted shale is not a reactive
* waste. It is not normally unstable nor capable of detonation.
5 Under normal conditions of handling, compaction, and contact
7 ' with air and water, it is an inert material. As noted previous]
a
0 it is an inert material under normal temperatures and pressures
(P 250.13d) Paraho retorted shale is not a toxic waste.
10 Available data from lysimeter leachates show that Paraho
11 retored shale meets the proposed EPA Toxic Waste Standards.
12 Most of these data even meet the more restrictive Primary
Drinking Water Standards. Although the natural oH of these
leachates was about pH = 11, leachates from succeeding seasons
from these lysimeters have pH ~ 5 and even lower concentrations
of the toxic metals than those shown. More evidence that Parahc
retorted shale is not a toxic waste is found in its chemical
composition. Assuming 100 percent solubilization under the
proposed EPA extraction procedure "for hazardous wastes,
20 cadmium, mercury, and silver would meet the oroposed EPA
Toxic Waste Standards. Since the listed chlorinated hydrocarboi
22 are not naturally occurring substances and are not used in
the Paraho retorting process, they are not present''in Paraho
24
retorting orocess, they are not nresent in Paraho retorted
25 shale.
-------
238
The foregoing comments are based on research results
and experience gained by DEI during the Paraho oil shale
3 operations conducted at Anvil .-Points. Because Paraho
retorted shale is not classified as a hazardous waste under
the proposed regulations, we reserve comments on Subparts B-G
6 of the proposed regulation. Should there be any substantive
changes or additions to the proposed regulations, we would like
8 to be informed so that we could make comments at that time.
9 Thank you.
10 "CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
11 questions from the panel?
12 MR, HEISTAND: If I can.
13 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Heistand, you are basing your
14 contention that oil shale is an unhazardous material based
15 on a number of research and development findings, but I
16 wonder if you actually applied the extraction procedures as
17 proposed in the December 18th Federal Register against the
18 shale and what you found? Did you do that?
19 MR. HEISTAND: We have not, but I would like to
*
20 point out that I think the metals, based on their chemical
21 composition, if they were 100 'percent soluable, would still
22 meet it. The other metals were not more than two times over
23 that threshold, so that even ass.uming a. 100 percent soluability
24 of the target metals, they would come quite close as far as
25 we can tell.
-------
|| 239
1 MR. LINDSEY: But you do plan to do that?
2 MR, HEISTAND: Yes, we do.
3 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH-: Thank you very much. I
4 will next call Dr. John E. Tessieri..
5 DR. JOHN E. TESSIERI: I am John E. Tessieri,
6 Texaco Inc's Vice President of Research, Environment, and
7 Safety. Texaco appreciates th is opportunity to comment on
Q
the regulations' being proposed by EPA for the Resource
9 Conservation and Recovery Act.
Texaco personnel have participated with the American
11 Petroleum rInstitute- in the review of early drafts of these
10
regulations and I would like to commend the EPA staff with
13 whom we have worked, for their cooperative attitude and their
14 willingness to listen to our suggestions. Many of our suggest-
15 ions have already been incorporated into these proposed
16 regulations to make them adaptable to the needs of our industry.
17 This encourages us to believe that you will view our input durin|g
18 this comment period with the same positive attitude you have
19 shown in the past.
20 Texaco is preparing detailed written comments which will
21 be presented before the March 16 deadline, so I will not cover
22 those details today. Instead, I would like to limit my
comments to only one. issue. This issue has been raised bv
n*
many others and we believe it to be of prime importance, and
oc
to be fundamental -to almost every detailed point about which
-------
240
1 we are concerned.
2 The issue I want to address here has- to do with Degree
3 of Hazard. That is, we must find a mechanism by which we can
4 apply a control-technology that is appropriate for the
5 particular class of waste being managed and its potential
6 hazard to the environment.- Otherwise, there will be a
7 devastating effect on our industry's ability to produce
8 needed energy and on our nationwide inflation problems problems
9 without producing a significant environmental protection benefit
10 Texaco agrees with the wholeheartedly endorses the
11 philosophy that extremely hazardous wastes should be controlled
12 in a very strict manner. We have little argument with the
13 basic approach presented in these proposed regulations for _that
14 type of waste. But we cannot endorse the application of the
15 same degree of control as would be used to manage a dioxin, ^
16 PCS, or similar highly toxic material 'to a waste which fails
17 the criteria test simply because of the presence, for example,
18 of a minor amount of one of the drinking-water-standard
19 metallic species.
20 Thus, the proposed acidic extraction classification
21 criteria based upon the philosophy of possible mismanagement
22 in a municipal waste disposal system, has no place in many
23 industrial waste disposal situations. For instance, for
24 exploration operations in remote areas there is no possibility
25 that drilling wastes will be disposed of in a municipal
-------
241
1 landfill, thus the criteria which applies an acidic extraction
2 test because municipal landfills are acidic is totally
3 inappropriate. In a similar manner, on-site disposal"at
4 refineries never involves municipal wastes so the acidic
5 extraction is again applying an inappropriate test of potential
6 hazard. . .
7 As a result of this type' of classification criteria
• ' _i
8 we find that a vast range of our operations will, inappropriate^
9 require full compliance with these regulations as though we
10 were handling highly toxic wastes.
11 Our industry is studying the impact of these proposed
12 regulations. The first results of those studies will be
13 presented to these hearings by the American Petroleum Institute
14 spokesman so I will not repeat those details, but I would
15 like to reiterate the basic conclusions. Those studies
16 indicate that the cost for our industry alone to comply with
17 RCRA regulations will be several orders of magnitude higher
18 than EPA's estimate for" the total cost of the 17 industries
19 EPA studied. One impact of th is cost burden would be against
20 many stripper wells which could not afford the cost of pit
21 lining and cash deposits for closure. (Average stripper well
22 production was 2.9 barrels oer day in 1977,) This could mean
23 a loss of as much as 1 million barrels per day of crude
24 production, over 12 percent of our 1977 domestic production.
25 Many shallow exploratory and development wells would not be
-------
242
I drilled should the costs of pit lining, monitoring, and
2 closure be added to marginal profitability parameters. Yet,
3 these wells contribute significantly to industry's effort to
4 arrest the annual decline in domestic production. Also,
§ the committment of large cmounts of capital in cash funds
6 will, seriously affect the ability of other segments of the
7 industry to meet the country's energy needs.
8 The most significant point here, "however, is that these
9 losses of energy resources would be caused by the fact that
10 wastes of extremely low potential hazard have to be handled
H with the same strict methods as the most hazardous waste,
12 while in fact, the potential damage to health and the environmen
13 in these cases is insignificant.
14 We recognize that the "note" mechanism written into the
15 regulations allows for modifications to the requirements on
16 a case-by-case basis, but we feel that the effort required
17 for the demonstrations to convince the administrator that no
18 hazard exists is in itself in many cases a wasteful burden.
19 We disagree with EPA's position that this issue of
20 degree of hazard is too complex to be handled. You have
21 yourself taken a first step in that direction by establishing
22 the "Special Wastes" category in the proposed regulations.
23 There are several other possible approaches available. We
24 direct your attention to the several states which are
25 incorporating degree of hazard in their classification criteria.
4
-------
243
1 We endorse the categorization scheme being proposed by the
2 American Petroleum Institute. We also suggest that a type-
3 of-industry categorization similar to that used in the water
4 regulations could be applied to provide appropriate disposal
5 technology for each level of hazardous waste.
6 Consideration of the degree of hazard will provide the
7 additional benefit of reducing the initial regulatory load
8 with which EPA will be faced as the regulations take effect.
9 This will allow a more adequate coverage of the extremely
10 hazardous waste disposal problems and will provide time for
11 EPA to give further consideration to approaches for managing
12 the less serious wastes.
13 I thank you for your attention and trust that you will
14 seriously consider this issue and work to provide a sound
15 approach so that efforts may be applied to the most serious
16 problems without needlessly expending resources on programs
17 which provide little health or environmental benefit.
18 Thank you. I will be willing to respond to questions
19 as well as my colleague, Wendall Clark.
20 MR. LINDSEY: Yes, Mr. Tessieri, one of your
21 comments which was a little disturbing was that we— well,
22 you felt there was a good chance we would close down the
23 stripper wells, which as you point out, produce one million
24 barrels of crude. I think, maybe you don't understand. Is
25 there some waste, which is generated as a result of that oil
-------
244
1 fTeld activity which does not come under the category of gas
2 and oil drilling mud and oil and production brines?
3 OR- TESSIERI: Brines would be the thing we would
4 be dealing with.besides some of.amount of oil that gets
5 involved with these fluids. Many of these-wells use much
6 more water than they do oil, so you have a. considerable volume
7 to handle, but these brines would contain materials which
8 we think would classify them in. the hazardous area.
9 MR. LINDSEY: What do you do with those now;
10 do you reinject them?
11 OR- TESSIERI: They are held on the surface for
12 some period of time, yes, and then reinjection takes place,
13 and we have other regulations that deals with that reinjection
14 and control.
15 MR. LINDSEY: Is it within the special category
16 then, since that would be the category which these wastes
17 would fall under, which causes you. so much economic problem?
18 DR. TESSIERI-: Special waste categories still
19 requires foreclosure recordkeeping, and also monitoring, so
20 that twenty year period is still there. Now, although in
21 the exchange that I have seen that you started, you are talking
22 about removing the frontend money, the deposit money, so it
23 certainly would be a burden that would be intolerable in many
?4,
*•»• cases, but there still is the eventual commitment of money.
25
MR. LINDSEY: It is an annual sampling and analysis
-------
245
1 of that sample that is a tremendous burden?
2 - DR. TESSIERI: You have to drill a well. Ydu
3 would have to sample periodically.
4 MR. LINDSEY; That would be enough of a burden
5 to cause these things to close down?
6 DR. TESSIERI: Every time you start increasing a
7 cost on a well, and there is 600,000 of them in the United
8 States, some of them you are going to trigger off the economic
9 list. If you were to identify a burden, which is only some
10 number, which we need not identify, as you progressively raise
11 that, the effect on the wells would increase, so yes, extra
12 holes that must be drilled, the monitoring that would be
13 required in handling, certainly would start the triggering
14 process, at least on the most marginal wells. Mr. Clark is
15 a coordinator for the Department of Environmental Affairs
lg of Texaco.
17 MR. WENDALL CLARK: I am Wendall Clark, Texaco
lg Environmental Coordinator. I just wanted to add one point.
19 There are other brine pits that have to take over when there
20 is a shutdown or some problem with the well. I don't think this
2i gets included in that exclusion of brine pits, and that is a
22 very large number of pits.
23 MR. LINDSEY: What goes into those, crude?
24 MR- CLARK: It would be crude.
25 MR. LINDSEY: I don't think crude would meet the
-------
246
1 category of a waste.
2 MR. CLARK: It is ignitable.
3 MR. LINDSEY: But it is not a waste under 250.10.
MR, CLARK: When you empty the pit, you have a
waste oil like dirt.
- MR. LINDSEY: You have something left over after
you use it then?
MR. CLARK; If it ends up being an oily slop pit,
which has to be handled in some manner. Therefore, you have
10 to have a safe pit, if you want to call it hazardous, and
11 you got to have a safe pit, and it requires all the requirements
12 of safe disposal.
13 , MR. LEHMAN: Dr. Tessieri, the later part of
your testimony, you made some remarks that I would like to get
some clarification or some amplification on. Let me just
read it: "Consideration of the degree of hazard will provide
the additional benefit of reducing the initial regulatory
load with which EPA will be faced as the regulations take
effect. This will allow a more adequate coverage of the
20 extremely hazardous waste disposal problems and will provide
time for EPA to give further consideration to approaches for
22 manageing the less serious wastes".
23 Now, by that,,do you emply that you would, or are you
suggesting by this statement that we should- regulate only the
most serious, or the highest class of hazardous waste at this
-------
247
1 time, and defer regulation of the less serious hazardous waste
2 until later on; is that the implication?
3 DR. TESSIERI: Certainly we are suggesting that
4 the most serious ones be emphasized to start with. If we get
5 a degree of hazard which is what we are proposing, so rather
6 than having two categories, either in one of or the other,
7 you have a better listing of the degree of exposure, then you
8 could anply that technology required to solve that particular
9 problem and not apply technology that requires the most
10 hazardous case, and in this respect, that would take more
11 time. So from that standooint, yes, we would be saying to
12 focus on the most difficult ones. We do not believe that most
13 of our industry would have to be handled in the way hazardous
14 material would have to be handled. Petroleum in one respect
15 is a finite, it gets dirty, but it is not a hazardous material
16 as defined as chlorinated materials are, and many of the others
17 that are of a real concern.
18 MR. CORSON: - Just one question. When you indicated
19 about the level of hazard, I am just wondering how many levels
20 do you see that we might have in terms.of degree of hazard?
21 Many-states that you have referred to today will really have
22 two levels of hazardous and extremely hazardous or dangerous
23 and extremely hazardous.
24 DR. TESSIERI: Texas has three.
25 MR. CORSON: You refer several times, and I get.
-------
248
the implication that maybe you are thinking of lots. I am
2 just wondering if you want to file lots.
3 DR. TESSIERI: I will ask Wendall to comment
4 on thiSo In my own thinking, I would think we would get to
5 the category of four or five.
g MR. CLARK: Yes, I agree with this. We are: not
7 looking for a continum. We are looking for something other
g than yes and no. Some states have said two categories, and
9 some three, and the AIP has develoned a criteria technique
10 which gives you a ranking for each criteria on a.' range of
one to ten or one to five, and then you add up all these
12 things and come up with an overall ranking, and then I think.
13 you would have to take blocks of that ranking and say-what I
14 want to do is two categories or three categories or whatever.
15 MR. LINDSEY: I think the question with regard
16 to that, once having made these categories he presupposes
you are going to do something with each category.
13 DR. TESSIERI: That's right.
MR. LINDSEY: What specific kind of things would
20 we do with extremely hazardous, hazardous, somewhat hazardous,
whatever we might call them? What kinds of regulatory controls
22 would be relaxed or eliminated or increased or whatever?
23 DR. TESSIERI: I think you would find in many
24 cases the orocedures which we are currently usinc? to dispose
25 of these materials in pur operation would be acceotable.
-------
249
1 Therefore, we would not need to anply the hazardous material
2 criteria. You still must prevent it from discourse indiscrim-
3 inately into nature or to find its way into a system where
4 later on it would reappear and cause problems. We feel that
5 under the other regulations that we are already dealing with
6 that. We have worked out technology which allows us to handle
7 these in a reasonable way. Commensurate with a type of
8 toxicity or exposure to either people or environment, that
9 the degree of danger it represents.
10 MR. LINDSEY: -That is the point of the note
11 system under our Section 3004 is to allow that.
12 MR. TESSIERI: We are suggesting you are. now in
13 the process of setting up regulations to handle these, and
14 that if we would take the time to try to get more than just
15 duplicated, we could save a lot of the note processing activity,
16 You have been living with them longer and would respond, but
17 we don't believe this would take a great deal of effort and
18 delay your rulemaking tbV that extent. Now, you may have
19 later categories and come back to say, all right, I am going
20 to focus on the too of this and I will take a little longer
21 for the others. You may have to come back to that situation.
22 I don't know what your time table will allow from that stand-
23 noint.
24 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: In addition to the classification
25 that API is going to propose, it also has been proposing a
-------
250
1 variety of 3"004 standards which it believe could be used to
2 handle the different categories adequately.
3 MR. CLARKs As you-.are well aware, this is a very
4 complex subject and we haven't had time to answer that thoroughljy
5 but in the back of our mind, we think, yes, we should come up
6 with some sort of categorization of type of treatment and
7 technology to match the characteristics and degree of hazard.
8 Maybe we can't do it. You haven'-t done it and maybe we can't,
9 but we think we haven't put enough effort in trying to do it
10 because of the time constraint you have been under.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. I will next call
12 on Mr. Phillip W. Morton of Gulf Mineral Resources Company.
13 . MR. PHILIP W, MORTON: Ladies and gentlemen of
14 the panel, before I start my statement, I do have a copy of
15 the written comments that we have put in the mail this morning
16 to Mr. Lehman from Gulf Mineral Resources Comoany.
17 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Why don't you go ahead with
18 your statement. At the end, if you want to give us a copy,
19 we will be happy to look at it.
20 MR. MORTON: My name is Philip W. Morton, of
21 Gulf"Mineral Resources Company, a division of Gulf Oil
22 Corporation. GMRC has a great interest in all aspects
23 of the oroposed Title 40, Part 250 of the Code of Federal
24 Regulations as published on December 18 1978. However, today
25 mv testimonv will be limited to those aspects of the nronosed
-------
251
Sufapart A, of Part 250, issued under authority of Section 3001
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 that
appear to impact on GMRC's uranium mining operations presently
being conducted in New Mexico.
First, perhaps I should make sure everyone here under-
stands exactly what our concern is. In paragraph 250. 14 (b) (2),
' the Environmental Protection .Agency, which I will hereafter
Q
0 refer to as "the EPA", has chosen, erroneously we believe,
to list all "waste rock" and "overburden" from uranium mining
1 as hazardous waste. Since neither Congress, in the legislation,
11 nor the EPA, in their proposals, has specifically defined the
terms "waste rock" or "overburden", I will use the terms as
generally used by the mining industry:
Waste Rock - that dirt and rock, usually from underground
mining, that must be moved to gain access to an ore
16 body.
Any mineral content of interest would be of such
18 low concentration -that it would not be economically
19 feasible, at present, to recover it.
20 Overburden - almost exclusively used in surface or
21 strip mining, is the soil and rock that covers a
mineral deposit that must, be moved to gain access
oo
0 to the ore body.
The term "waste" is also somewhat 'of a misnomer. Waste,
oe
as used bv the mining industry, means simply material that
-------
252
« has no economic value for mineral recovery. It may or may
2 not be discarded to then become "waste" or "discarded material"
2 in a sense generally accepted .by the public.
* It is these items that I will be discussing today. I
am in no way referring to mill tailings, which"are the "waste"
(in mining terms) from the processing of the ore, Uranium
mill tailings are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commissior
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, and are not within
the scope of RCRA. GMRC does believe there is some potential
for hazard to health associated with tailings and supports a
12 reasonable, workable regulatory control of these tailings.
.- GMRC contends there is no basis for including any
.« mining overburden intended for return to the mine site in any
listing of hazardous waste, as is done in Section 250:14.
Congress was very explicit in its intent regarding mining
overburden and mining waste. Specifically, Congress has
exempted overburden intended for return to the mine site,
and other mine reclamation activities, from regulation under
2Q RCRA
-, It is, therefore, not within the scooe of the EPA's
22 statutory authority to even regulate mining overburden. The
EPA did recognize its lack of statutory authority in the
preamble to the proposed Section 3001 regulations, but then
25 erred in reading the referenced House Reoort. As stated by
-------
253
the EPA on page 58951 of the December 18th proposals '
2 c "However, the House Committee Report also states
3 certain mining overburdens may be considered
4 hazardous; thus some are listed in Section 250.14."
5 (43 FR 58951)
The referenced House Report actually 'states, on pages 2-3:
"Similarly, overburden resulting from mining operations
and intended for return to the mine site is not
9 considered to be discarded material within the
10 meaning of this legislation." (H.R Rep No. 94-1491,
94th Cong., 2nd Sess.3(1976))
12 • GMRC further contends it is premature to presently
13 include "mining waste" or "waste rock'" within the coverage
14 under Sections 3001, 3002, or 3004 of RCRA, or within any
15 regulations promulgated thereunder. Congress, in Section
3
16 8002 (f) of RCRA, excluded mining wastes from RCRA coverage
17 until the completion of a "detailed and comprehensive study
18 on the adverse effects-of solid' wastes from active and
19 abandoned surface and underground mines on the environment".
20 Further this study, in "consultation with the Secretary of
21 the Interior", is to be conducted by the Administrator of the
22 EPA, who shall then "publish a report of such study and shall
23 include appropriate findings and recommendations for Federal
24 and non-Federal actions concerning such effects-" Thus,
25 it is clear that Congress intended that any regulatory effort
-------
254
1 must be preceded by the mandated study, consultation and
2 reporting procedures.
3 Until these procedures are met, thereby providing to
4 EPA the information Congress found lacking to reasonably
5 and non-arbitrarily regulate that "mining waste" is "hazardous",
6 "mining waste" cannot be regulated as though it were "hazardous"
7 In considering H.R. Bill 14496, the staff of the Subcommittee
8 on Transoortation and Commerce of the House Interstate and
9 Foreign Commerce Committee (which was the subcommittee that
1° reviewed this bill) requested and received from EPA copies
11 of all damage reoorts, totaling some 400 reports, for the
12 express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from
13 what kinds of activities and facilities should be covered
14 in RCRA's definition of "solid waste". Not one of these
15 reports involved "mining waste", nor could EPA then produce
16 any information on '"mining waste"-for that exhaustive sub-
17 committee staff effort. It was precisely for this lack-of-
18 information reason that Congress mandated EPA in•Section 8002
19 (f) to conduct the study on "mining wastes".
20 The EPA, further, has failed to follow the requirement
21 in Section 3001(b) of RCRA that any regulations "listing
22 oarticular hazardous wastes" and "identifying the characteristic
23 of hazardous waste" be "based on the criteria nromulgated under
24 subsection (a) of this section". The EPA has recognized this
25 proper approach, in its draft prooosals of December 22, 1978
-------
255
1 for Part 122, Title 40 CFR, the so-called "One-step Permitting
2 Program", thusly: (I quote from Section 122.27 (a));
3 "Section 3001 of RCRA requires the Administrator to
4 'develop and promulgate criteria for identifying the
5 characteristics of hazardous waste and for listing
hazardous waste, which should be subject to the -•
provisions of this subtitle...1 and to .'promulgate
regulations identifying, the characteristics of
hazardous waste, and listing particular hazardous
10 wastes...which shall be subject to the provisions
11 of th is subtitle..' based upon the criteria."
12 However, the EPA then proceeded to list a "hazardous
13 waste", based on "the criterion of Section 250.12(b)(2) because
the waste contains radioactive substances." Also, the EPA
15 has identified the characteristics of "hazardous waste" and
16 made them applicable to "mining waste". Yet, no criteria have
17 been promulgated uoon which such listing and identification
18 are supposed to be base'd.
19 It would appear that EPA already has decided on such
20 lists and characteristics and then, after the fact, will
21 prepare first the proposed and then the final criteria
22 required by Section 3001(b) of RCRA. .More specifically,
23 looking at the category of "Uranium Mining" in the "Special
24 Waste" table in 43 Fed. Reg. 58992 as illustrative, the EPA
25 has concluded (listed?) that 150 million metric tons per year
-------
256
1 is "hazardous", and thus proposed to regulate such "special
2 waste" under certain portions of the Subpart D regulations.
3 Yet, in view of the questions raised by the EPA itself, and
4 the complete lack of any data or information referenced in
5 the proposed regulatory package, how was this conclusion
6 derived?
7 In view of the above, and lacking the mining wastes
8 study discussed earlier, GMRC urges that all "processes"
9 listed because of radioactivity in Section 250.14, all
10 references to levels of specific Radium isotopes in Section
11 250.15, and Appendix VIII be eliminated from the proposed rules.
12 In the preamble to the December 18th proposals on page 58950,
13 the EPA states that only the first four of eight listed
14 hazardous waste characteristics will be relied upon because
15 "those are the only ones'for which the Agency confidently
16 believes test protocols are available." Further, "The
17 characteristics that EPA plans* to use immediately are relatively
18 straightforward, the tests are well developed, inexpensive,
19 and recognized by the scientific community, and they cover
20 a large proportion of the total amount of hazardous waste the
21 EPA believes should be controlled. Generators will not be
22 required to test for characteristics of waste outside these
23 characteristics for purposes of determining if the waste is
24 hazardous wastes using all the candidate characteristics."
25 If the test protocol for radioactivitv is not reliable
-------
257
1 enough to be included, it is unqonscionable for the EPA to
2 determine any specific waste is hazardous on this count,
3 and further use this unreliable protocol as the only means
4 to demonstrate non-inclusion of a waste within the hazardous
5 waste system.
6 GMRC is not aware of any instance where uranium mine
7 wastes have caused or significantly contributed to an increase
8 in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
9 incapacitating reversible, illness; or posed a substantial
10 present or potential hazard to human health or the environment;
11 After more than 20 years of large scale uranium mining, none
12 of the above cited conditions have been demonstrated. Uranium
13 mining wastes should therefore be considered to be outside
14 the ambit of the Section 1004(5) definition. EPA's admission
15 of the low risk and the fact that these wastes have never
16 caused any harm through their radioactivity are conclusive.
17 Thus, these materials should not be listed, as EPA proposes.
18 EPA*s use of "notes" throughout these proposed regulations
19 is, at worst, legally confusing and, at best, cumbersome. It
20 is GMRC's understanding that these "notes" would be a oart of
21 the final regulations and therefore on an equal legal footing
22 with the other portions of these regulations. To avoid the
23 potential unintended result that a court might rule otherwise,
24 and to clean up this awkward syntactical apnroach, the EPA
25 should incorporate each "note" into the body of the regulation
-------
258
to which it pertains through the use of "unless" language
or something similar, and delete the introductory-language
portion of the "note",, ' •
In. summary, GMRC urges serious consideration be given
* to the following points in the formulation of any final rules
1» Overburden is not included within coverage of RCRA.
2o Mine waste should not be included within coverage
of RCRA until completion of the Section 8002 (f) study.
3., No material be listed in 250.14 until criteria for
1° identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste
11 have been developed and promulgated.
12 4. Discontinue the use of "notes" throughout the
13 regulation.
I thank you for this opportunity to present Gulf Mineral
Resources Co.'s comments on the proposed regulations. Mr.
Kent R. Olson or I will be happy to answer any questions you
17 may have regarding the issues raised in this testimony.
ThanJc you.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
20 MR. LEHMAN: -Mr. Morton, I think at one point in
21 your testimony you stated that there were no criteria for
22 listing a hazardous waste that was not backed up by a charac-
23 ristic, but I call your attention to Section 250.12 of the
oroposed regulation which has a set of criteria for identifying
a characteristic, and another set of criteria for listina a
-------
259
1 hazardous waste. And one of the criteria for listing is that
2 a waste posesses one of the characteristics that are defined—
3 one of the four characteristics. However, it goes on that the
4 waste meets the definition of a hazardous waste found in Sectior
5 1004-of the Act, a finding by the Administrator of the EPA
6 regardless of the existence of a characteristic that the waste
7 in fact is a hazardous waste by statutory definition. So
8 there are two criteria for listing, and-I believe you only
9 recognized one in your testimony.
10 MR. MORTON: That is more than likely true. We
11 have only recognized the one, and. that is certainly how we
12 feel. How can you have different criteria to determine whether
13 a waste, which is hazardous or non-hazardous. Either it is
14 or it isn't. To have a criteria to put it on a list or to
15 have a criteria to meet characteristics, that is the same
16 criteria.
17 MR. LEHMAN: Well, not necessarily. I don't want
18 to get into a debate on it at this point.
19 MR. MORTON; Somewhere I got lost in this two
20 method system to be very honest with you.
21 MR. LEHMAN: All right. I just wanted to point
22 that out.
23 • CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I had a question. I recognize
24 that you aie quoting the legislative history about overburden
25 returned to the mine, but then you somehow say, okay, all
-------
260
1 overburden should be outside of RCRA is what you are saying?
2 All overburden is returned to the mine?
3 MR. MORTON: No, I did not say that.
4 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Am I correct in saying that
5 your statement says that overburden should be exempt or should
6 not be regulated at this time? You say overburden is not
7 included within coverage of RCRA, but at the same time you
8 quote from the legislative history which says overburden
9 returned to the mine is what the Committee was talking about.
10 MR. MORTON: Yes, I quoted the Committee, which
11 said overburden resulting from mining operations intended to
12 be returned to the mine site is not considered to be discarded
13 material within the meaning of this legislation. Yes, I said
14 that.
15 CHAIRPERSON DARRSH: Okay. Thank you. Our next
16 speaker is Dr. John T. Makens.
17 . DR.JOHN T. MAKENS: Madam Chairman and members of
18 the panel, I am John T'. Makens and I am President of the
19 Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, and I am here to
20 represent the Veterinarian in the State of Colorado as well
21 as the proxy veterinarians in Minnesota. 'I' hope I soeak for
22 all veterinarians concerning our aspect of this law.
23 I have listened to eight hours of information today,
24 most of which, I do not understand. I am going to take about J
25 two minutes of your time, and I guarantee you will all understand
-------
261
I what I have to say. Please do not interpret my brief remarks
2 as correlating with our lack of concern. This issue, has raised
3 more concern in the veterinary field than anything I have
4 encountered in sixteen years of practice.
5 There are those studies which establish the fact that
5 the waste from veterinary hospitals, clinics and associated
7 premises is a greater threat to the environment or human .health
8 than other forms of common waste matter if handled in the
9 presently accepted manner for-general waste disposal.
10 We are not generators. We generate nothing. The
H veterinarian takes your pet, and we take the material you
12 bring to us and we transport it to our garbage can in a
13 sanitary manner and get rid of it. We have over the years,
14 and it is the policy of- all veterinarians societies to push,
15 to encourage, to conjole the most sanitary handling of
15 contaminated waste, the type'of contaminated waste that we
17 deal with'of any industry, should we say, in the country.
IQ We ask that veterinarian hospitals as defined in the
19 Law now be exemoted from the regulations entirely. Can you
20 imagine how a veterinary hospital, and there are probably—
2i I am going to guess, 10,000 individual veterinary hospitals
22 i-n this country, and most of them with a gross income of
23 $100,000 spread throughout every little town in this country,
24 can afford to have either an autoclave in which we can steam
25 sterilize up to a 3,000 pound bull with many tons of bedding
-------
262
1 for eight hours. There is no equipment available in the ^
2 first place to do .that. We cannot use sanitary landfills. I
3 That is already taboo. We cannot in most ins-tances use
4 incineration. For one thing, as you define incineration,
5 the incinerator must create 1,000 degrees centigrade and
6 maintain that to incinerate this creature.
7 Again, take the instance of a 1,000 pound horse or a
8 3,000 pound bull, it is impossible without an atomic explosion
9 to create the temperatures you require to sterilize or to
10 dispose of this creature. . I think if you are considering
11 toxic waste, and there is toxic waste associated with veterinary
12 practice, but that .is not our veterinary practices, that is the
13 research institute in this country, which is dealing with
14 new creatures, new bacterium, and new viral agents, manufacturing,
15 reproducing those creatures. We do'n't do that in practice.
16 Those agencies are already doing that.
17 I would estimate ninety-nine percent controlled by Federal
18 regulations. They are'establishing the criteria for destroying
19 these agents. They are already controlled.
20 The average veterinary practice does none of this. In
21 conclusion, I would just like to say that this regulation will
22 have such a profound effect, as we see it, on the veterinary
23 practice, that the advantages we don't see, it could be
24 devastating to veterinary medicine. I thank you all. I will
25 answer any Questions.
4
-------
263
1 MR, LINDSEY: Dr. Makens you indicated that you
2 can't autoclave a dead bull. I am not trying to be humorous,
3 you can incinerate it and you can't landfill it, what do you
4 do with it?
5 DR. MAKENS: At the present time, dead animals are
6 either incinerated, but not in the equipment that you are
7 specifying in the regulation or taken to a rendering olant.
8 Now, most large animals are taken- to a rendering plants.
9 That is a special process, of course for eliminating animal
10 waste. The greatest thing about it, even though some people
11 don't like to think of it, it is all recycled.
12 MR. LINDSEY: So it wouldn't be covered under
13 these regulations, I don't think.
14 DR. MAKENS: They would become covered because
15 if they coisve out of a veterinary hospital, but if they are
16 agricultural—
17 MR. LINDSEY: If they were reused, I don't think
18 it would be covered under these regulations.
19 DR. MAKENS: If your wife's little poddle dies,
20 don't tell her it is going to be reused, please.
21 MR. LINDSEY-. That is true (laughter) . Let me
22 ask you another question. And I gather your answer is there
23 can be no problem with diseased animals is what we are talking
24 about. Let's say there was an indiscriminate disnosal of it.
25 Is there anv hazard? You said there is no studies, and I
-------
264
believe that is probably true. Is there any hazard in your
opinion that can come to man from wandering around dumps and
so on, that happen to dispose of these kinds of materials.
Not everybody Is scrupulous, is the point I am trying to make.
DR. MAKENSs That is true, except in everyday life,
you contact the same organisms. I wouldn't go nuzzling around
a certain dead animal. But as I say, those are not allowed
8 at the present time, at least in our state, to be put in landfill
That is against the law. That has to be destroyed, either by
10 burial in a burial area. If you have a brucellosis cow, and
11 underlating fever is still a serious disease of both animals
12 and people. There is a program the Government has been working
13 on for forty to fifty years to try to eliminate brucellosis.
14 The procedure here will not even, in the slightest, help to
15 do that, but those animals, if identified, are'carefully
16 monitored from the time they are identified until the time they
17 are properly disposed of, and properly disposed of is what they
18 have been doing for forty years. So that type of animal is
19 eliminated already. Even the normal dead animal is no worse
20 in a landfill, if they are buried, but no, we don't want them
21 out because other animals are going to come and eat them.
22 I think we are more worried about other animals transmitting
23 these things and keening them going.
24 MR. LINDSEY: You then feel what you are saying is,
25 that the current rules of Colorado- for handling waste from
-------
265
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
veterinary hospitals and so forth are sufficient. Do you know
if most states have those kinds of rules like Colorado's?
DR. MAKENS: As far as I know. At least you know
the largest city areas, they do, and again with all the concern
about polluted water, polluted environment, the landfill,
because of the special nature of a dead animal, as far as I
know, do not accept them, and I think that is pretty well
nationwide. But I think that the American veterinary medical
association can probably answer that for you from'this stand-
point.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. We
will recess the hearing and reconvene tomorrow morning at
8:30 a.m. in this room.
(Whereupon the hearing was recessed until the above time
and dates indicated.)
-------
ENERGY AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT
OIL CONSERVATION DIVISION
POST OFFICE SOX 2088 ,
STATE LAND OFFICE BUILOirjJ
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 8750
March 6, 1979 15051827-2434
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Gentlemen:
Members of our staff have reviewed the various
Hazardous Waste guidelines, regulations, proposals, etc.,
set out in the December 18, 1978, Federal Register. We
find these proposals extremely comprehensive and their
potential negative effect on oil and natural gas develop-
ment and production a source of great concern. As a
State body responsible for the regulation of the drilling
for and production of oil and gas we are concerned with
the effect of a number of the proposals; however, the high
level of drilling activity experienced in the last few
years as well as a variety of new federal programs imposed
upon this agency has strained our ability to devote the
time and manpower necessary to properly review and respond
to this proposal. We would hope that EPA could extend the
comment time for items related to oil and gas drilling and
production for 12 months/ It is felt that any proposal
which could have a severe negative impact on our energy
base in this critical time of shortage should receive
thorough study.. It should be noted that most major oil and
gas producing states and the U.S. Geological Survey have
prohibited the uncontrolled surface disposal of all but
negligible volumes of oil field brines and that we know
of no- instance where drilling mud disposed of at the well
site has leaked or caused problems.
Other preliminary comments and questions are attached.
Yours very truly,
JOE D. RAMEY
Director
JDR/RLS/fd
enc.
-------
-------
^^
«•»•
^f
HI a tn
P- P- 3*
CO en O
P" rt C
3 a
0 0
TJ CD n
CD 3-
H. rr fli
OJ O 3
rr -Q
p- ui CD
O o
3 rt
to 3 sr
(0 CD
£L rr
C CO 3
CD 1 p-
to 3
rt P-
O rr 3
0 C
« 3
CD TJ
P- M Ml
p. O Oi
< O
P* P- P-
0 Q.P-
O CD P-
01 rr
P- P-
O co rt
3 X O
p-
CD P- 11
,Q P- O
C P-TJ
p- rr ra
H >< n
CO rr
CD 3
3 M
rt O p-
ta p- 3
• P- (D
__^
03
^^
01 tn "3
rr O 1
C P* O
a CD 3-
ra to rr
tn o p-
C rr
O M. p-
Ml O O
CO 3
tn
C 01 O
O 02 Hi
3" C
p- Q*
€ Ml p.
ci co to
01 n TJ
rt to O
CD en
tn eo oi
3* P1
01 O
M: c o
CD P1 MI
O O
O 3 P-
3 O P-
TJ rr HI
p* P-
CO 01 CD
rtTj p>
»T,r,
• ^ tn
TJ
C CD
3 n
rt P-
P-01
P* P*
TJ S
n 2
O tn
TJ rr
CD CD
11 tn
p-
3
CO a" <-n
— — 0
n" A
— 1
ens s HI s si TJ tn pi
nrroocooirao
$; oj p- Q, en oi
0»0l3rr3 - PI M
rr 3 P- P- O Oi ^
CD *< 3 CD rrrrco SO3
1 01 tn rr 0) C
oiHi3 rr rr o en P*
P- rr O CD 3- • rr Oi
rtO s C O- (0 rt
O O rr HI to >—
Q, a co tn si • o
rr p- O 01 p- 3 3
3" £ en HI en rt a 01
CD 01 TJ P- CD O
rr O HI cr 3 p. a
TJCDIOP'P'P-CP'O
C5 H. (0 O CO 3 01
p- to Q* O rr 01 3
3 £3* rt O 3O
rrilO 0 M 3" a rr
CD HITJ a i'
OOl P> 3 CD < u3 01
3- rr P- < tn TJ
rt p- 3 CD rr a CO
3*30101 OnSOl
CD 03 C » O P-CD1
P- O • p- 0 P* P*
n in 3* co p"o P" p"a
C rr co p- oi rt
3 n HI O. ftl >1 3 01
O3-OI- 30I030PO
rr O •» Q. rr H. rr
to p- CD 3 co P-
cr p- P- oi 03 . c n
CD ft p- 3 Oi a a Q>
p- CD rr £3. to IP1
3 p- ^ Oi p*
Oeneaiiria.p'ia
Oi c 0 rt CD
3* a to 3* C CD P1 O
01 (D O H. C P-
N Q. 01 rr •• p-30
01 p- 01 TJ P- a P-
H. pi K* H O P* tO H\ H^
a c rt p- 3 rr P- MI
• rt 3 OP-
CD OJ O CO
H. aM
*< a
0
o
C
U
iD
3
rr
p.
CO
03
11
CO
CD
O
Ml
TJ
11
O
n
rr
3"
3
^j
3
~
•^
Cu
P'
s 3 -a s
h-" o; co 3-
rr CL n 'O
3" CD 3 11
02 HI oi <;
M o n' D
<0 H P- 1
QJ M*
rr Ul H- rr
CD C rr s-
1 tr ^ ;0
01
TJ rr O rt
O TJ O O O
H. CO Ml 3 H-
H P1 p*
a 3 s: *:
p- p- 3* OJ
to rr Oi cr 3
TJ rr CO CL
O CO
tn < S en 03
Ol 01 01 C 01
M ^ 01 cr 01
c ^-^
TJ oj a co a
M rr P- O 1
OJ P' 01 rr P'
0 O TJ P-
rt 3 O rr P-
p- tn O P-
O O CD 3
ro Mi a H. 03
01 C
. rr o H- 01
3- Mi (0 3
ID to a
S
T< 3- H TJ
O CD CD 1
rr 1 J3 O
CD CD C a
3 P- C
rr oi n n
p- 3 p- rr
o a 3 P-
t- 03 O
3- 3
3- o n
oi s ra tn
N TJ TJ
01 Hi O CO
H. o H. a
a n rr P-
P- 01
O CO 3 P-
HI O 03
3 X
ta CD O ai
C Hi 01
O TJ rr
3* CD 3- CD
n 0 tn
S P- S
Oi 0 to
en a 3 3-
rr CO
CD rr n c
tn O 3- P1
a
OJ 71
3 C
a o
3"
01 0
CO P-
a P-
p- p*
3 VI
•1 0
O HI
OJ rr
a co
3
o
o n
3 (0
to O
rr P"
H Oi
C P-
0 3
rr CD
p* Qi
O -
3
• C
to
CD
a
P-
3
a
rl
p-
P*
p»
p-
3
03
3
c
a
to
^
3- a. o s
QJ TJ P* O
H rr OJ
3 21 M HI
01 CO
O 01 D CD
Hi 01 C3« P4
01 rt Oi rr
C O to 3-
O D
3- rr OJ rr
3"
O co en 01
p- TJ C
P- < CD n
.003-
P* p-
C 01 O
3 P1 P-
(0 M
- S -
01
O M P-
O rr HI
3 CD
in o
rr rt O
p- O <
rr CD
C TJ n
CD CD CD
3 i a
rr 3 -
ta p-
•• rr to
3-
B rr 0
3 3" C
a CD M
a
TJ 03
0 Oi p-
rr rt 3
CD 3- P-
3 CD rt
rt 1 p-
P- P- 01
01 3 p-
P*O3 M
^
HlO
O rti cr
11 CD
,o
3
CO
H
OJ
p-
rr P* M
1 QJ rr
CO rr
01 CD P'
rr CL 01
p-
3 P- 3
03 3 O
rr
TJ P-
HJ ID Cl
01 01 p-
3 01 CD
rr O Oi
01 H
o
CJ H P-
H C HI
CD a
CD rr
n oi
O O 3
< P- X
CO P>
H tr
CD rr O
a Oi rr
3 rr
tr x- o
•< en 3
tn
rt fli
3-3 0
CD a i
1 O to
CO r~l CD
03 a
C 01 P-
p- CD 3
pi a CD
rr P- 3
p-3 rr
O (0
3 3 O
tn rr p-
. p"
0
p- 9i
p- O
O
e
3
c
i
o
n
rt
p-
O
3
n
o
3
3
rj
3
rr
to
^ =
» aT
M
p1 01
fO M
i a
h- O
1 01
^J
*— (^J
<— 1
3 -i
c n Q CO rr CD
c iQ en
Oi C CD rr rr
ft P-TJ 3- ST
(D H SJ CD H
fD 1 >< CD
ta 3 Oi CD
rt CD rr H,
C 3 O CD TJ
a rr HI 01
p-in M ro n
CD CD 1 01
01 01 » 03
3- to rr 11
3* O O 01
p c a TJ
< p< co oi sr
CD a 3 p1 to
tr 01 3 oi
CD TJ a O TJ
CD TJ P- ft TJ
3 1- 3 3- P»
K 03 CD •<
O M
O ft O rt
3 O P-TJ O
TJ 0 01
P" 01 01 H. O
CD C C OJ H-
rr o 11 03 P-
CD 3- CO I HI
• S 01 TJ CO
01 3 3- P>
to a. to a
rt
CD TJ P- tn
01 O 3 TJ
CO CD
rt rr O
3- P-
CD Oi
P"
cr
^•*
«<^
n
i
-j
"
as
P- CD
tn
O rt
tn to
oi tn
P* C
CD
PI rt
ta 3-
CD
ft to
3- (D
p-
ta 1
CD
o'c
•I P-
1 H
CD CD
0 3
ft CO
"J 3
rr
to
a
0
3
0
rr
01
TJ
TJ
p-
^
rt
O
0
3
tn
p-
rt
CD
cr
•••*
^^
10
^H.
P-
to S
TJ CD
o a
P-O
01
h^ 3
0
S rr
01
01 HI
rt P-
CD 3
ta a
HI 3
O 01
H. 3
CO
•o to
H. 0
01 3
co c
tn 3
O CO
HI H.
tn
rr
3- rr
CD 0
i cr
CO CO
J3
C OJ
p- en
rt tn
CO P-
3
P- O
o a
03
• O'
p-
p*
Ml
P'
co
h-
a
0) Ul
— -o
•
u»
1
UI
tr to 01 PI
CD C 3*
Hi O 3 CD
O 3- 01
11 31
CD 3 P-C
01 HI p«
01 3 CD CD
TJ P- 01 ta
TJ HI rr
1 CD 01
O to to ta
TJ rr'-s
1 eo to rt
p- • rt O
Oi ID
rt 3 O
CD H P-
n CD CD i-n
O to rt p-
3 CO CD
3 3 P-
CD 1 c O.
3 CD O
rtJ3 3- tn
to C TJ
P- O CD
3 H HI O
01 CD P-
*< 3 rr 01
CO 3- H"
tr 3 p-
CD rt to S
tn Oi
3 91 01
Oi 3 CO rr
a c n CD
CD to rt ta
• rr p-
0 a
rr 3 O
CD
a 3
O CO O
P- Ol ft
01 P-
H. 01 ^
p- CD
P- p- C
CD rr P-
a 3- 1
CD
tr ui CD
~o o
~- • rr
O £. p-
— uiO
1 3
Oi ta O «. P- i-3in
3 CD P- CO 3 3- O
P- CD P- 3 ti CO 3
§3 O TJ 3
HI rtTj 03 (D
P1 < P- CD H. oi 3
ta Oi CD O rt rr
p- p- p"D co 0
o c a oi M
OJ CD H P- 01
3 p* 01 O3 01 3
- CD 1 CO rr a
rr 01 CD r- CD
ta oi >< to
n ta rt p.
CD oi . e O 03
Ol 01 3 3
a P* a
• TJ W 3 1 H
SP- 3- P- CO
03 01 P<03
TJ 3 tr P" C
M tO P- P- p-
to rr 3 n
01 CD 03 CD
€ rr a 3
O 3 co
3 01 01 e 3
- 01 H a rr
rt pi co ta
rr 01 O
Oi CO H. O
11 S H)
p- U en tn
3 rr c oi rr
X CD O h- 3-
H 3- rr ct
rt w
3- a oi s: CD
CD P- tn 01
en rr to
£ TJ HI (0 (0
01 o o n o
rr tn C rr
CO 01 3 TJ p-
i M a p- o
rr 3
a TJ P- to en
3 P- 3
a rr P- co
tn O 3 CO
C CD
01
03
ID
M
-------
-------
STATEMENT OF S. NORMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, ASARCO INC.
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS
WATER QUALITY CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE
CONCERNING REGULATIONS 40 CFR PART 250, SUBPART A
PROPOSED ON DECEMBER 18, 1978, UNDER AUTHORITY OF
SECTION 3001 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, IN DENVER,
MARCH 7, 1979
-------
Ladies and Gentlemen of the panel:
My name is S. Norman Kesten, of ASARCO, Incorporated, where
I am the Assistant to the Vice President for Environmental Affairs.
I am also Chairman of the Solid Waste Task Force of the Water
Quality Control Subcommittee of the American Mining Congress and
I appear here today on behalf of that group.
The American Mining Congress is a national association of
companies that produce most of the nation's supply of metals,
coal, and industrial and agricultural minerals. While producing
these essential materials the member companies necessarily generate
large quantities of mine waste rock, waste materials from milling
and other forms of beneficiation often called tailings, plus fur-
nace slags and other similar processing wastes from later stages
of total processing toward useable products, as well as other "
wastes in relatively minor quantities. The American Mining Congress
is thus very interested and" concerned about the economic impact
upon the minerals industry of any regulations promulgated for the
purpose of implementing -provisions of this amendment to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. In addition, we want to try to ensure that
during the formulation of such regulations the Agency is fully "
aware of the technological limitations that the very nature of
its wastes places upon the industry and takes into account the
large number of physical and chemical variables that tend to make
each operation unique. In general, the industry has a series of
«
special problems in complying with proposed regulations because
of the sheer volume of the wastes that are generated and the large
areas of land that those wastes must occupy.
-------
Using copper and copper ores as examples, new mind production,
including beneficiation, smelting and refining, in this country is
a magnitude that there is also produced annually about 600 million
tons of mine waste rock, 250 million dry tons of mill tailings
and perhaps million tons of furnace slag.
If that mine waste were distributed in two new waste dumps
each of which covers one section of land, the dumps would be
built up to an average height of 30 feet by the end of a year.
If tailings were deposited in one new tailings disposal site oc-
cupying one section of land, the tailings would be built up to a
height of about 25 feet in a year. The height of the pile of
slag covering a section of land would be somewhat less during
year, something like 6 or 8 feet. Obviously, each type of waste
from one year's operations is not accumulated in one or two piles
at individual sites but is distributed among and added to many
existing piles. The cumulative volumes are similar to those des-
cribed depending upon the length of time a particular site has
been operated and the rate of production of wastes. Because of
these volumes, the criteria for distinguishing between hazardous
wastes and other wastes are crucial to the continued viability .
of the operations in which the member-companies of the AMC are
engaged.
I have used copper as an example. Obviously the underlying
principles are applicable to operations involving most other non-
fuel minerals, including mining and beneficiation of phosphate
rock and mining of uranium ore. The smelting of iron ore gener-
ates 24 million tons of slag annually.
— 2 —
-------
In spite of the draft regulations and proposed regulations t
that EPA has made available, member companies of the American
Mining Congress still have no idea what the cost will be of solid
waste disposal under the Act. If the terms "open dump" and
"sanitary landfill" are strictly applied (and there v/ill be a
great deal of pressure upon the Agency to apply them strictly)
then very many piles of waste rock, tailings accumulations and
slag dumps still being used might have to be classified as open
dumps, to be up-graded or closed within 5 years. In many instances
up-grading may be physically impossible. Replacement by new san-
itary landfills would be so expensive as to greatly impair if not
destroy the economic viability of the operations.
If what is required of a disposal site for wastes not de-
signated as hazardous is that there be no reasonable probability
of injury to human health or the environment, another dimension
of uncertainty is added. We would be dependent upon someone's
assessment of that probability and of what is reasonable and of
how much injury is permissible. The result of such assessment
could be just as expensive and just as crippling as the direct
application of the term "open dump".
If the criteria for classifying waste as hazardous and the
listing of waste and processes are finalized as now proposed,
large tonnages of waste rock, tailings and furnace slags might very
well be designated as hazardous even though those large tonnages
«
might be only a fraction of the total tonnage generated. The
proposed standards of performance applied to these tonnages will ™
again lead to intolerable expense. In fact, except for the paper-
work involved for hazardous waste, it might make no difference
to us how these large-tonnage wastes are classified.
-------
Of course, I am speaking of cumulative worst case situations. ^
One frustrating thing is that we do not know at this time, nor
will we know at the time the proposed regulations become final,
just what their effect upon our industries will be. Amidst all
of this we feel there is a reasonable probability that our current
methods of disposal do not damage human health or the environment
except in minor, easily recognizable instances. In fact, we
think that EPA should make that presumption. In addition, we con-
tend, and are on record to this effect, that the legislative
history of the Act states unequivocally that mining wastes are
at this time exempt from the provisions of solid waste regulations.
I refer you to the comments of the American Mining Congress on
rules proposed under Section 4004 of the Act.
For most wastes with which our members are concerned, the ™
principal property that determines whether they are hazardous or
not is toxicity; for some others it is radioactivity, a comples
matter to be dealt with in separate comments. A waste may not
be designated as toxic 'by the simple procedure of saying it is
so; it must be determined to be toxic because of the results of
an objective, scientific test. EPA proposes a test in Section"
250.13(d)(2) and we do not agree that it is a test that is appro-
priate to the purpose. We believe that it flies in the face of
logic and reason for EPA to even attempt to establish a single
procedure to be applicable nationwide to all kinds of wastes
*
regardless of the chemical and physical environment in which a
waste is deposited. Without going into the entire history of
-4-
-------
the proposed test we should like to stand with the D19.12 Sub-
committee of the American Society of Testing and Materials in
decrying the unscientific approach that EPA has followed in
creating the extraction procedure. We urge strongly that EPA
work closely with ASTM to establish criteria for a test rather
than a single test or extraction procedure. This would enable
a generator, or anyone else who is required to determine toxicity,
to devise a procedure within the framework of the testing criteria
that would be applicable to his waste through the projected life
history of his waste. At the very least a generator should be
permitted and required to set up in his testing laboratory the
nearest approach possible to the chemical and physical environ-
ment of the disposal site. If the generator does not choose to
make the test, he is free to concede that his waste is toxic, as
that term is defined, and therefore hazardous.
I should like to refer- the panel to a strongly worded letter
of Denver 1, last, to the Administrator, from the chairman and
the secretary of the ASTM Subcommittee D19.12, and to one from
Professor D. K. Ham of the University of Wisconsin to John Lehman
of the Office of Solid Waste dated January 24, 1979.
My next point is of peripheral interest only, because I feel
sure that the extraction procedure will be changed either before
promulgation or, possibly as a result of judicial review, some-
time afterwards. That point is that the apparatus to be used in
carrying out the extraction procedure is not existing, standard
equipment not is it readily available from the sole manufacturer
listed by EPA.
-5-
-------
In Section 250.13(d)(l) are listed pollutants and the
threshold values for concentrations in the extract which, if
exceeded, cause the waste to be designated "hazardous." The
numbers are, of course, ten times the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards for those substances and, according to
the preamble, they are listed on the assumption that on the average
the natural elutriate from a waste will be diluted by a factor
of ten before it is used for drinking water. This is another
instance of the Agency trying to establish a single standard
applicable to all places at all times. This, of course, is in-
defensible. A knowledge of the number of variables, and the de-
gree of variability, at any one site might make it possible to
estimate for that site the atteenuation that takes place between
the disposal site and a present or future drinking water source.
To arrive at a generalized figure is to perpetrate a nonsense.
We were astonished when we examined "Processes Generating
Hazardous Wastes" in 250.14(b)(2) because we find that most of
the listings are not processes but the substances generated by
certain processes. We were further surprised to find in that
list, particularly in SICs prefixed with the numbers 33, sub- ."
stances which are seldom wastes. Some are invariable or very
often returned to the metallurgical processes for capture of the
contained metals or are stockpiled for shipment to another plant
for the same purpose. For them to be categorized as waste by
«
regulation is to throw them into the hazardous waste procedure
from which the generator might extricate them only at considerable
inconvenience.
— 6 —
-------
Section 250.15 discusses how a person might demonstrate
that a solid waste that has been listed as hazardous is not,
in fact, hazardous. If there is any serious doubt abou the
toxicity or other hazardous characteristics of a substance,
EPA should avoid listing it and avoid putting the generator
or any other person to the expense and inconvenience of rebut-
ting the presumption. EPA should rely upon the provisions of
Subpart G, under Section 3010 of the Act, to ensure that every
hazardous waste is identified. We believe that to some extent
the lists are arbitrary and capricious.
Section 250.15 does not discuss how a person might rebut
the presumption of the part of EPA that a hazardous substance is
a waste. The lack of understanding that exists among some EPA
personnel was demonstrated by a staff member who in a related "
context, included "low grade ore" in a list of wastes. Of course,
this is a contradiction in -terms. It seems to me that the Agency
has two alternatives: it can leave it to the generator or other
person who owns or controls the material to judge whether or not
it has the potential to be used or reused and therefore whether
or not it is waste; or it can devise a set of reasonable criteria
by which the material may be judged to be waste or otherwise.
Our written comments on proposed Subpart A will be submitted
in due course. In them we urge greater clarity and consistency
as well as compatability of the regulations with actual conditions.
«
In addition to the points that I have just tried to make, we sug-
gest that EPA's presumption that hazardous waste is mismanaged \
-1-
-------
should be rebuttable on a case-by-case basis and that wastes
that have only a low level of toxicity and are therefore only
marginally hazardous might be managed under less stringent re-
quirement than those for wates that significantly exceed the
criteria. We do not feel that any of the suggestions, when
acted upon, will have the effect of reducing the Agency's
effectiveness to carry out the directive of Congress to pro-
tect human health and the environment from injury occasioned
by management of hazardous waste.
— 8 —
-------
f /
STATEMENT ON PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES
AND REGULATIONS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EY
HESTER MCHDLTY, NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR
LFAGUE OF HOHEH VOTERS OF THE UNITES STATES
PUBLIC HEARING — DENVER, COLORADO.
MARCH 7, 1979
I am Fester McNulty, speaking for the League of Women Voters of the United
States. Ue are pleased to have_this opportunity to comment on the proposed
hazardous waste guidelines and regulations.
The Leapue is a volunteer citizen organization with members in all fifty
states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. The
League's members in over 1,350 communities are deeply involved in finding ;
solutions to solid waste problems.
T-7e would like to commend EPA for an excellent job in providing supplementary
explanatory information. Considering the difficult and technical nature of
the regulations, we are especially pleased with the lucid introduction to
Section 3001. However, we question the wisdom of dividing the hearings into
separate days for each section of the proposed regulations. This means that
all those interested in testifying on two or more sections must appear two or
-------
-2-
three times. Such an arrangement is likely to dampen meaningful public 4
involvement in the hearinp process.
The Leapue has been involved in the protection of our land, air and water
resources for a number of years. Our members, after two years of-.study,
agreed that wastes which cannot be reused must be safely disposed of. The
League supported the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), and were especially supportive of its provisions for hazardous waste
management. We have examined the proposed regulations in light of the
principal objective--.of the Act — to protect human health and the environment.
Our comments are directed primarily to Subparts B and D of the proposed regu-
lations. Regarding Section 3001 and Subpart A, we commend you for your lists
of specific materials and the characteristics of these materials, but we urge m
you to constantly update the lists and consider other materials.
Section 3n02
Subpart P. — Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Haste
The Leapue does not apree with the exemption from these regulatory requirements
- of ha^aTftou's waste'generators' that produce^ 100 ktloerams or less p£r~month.
The League's opinion on this issue is based on three considerations. One,
the derree of hazard associated with a particular waste is often more closely
related to concentration than volume. Two, the small generator exemption
sidesteps a major objective of RCRA, namely, to track hazardous wastes from
their creation to their disposal through a manifest system. Three, there is
no foundation in the Act for a blanket exemption.
He find no support for this exemption in Section 3002 of RCRA which states
-------
-3-
that the standards will apply to generators identified or listed under
Subtitle C of the Act. In fact, Section 3102(5) requires that the manifest
system be applied to all wastes identified under Subtitle C:
... standards•shall establish requirements:respecting.-*
(the) use of a nanifest system to assure that all such
hazardous waste generated is designed for treatment,
storage or disposal in...facilities for which a permit
has been issneti....
In addition, EPA notes in the explanatory information that it has limited
data on the numbers of small generators, the amount and types of wastes gen-
erated, and the impact of these wastes on human health and the environnent.
By requiring generators of 100 kilograms or less per month to comply with the
requirements of Subpart !>, EPA will.-acquire-.the essential'information "that" it
currently lacks. For instance, the requirements would allow EPA to pinpoint
the snail p.enerstors' disposal sites to determine which ones are relied on
heavily for disposal of their hazardous wastes. So that the requirements
under Subpart B may not be burdensome to generators of 100 kilograms or less
tier month of hazardous wastes, we would urj.e EPA to keep recordkeeping to a
minimum and to simplify procedures.
Further, the League believes that proposed section 25^.29(1) which allows-
small generators to dispose in sanitarv landfills approved pursuant to Section
4104 of the Act is inconsistent with RC?>A. Subtitle C's section 3002(5)
plainly states, "[A]ll> 'such .hazardous ;waste generated is designated'for ~
treatment, storage, or disposal in...facilities...for which a permit has
been issued as provided in this subtitle." It does not include sanitary land-ri
fills developed pursuant to Subtitle D of RCEA "
Since approximately 67 percent of the hazardous waste is produced in ten of
-------
-4-
the fifty states, we are also concerned that if penerators of ]/>0 kilograms ™
or less per month are allowed to dispose of their wastes in sanitary landfills
as opposed to hazardous waste sites, some sanitary landfills'may receive
many contributions of 100 kilograms or less of hazardous wastes, thereby
becorainp in the appresate major resting places for these substances. Because
these landfills will not be as stringently developed and managed as hazardous
waste sites, they may pose serious problems to public health and the •: -viron-
environment .
The oroposed repulations (section 250.27) also allow the hazardous waste
generator to request that certain information be kept confidential. The
repulations should clearly impose a heavy burden on the disposer to demonstrate
the need for secrecy, lest this section become a loophole for avoiding the
intent of ^CRA.
Section 3"r>4
Subpart I) ~ Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous
TTaste Treatment, Storape, and Disposal Facilities
The League agrees with most" of the provisions in this subpart. However, we
do not believe that the ?TOTES in this subpart, which substitute performance
standards for environmentally sound facility siting, will accomplish the
stated poals of P.CRA.
He are especially concerned about the NOTE that allows a hazardous waste
facility to be located in the recharge zone of a sole source aquifer. We
believe the intent of both the Safe Drinking Uater Act and RCRA would be M
negated by the location of any hazardous t*aste facility in such recharge areas.
-------
-5-
Eecause of the limited supplies of drinking water sources, it is imperative
that r,PA repulations ensure their protection.
He question that EPA can predict with any certainty adequate resources over the
long term — at either the EPA or the state level — to ensure that the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a facility will protect a sole
source aquifer. The potential social, environmental and economic costs
outweigh short-term accomodation. The League strongly urges that ru3 facilities
be permitted in the recharge zone of sole source aquifers.
Additionally, we are concerned with the facility exemptions permitted in
floodplains, wetlands, and high hazard coastal areas. Because of the very
nature of hazardous materials, there will be a latent threat to fragile
ecosystems, water resources,narid*human health, if'facilities -are'located "
in these areas. Performance standards at the time a pernit is issued cannot
ensure future reliability. !Te ~ask that EPA remove these exemptions from the
repulations as the intent of RCRA is protection of human health and the
environment.
Tie also think that the proposed NOTES providing exemptions for land farms
(section 250.45-5) present an unnecessary risk, particularly to ground and
surface water quality and may lead to possible contamination of public water
snoolies. Demonstration of performance to the regional administrator when
a permit is issued does not preclude future contamination. For instance,
it is almost impossible to predict with certainty that there will be no
direct contact with the water table when the treated area is less than five ^
feet above the historical high water table.
-------
-6-
ITe have the same concerns with the exemptions for landfills (section 250.45-2).
tte think that in no instance should a landfill be closer than 500 feet
from a public or private water supply. Nor should the natural soil barrier
"or liner tbe:'.less than1:five" feet frdm-the water table.
It is unclear just how EPA proposes to integrate hazardous waste regulations
with other programs administered not only by EPA but also by other agencies —
such as the Strip Mininp Act.* It seems to us that this is extremely important
in the implementation of Section 3004 of RCEA.
Further, the League ur^es that no part of the hazardous waste program be
turned over to a state unless the state program is no less stringent than the
Federal regulations and there is an assurance of sufficiant personnel for
administration. Also we encourage EPA, in:-Che rinee*lm,' to -provi'de an'adequate ™
staff to implement the regulation of hazardous wastes.
And in conclusion, despite the nandate under RCRA's Section 7fl04(b) that there
x-rill be ''Public participation in the.. .implementation, and enforcement of
any regulation...or program," there are no proposed public participation
guidelines included in the proposed regulations. Ue strongly urge EPA to
immediately bepin the task of developing proposed public participation
rules for its hazardous waste Program and to issue them for public comment
so that they will be included in the hazardous waste rules when they are
issued later'.this-year in final form.
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS AND
PROPOSAL ON IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
FEDERAL REGISTER, DECEMBER 18, 1978
GENERAL COMMENTS
40 CFR, Part 250 - Subpart A
By
Texas Department of Health
to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
Public Hearing
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 1979
-------
-------
STATEMENT:
Introduction:
I am Wiley W. Osborne, Chief, Plans and Programs Branch, Division of Solid
Waste Management, Texas Department of Health.
I am pleased to be able to offer these remarks on behalf of the Texas
Department of Health and Mr. Jack C. Carmichael, P.E., Director, Division of
Solid Waste Management. Mr. Carmichael is unable to be here today. The State
Legislature is in session and a number of legislative actions are pending that
require his attention in Austin.
Today, I wish to summarize our concerns -regarding all aspects of hazardous |
waste management from our perspective. The State of Texas has, by Legislation,
delegated the authority and assigned the responsibility for municipal solid
waste management to the Department of Health. The State Solid Waste Disposal Act
further assigns to the Department of Health authority and responsibility that
extends to industrial solid waste where it becomes involved with municipal waste
in any activity of collecting, handling, storing or disposal of solid waste.
Our Texas Department of Water Resources has'responsibility for solid waste
resulting from industrial, agricultural and mining operations. -
-------
The State Solid Waste Disposal Act also establishes a coordinating mechanism
between the Departments to allow review of the actions of each Department as it
may affect the other. As the State Health Agency, we are responsible for the
health aspects of all solid waste management activities.
I mention our role in solid waste management so that you may be able to
better evaluate our comments.
Texas passed a meaningful solid waste disposal act in 1969 and over the
past 10 years we have built a workable solid waste management program which
we believe is second to none. During our work with the EPA and the NGA, we
have based our comments on our years of experience dealing with private ^nter- ^
prise and municipalities. We have also stressed the real world political
problems in dealing with the general public and State laws regarding public
hearings and permitting requirements. We believe it is imperative that the
EPA in its promulgation of regulations under the RCRA recognize the grass roots.
implementation problems by providing regulatory flexibility which allows States
to continue on-going safe and effective programs. As of this late date, we do
not see sufficient flexibility nor do we see an indication that the EPA is
willing to place trust in the professional competency of the States, although *
some flexibility has been added in the notes of the latest proposed regulations.
-------
The basic problem always seems to come back to the EPA's basic approach,
which in itself is inflexible. Packaging all hazardous waste in one bag, 4
regardless of degree of hazard and then, attempting to regulate the single bag,
has not worked very well and cannot provide the needed flexibility. Today,
we wish to propose a re-arrangement of the past efforts to provide a more
flexible framework which does not sacrifice any significant regulatory control.
We are concerned that closing of the comment period for the rules being propose
on Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004, prior to publication of proposed rules on Sections
3005 and 3006, will not afford the States the proper opportunity to obtain an overal
view of the regulations prior to submitting comments.
We therefore request that comments continue to be received on the proposed
rules until all Subtitle C regulations are proposed and comment periods are closed.
Within Texas there are 1156 municipal solid waste sites. Fifty counties, of
the 254 counties in the State of Texas, comprise the 25 Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas of the State. (About 80% of the industries in the State are
located in these 50 counties.) There are 220 municipal solid waste sanitary
landfills operated in these 50 counties which are capable of safely handling
waste which will become hazardous under the proposed regulations. We accomplish
-------
this through a mechanism of granting written approval on a site-specific,
waste-specific basis. We consider the characteristics of the waste and its
volume and site conditions, design and operations.
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling, in his January 20, 1979 memorandum to solid waste
directors, stated, "a cost effective approach to industrial waste management
requires effective State regulatory programs under Subtitle D to supplement
Subtitle C programs." We heartily concur in this statement. In Texas, it is
particularly true because it is over 600 miles from many industries to permitted
industrial solid waste sites.
Under the rules now being proposed, many sites would be closed to receiving
such waste, forcing the movement of waste over long distances, or the creation of new
sites to accommodate, in many cases-, low volumes of waste. This will introduce
an economic burden on industry that has grown to rely on municipal solid waste
disposal facilities, create a proliferation of disposal facilities, increase
transportation of solid waste and possibly result in the illegal disposal of
solid waste that is presently being handled in a manner that protects the health
and environment.
Our assessment that these sites will be unable to cost effectively accept
even the less hazardous waste generated by private enterprise, results from a
discussion with several of the cities' solid waste managers. Their unanimous
-------
response is that cities will not participate in hazardous waste activities as
presently proposed. Although this strong reluctance has not been apparent in I
previous workshops and public hearings, we find that the very reasons city officials
do not plan to be involved in hazardous waste are also the same reasons they are
reluctant to take a strong public position regarding proposed regulations.
Elected officials are concerned with the political impact of advocating
acceptance of hazardous waste in publicly owned municipal solid waste sites.
One of our city solid waste managers stated, "It would be political suicide to
even condone acceptance of hazardous waste, much less subject ourselves to a
public hearing required to obtain a permit." -It is near impossible to convince
the public that the issue is limited to a truck load of rotten lemons, a few drums
off-spec, vinegar, outdated, treated seed grain, or a load of sheet rock. Hazardous
waste connotes all the evils that are publicized by the "Love Canals." The public
is influenced by such things as the political cartoon I have handed you and not
the more rational editorial that appeared in the same issue of the Austin American-
Statesman.
Unfortunately, RCRA places the hazard label on all solid waste that is a
subject of these regulations.
-------
standards for hazardous waste management, fail to adequately provide for the
flexibility needed to overcome the objectives of city officials whose cooperation
is so sorely needed to obtain a cost effective approach to industrial waste manage-
ment as pointed out by Mr. Jorling.
The flexibility proposed in the regulations, by defining generators through
-of retailers and farmers, setting arbitrary quantity limits and allowing
exceptions in treatment, storage and disposal standards.based on demonstration by
the owner/operator that less standards are acceptable, does not adequately address
our concern. When we discuss eliminating retailers as a generator, we accept the
fact that many retailers potentially accumulate large volumes of solid waste that
we would not want placed in a municipal landfill withoug adequate controls. When a
generator is defined by the quantity of waste generated alone, we are faced with a
similar dilemma. We can always find the exception where the disposal of some
waste may be acceptable at 100 or even a 1000 kg/month, we would hesitate to accept
other waste at much less quantities.
At the same time, we see problems requiring the same standards for treatment,
storage or disposal of all hazardous waste regardless of quantity, concentration
and effects. The notes accompanying the standards fail to provide the needed
flexibility.
-------
My remarks today and during the next two sessions and our more detailed written
comments being submitted at a later date, are intended to outline acceptable alterna-*
tives, that can be incorporated into these proposed regulations, that meet the requi:
rnent of the Act and provide what we see as necessary to the implementation of a cost
effective hazardous waste management program. This involves a basic requirement to
divide hazardous waste into sub-sets, based on the degree of hazard. We are recommem
identifying two sub-sets of hazardous waste, establishing standards for generators,
transporters and owner/operators commensurate with the level of hazard associated
with each set of waste.
In. our letter of July 5, 1977 commenting"on draft regulations for Section |
3001, we emphasized the need to identify two levels of hazardous waste. We
reiterate that request today.
My remaining comments relate to Subpart A of 40 CFR 250 and recommenda-
tions related to the requirements of Section 3001, RCRA.
7
-------
A10 Thursday, March 1, 1979
Jim Fain, Publisher Ray Manotti, Editor
Governors ignore
good energy plan
The national wire services say the na-
tion's governors reacted with collective in-
difference to the Texas energy plan, a bi-
partisan recommendation presented them
by Gov. Bill Clements. That's sad, because
if they took their heads out of the sand, they
might realize the Texas plan has more vir-
tues than faults.
The plan may disdain environmental con-
trols too broadly, but it recommends dere-
gulation of the oil industry and the channel-
^1 ing of ail windfall energy profits into re-
search and development, and advocates
-
energy sources.
Clements asked for screams of protest
when he suggested Texas might — stress
the word — might, be able to accommodate
a nuclear waste disposal site, something
many states want to avoid.
Eut if Texas is offering an energy plan,
one which advocates diverse sources in-
cluding nuclear power, it would be less than
credible to announce, in effect, "nukes, yes;
wastes, no."
There may be no place in Texas which
-- .iuld make a good waste disposal site.
Tests are going on but with little encourage-
ment. A better place might be in Nevada on
old federal atomic test sites. Clements did
say he agreed with two governors who sug-
gested the federal government put its haz-
ardous wastes on its own land.
The governor's nuclear dump statement
was so dotted with ifs, buts, maybes and the
like, it looked like a fruitcake. And that is a
proper approach to the question, hesitant
and cautious. But it recognizes the problem,
which is a lot more than some other states
have managed.
LADX Ail I KNOW IS
•mATSOME&OayATlKIS
ADDRESS TaD US ID
*i?.vJ»y f;-.,— ^;~<223«-i*
^W^^Is^'H^/Pi^S^-f
iff^gSMiM ^^t
^M^:-^PM il
"1;^xMl ^ r^3s^i_±
(I. iaP VllJt'yv. /?. 1 '*. *4
-------
Comments Subpart A:
We agree with the preamble statement that Section 3001 is the keystone to
Subtitle C. We find it difficult to discuss Subpart A without relating to Subpart
B and Subpart D. And even more difficult, discussing Subparts B and D without
involving A.
The premise of our comments on 40 CFR, Part 250, Subpart A, is to establish
at T& tzx/das-szet/ ^>n?/€
a provision within the regulation that would allow the Regional Administrator\to
classify hazardous waste into two sub-sets. We propose the use of the terms
PRIMARY HAZARDOUS WASTE and SPECIAL WASTE. PRIMARY HAZARDOUS WASTE refers
to the more noxious waste, while SPECIAL WASTE is used to refer to waste that meets I
the hazardous criteria, but there is no reasonable probability of significant
adverse effect on human health or the environment unless the waste is improperly
managed.
The Congress, inadefining hazardous waste in Section 1004(5) of the Act,
establishes the requirement for classifying hazardous waste by its effect and
potential hazard resulting from improper management.
We propose that the following definition be incorporated into Section 250.11:
(b)(3) "Hazardous Waste" has the meaning given in Section 1004(5) of the
Act as further defined and identified in this Subpart.
-------
(i) "PRIMARY HAZARDOUS WASTE" means a sub-set of hazardous waste which causes,
or significantly contributes to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious ^P
irreversible, or incapacititating reversible, illness.
(ii) "SPECIAL WASTE" means a sub-set of hazardous waste which poses a sub-
stantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when im-
properly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
It should be emphasized that the proposed definitions will not result
in any loss of control. All waste will be' subject to manifesting, but special
wastes on a selected basis may have greater exempt quantities and/or may not
require as rigid or inflexible construction standards. £
Primary hazardous waste will include waste that have an acute toxicity
criteria with an LD50 value equal or less than 500 mg/kg or an LC50 value equal
or less than 100 ppm. Waste characterized by significant persistence in the
environment, bioaccumulation, carcinogenic!ty, mutagenicity, or teratogenicity
would be included under primary hazardous waste. Hazardous metals in Section
250.13(d) whose extract levels contain more than 100 times the EPA National
Iterim Drinking Water Standards shall be primary hazardous waste.
Unaer Section 250.13, our proposal is to use the following characteristics
of hazardous waste to describe the characteristics of special waste.
-------
250.13(a) IgniCable waste is a special waste if a representative sample
has the characteristics of subsection (l)(i) and (1)(ii). t
•*.
250.13(b) Corrosive waste is a special was te if a representative sample
has the characteristics of subsection (1) (i).
250.13(c) Reactive waste is a special waste if a representative sample
has the characteristics of subsection (1)(ii).
250.13(d) Toxic waste is a special waste if the acute toxicity LD50 is
greater than 500 mg/kg or the LC50 is greater than 100 ppm. Heavy metals in
Section 250.13(d) whose extract levels contain less than 100 times the EPA
National Interim Drinking Water Standards shall be considered special waste.
The heavy metals classification is consistent with the final report of the
Hazardous Waste Management Task Force of the National Governors' Association.
Because of their quantity, or characteristics, special was tes may become a primary
waste if designated by the appropriate regulatory agency.
Examples from the list of hazardous waste in Section 250.14, Subsection (a),
that would normally be special was tes are:
1. Waste nonhalogenated solvent (such as methanol, acetone, isopropyl
f
alcohol, polyvinyl alcohol, stoddard solvent and methyl ethyl ketone)
4
and solvent sludges from cleaning, compounding milling and other
processes (1,0) ;
-------
2. Waste lubricating oil (T,0) ;
3. Waste hydraulic or cutting oil (T,0) ;
4. Paint wastes (such as used rags, slops, latex sludge, spent solvent)
5. Waterbased paint wastes (T) .
Infectious waste is a hazardous waste if it is included in Class A or
Class B, as classified by the Commission on Hospital Caro, that will be re-
ferenced in the final report of the Hazardous Waste Management Task Force
of the National Governors' Association (NGA). Infectious waste is a special
Q
-------
A workable system for the identification of hazardous waste by level of
hazard has already been developed by the Department of Ecology of the State of
Washington. The Texas Department of Health is actively working upon details of
a system to achieve this purpose.
What we propose to identify as special waste is not removed from the hazard
category, but offers an opportunity to make a simple variance in generator re-
quirements and standards for the treatment, storage or disposal.
The special waste identified by the characteristics we have chosen, although
representing a lower level of hazard, should be controlled through the solid waste
management chain. However, as will be evident from our comments on Subpart B and D,J
we would on a site-specific basis vary the standards for special waste from those
currently proposed to regulate all hazardous waste.
Removing or minimizing the stigma of the term "hazard" and identifying more
flexible standards for a large portion of the hazardous waste stream and allowing
written approval for special waste in lieu of repermitting will make available
municipal solid waste landfills for the continued safe disposal of a majority of
the hazardous waste stream.
-------
-------
John B. Ivey 155 So. Madi«on St
Denver, Colorado
80209
(303)321-6057
Gen. Manager
Curtu L. Amuedo
»ry-Trea«urer
ENVIROLOGIC SYSTEMS INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO THE MINERAL INDUSTRY
Comments of Jim V. Rouse before Public Hearing,
Proposed Section 3001, 3002, and 3004 Regulations
Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Denver, Colorado, March 7-9, 1979
I am grateful for the chance to address this hearing, to
present my views on the effect the regulations, proposed Decem-
ber 18, 1978 under the authority of Subtitle C of the amended
Solid Waste Disposal Act, would have on the mining industry.
These comments are not prepared from the viewpoint of their
specific impact on any single facility, but rather reflect the
views of an individual with a 16 year history with the EPA and
its predecessor agencies as a mining waste specialist, now
serving as environmental consultant to a number of mining oper-
ations. The views offered thus draw on experience (resume
attached) with regulatory agencies and with industry, and are
presented in an attempt to develop fair and workable regula-
tions which will not needlessly damage the industry.
I recognize the difficult task facing the agency, to pre-
pare far-reaching regulations under a short time limit on the
basis of very limited data. I also recognize, from reading
the regulations, that the drafters had little or no working
knowledge of the mining industry and its practices. I would
-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 2
recommend that the agency personnel make a tour of representa-
tive sites prior to the preparation of the final regulations.
I stand ready to assist in the organization and conduct of
such a tour.
I had been encouraged by the approach taken in the Febru-
ary 6, 1978 proposed "Solid Waste Disposal Facilities", in that
recognition of the variations in site conditions and waste char-
acteristics were allowed, and an allowance made for the tremendous
capacity of the vadose zone to sorb metals or radionuclides from
percolating vadose water. This is similar to the approach taken
by the recently developed New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division ground-water protection regulations.
I then was very disappointed to find that the Subtitle C
regulations did not take this progressive approach, but rather
fell back to a single approach incorporating rigid design cri-
teria, which does not recognize variations in waste or site
characteristics, or the sorbtive ability of the vadose zone.
As they now stand, the regulations would require the same care
for radium in a Florida gypsum on limestone, with no vadose
zone and in a sandstone waste rock deposited on shale in cen-
tral Utah, with a 2000 ft. thick vadose zone. The regulations
should be written to allow for waste and site characteristic
variations.
The design criteria are copied from other regulations such
as the Texas Railroad Commission, and do not reflect demonstrated
-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 3
need, or even the practicability of measurements. I would
recommend that specific design criteria be omitted, and the
operator be permitted to tailor the design to the specific
site and waste conditions.
The designation of "hazardous waste" is highly subjective
and lacking in valid demonstrated hazards. There are discrep-
ancies between the approach specified in the preamble, and
the wastes listed in 250.14. For example, the preamble states
wastes will only be listed on the basis of their ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, but the first five wastes
listed under 250.14 (b) (2) are listed because of their proported
"radioactivity", which is the subject of a notice of proposed
rulemaking. Thus it is obvious that EPA has developed a de_
facto criteria for radioactivity, a criteria so stringent as to
include almost all waste generated by the mining industry. We
would recommend omission of the first five wastes in 250.14 (b)
(2) until a reasonable radioactive limit is developed.
The criteria for a "corrosive" waste is defined by 250.13
(b) to include any aqueous waste with a pH equal to or less than
3.0. This would include many streams of Rocky Mountain spring
water draining areas of sulfide mineralization, which frequently
have pH values of 2.3 to 2.8. It would also include Coca-Cola
and other similar soft drinks. A value of 1.5 pH units would
be more reasonable.
-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 4
A "reactive" waste is specified by 250.13 (c) to include
"cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which can generate toxic gases,
vapors, or fumes when exposed to mild acidic or basic conditions."
This definition is vague, does not meet the intent of 250.10(a),
and would probably include virtually all mining waste, depend-
ing on how tightly one applies the definition . More definitive
criteria for reactive wastes are required.
Toxic wastes are defined on the basis of an arbitrary Ex-
traction Procedure, with no attempt to relate the results to
any real hazard. Two of the listed elements (arsenic and se-
lenium) are mobile under oxidizing alkaline conditions, but not
under acidic conditions. This could lead to a false sense of
security, in cases where selenium-bearing waste was exposed to
alkaline conditions. On the other hand, other metals might be
mobilized under the Extraction Procedure but not under expected
site conditions. The testing should duplicate expected field
and waste conditions.
Many of the "wastes" listed in 250.14 (b)(2) are not wastes
at all, but rather are returned to the process. Their inclusion
will needlessly generate requirements of record keeping without
environmental advantages. Examples include copper smelter dusts,
etc. This again demonstrates a need to know the industry.
Section 250.15 provides a mechanism to demonstrate that
a waste is outside the arbitrary EPA criteria, and hence should
not be considered as hazardous. Within this section, 250.15(a)(5)
-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 5
provides a mechanism to demonstrate that a waste is not radio-
active (a non-existent criteria under 250.12). The waste must
contain less than 5 picocuries per gram radium, which automati-
cally means that all marine shales, granites, most bricks, etc.
are "hazardous". In fact, almost any basement excavation in
Denver results in the generation of a "hazardous" waste.
If concentrations are to be used, a limit of 25 to 30
picocuries per gram would be more consistent with the intent.
However, a better approach would be to use the leach tests, to
see what amount of the radium was subject to leaching, and hence
available to the biosphere. Such tests should be run prior to
regulations being drafted.
The definitions for "Attenuation", "Endangerment", and
"Underground Non-Drinking Water Source", found in 250.41, indicate
that, at one time, the Subpart D regulations envisioned an ap-
proach similar to the Sanitary Landfill Criteria, with recogni-
tion of the attenuation provided by vadose and saturated zone
sorbtion, and allowance for naturally-occurring contamination.
Unfortunately, these concepts were omitted from the proposed
regulations, and replaced by a rigid set of design criteria
which do not provide for variations in site or waste character-
istics. In my opinion, all necessary design criteria are con-
tained in Section 250.42-1. Specific design should be left to
the various operators, with allowance made for the concepts as
expressed in the definitions of "attenuation", "endangerment",
and "Underground Non-Drinking Water Source".
-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 6
Many of the subsequent sections of Subpart D are clearly
not applicable for mining wastes. Their inclusion under the
requirements of Section 250.46 demonstrates a lack of under-
standing of the mining industry. Again, we suggest an extensive
tour of representative facilities prior to preparation of the
final regulations, and offer our assistance in arranging for
such a tour.
There is no environmental advantage associated with the
security requirements, although there are significant environ-
mental and economic disadvantages. The material inside the
fence is identical to thousands of tons of similar rock outside
the fence. Similarly, there is no need for a daily inspection
to see that the rock is still inside the fence. The closure and
post-closure requirements are unnecessary except for truly haz-
ardous materials, which do not include mining wastes.
In closing, I recognize that the agency was faced with a
tough job in preparing far-reaching regulations covering a num-
ber of industries they did not understand. Perhaps time
precluded becoming familiar with the industry prior to prepa-
ration of the draft regulations, but it is hoped you can
become familiar with the industry before you finish the final
regulations. I would be glad to assist in this familiarization.
It is important that you understand the wide variation in site
and waste characteristics, and provide sufficient flexibility
to design around these variations, making use of the sorbtive
capacity of the vadose zone.
-------
John B. Ivey
President
Jim V. Rouse
Vice President
Gen. Manager
Curtis L. Amuedo
y-Treasurer
155 So. Madison St
Denver, Colorado
80209
(303)321-6057
ENVIROLOGIC SYSTEMS INC
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO THE MINERAL INDUSTRY
PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT
NAME: Oim V. Rouse
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
Envirologic Systems, Inc.
155 South Madison Street
Suite 239
Denver, Colorado 80209
303/321-6057
HOME ADDRESS:
1528 South Lee
Lakewood, Colorado
80226 303/986-1787
EDUCATION:
Professional Degree, Geological Engineering, Colorado School
of Mines, 1961
M. S., Hydrology, Stanford University, 1968
SPECIAL TRAINING:
U. S. Government training courses:
Water Quality Studies
Control of Oil and Other Hazardous Materials
Geohydrologic Relationships in Water Pollution
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
Society of Mining Engine^--, - AIME
National Water Well Asso; ition - Tech. Section
Association of Engineer!-:j Geologists
Colorado Mining Association
TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE:
September, 1977 to Present
General Manager, Envirologic Systems, Inc. - Environmental consultants for
the mineral industry. During project planning, address such factors as
-------
baseline data collection and analysis, impact mitigation, and project design to
minimize impacts and reduce costs. Serve as client representative during nego-
tiations for permits and licenses, and advise on potential regulations. For
operating facilities, assist in compliance monitoring and in relicensing and
repermitting of plant. Serve as expert witness in public hearings on environ-
mental impact of proposed facilities or practices.
1971 to September, 1977
Environmental Protection Technologist - Mining/Milling, Physical Science
Specialist, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, Denver, Colorado.
Specialist in heavy-metals and radiochemical pollution. Assignments included:
preparation of interim effluent guidance for mining and other industries,
investigation of radiochemical pollution from phosphate mining, specific waste
surveys of gold, iron and uranium mines, development of agency policy on sub-
surface injection of waste, investigations of subsurface movement of landfill
leachate, and others.
1968 to 1971
Colorado River Basins Office, F.W.Q.A.
Team Leader responsible for water quality investigations involving acid mine
drainage, underground nuclear detonations, oil field brines, salt springs,
and uranium milling wastes.
1964 to 1967
Colorado River Basins Salinity Project, U.S.P.H.S. and F.W.Q.A.
Responsible for field personnel conducting investigations of sources of
saline pollutants. Conducted special studies of salt springs and acid mine
drainage. Utilized hydrologic techniques in design of sampling network and
analysis of data.
1964
Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Assoc., Staff Geologist
Staff geologist responsible for design, construction, and testing of large-
capacity water wells for sub-divisions, municipalities, and industries.
1961 to 1963
Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins Project, U.S.P.H.S.
Geologist responsible for ground-water availability and rural land-use studies
in Great Lakes and Illinois River Basins.
-------
PUBLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS:
The Effect of Mining and Milling Wastes on Water Quality (1967) Colo. Mining
Assoc. Meeting-Denver.
Mineral Springs and Other Natural Point Sources of Saline Pollution (1967)
FWPCA open-file report.
Nature, Location, and Magnitude of Salinity Sources in the Colorado River
Basin (1967) FWPCA open-file report.
Mine Drainage and Other Sources of Heavy Metal Pollution in the San Juan
Mountains and Other Portions of the Colorado River Basin (1970) FWPCA, Colo.
River-Bonneville Basins Office.
Mining and Milling Effluent Guidance (1972) Office of Permits Programs, EPA.
Acid Mine Drainage from Hardrock Mines of the West (1972) in Air and Water
Pollution Proceedings, Colo. Assoc. Univ. Press.
Hydro!ogic Relationship of Jefferson County Landfill Leachate and Merramec
Heights Area Springs, Jefferson Co., Missouri (1973) EPA, NFIC-D.
Mineral Pollution in the Colorado River Basin (July 1973) Journal WPCF.
Environmental Aspects of In-Situ Mining and Dump Leaching (1974) Proc. AIME
Solution Meeting.
Radiochemical Pollution from Phosphate Rock Mining and Milling (1974) Proc.
AWRA Water Resources Problems Related to Mining.
Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Waste, Presented at the ASCE Annual
Convention, November 1975.
Radiochemical and Toxic Pollution of Water Resources, Grants Mineral Belt,
New Mexico, Presented at the 105th AIME Annual Meeting, February 1976,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Waste (October 1976) ASCE Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division, Vol. 102, No. E.E5, Proc.
Paper 12447, pp. 929-936.
EPA Requirements with Regard to Water Pollution, Presented at Mackey School
of Mines, Ground Water Hydrology and Mining Short Course, October 11-15, 1976.
Applicable Regulation of In-Situ Mining of Uranium, Presented at 26th
Annual Meeting, Rocky Mountain Section, AAPG, April 3, 1977.
-------
EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY:
October 1971 Enforcement Conference, Cheyenne River, South Dakota
February 1973 Deposition, Reserve Mining Co., Federal Lawsuit
October 1973 Deposition, Jefferson Co. Landfill Leachate Pollution,
Private Lawsuit
January 1975 Public Hearing, New Mexico Ground-Water Pollution Regulations
November 1975 Public Hearing, New Mexico Ground-Water Pollution Regulations
Feburary 1976 Public Hearing, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission,
amendments to Subsurface Injection Regulations
February 1976 Public Hearing, South Dakota Pollution-Control Agency,
modification of Whitewood Creek Stream Standards
June 1976 Public Hearing, New Mexico Ground-Water Pollution Regulations
August 1976 Public Hearing, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission,
proposed uranium in-situ mining operation license
April 1977 Cluff Lake (Sask) Board of Inquiry, proposed uranium mine/mill
license
-------
The League of Women Voters of Colorado
1600 Race Street
Denver, CO. 80206
303 - 320-8493
STATEMENT
of the
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF COLORADO
on Proposed Guidelines and Regulations
Public Hearing in Denver
March 7, 8, 9, 1979
The League of Women Voters of Colorado has requested permission to speak
at these hearings because of our special concern. The dangers of inadequate
hazardous waste handling were apparent to us long before there was nationwide
interest in the subj ect. Residents not far from this building had their water
services contaminated and subsequently abandoned because of disposal practices
«
at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Wildlife and cropland wer^ also harmed when
injection was used as a remedy, the "procedure caused the "Denver Earthquakes"
and had to be stopped. Colorado and Utah are currently involved in debate
over the transportation and disposal of the "weteye" bombs currently stored,
and in some cases leaking, at the arsenal. The Colorado Department of Health
estimates that in Colorado there are approximately 6,311 possible generators
of hazardous waste; 195 possible transporters of hazardous waste and 315
possible processors and/or disposers of hazardous wastes.
A bill (SB 121) introduced this session in the Colorado legislature states
"currently wastes which are hazardous are being disposed of indiscriminately
in sanitary landfills in the state without regard to the location of such
landfills or the hydrology or geography of the landfill site."
-------
The League of Women Voters of Colorado under an EPA grant, presented a
seminar on hazardous waste last sunnier. The purpose- was to raise awareness of
the problems and to explore some of the ways they might be solved. The over-
riding immediate problem identified at the seminar was the lack of a definition
of what will be considered hazardous waste and uncertainty as to what the
standards and regulations will be. We believe that EPA should set the standards
and agree that the states are the preferred level of government for implementa-
tion of this program, so long as they meet the minimum standards. We have both
state and national positions that the states should be allowed to be more
stringent. We urge you to adopt these standards and regulations as soon as
possible so that the states may set their machinery in motion to implement.
Our members found it very difficult to attend the public meetings held by
the state and the EPA prior to this hearing and would suggest at least one of
them should have been held in the Denver metro area. We also suggest that the
structure of the hearings makes it very difficult for people to reach an under-
standing of the total picture. Shorter sessions, perhaps three days of the
same general program might make citizen participation more meaningful.
3001 - In terms of citizen participation we request that public notice be
required whenever the results of-a demonstration of non-inclusion in the
hazardous waste system results in the material being excluded. Perhaps it
could be patterned after the water discharge permit system in which there is
public notice soliciting public comment. We do not feel that a person must show
that he is aggrieved, but only that there is a reasonable doubt as to the public
health or the environmental effects of the decision. This would allow for the
possibility of new data on harm to human health to be introduced.
3002 - We are uncomfortable with the 100 KG exemption as proposed although
it may make sense to control the large amounts first. Any exemptions should
be based solely on the protection of human health and the environment. Once
-2-
-------
the program has been implemented as proposed, a combination of option 3 and 5
might be initiated. The exemption might be based on the degrer- of hazard with
lesser administrative requirements for the generators of smaller amounts. We
support the requirement for annual renewal of exemption. Since Colorado has a
history of hazardous waste accidents we would support a requirement for con-
tingency spill plans for generators which store hazardous waste less than 90
days. The "cradle to grave" concept should include inclusive contingency plans.
The plan may be part of the contingency or emergency plan of the? generator.
300*1 - We support the use of the Human Health and Environmental standards
and of design and operating standards as a way to assist the regulated community.
We do not support the frequent use of notes authorizing deviations. We object
to the phrase at the time a permit is issued "in the notes because of the effects
on performance of such variables as weather, instruction and makeup of the
waste stream." The time a permit is issued may not be representative of
conditions.
Specific notes with which we take exception include:
1. Ploodplain: The act of building a structure in a floodplain would cause
that floodplain to change. If a facility is allowed in the floodplain, what
protection from flooding is provided for those structures put in jeopardy by
the new floodplain boundaries?
2. Recharge zone of sole source aquifer: any exemptions must be able to
demonstrate no endangerment of the sole source aquifer at any time in the future.
Special Wastes: Colorado currently has problems with power plant fly ash
and with mining wastes. We're concerned about how you will handle those wastes.
Our position is that the federal government should encourage recycling of
post-industrial and post-consumer wastes. We support assistance for recycling
facilities and waste exchanges.
-3-
-------
Statement of Howard Runion
on behalf of
the American Petroleum Institute
before the
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Denver, Colorado
My name is Howard Runion and I am currently employed as Manager . * p
QiL C&flf T+e(*J 4H *Js tf*t 1 f £** i K*W4'W'*'
Sciences Department, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. My formal graduate x^c^t*
training includes an MA in Zoology and MPH in Environmental and I
Occupational Health. £
r
r
I am here today on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute (APT) l
i.
to discuss the implications for industry and the country of the [.'
pigfcosed regulations under Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation I
- -
and Recovery Act (RCRA) as published in the Federal Register, on \
1 I
December 18, 1978. , p
f
\
I am joined today- by Dr. Ray Harbison, a Toxicologist at \
Vanderbilt Medical Center, Mr. Jeff Jones, a regulatory policy
analyst with Industrial Technological Associates, Inc., Mr. John
Fitzpatrick, an attorney with Gulf Oil Company, Mr. Stephen
Williams, an attorney and staff member of the American Petroleum
Institute and Dr. Steven Swanson, an economist and staff member
with API.
Since the enactment of RCRA, API has been participating in the
development of the proposed regulations through the submission of
co%nents to and conferences with EPA personnel. We have been
impressed by the serious commitment of the members of the Office of
Solid Waste to prepare a regulatory program which addresses
-------
-2-
eaith and environmental issue; Furthermore, we have appeared in
:ourt to support EPA in its attempts to obtain the requisite time ''
o promulgate realistic, workable regulations. However, despite
:he time granted by Judge Gesell, API has had a scant three months
:o review intensively this nenr and comprehensive program. The
I
ihoughts we share with you today require further refinement,
expansion, and reinforcement. We shall seek relief in the fprm of'
idditional time for specific projects underway, however we will have '
substantial input ready for EPA by the March 16, 1979 deadline. \
API views the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as >a
logical extension of other environmental legislation for control of \
environmental pollution and we are in accord with the mandate! of EPA,;,,,
to^egulate the disposal, handling and storage of industrial residues!.
W . - • 1
he primary purpose of our presentation today is to present to the \
i ;
PA our concerns about the process which EPA has proposed to '
designate industrial residues as hazardous wastes. ' \
• '
We are particularly concerned that EPA, in a sincere attempt , jr |
to develop "simple" and "inexpensive" methods for waste classification,!
has adopted an approach which when applied, will so dilute industry's I
and government's scarce resources as to compromise efforts to
eliminate the serious environmental hazards. API believes that
Congress in enacting RCRA, intended that a flexible program be '
developed which (1) identifies wastes as "hazardous" based upon the
; i
degree of risk they pose to human health and the'.environment, and j
• T«fl^T d?4»
tailors control efforts^commensurate with the degree of risk
1
and which can be expected to reduce that risk. Moreover, Congress
-------
-3- .
indicated that the "hazard" a waste presents is a product of "its
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
:haracteristics." (Section 1004(5)). - t-
i
f
EPA has elected to focus its regulatory scheme on the physical [
^«k'»|l«l T* <^l^O f'tpV ^ilildlncht*' i
ind chemical characteristics of waste, thereby i^uei'liig ethe*c I
iharacteristics such as volume and degradability which are^germane |
:o an assessment of risk. Furthermore, for those wastes listed
:he Agency has neither demonstrated with field experience nor provided-- [
locumentation with epidemiological studies, that the designated
astes have significantly contributed to an increase in mortality
r an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating,reversible
llnesses. Instead they have relied upon other statutes or regulatory
rq^ams, and inconclusive incidents of "harm" to. conclude that the
astes listed "pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
uman health or the environment."
Under the proposal being advanced by the Agency in Section 3001,
he definition section, most, if hot all, of the petrpleum industry's
astes will be designated as hazardous. Our industry, like many
thers will then be forced to comply with a series of preordained,
\ \
ostly compliance standards which do not differentiate! degrees o#
.ypes of hazard posed by these wastes. / \
• i >
The overly broad designation scheme which EPA has proposed \
1 \
•esults at least in part from the Agency's failure to consider
;eriously other factors bearing on hazard determinations such as
leg^dability, persistence, dose and probability of exposure. For
ixample, exposure considerations are necessary to determine which
rastes "significantly contribute to an increase in mortality and
:nd pose a substantial hazard to human health." -
-------
-4-
In Section 3001 EPA has:
• Identified a group of characteristics (i.e., toxicity, :
corrosivity, ignitability,and reactivity) to determine
whether a waste is hazardous; |
• Prescribed a series of tests to determine whether a T
waste possesses these characteristics;
t Listed a series of wastes which they claim possess some [
or all of these characteristics and others for which
< tests have not been prescribed (eg. mutagenicity,
teratogenicity.) ;
i, -'
i;
We cannot determine whether the wastes which are listed have i
i
failed any of the prescribed test nor any other test for character- f
istics for which tests have not been described. Finally, test
results for the purpose of determining whether a waste is hazardous
are not used to establish a differentiated degree of risk. The
disregard for degree of risk stems from a conceptual flaw, which f
is that the proposed regulations do not consider exposure. |\
c"
In light of these criticisms, we feel it is incumbent on'us//'*4 M*w'rtf
to offer positive suggestions for correcting the deficiencies we . i
have identified. For that reason, I'd like to spend a few moments ;',
t:'
describing some of the critical elements of alternative approaches •:.
/ fc
to hazardous waste regulation. We are continuing to refine these
alternatives as the March 16 deadline approaches so I can only speak
generally today. j
i
^ In broad terms, the API alternative depends on a risk assessment ;
approach to regulation. Our risk assessment procedures provide in
-------
the first phase for a ranking of potentially hazardous wastes
ac«:ding to chemical and toxicological risk. Rather than a
simplistic hazard/no hazard designation, API proposes to distinguish
more carefully among wastes of widely varying hazard. We believe
our approach more fully exploits the results of testing by taking
into account all of the information generated by the prescribed series
of tests, in order to differentiate among degrees of risk. As
currently proposed EPA uses the tests only to determine whether a
passes or fails a hazardous/riot hazardous determination.
In the second phase of our alternative EPA would combine what £.
* '('
I will call exposure factors with first phase results. By exposure t,
factors I mean particular site, operational, and management factors. i
Our objective in this phase is to overcome EPA's across-the-board |
f
!
application of the 10-fold dilution factor as a substitute for adequate !
exposure analysis. We intend to develop and justify a system that K
provides for varying exposure factors. Additionally, we intend . '
that this type of exposure analysis will be utilized for all wastes, |
t
whether they are listed or:;not. \'
r
Under the API scheme, once the overall hazard assessment is r
complete, EPA would tailor the regulatory requirements to the degree
of hazard. In other words, just as API proposes a scale for hazard
assessment, we also.envision a system that varied the stringency of
/
regulatory requirements according to the degree of hazard.
In addition to the overall risk assessment approach API will
also propose a procedural adjustment to EPA's listing process that
overcomes the problems discussed earlier.
-------
To correct these problems API suggest*that EPA clearly identify
teria and scientific data that were used in the listing.process^
irther, API recommends that the initial listing of wastes be a
•esumptive listing, with an opportunity for public comment. During
le comment period, industry would have the opportunity to supply ,
le Agency with information that might rebut this presumption. \
We appreciate the opportunity to offer our views in this , -
arum and we will be working diligently in the next week to more
• i
ully develop the ideas I've discussed this morning. We are prepared
t this time to answer any questions the panel may have. i
-------
Statement ot Kenneth Lunu
on benaif of
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
ana
Edison Electric Institute
Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations to
Implement Sections 3001—3004 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 7, 1979
Denver, Colorado
Good morning. My name is Kenneth Ladd. I am
employed as Senior Environmentalist by the Southwestern
Public Service Company of Amarillo, Texas. I am also
Chairman of the Resource Recovery & Utilization Technical
Committee of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
("USWAG"), and am appearing today on behalf of USWAG and
the Edison Electric Institute.
For those of you not familiar with USWAG, let me
briefly describe the group. USWAG is an informal consortium
of electric utilities and the Edison Electric Institute.
Currently, over 70 utility., operating companies are partici-
pants in USWAG. These companies own and operate a substantial
percentage of the electric generation capacity in the United
States. EEI is the principal national association of investor-
owned electric light and power companies.
The Technical Committee that I chair focuses on is-
sues relating to the reuse of utility by-products, including
fly ash, bottom ash, scrubber sludge, and boiler slag. En-
couragement of these reuses is both environmentally and eco-
nomically significant. For example, at Southwestern Public
-------
Service Company — a relatively small utility — we generate
400 tons a day of ash. If reuse were impossible, we would be
required to spend — even without RCRA subtitle C requirements
— $ ao"*(0 per ton to dispose of this ash, and to dedicate many
acres to this purpose. Fortunately, however, all of this ash
is marketable in our area, and, although we do not make a pro-
fit on its sale/ we have substantially lowered our "disposal"
costs.
(I might note parenthetically at this point that
we occasionally find it necessary to accumulate ash for
considerable periods of time in order to have enough to
make marketing feasible. This fact seems to have been ig-
nored by EPA in its arbitrary proposal of a 90 day cutoff
to distinguish when a person accumulating waste on-site en-
gages in "storage" and becomes a TSDF. At least as to
utility by-products, this period is totally inappropriate,
and would certainly impede our resource recovery efforts
if implemented.)
As I mentioned a moment ago, Southwestern Pub-
lic Service's activities represent only a small portion
of the reuse of utility by-products. Reuses have been
growing remarkably over the last ten years. In 1966, 3.1
million tons of fly ash, botton ash and slag were reused;
in 1977, this figure had increased to 14 million tons.
-------
This represents an increase of from 3% of the total material
generated to 20.7%. This increase in reuse has largely been
possible because, after great effort, we have managed to see
major, recognized specifications for concrete products and si-
milar materials revised to allow use of ash. This effort has
greatly benefited from strong endorsements of the use of ash
from the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of En-
gineers, the Bureau of Mines, and other Federal and State gov-
ernment agencies.
J
I understand that in a number of previous hear-
ings on these proposed RCRA regulations, members of the panel
have asked why the utility industry is concerned with the Sub-
title C regulations. It has been suggested by the panel that
there is no reason to believe that fly ash and other utility
by-products are "hazardous," and thus regulated under these
rules, and that therefore-the utility industry should not be
concerned. But let me indicate today one important reason
why we are concerned: .the proposed regulations on their face
presume the hazardousness of utility by-products, and have
hung a label of "hazardous" on them, and thus may severely
limit or even eliminate the reuse of these materials.
For example, in the preamble to the proposed re-
gulations, EPA presupposes the "hazardousness" of fly ash.
The preamble states that "the Agency [has] realized that some
portions of certain high volume wastes" — including utility
-------
wastes — "will be hazardous under Subpart A," and continues.
"The Agency is calling these high volume hazardous waste
"special waste". . . "(pp. 58991-92). In short, the EPA is
assuming that large volumes of fly ash are "hazardous."
In addition, the proposed interim regulations for
utility wastes are buried in the regulations implementing
"section 3004" of RCRA — which regulations apply only to
"hazardous waste." Again, EPA seems to be endorsing the
conclusion that utility by-products are hazardous, rather
then simply indicating it isn't sure about these materials.
(We hasten to note that we strongly believe that
the Agency in fact has no basis for concern with regard to
utility wastes, which, we submit, constitute no substantial
threat to human health or the environment whether reused or
disposed of.)
The result of these proposed regulations is to
hang a public label of -"hazardous" on fly ash and other uti-
lity by-products. This will have a number of inappropriate
effects. First, it will substantially limit the market for
these materials: one simply cannot expect a home owner to be
willing to use "non-spec readi-raix concrete" in the foundation
for his new home after EPA has labeled a major constituent of
the readi-mix as "hazardous." Second, it will deter develop-
ment of new uses for utility byproducts, despite considerable
-------
promising R&D work. Third, it will deter many potential cus-
tomers from even considering the substitution of ash for vir-
gin or alternative materials, in order to avoid the nightmare
of paperwork that is likely to result under RCRA.
This paperwork problem is an important one. When
we try to develop markets for fly ash and bottom ash, we are
competing with other, locally-available products — including,
in some cases, dirt. We do not have any substantial price
advantage over these alternative products. Thus, every
additional penny per ton cost that is added to ash, and every
extra regulatory complication, decreases the potential re-
use of this material.
We believe this result directly contradicts the
intent of Congress in enacting RCRA, which was, after all,
to promote resource conservation and recovery.
Of course, there are substantial regional variations
in costs of reusing utility by-products. For example, a
major element in ash marketing costs are transporation costs.
For this reason, we strongly object to the portions of the
proposed Section 3003 regulations that would require shipment
of fly ash in specially-designed and placarded vehicles.
There simply is no need for this. There generally isn't even
a need for tarps on top of dump trucks carrying ash, since
once wetted, the ash does not create dust or cause any other
environmental problem.
-------
- b -
Ladies and Gentlemen, there is an enormous potential
market for fly ash and other utility by-products in the United
ffe-a
States. Speaking in Atlanta, Georgia, on tlaroh 26, Ms. Penelope
Hanson of the EPA cited figures that indicated that the re-
use of fly ash in federally-sponsored concrete construction
could save tax-payers 10-15% of the cost of those projects.
She also indicated that a 20% use of fly ash in cement would
result in a 15% savings in the amount of .energy used to pro-
duce that cement. As a result, a different division of EPA
than the one holding this hearing has put 50% of its effort
in developing regulations to promote the use of ash in Federal
construction. Yet these policies will be substantially under-
cut by the regulations now proposed under Subtitle C of RCRA.
USWAG will file detailed comments with EPA that will
set forth a number of alternatives to the arbitrary approach
to implementation of RCRA reflected in these proposed regula-
tions. Let me just summarize a few of our suggestions today:
First, EPA should adopt an appropriate method to
define "hazardous waste," based on a recognition that only
discarded materials are wastes, and reflecting realistic
consideration of the actual environmental impacts from dis-
posal of wastes.
-------
- 7 -
Second, EPA should include in its proposed regula-
tions a "commercial product standard" that will allow use of
recovered materials in place of virgin materials, if the
recovered materials have no significantly different impact on
the environment than the virgin naterials, and that will not
subject the reused materials to any regulatory requirements.
Third, if EPA concludes that it cannot yet make a
decision as to whether some utility waste products may be
hazardous in some situations, EPA should adopt only such
regulations as are necessary to keep track of utility waste
disposal — at the least possible economic and operational
impact — until the Agency's concerns have been factually
addressed. The Agency should set forth these regulations in
a subpart of regulations that clearly establishes that no
decision has yet been reached as to the "hazardousness" of
utility wastes, and should assure that no steps are taken
in the interim period, before completion of any review of
utility waste disposal, that will interfere with the market-
ing and reuse of environmentally innocuous fly ash, bottom
ash, and other utility by-products.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning,
and would be happy to answer your questions to the extent I
am able.
-------
-------
STATEMENT
OF
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PUBLIC HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HOLIDAY INN - AIRPORT
DENVER, COLORADO
MARCH 7, 8, 9, 1979
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
SECTIONS 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004
-------
My name is Richard H. Dreith, I am a Staff Engineer in the
Environmental Affairs Department of the Shell Oil Company. Shell Oil
and its Divisions are pleased to comment on the proposed "Hazardous
Waste Guidelines and Regulations" appearing in the December 18, 1978
"Federal Register". Shell Oil Company is an integrated oil company
involved in oil and gas production, refining, chemical manufacturing,
transportation, marketing, and mining activities. We have facilities
for producing, transporting, manufacturing and marketing of Shell products
in forty-four of our fifty states. Activities of our subsidiaries are
involved with products that range from agricultural chemicals to plastics.
Because of our wide range of activities nationally, we are vitally
interested in the development of workable national solid and hazardous
waste guidelines and regulations.
Scope of Shell Comments
We have participated with the Aaency in commenting on drafts
and proposals throughout the solid waste regulation development process.
We are also participating in the preparation of comments and recommendations
to be submitted by the American Petroleum Institute and the Manufacturing
Chemists Association and other industrial associations relating to the
December 18, 1978 draft of the regulation. We support the submittals of -
the API and MCA as representing certain general and specific concerns
held by Shell. We wish, however, to offer the followina additional
comments and recommendations summarizing Shell's views on the proposed
hazardous waste regulations.
Corporate Policy, RCRA and Existing State Programs
Our corporation's written public policies state that we will
strive to attain environmentally acceptable disposal techniques for all
-------
of our wastes. In our view Shell's committment to achieving environmentally
acceptable disposal methods is consistent with our understanding of the
legislative intent of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
as it applies to waste disposal.
In addition, our activities in Texas and California are subject
to state hazardous waste management regulations. These state programs
are proving to be effective in maintaining acceptable control of hazardous
waste activities consistent with the intent of RCRA; therefore, we
support such state programs.
General Concern with Proposal Approach
We have some concerns with specific'issues that appear to
permeate the proposed regulations and would like to recommend conceptual
changes in the overall approach so that the regulations will reflect
more closely the mandate of the federal legislation.
Suggest Following Path Similar to Air and Water Act Implementation -
Your overview comments state that reliance is placed on "waste specific-
standards versus industry specific standards". Further, "EPA experts
believe that most waste classified as hazardous requires similar management
techniques . . .with respect to performance, design and operating
standards for treatment, storage and disposal facilities". We suggest a
much more site-specific and industry-specific approach to standards is
possible and workable. Examples of present performance standards are
set forth below: 1) The Clean Air Act contains provisions which require
that air emissions meet existing ambient air standards and establish new
limits where standards do not exist; 2) Surface runoff is addressed under f
the Clean Water Act; and 3) The Safe Drinking Water Act when implemented
-------
will likely contain standards relating to subsurface leachate. We are
suggesting that, under these existing Acts, waste disposal on and in the
land should be allowed to continue.
Regulations under RCRA should recognize the assignation and
retention capacities of soil to receive and retain contaminants and that
the retention can be verified by monitoring wells near the disposal
site. The allowable leachate quality should depend on site-specific
performance standards which accurately reflect the potential for inflicting
harm to human health and the environment based upon the specific geological
parameters of the particular site.
A site-specific based regulatory scheme would need to grant
considerable discretionary authority to administer an effective waste
management program. The effective use of this discretionary authority
has proven effective in the implementation of the Clean Air and Water
Acts and the Texas Industrial "Solid Waste Management program, A similar
approach would be effective in administering a workable RCRA program. j
u^^
Burden of Proof of Compliance with Site-Specific Standards*with
the Site Operator - Assuming site-specific standards are established
as disposal permit conditions in order to more accurately reflect the
potential for contamination of usable aquifers, monitoring wells can
ensure compliance with the site-specific leachate standards. A hydrogeological
study of the area can be used to establish monitoring well placement and
the information obtained from such wells can be used to check compliance.
For existing facilities we recommend that monitoring wells be allowed to
establish compliance with site-specific leachate quality standards, 4
-------
rather than requiring costly retrofitting of facilities in order to meet
rigid arbitrary liner thicknesses specified to avoid any groundwater
contamination.
Guidelines for designing new facilities to meet essentially no
contaminant release can specify a liner thickness to maintain the integrity
of the liner and thereby meet a performance standard; however, for
existing facilities the most practical approach is to recognize the
contamination release potential of the specific-site and require retrofitting
only for those facilities which cannot meet the performance standards.
Suggested General Alterations to Proposal
Tone is too rigid - While we recognize the "note" system which
suggests that "equivalency" to rigid engineering standards can be
demonstrated, we question the legality and workability of this approach
and propose a system similar to that used in Texas be adopted. The
Texas system sets general performance standards and provides guidelines
to meet those standards.
In some instances literal compliance with the proposed standards
appears impossible; i.e. strict requirements of proving a negative. In
addition, prohibiting wastes to be stored or accumulated in certain
facilities places in jeopardy the use of facilities considered acceptable
in spill containment plans called for under the Hater Act.
Hazardous Haste Definition is too Broad - The proposal defines
hazardous waste characteristics so broadly that essentially all wastes
generated in our industry will be classified as hazardous waste. We
urge a concept of "degree of hazard" be adopted along with a consistent
degree of environmentally secure disposal. This approach would allow
-------
greater flexibility in the classification of wastes and the most effective
use of disposal capacity which may well become or is the limiting
factor in implementing waste management programs.
Specific Issues Summary - The attachments list additional concerns
expressed in summary form and directed to specific sections and paragraphs
in the proposed regulations. A more detailed presentation of these and
other comments will be discussed in statements submitted by the API and
MCA.
We offer these comments, suggestions and recommendations with
full recognition of the formidable task of promulgating workable regulations.
The experience with development and implementation of the air and water
regulations and existing state hazardous waste regulations yields confidence f
that the task can be accomplished. Flexibility in meeting performance
standards coupled with discretionary authority to allow a site-specific
approach to compliance is the most workable scheme without compromising
environmentally sound waste disposal.
We look forward to continued involvement in the regulatory
development activity and trust that our participation is constructive.
-------
Issues On Subpart A-Section 3001
Identification And listing of Hazardous Waste
250.10 (b)(2)(a) Definition of "Waste" - "other discarded material"
should be redefined to exclude waste such as "waste oil" for which
a commercial market exists or has heating value.
250.10 (d)(l)(i) Arbitrary Declaration of Hazardous Haste - The DOT
regulations pursuant to 49 CFR, Part 170-189 and proposed regulations
published in "Federal Register" of May 25, 1978, do not permit a
shipper to arbitrarily classify materials as a hazard subject to
its regulations.
250.13 Definition of "Hazardous" - Too broadly defined such that
many common materials will be classified as hazardous. Degree of
hazard should be considered in setting applicable standards.
250.13 (a)(2) Inconsistent Testing Requirements - This section
omits the Tag Closed Tester (ASTM D-56-70) as an identification
method that is now authorized by the DOT in 49 CFR and 173.115 (d).
250.13 (d) The Toxicant Extraction Procedure - This procedure has
not been verified by the Scientific Community as a valid test
procedure.
250.14 Addition of List of Exempted Wastes - There should be incorporated
into the listing of waste a category for substances which are
exempt from the hazardous waste regulation. Possibly, the wastes
could be classified as nonhazardous, relatively low hazard, and
hazardous.
250.14 (a), (b)(2) -Broad Category of Listed Wastes - EPA has
identified only four criteria to determine whether a waste is
hazardous, yet it has identified wastes which have been placed on
the list for other criteria ie mutagenic, toxic organic, radioactive,
infectious etc.
250.15 (a)(b) Procedure for Biological Testing of Wastes - These
procedures are not and have not been demonstrated to be ready for
routine daily use. Even the Agency requests comments on these
tests in the December 18, 1978 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
250.5 (c)(4) Certification of Laboratory Analysis - The certification
should read "to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief"
because the person signing the certification may not have been
intimately involved in running the tests.
-------
Issues On Subpart B-Section 3002
Standards Applicable To Generators Of Hazardous Waste
General - Degree of Hazard - The regulations should reflect degree
of hazard waste. The 100 kg/month exclusion should be adjusted
accordingly.
250.20 (b) State Program Requirements - States should not supplement
the manifest format. The Agency should strive for a uniform system
nationwide.
250.20 (c) Declaration - Generators should be allowed to declare
themselves subject to the regulations.
250.20 (c) (2) The 90-Day Storage Exclusion - Should be adjusted
upward to allow time to accumulate economic shipment quantities.
250.21 (a) General Definitions - All definitions should be spelled
out in the regulations in their entirety instead of referring to
the Act. This leads to great confusion, requiring generators to
refer to a number of different sources for compliance with regulations.
250.21 (b)(9) Definition of Generator - The term generator needs
further clarification to show that "person" means and pertains only
to a facility that produces in excess of 220 pounds per month of
hazardous waste. Other facilities owned by the same entity but
producing less than 200 "pounds should not be considered generators
in this part.
250.21 (b)(18) On-Site - Should be extended to sites under generators
control but not contiguous to generators plant in remote locations.
250.22 Co-Publish with DOT - These regulations should be published
by DOT in 49 CFR to avoid confusion and misunderstanding in attempting
to comply with both DOT and EPA regulations.
250.22 (f)(3) Multiple Shipments - On multiple shipments the
hazard class of each part of a shipment should be listed on the
manifest and also clearly labeled.
250.22 (h)(5), (h)(6), (h.)(7) Manifest Requirements for Laboratory
Wastes - For miscellaneous laboratory wastes, the identification of
each hazardous waste is impossible as presently proposed. General
identification based on DOT classifications could be made workable.
250.22 (h)(8) Format Variance on Manifest - Directions for action
to be taken in case of emergency should be allowed as an attachment
to the manifest instead of an absolute requirement that it be on_
the manifest,
-------
250.22 (h)(8) and (9) Interagency Coordination in Spill Notification -
EPA should coordinate with other Governmental Agencies so that only |
one Agency need be notified of an incident and other agencies would
be notified by the Central Receiving entity (i.e. Coast Guard
Emergency Assistance).
250.22 (h)(9) Manifest Spill Requirement - The manifest should
caution the transporter to comply with applicable DOT and Water Act
Spill notification requirements.
250.23 Reporting - Should clearly allow reports from each plant
site.
250.23 (b)(9), (c)(9), (d)(9), (g)(9), h(9) Certification - The
certification should read "to the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief".
250.23 (c)(8) Exception Reporting - This section should be revised
to require the generator to show that a hazardous waste shipment
was accepted by a licensed carrier and it is the carrier's responsibility
to fulfill the requirements of locating the final disposition of
the waste.
250.25 Containers - Storage on-site for later shipment should not
require DOT specified containers but only environmentally sound
containers.
250.25 (a) Inconsistency with DOT Regulations - This section omits
labeling requirements of other DOT title 49 CFR Part 172.
250.26 (a) Inconsistency^ with DOT Regulations - This section requiring
generators to placard each shipment is in contradiction to DOT
regulations in DOT title 49 CFR Part 172.
250.26 (b) Label ing-Practices - This section needs to be clarified
and the reference to 49 CFR part 172 corrected.
250.29 (a) Exemption - This section exempts any person who
produces and disposes of no more than TOO kilograms of hazardous
waste in any one month period. It should be based on a yearly
average to minimize the burden on those generators who may only
have an occasional excursion above the 100 Kg limit.
-------
Issues On Subpart C-Section 3003
Standards Applicable To Transporters Of Hazardous Waste
250.30 (c) Consistent with DOT Regulations - This section omits DOT
regulations under 49 CFR part 172 and 173 which must be complied
with.
250.31 (j) Definition of "Spill" - This term should be consistent
with the definition given in 250.21 (b)(26).
250.34 (e) Container Condition - This section states that a transporter
shall not transport containers which are leaking. It should be
changed to "shall not accept for transportation or transport",
because the containers could become damaged and leaking in transit.
250.35 (c) Consistent Manifest Format - The manifest described here
and in 250.22 (h) are not the sained One or both of these sections
should be revised to be consistent with each other. Also, the
format should be suggested only and allowances made for variation
in format or use of a computerized format.
250.35 (c)(l)(i) Consistency with other Sections - This section
does not require the delivery document to show the transporters
identification code whereas 250.32 (c) does. Both should be identical.
-------
Issues On.Subpart D-Section 3004
Standards -For Owners And Operators Of Hazardous Haste
Treatment, Storage And Disposal Facilities
Preamble 43 Federal Register 58984, Column 2 Inactive Facilities -
While inactive facilities are to be exempted portions of active
facilities that are currently inactive should also be exempted.
250.40 (c)(2)(VIII)(A) and (B) Interim Status Requirements -This
paragraph reauires each owner/operator of a facility receiving
hazardous waste to provide a cash deposit equal to the closure cost
and the estimated cost of complying with the post-closure monitoring
and maintenance on the effective date of these regulations.
It is recommended that additional time be given to existing facilities
to provide these cash deposits because it is anticipated that
significant changes in the proposed regulations will occur. Alternate
language suggested is: "Each owner/operator of a facility receiving
hazardous waste as defined in subpart A on the effective date of
these regulations shall provide a cash deposit equal to the entire
amount of the estimated closure costs of the facility and the post-
closure monitoring and maintenance requirements at the time a
permit application is submitted for approval."
250.41 (a)(2) Definition of Disposal - The term "disposal" has been
given the meaning as found in the Act. However, it is recommended
that the word "intentional" be inserted before "discharged" since
many "non-intentional" incidents will fall under the catch-all term
"disposal". It is our belief that only those willful Acts of
"spilling" and "leaking" were to be regulated.
250.41 (83) Storage Facility - Temporary storage time of 90 days
should be extended to allow accumulation of economic quantities for
shipment.
250.41 (b)(28) Distinction Between New and Existing Facilities -
Flexibility should be provided to allow existing facilities which
may not fully meet equivalent EPA design and operating standards to
continue operating until compliance can be reached after a reasonable
time period.
250.42 Inclusion of Regulations Under Other Statutes - RCRA should
not incorporate unknown future regulatory changes under other
statutes.
250.42-2 Double Jeopardy - Facilities being operated pursuant to
this section would potentially be liable under both RCRA and CWA.
There needs to be a separation of responsibilities between these
two laws.
-------
250.43 Storm Water Runoff Contaminant - This section requires
diversion structures for surface water runoff from 24-hour, 25-year
storm which is inconsistent with OSM Regulations for detention time
requirements of such surface water runoff (30 CFR Section 816.46).
250.43-250.45-6 Variances or Alternative Standards - Should allow
greater flexibility through a general variance for a facility not
meeting the design and operating standards if it can meet health
and environmental standards or equivalent performance.
250.43-1 General Site Selection - Standards too restrictive and
rules out many industrial areas in river valleys and the Gulf
Coast.
250.43-1 Facility Siting - The restriction of facility siting in
coastal high risk areas, 500-year flood plains, wetlands, is
unwarranted.
250.43-2 Security Requirements - Security requirements for
six-foot fence and control gates are unnecessary where operations
are manned 24-hours-a-day. For remote locations, where the possibility
of public exposure is very limited, minimal fencing to keep livestock
and other wildlife out should more than adequately suffice.
250.43-5 (a), (b)(l), (b)(6), (c)(5), (c)(6) Pipeline Transportation
of Waste - To avoid unnecessary paperwork for Agency and permitters
alike, the requirement for manifesting brine delivered by pipeline .
from one lease to a central plant on another lease should be eliminated. \
Brine transported by truck should be manifested.
250.43-9 (a)(l)(ii) Flexibility in Financial Responsibility for
Facility Closure - Alternatives such as self-certification, surety
bonds or letters of credit should be allowed. In addition, a
stipulated maximum level for all similar funds nationwide should be
established so that.inordinate amounts of capital are not unavailable
for productive investments.
250.43-9 (a)(2)(ii) Flexibility in Financial Responsibility for
Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance - Same discussion as above.
250.43-9 (b)(l)(i) and (b)(l)(iii) Clarification of Insurance
Needs - As presently written, this section calls for a facility
to show evidence of financial responsibility per occurrence per
site. The "per site" should be omitted since insurance policies
are normally written on a per occurrence basis for any site belonging
to the insured. In addition, the proposed rules placed an annual
aggregate of $10 million for non-sudden occurrences, however,
aggregate limits for sudden occurrences were not addressed. It is
recommended that an annual aggregate limit of $50 million be
established for sudden and accidential occurrences.
4
-------
For multiple sites, it is recommended that financial responsibility
of an maximum annual aggregate limit of $50 million for ten or more
sites be established which parallels proposed rules by the US Coast
Guard for setting rules to implement the DCS Pollution Liability
and Compensation Act. In addition, the limitation of self-insurance
to 10% of owners equity should be deleted for companies with more
than 10 sites.
250.45-3,4,6 Coverage of NPDES Facilities - NPDES facilities should
be regulated under the Water Act and at most should be subject to
less stringent standards proposed for special wastes.
250.45 Inappropriate Use of OSHA Standard - The American Congress
of Governmental Industrial Hygienist have prefaced the use of TLV's
by stating "these limits are intended for use in the practice of
industrial hygiene and should be interpreted and applied only by a
person trained in this discipline. They are not intended for use,
or for modification for use 1) as a relative index of toxicity, 2)
in evaluation or control of community air pollution nuisances...".
Thus the agency which developed the list specifically provided that
it not be used for the purpose as proposed in this section.
250.45-2 Consistency with Other Regulations --Siting and operation
of landfills need to be consistent with both existing 208 plans
under the Clean Water Act and any regulations promulgated by RCRA.
250.45-3 Monitoring - Monitoring requirements of RCRA should be
consistent with monitoring requirements of OSM (Office of Surface
Mining) regulations (30 CFR Section 780.21).
250.45-3 Duplication of Coverage - It is inappropriate to apply
RCRA standards to hazardous waste impoundments which are subject to
pretreatment standards and/or a NPDES permit especially if such
impoundments show no signs of leaching to groundwater. In addition,
this would constitute duplicative regulations in violation of
Section 1006 of the Act.
250.46-6 Inconsistencies for Special Waste - This section should be
amended to eliminate inconsistencies in the record keeping and
monitoring for oil field wastes.
250.46-6 Special Waste Standards - The scope of facilities covered
should be extended to surface impoundments used in the oil field
for emergency and safety purposes. Other types of impoundments
found in the oil field operations of less than one-fourth of an
acre should be exempted.
-------
February 9, 1979
Epidemiological Evaluation of Cancer Incidence Rates for the Period 1969-1971 in Areas
of Census Tracts with Measured Concentrations of Plutonium Soil Contamination Down-
wind from the Rocky Flats Plant*
Carl J. Johnson, M.D., M.P.H.**
A large area of land, primarily to the east and southeast of the Rocky Flats
plant in Jefferson County, Colorado is contaminated with plutonium (1-3). Concen-
trations in the respirable dust on the surface of the soil on private land offsite range
as high as 3390 times the background from fallout due to weapons testing (4)» Plutonium
239 is the predominant isotope, but the 238, 240 and 241 isotopes are also present.
Americium 241 is an additional contaminant, and cesium 137 is present in concentrations
as high as 83 disintegrations per minute per gram (dpm/g) 5.5 kilometers downwind
from the plant in the surface respirable dust, 17 times greater than in similar samples
collected from other parts of the state (5). Uranium has been released by the open
burning of over 1,000 barrels of lathe oil used to mill uranium metal (6).
In addition to the routine release of plutonium particles in the exhaust plumes
from plant stacks that began in 1953, there have been other emissions of plutonium
offsite on a number of occasions, including major fires in 1957 and 1969, and accidental
releases of plutonium to the air in 1968 and in April of 1974 (6-8). Recorded concen-
trations of plutonium in air leaving the main exhaust stack of the plant ranged as high
3 3
as 948 picocuries/M (pCi/M ), recorded eight days after the fire in 1957, which
* A report to the Jefferson County Board of Health, the Colorado Board of Health,
and the National Cancer Institute, N.I.H., P.H.S., U.S.D.H.E.W.
** Dr. Johnson is Director of the Jefferson County Health Department, 260 S. Kipling
Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226
-------
burned out the filter system. This concentration is about 19,000 times the present
United States Department of Energy guidelines for maximum permissible stack emissions
3
(0.05 pCI/M )/ and represents the equivalent of 124 million 5 micrometer particles
of plutonium oxide released, exceeding federal standards for a fifty year period in a
single day (9). There are no records of emissions for the eight day period during or
immediately after the fire. In the year after the 1957 fire/ the average concentration
3
of plutonium in the stack exhaust was 2.18 picocuries/M , and later the average
2
annual concentration was as high as 2.33 pCi/M for 1962. In recent years smaller
amounts are being released, due to an improved filtration system, although one air
sampler on site continued to show 100 to 600 times the monthly surface air concentration
of plutonium found in New York City. Much of the piutonium now present offsite be-
came airborne between 1964 and 1970 from a spill of lathe oil containing metal mill-
ings of plutonium leaking from several thousand corroded barrels stored outside at the
plant site.
Contamination of the large Arapahoe aquifer with plutonium levels of 2.5 pico-
curies per liter (pCi/L) has been reported, as has the contamination of a stream, Walnut
Creek (maximum recorded level of 209 pCi/L), draining into the Great Western Reservoir
serving the city of Broomfield, which at times has elevated levels of plutonium (as
high as 2.29 pCi/L) in the "finished water" used in homes. A recent report confirms
that plutonium in chlorinated finished water is in the Pu VI form, rather than the Pu
IV form, considered in setting maximum permissible limits for plutonium in finished
water (1600 pG/L) (10). Animal experiments demonstrate an uptake of plutonium
from chlorinated drinking water 1570 times greater than previously thought, as measured
by deposits of plutonium in bone and liver.
-------
Part of the contaminated area Is now utilized for residential development and
extensive further development is planned, which could result in an increase in pop-
ulation of the contaminated area by as much as 100,000 people. There Is community
concern regarding possible health effects for populations living in this area and for
the safety of further residential development near the plant.
No health effects have been demonstrated previously for residents of areas
contaminated with plutonium. Based on work with experimental animals, the effects
s
of low levels of plutonium on man are thought to include leukemia/ neoplasms of
bone/ lung/ and liver/ and genetic injury (11-12). Lymphocyte chromosome aberrations
in plutonium workers have been found to exceed those of controls in the lowest ex-
posure group (1-10% maximum permissible body burden of plutonium) (13). Myers has
pointed out that the trachiobronchia! lymph nodes could be considered as a critical
organ for inhalation exposure to plutonium and/ if this were done, a maximum per-
missible pulmonary dose for insoluble plutonium of 67 picocuries (pCi) could be rec-
ommended (14). Morgan/ by an entirely different approach, has also recommended
a maximum allowable dose that is similar to that proposed by Myers (15). inhalation
and retention of two particles of plutonium oxide of respirabie size (5 micrometers)
would exceed this dose (16).
Preliminary epidemiological evaluations of lung cancer and leukemia death
rates in census tract areas with measured concentrations of plutonium (figure 1), in-
dicated that rates were significantly higher near the Rocky Flats plant (17-20).
Method
In order to confirm earlier risk estimates for health effects from low concentrations
of plutonium in the environment, and the preliminary work with death rates from
-------
leukemia and lung cancer in persons living in census tracts with measured levels of
plutonium contamination, cancer incidence data was required by census tract from
the Third National Cancer Survey (1969-1971) (21). The census tract data has not
been published, but is available in computer storage. The request was made on
August 5, 1977 and the data became available on February 6, 1979.
The cancer incidence data was evaluated with the same approach utilized to
evaluate lung cancer and leukemia death rates (figure 1) (22). Cancer incidence
rates for each of the 46 separate cancer sites were reported according to levels of
soil plutonium concentration, selecting census tracts within the appropriate concen-
tration isopleths (2). Areas were ranked according to decreasing levels of plutonium
concentration (Table 1).
The position of the concentration isopleths of plutonium in the soil rr in-
2
dicated in figure 1. The 0.8 mCi/km isopleth does not appear in Figure 1. The
area between the 1.3 and the 0.3 isopleths was divided approximately midway,
following census tract boundaries (listed in Table 1). The area within the concentration
2
range 50-1.3 millicuries per square kilometer (mG/km ) lies between 2 and 10 miles in
distance from the center of the Rocky Flats plant site along the principal wind vector
2
(Figure 2) (3). The area between isopleths 1.3 to 0.8 md/km extends from 10 to
2
about 13 miles, the 0.8 to 0.3 mOA™ area, from 13 to 18 miles and the 0.3 to 0.2
2
mCiAm area, from 18 to 24 miles from the center of the plant site. The area outside
the last isopleth was utilized as a control population comprising the remainder of the
Denver Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (population 423,866). Populations of
the study areas are (proceeding from the plant) respectively, 46,857 for area la,
107,313 for area Ib, 194,190 for area II, and 246,905 for area III. This study represents
a 100% sample of a population of 1,019,131 people over a three year period.
-------
The levels of plutonium contamination found in the soil in these areas may be
compared to some of the current standards establishing maximum permissible contamination
concentrations for areas that provide risks of human exposure. Only a Russian standard of
2
2 millicuries per square kilometer (mCAm )/ 100th of the proposed U.S. Environmental
2
Protection Agency guideline of 200 mCiAm for piutonium in residential areas, is in
the same order as the concentrations of plutonium in three of the areas studied (Table 2).
2
Although the isopleth values are in rnCi/km , these are also expressed in terms of dis-
integrations of plutonium per minute per square centimeter or per gram of dry soil. A
comparison of units in common usage to express soil contamination with plutonium is
given in Table 3.
The contamination of soil with plutonium is not the only source of exposure. Par-
ticulate plutonium which has been released in exhaust emissions from the smoke stacks
at the Rocky Flats plant since 1953 are in large part in the orders of sizes smaller than
1 micron. These particles are smaller than many viruses/ and do not settle out to cause
appreciable soil contamination but may be inhaled by persons who are in the exhaust
plumes from the plant/ no matter how great the distance. Soil contamination does give
some indication as to the predominant direction of these plumes. A third route of ex-
posure may be through the water.
While the incidence rates of cancer in the more highly contaminated area near
the plant is of considerable interest, the population there in the years studied (1969-
1971) is small and also is the result of a rapid rate of development and in-migration.
This results in many persons having an insufficient exposure to permit the expression
of increased rates of cancer because of the long latent period for most neoplasms/ i.e.
two to seven years or more for leukemia/ seven to 30 or 40 years for bone cancer.
Although the plant has been releasing plutonium to the environment since 1953/ any
-------
effect on cancer rates would be more likely to be noticed in the larger population
2
areas with lower rates of in-migration. For this reason the 50-1.3 mCiAm isopleth
area was combined with the 1.3-0.8 isopleth area to form Area I for the comparison
with the areas of lesser concentration and the control population (Table 4).
Expected numbers of cancer cases in each category of age/ sex, and exposure
status were derived from age-standardized rates for all of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA) for comparison with the actual cases observed. Because of
the higher rates of cancer observed (see results) in each of the contaminated areas/
the number of expected cases of cancer were predominantly higher than actually
observed in the unexposed population. Because of this problem, a more valid com-
parison must be made with the actual incidence rates (age-adjusted) found in the un-
exposed population. The "expected cases" figures in the tables are actually higher
than would be expected from incidence rates in the unexposed population, in most
cases. Risk rates for neoplasms in each category are calculated by both methods,
2
but the X and probability values are computed with the number of cases in each
category and the risk ratio compared to the unexposed population.
Results and Comment
The relationship between soil levels of plutonium and the total Anglo incidence
of neoplasms for the 46 categories of cancer listed in the Third National Cancer Survey
are shown in Table 4. The control area (Area IV) consisting of the Denver S.M.S.A.
outside the isopleths of contamination shown in figure 1, comprised some 423,866
people. There appeared to be a direct association between concentrations of plutonium
in the soil and the risk ratio for cancer, for Anglo males and females and for both sexes
combined. The risk ratio increases in each case with greater soil concentrations of
-------
plutonium. The exception is the small population nearest the plant, which because
of the small numbers, rapid development and influx of new residents, probably has
an average period of exposure much less than the areas more distant, which include
much of Denver (figure 1). These differences are highly significant when compared
to the control population. Compared to the control area outside the isopleths there is
an excess rate for cancer of 8% in men in Area III, most distant from the plant (ex-
tending as far as 24 miles downwind), 15% in Area II, nearer to the plant, and
finally, a rate 24% higher in Area I, which includes the plant and extends to the
2
0.8 mCi/km isopleth, located approximately 13 miles downwind from the plant.
The corresponding values for Anglo females are +4%, +5% and +10%, and for men
and women combined, +6%, +10% and +16% for the three year period 1969-1971.
The higher values are statistically significant (p <0.01 to p <0.005) with the exception
of the females in the most distant isopleth area (Area III) who had cancer rates only
4% higher than females in the unexposed population.
A tentative classification of the relative sensitivity of organs and tissues to
cancer induction by radiation as suggested by the international Commission on Radiation
Protection is summarized in Table 5 (23). In this investigation, it was felt that lung
cancer, leukemia and bone cancer might be prominent, since plutonium is known to
be a potent pulmonary carcinogen, is concentrated in lymph nodes, and is a bone
seeker. The minolo particles of plutonium are carried great distances in exhaust plumes
from the smoke stacks at the plant, and the irritant effects of smog can result in a much
greater respiratory deposition rate of such very small particles (as much as 60% greater
in animal studies) (24).
Becuase of the small population in subarea a, and the rapid rate of development
-------
and in-migration, it was combined with subarea b to form Area I extending as far as
13 miles downwind from the plant. This area had a 1970 population of 154,170 (Table
6). Rates for all classes of neoplasms in this area were compared to the unexposed
population of 423,806 persons over a three year period (1969-1971). There was a
higher rate of lung and bronchial cancer in the contaminated area for men, with a
risk ratio of 1.1 compared to the expected rate (calculated from standardized rates
2
for the S.M.S.A.), and 1.3 compared to the control area (X =9.68), but not for women.
There were higher rates for neoplasms of the nasopharynx and larynx for men and women
In the contaminated area. This finding was also reported by Mason and McKay (24).
The rate for men was of borderline significance compared to the control area.
2
There was a significantly higher rate of leukemia among men (X =5.88). The
rates were higher for women in the contaminated area but the difference was not significant
statistically.
Neoplasms of the testis could be expected because of the demonstrated propensity
of plutonium to concentrate in this organ. Rates were higher than expected in the con-
taminated area, and when compared to the control area, which had a somewhat lower
2
rate than expected, the difference was significant (X - -8.90). Neoplasms of the ovary
were also higher than in the control area but in this comparison, the difference was not
great enough to be statistically significant.
Neoplasms of the liver, gall bladder and "other biliary" were higher in males but
not in females. The difference for the males in this comparison was not significant
(X *2.90). The rates for cancer of the pancreas were higher in females but not in males.
2
Again the difference in this comparison was not significant (X »2.40).
Rates of neoplasms of the stomach were higher in men, but not in women. The
-------
2
difference in this comparison was not significant (X =2.25). Rates of neoplasms of the
colon and rectum however, were much higher for both men and women than for those
2
in the control area (158 cases expected, 203 cases found, X =12.86 for men and 6.61
for women). The rates compared to those of the unexposed population were highly
significant statistically. Rates of other types of gastro-enteric neoplasms were not
significantly higher.
Neoplasms of the brain and other nervous system neoplasms were higher in men
but not in women. The difference was not significant, because of the low frequency.
There was no evidence of elevated rates of neoplasms of the bone. This could
reflect a longer latent period required for such tumors to develop. A higher rate of
cancer of the thyroid was found in women (18 cases expected, 24 cases found). The
2
difference was not significant (X =2.88). Neoplasms of the breast were higher in both
men and women than in the control population, but not significantly so. This same was
true for other types of miscellaneous neoplasms.
In Table 7, neoplasms of nine sites are further investigated. Isopleth areas are
combined to assist in removing non-uniformity in rates of neoplasms of low frequency
and to examine the total rates of neoplasms with higher frequency compared to the cancer
incidence rates in the control population. The incidence of cancer of the lung and
2
bronchus in the combined isopleth area 50-0.3 mOA™ (a 1970 population of 348,360
in an area extending as far downwind as 18 miles from the plant) over the three year
period, 1969-1971, was much higher than that in the unexposed area (1970 population
2
423,866). This difference was very significant (X =36.44). When the entire area of
plutonium contamination within all the isopleths (a 1970 population of 595,226 in an
area extending as far as 24 miles downwind from the plant) is compared to the population
-------
in the unexposed area (1970 population of 423/866) the difference persists, with
497 cases found/ 462 expected. Because of the lower-than-expected rates found
2
in the unexposed population/ the X again is large/ 33.93.
2
Cancer of the testis for the combined isopleth area/ 50-0.3 mCi/km was also
2
higher than expected (18 neoplasms expected, 25 cases found, X =20.98 compared
to the control population). The difference was even more significant when the total
area of contamination was compared to the unexposed population (30 cases expected,
2
40 cases found, X =31.12 compared to the control population). The same comparisons
made For neoplasms of the ovary in the entire area of contamination also revealed a
significant difference (X of 3.80 in the 50-0.3 mCiA™2 area/ and 7.51 in the 50-0.2
mCi/km^ area, compared to the unexposed population).
2
Neoplasms of the liver were higher in the 50-0.3 mG/km area for men compared
to the expected rates and for both men and women compared to the unexposed population.
2
The higher rates were significant when the total area (50-0.2 mCI/km ) was compared
to the control population because of the low rates in the unexposed population.
Interestingly, cancer incidence rates for tongue, pharynx and esophagus were sig-
nificantly higher for both men and women in both areas compared to the unexposed pop-
ulation. Neoplasms of bones and joints were not significantly different, nor were the
2 2
rates for thyroid neoplasms, except for women in the 50-0.3 mCi/km area (X =5.86).
In summary, an analysis of cancer incidence rates over a three period (1969-1971)
found significantly higher total rates of all neoplasms in the area contaminated with
plutonium, compared to the unexposed area. In general, rhVhigher rates appeared to
have a direct relationship with increasing levels of plutonium soil contamination. That
is, in areas with higher concentrations of plutonium in soil, higher incidence rates of
-------
cancer were found. The excess rates were as much as 24% higher for men in the con-
taminated area as in the unexposed area. The rates were higher for women, also, about
10% higher than for women in the unexposed area.
Sites of cancer most responsible for the increase in total rates are neoplasms of the
lung and bronchus, colon and rectum, leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma in men, neo-
plasms of the tongue,.pharynx, esophagus, stomach, liver, and the thyroid in women.
Neoplasms in sites such as the brain and pancreas were slightly elevated but rates were
too low to be significant. An observation of special concern are the higher rates of
neoplasms of testis and ovary in the contaminated area. This corroborates an observation
by Mason and McKay in their investigation of death rotes from cancer in the period
1950-1969(25).
These findings indicate the importance of continuing complete surveiifaneettf
cancer incidence and death rates in this area. Some types of tumors, such as those of
bone, have long latent periods before development. A long period of surveillance is
necessary to monitor late effects in this population and the investigation should be ex-
tended. A grant application has been filed with the National Cancer Institute to carry
out such a study (26).
It is important that a thorough investigation be conducted to determine the adequacy
of the filtration system presently in use at the plant, to determine if sub-micron particles
of plutonium and other nuclides listed in the Rocky Flats Environmental Impact Statement
are not being released in much larger quantities than is being measured. This is of special
concern in view of plans to markedly increase the operations at the plant. Definitive actions
should be taken by responsible agencies to minimize health effects from exposure to low
levels of plutonium, including the establishment by the E.P.A. of a much more conservative
-------
guideline for plutonium contamination of soil.
Acknowledgement: Valuable assistance of Colorado Regional Cancer Center staff (Dr.
John Berg and Dr. Jack Finch) who developed the computer program to retrieve,
collate/ and age-adjust cancer incidence data by census tract from the computer
archives of the National Cancer Institute's Third National Cancer Survey of
1969-1971, and Kathryn Van Deusen, who assisted with the analysis of the data.
-------
References
1. Poet, S.E. and Martell, E.A.: Plutonium 239 and Amerlcfum 241 contamination
in the Denver area. Health Physics 23: 537 (1972).
2. Krey, P.W. and Hardy, E.P.: US AEC Publ. HASL-235 (1970).
3. Johnson, C.J., TIdball, R.R. and Severson, R.C.: Plutonium hazard in respirabie
dust on the surface of the soil. Science 193; 488 (August 6, 1976).
4. Johnson, C.J.: Offsite distribution of plutonium in the respirabie dust on the
surface of the soil in the vicinity of the Rocky Flats plant. Unpublished report
to the Jefferson County Board of Health, Lakewood, CO 80226 (March 30, 1977).
5. Johnson, C.J.: Distribution of cesium 137 in the surface respirabie dust in the
vicinity of the Rocky Flats plant: Final report. Unpublished report to the Jefferson
County Board of Health, Lakewood, CO 80226 (March 18, 1978).
6. Anon: Omnibus environmental assessment for the Rocky Flats plant of the U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration. U.S.E.R.D.A., Rocky Flats plant,
P.O. Box 888, Golden, CO 80401 (1975).
7. Thompson, M.A. and Hombacher, D.D.: Annual environmental monitoring report.
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Rocky Flats plant (1970,
1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975) Dow Chemical Company, P.O. Box 888, Golden,
CO 80401.
8. Anon.: Rocky Flats Environmental Monitoring Results, P.O. Box 888, Golden, CO
80401 (May, 1970).
9. Anon.: Report of investigation of serious incident in building 71, on September 11,
1957. Unpublished report of the Dow Chemical Company, Rocky Flats plant, Golden,
CO 80401 (October 7, 1957).
10. Larsen, R.P. and Oldham, R.D.: Plutonium in drinking water: Effects of chlorination
on its maximum permissible concentration. Science 201: 1008-9, September 15, 1978.
11. Anon.: Proceedings of public hearings on plutonium and other trans-uranium elements.
Vol. l-lll (No. ORP/CSD-75-1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. (1975).
12. Vaughan, J.: Plutonium - a possible leukemic risk. Unpublished report. The Bone
Research Laboratory, Nuffield Orthopoedic Centre, Oxford, England (1976).
13. Brandon, W., Bloom, A., Saccomanno, G., Archer, P., Archer, V., Bistline, R.,
and Lilienfeld, A.u_Somatic cell chromosome and sputum cell cytology changes in
humans exposed to Radon and plutonium. Progress Report, D.O.E. Contract
-------
References - cont.
13.(cont.) No. E (2902)-3639 Rockwell International, Rocky Flats Division, Health Sciences
Group. P.O. Box 888, Golden, CO 80401 (June 30, 1976).
14. Myers, D.S.: A plea for consistent lung burden criteria for insoluble alpha-
emitting isotopes. Health Physics 22: 905 (June, 1972).
15. Morgan, K.Z.: Suggested reduction of permissible exposure to plutonium and
other transuranium elements. Am. Ind. Hyg. Ass. J. 567-574 (August, 1975).
16. Johnson, C.J : Evaluation of the hazard to residents of areas contaminated with
plutonium. Proceedings of the IVth International Congress of the International
Radiation Protection Assoc., in Paris. 2: 243-246 (April 24-30, 1977).
17. Johnson, C.J.: Death rates from lung cancer in the eight census tracts near Rocky
Flats and in Golden, and in nineteen census tracts at the south end of Jefferson
County. Unpublished report to the Jefferson County Board of Health, Lakewood,
CO 80226 (November 20, 1977).
16. Johnson, C.J.: Leukemia death rates of residents of areas contaminated with
plutonium. Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C. (November 1, 1977^.
19. Johnson, C.J.: Lung cancer death rates of residents of areas contaminated
with plutonium. Proceedings of the 145th National Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, in Houston, Texas, 3-8 January,
1979.
20. Johnson, C.J.: Rates of leukemia, lung cancer and congenital malformations
by census tract in areas contaminated with plutonium. Proceedings of the First
International Congress on Human Ecology, in Vienna, Austria, October 26-31,
1978.
21. Anon.: Third National Cancer Survey: Incidence Data. National Cancer
Institute Monograph 41, March, 1975 DHEW Pub. No. (N1H) 75-787 U.S.
DHEW7 Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, National Cancer
Institute, Bethesda, MD. 20014.
22. Anon.: U.S. Bureau of Census, Population and Housing: 1970 Census Tracts,
Final Report PHT (l)-56 Denver, CO SMSA, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
23. Anon.: Radiosensitivity and spatial distribution of dose. I.C.R.P. Publication
#14 (1969). Published for the International Commission on Radiological Protection
by the Pergamon Press.
-------
References - cont.
24. Fairchild, G.A., Stulz, S. and Coffin, D.L.: Sulfuric acid effect on the
deposition of radioactive aerosol in the respiratory tract of guieea pigs. (1975)
U.S. E.P.A., National Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
25. Mason, T.J. and McKay, F.W.: U.S. Cancer Mortality by County, 1950-1969,
DHEW pub. (NIH) 74-615, Public Health Service, National Insitutes of Health,
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda , Maryland.
26. Johnson, C.J.: Evaluation of rates of leukemia and neoplasms of the lung and
other organs in a general population living in an area contaminated with low
levels of plutonium. A grant application (CA 25729-01, July 20, 1978) to
the National Cancer Institute, N.I.H., P.H.S., U.S. D.H.E.W.
27. Seed, J.R., Calkins, K.W., Illsley, C.T., Miner, F.J., Owen,J.B.: Committee
evaluation of soil levels within and surrounding U.S.A.E.C. Installation at
Rocky Flats, Colorado. Unpub. rep. RFP-INV-10 Dow Chemical Corp., Rocky
Flats Division, P.O. Box 888, Golden, CO 80401
-------
I^SfJI.IIld IUI *WII WWI IIUIIIII IVJI |V
the Rocky Flats plant (a'b)
Area of
report
' /'
W I
\ ;
\ y
\ s
\
\
\
Calm 2%
Variable 5%
i
N
X
X
_ ' _ 30%
-^ " ' "^ -, N
/ '• JOH ,
6 - - ~ - i3 ^
\5 /|\ /' '
X s ' /
X s'
"7" 4
Colorado
Fig. 2. Rose diagram showing average dire
tion and velocity of wind at Rocky Flats f
1953 to 1970. Arrows point in the direction
wind movement: velocity (miles per hour)
given at the end of each arrow; concentric c
cles show frequency of wind direction (2).
-------
Table 1
Census tract! within Plutonium concentration isopleths in microcuries per square kilometer (mCi/km )
near the Rocky Flat* plant
Millicurina per square kilometer
50 - 1.1
9801
9802
9801
9805
1O201
10202
10301
10302
1.
101
102
201
2O2
301
302
303
401
402
1101
1102
9302
9303
9305
9401
94O2
9501
9502
II.
3 - 0.8
9601
9602
9700
9750
9804
10402
1O4O3
10451
10601
10651
12704
13101
13102
III.
0.8 - 0.1
IV.
500
600
701
702
800
1000
1102
1500
1600
1701
1702
18OO
1900
2OOO
2100
2300
2401
24O2
250O
2601
2602
2701
2702
2703
2801
2802
2801
29O1
29O2
31O1
3102
3201
3202
3201
3300
34OO
3500
3601
3602
3603
3701
3702
3703
3800
4301
8501
8502
8503
8952
9200
9301
9104
9551
10502
10602
1O700
11100
12506
0.
901
902
903
1101
1401
1402
1401
3001
30O2
3003
3004
3005
3901
3902
4O01
40O2
4003
4004
4052
4101
4102
4103
4104
4201
4202
3 - 0.2
<*302
4101
4304
4105
4401
4502
46O2
49OO
4950
5000
5101
5102
5200
5250
5300
5350
5401
5403
5700
5800
5900
6100
6801
6802
6851
6852
6901
6902
6951
6952
7001
70C2
7051
7052
89O1
900O
9100
9806
9807
9900
10100
10501
10800
11000
11100
114OO
11500
11550
12703
12900
13000
Table 2
Standards establishing maximum permissible contamination concentrations for alpha
radiation (i.e. plutonium) for areas that provide risk of human exposure.
Country
Milllcuries par Microcuries per Disintegration* per
square kilometer square meter minute per gram dry soil
or per square centimeter
Remarks
Type of
Standard
C.S.S.H.
6
15
0.002
0.006
0.015
0.44
1.33
3.33
Hands and work underclothing Occupational
before cleaning.
Work surfaces after cleaning. Occupational
Work clothing and surfaces Occupational
before cleaning.
United States
(U.S. E.P.A.)
20
40
200
0.02
0.04
0.2
4.44
8.8
44.0
Interstate Commerce Commission Occupational
(Oept. of Transportation) pertains
to interior of vehicles previously
used for transportation of materials.
Urban, suburban, recreation areas. General Pobli
Soil surface in residential areas. General Publ!
(proposed)
(b)eco«raended by U.S. at an International Symposium on Radiological Protection of the Public in a Nuclear
Mass Disaater (June 1968).
-------
Relationship between units in common usage to express «oil contamination with plutonium
Plutonium in toil equivalent* *
Millicurios per
square kilometer
50
10
5
3
1.3
d.8
0.3
0.2
Nanocuriea per
square meter
50
10
5
3
1.3
0.8
0.3
0.3
Picocurios per square
eentlme-cer or grate of
dry anil
5
1
0.5
0.3
0.13"
0.08"
O.03"
0.02*«
Disintegrations per minute
per square centimeter or
gram of dry soil
11
2.2
1.1
0.66
0.29
O.lS
0.07
0.0
-------
Table 5
Classification of Relative Sensitivity of Organs and
Tissues to Cancer Induction by Radiation in Adult Life*
Grade Organ
High Sensitivity:
Established
Apparent
Low. Sensitivity;
II
III
Not Classified
Not Mentioned
in ICRP 140)
IV
International Classification
of Diseases Number (8th rev.)
Bone Marrow & Thyroid
Lymph Nodes & Recticular Tissue
Pharynx & Bronchus
Pancreas, Stomach & Large Intenstine
Esophagus & Small Intestine
Nose, Middle Ear, Sinuses & Larynx
Lip, Tongue, Mouth & Salivary Gland
Liver, Gallbladder & Bile Duct
Testis, Penis & Kidney
Skin, Connective Tissue & Bone
Eye, Brain & Nervous Tissue
Other Endocrine (excluding Thyroid)
Ovary, Uterus & Breast
Prostate & Bladder
Lymphatic Leukemia & Other RES
Neoplasms
Rectum & Other Digestive
Other & Unspecified Cancers
203; 205; 193
200-2
146-9; 162-3
157; 151; 153
150; 152
160-1
140-5
155-6
186-7; 189
170-3
190-2
194
180-4; 174
185; 188
204; 206-9
154; 158-9
195-9
* From the International Commission on Radiation Protection, Pub. * 14
(1) Included In Grade IV in this report.
-------
Toble 6
Anglo cancer incidence rates for the period 1969-1971 by areas of census tracts with and without pluronium soil contamination by the Rocky Flats plant .
50-0.9 millicuries per square kilometer (mCiAm?) < 0.2 millicuries per square kilometer
Male
Cases (c) r
CWExp (1)
Total: All Neoplasms
Chi-iquare
Uukemia
Oil-square
lymphoniq, myeloma, etc
Chi-iquare
Lung & bronchus
Chi-iquare
Other respiratory
Qu-square
Tertis
Chi-iquare
Ovary
Oil-square
Other Urogenital
Uver & biliary
Chi- square
Stomach
Chi-squara
Colon & rectum
Chi-iquare
Other geulo- enteric
Brain
Other nervous system
Bones & joints
Thyroid
Chi-iquo>«
Breast
Other
644/563
27/ 18
35/28
109/98
20/14
ll/ 8
189/183
10/ 8
20/21
22/ 16
100/76
30/32
IV 10
4/5.3
1.134
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.4
—
1.0 1
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.3
1.7
0/1.5" 0
V5.6
2/0.8
49/46
0.5
2.5
1.1
(2)
1.240
30.11
1.6
5.88
1.4
4.17
1.3
9.68
1.5
3.77
2.1
8.90
1.1
1.6
2.90
0.9
1.4
2.25
1.4
12.86.
1.1
1.2
1.1
0
0.5
2.5
1.1
Female
Cases r.r.
Obs/Exp (1) (2)
636/600 1.060
IV I' 0.7
28/23 1.2
21/25*0.8
V 2 1.5
—
3V 32 1.1
100/100 1.0
7/ 10 0.7
1 21/17 1.2
11/ 12 0.9
103/82 1.3
IV 16 0.8
10/ 9 1.1
1/1.9 0.5
0/0.8" 0
24/ 18 1.3
190/186 1.0
56/46 1.2
1.095
5.11
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.5
1.2
1.54
1.0
0.7
1.4
2.40
0.9
1.3
6.6t
0.9
1.2
0.3
0
1.4
2.88
1.1
1.2
Total
Cases r.
OWExp (1)
1280/1168
41/ 37
6V 51
130/123
2V 16
289/ 283
17/ 18
41/ 38
3V 28
203/158
48/ 48
2V 19
V 4
0/2.3
27/ 24
192/ 187
105/ 92
1.096
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.4
—
—
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.2
0
1.1
1.0
1.1
.r.
(2)
1 .163
19.45
1.2
1.3
4.00
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.0
l.J
1.1
1.4
19.57
1.0
1.2
0.7
0
1.1
1.1
1.2
/Male
Cases
Ofas/Exp r.r.
1114/1219 0.914
45/ 47 0.96
59/ 68 0.87
174/210 0.83
30/ 32 0.94
IV 23 0.57
—
336/360 0.93
IV 18 0.78
4c/ 43 1.07
3V 34 1.00
14V 157 0.92
60/ 72 0.83
27/ 24 1.12
V 5 1.60
V4.3 1.16
18/ 16 1.12
2/ 2 1.0
99/ 104 0.95
Female
Cases
Obs/Sxp r.r.
1260/1302 0.963
38/ 42 0.90
56/ 51 1.10
SI/ 53 0.96
5/ 5 1.00
—
6V 73 0.86
227/223 1.02
20/ 19 r.05
30/ 33 0.91
27/ 23 1.17
146/ 151 0.97
33/ 35 0.94
20/ 22 0.91
7/ 4 1.75
2/ 2.8 0.71
4V 45 0.93
390/419 0.93
103/ 101 1.02
Total
Co us
Obs/Exp
2374/2521 0,
83/ 89 0
115/ 119 0
225/263 0
35/ 37 C
—
—
563/583 (
34/ 37 (
76/ 76^
61/ 57
290/ 308
93/ 107
47/ 46.
15/ 9
7/ 7
60/ 61
39V 421
20V 205
(a) Rotas par 100,000 age-adjusted to U.S. 1950 population (rates for total S.M.S.A. age-adjusted, expressed as cases expected in each category)
f>) Population of the 50-0.8 mCi area was 154,170 in 1970; population of the <0.2 mCi area was 423,366.
(c) Expected rates calculated from standardized rates for area.
(d) Relative risk: (1) Compared to standardized ratal for area. (2) Compared to the non-exposed graup(Area IV). X^ compares to this group.
* However, o/e was 7/4 in the 50-1.3.aiCi/km2 area.
- o/e wo» 10/10 in the 50-0.2 mG/Vin area.
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH <
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 8O22O PHONE 32O-8333
March 6, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Hazardous Waste Proposed Guidelines
Dear Mr. Lehman: and Proposal on Identification & Listing
The Colorado Department of Health has reviewed the proposed regulations under
sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The attached comments include issues and concerns expressed by members of an
ad hoc hazardous waste committee, comprised of generators, transporters and
site operators, persons attending four regional public information meetings,
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, several technical and professional societies,
the Intergovernmental Methane Gas Task Force, Department staff members and
other parties of interest.
Public and private entities support the needs for regulatory controls to apply
available technology and improve hazardous waste management practices. All
are of the opinion that regulatory control measures must be workable, reason-
able and applicable to meet State, local and regional needs.
The proposed regulations define and list hazardous waste without providing for
categories that differentiate between hazardous waste and marginal or moderately
hazardous waste. The exemption of 100 kg/mo, should not be applicable to
extremely hazardous waste. This categorization would enable the establishment
of priorities to effectively control and manage hazardous waste.
The format of the proposed regulations includes "notes" after requirements
that allow for deviation from stated requirements. The notes describe allowable
alternatives that should be included within the regulations.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Page Two, March 6, 1979
The proposed "extraction procedure" to determine toxic properties of
possible leachate is a laboratory procedure designed to simulate landfill
conditions. This proposed procedure is questioned as the testing of some
special waste categories such as utility waste may indicate disposal as
a hazardous waste regardless of actual disposal conditions.
The need for perpetual monitoring and surveillance of sites receiving
extremely hazardous wastes may require sites and facilities be located
on federal lands with provisions for monitoring by a federal agency.
The financial requirements for private entities or public agencies and
high costs for operating acceptable treatment, storage and disposal sites
and facilities are significant. Financial considerations and the potential
risk factors are constraints that discourage the location and operation of
acceptable facilities by either private firms or public agencies.
I am concerned that the total financial impact of these proposed regulations
has not been determined. This financial impact should include the costs
of conducting a regulatory program.
The position of federal agencies that essentially prohibits the location
of hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal sites and facilities on
federal lands has considerable impact on the availability of suitable sites
in Colorado as approximately 1/3 of Colorado is under the jurisdiction of
federal agencies.
The attached comments are made concerning more specific points of concern
pertinent to sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the proposed regulations.
Sincerely,
Albert J. Has
Director, Radiation
and Hazardous Wastes
Control Division
AJH/OFS:els
Attachments
-------
--"* COMMENTS OF -
, THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CONCERNING REGULATIONS 40 CFR PART 250, 3001.
SUBPART A, PROPOSED DECEMBER 18, 1978
AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 3001, OF THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1978
1. Page 58953 reads:
Comment: In groundwater, assignment of "dilution
factors" is questionable because formational varia-
tions (i.e. lateral and vertical facies changes within
the formation) as well as the fact that the formation
could be completely unreactive whereby the only dilution
is by diffusion. Conversely, the "toxic substances"
may be diluted or detoxified within a few feet but the
subsequent chain of chemical reactions can produce new
totally different toxic substances as well as disturbing
the overall useability of the aquifer.
For the purposes of calculating
dilution that a leachate plume wo
undergo between the time it ent
the underground aquifer until
reaches a well, it was assumed tl
wells will be situated no closer tr.
500 feet from the disposal site. Exai
nation of the available data indical
that a 10-fold dilution factor.- wb
probably conservative, would be- r
sonable. It should be emphasized tl
there are instances where dilution 1:
been higher as well as cases where
has been lower at a distance of 5
feet. • . . .:, 3-.
Based on this model, before hum
exposure is expected to occur;, the: 1<
chate from the waste would become
factor of
human
mum allowable contaminant cor
tration permissible In the EP extf
would be 10 times the level that wou
be acceptable in drinking water. Co
sequently, waste whose EP extra
shows more than 10 times the levels
certain contaminants allowed.by tl
" EPA National Interim Primary Drin
ing Water Standards (40 CFR Pa
141) will be considered to be.hazar
ous. -' - •-
The plume of contamination has a characteristic, somewhat bell shaped plot
and is dependent upon time and distance. In some instances a 10 X peak may
not be allowable.
Comment: The allowable dilutions should be determined on a site specific
basis and other parameters of measurement in addition to 10 X^ The drinking
water standards should be considered.
-------
aec.Li.ou ^u.n MJM-U l'"B« Jo^jj i^uus. tiallcally equivalent to the total waste
in composition, and in physical and
Comment: This definition of a representative is chemical properties. Representative
samples may be generated using the
. , . . , , . methods set out in Appendix I of this
neither practical or achievable in most instances, subpart.
Recommendation: This definition should be modified to include "selected ™
portions of the components of the waste which indicate the physical and
chemical properties of the total waste".
3.
Section 250.13 (a) (ii) page 58955 reads:
Comment: A non-liquid material .... "when
ignited burns so vigorously and persistently as
to create a hazard during its management" ....
This characteristic could be construed to apply
§ 250.13 Hazardous waste characteristics.
(a) Ignitable waste. (1) Definition—A
solid waste is a hazardous waste if a
representative sample of the waste:
(1) Is a liquid and has a flash point
less than 60°C (140*F) determined by
the method cited below or an equiva-
lent method, or
(ii) Is not a liquid and is liable to
cause fires through friction, absorp-
tion of moisture, spontaneous chemi-
cal changes, or retained heat, from
manufacturing or processing, or when-
ignited burns so vigorously and_£ersis.-
tently as to create a hazardl during its
to non-hazardous solid waste such as "corrugated", managprnent, or
Recommendation: It is recommended the above phrase be more specific as to
the wastes being referred to or deleted.
4. Section 250.13 (d) (1) page 58956 reads:
Comment: In determining the allowable parameters,
it was assumed that wells would be no closer than
500'. Examination of data indicated a 10 fold dilu-
tion would be reasonable; Therefore the maximum
allowable toxicant concentration permissible in the
extraction procedure would be ten times the level
acceptable in drinking water.
(d) Toxic waste. (1)' Definite
solid waste is a hazardous waste
cording to the methods specified
paragraph (2), the extract obtaii
from applying the Extraction Prc
dure (EP) cited below to a represen
tive sample of the waste has cone
trations of a contaminant that exce
any of the following values:
Extract level,
Contaminant: milligrams per I
Arsenic ----------------------- ........ „ ........ -------
Barium _________ .................... _____ . _____ ...... .....
Cadmium .................... .... ............... . ...... . .....
Chromium .......................... . ....... . ....... ... .....
Lead ____________ ....... _________ . ___________ . ___ ..........
Mercury .......... ..................... ........ „ .............
Selenium ............... ~ .............. _ ....................
Silver ______ , .............. . ........................ _....„.,.
Endrin (1, 2.3.4. 10.10-hexacloro-6. 7-
epoxy-1.4.4a,5.8,7.8.8a-octahydro-l.
4-endo, endo-5, 3-dl methano naph-
thalene) ...... _ .............. _ ...................... -.,.
Lindane ( 1.2.3.4.5.6-
hexachlorocyclo hexane gamma
Methoxychlor (1,1.1-Trichloroethane)
2,2-bts (p-methoxyphenyl) ...................
Toxaphene (C,.H,,Cl,-technicai chlor-
inated camphene, 67-69 percent chlo-
rine)..../. [[[
2.4-D. (2,4-Dlchlorophenoxyacetic
acid) [[[
2.4.5-TP Silvex (2.4.5-
Trichloro phenoxypropionic acid) ...
NOTE:— Extract levels specified for
above substances equal ten times the E
National Interim Primary Drinking W;
Standards for these substances. TJ
standards are being revised. Extract •
specified above will be changed to reflect
visions to these standards. Also, EPA is <
sidering use of the Water Quality Crit
under the Clean Water Act as a basis
setting extract levels, in addition to
-------
The assumptions do not consider any flow rate in the underground aquifer,
permeability and porosity. There are no exceptions to the "rule of ten". (
Recommendation^ Testing solely for the contaminants listed in drinking
water standards may be too limited. A hypothetical leachate containing
sodium chloride in the range of 1,000 rag/1 would be acceptable by this
definition. There are no limitations on factors such as B.O.D. (bio-
chemical oxygen demand); C.O.D. (chemical oxygen demand); T.O.C. (total
organic carbons) and free carbon dioxide.
Recommendation: It is recommended other chemicals and parameters be
considered.
5. Section 250.13 (D) (E) page 58957 reads: (D) Add to the extractor a weigh
deionized water equal to 16 times
weight of solid material added to
_ _, . ., , extractor. This includes any
Comment: The toxic extraction procedure does not used in transferring the solid m
to the extractor. •
explain the justification for dilution of the waste p^&sS^o
0.5N acetic acid. Hold the pH
1:16 nor is there justification for selection of pH 5 5.0±0.2 and continue agitation
24 ±0.5 hours. If more than 4 ml
acid for each gm of solid is required
and the use of acetic acid in the adjustment of pH. hold the pH at 5, then once 4 ml
acid per gm has been added, compl
the 24 hour extraction without add
any additional acid. Maintain the
This is a crucial test in that special waste cate- tractant at 20-40' C (68-104' P) dur
extraction. It is recommended tha
device such as the Type 45-A pH C
gories such as "utility waste" could leach toxicants troller manufactured by Chemfc
Inc.. Hillsboro, OR 97123, or equi
lent, be used for controlling pH.
and be classified as a toxic waste. Acetic acid such a device is not available then I
following manual procedure can
does not occur naturally. employed,
Recommendation: It is requested the toxic extraction procedure be amended
to allow a closer simulation of conditions that could be expected on a
site specific basis.
-------
„_- , . ,. . „ , „ . ,, , 'b) Hazardous waste sources and
6. Section 250.14 (b) Hazardous Waste Sources and processes, d) Sources generating haz-
ardous waste. The following sources
Processes. l)Sources generating hazardous waste. Derate hazardous wailc unless t
' ° ° waste from these sources does not o—
tain microorganisms or helminths of
(i) (A) Health Care Facilities, page 58958 reads: CDC Classes 2 through 5 of the Etlolo-
gic Agents listed in Appendix VI of
this Subpart.
(i) Health care facilities. (A) The fol-
Comment: Wastes from health care facilities lowing departments of hospitals as de-
fined by SIC Codes 8062 and 8069,
unless the waste has been treated as
normally discharged into the sewage collection specified in Appendix VII of this Sub-
part. (N)
SVStem should be specifically excluded from Obstetrics department including patients'
J rooms
Emergency departments
autoclaving and incineration requirements. Sur^ department including patients-
Morgue
Pathology department
Autopsy department
The autoclaving and incineration facilities isolation rooms
Laboratories
Intensive care unit
specified are not available at many health care Pediatrics department
facilities. The costs of providing these facilities will be extensive.
There are potential health hazards pertinent to on site storage of infec-
tious wastes and transporting to treatment storage and disposal facilities.
Each generator should be equipped with appropriate facilities. A
The list of infectious organisms such as E. Coli and Staph A. are prevalent
throughout health care facilities. Therefore the criteria proposed may
be excessively stringent as all wastes from health care facilities (including
tissue or handkerchiefs 'containing nasal discharge) would be infectious
requiring incineration or autoclaving.
7. Section 250.14 (b) Hazardous Waste Sources and (B) The following departments of
veterinary hospitals as defined by SIC
_ ... , , . Codes 0741 and 0742, unless the waste
Processes. l)Sources generating hazardous waste. nas oeen treated as specif ied in Appen-
dix VII. (N)
(i) (B) Veterinary Hospitals, page 58958 and Emergency department
Surgery department including patients?
rooms
Appendix VII - Infectious Waste Treatment Speci- Morgue
rr ' •* Pathology department
' \ Autopsy department
Isolation rooms
1 Laboratories
' Intensive care unit
(ii) Laboratories, as defined by SIC
Codes 7391, 8071 and 8922, unless theJ
aboatie d
laboratories do not work with
Classes 2 through 5 of Etiologic
\ Agents as listed in Appendix VI. (N)
f.
-------
APPENDIX VII—INFECTIOUS WASTE
TREATMENT SPECIFICATIONS
Infectious waste from departments |
health care facilities as defined
§250.H(b)(l) may be rendered non-harza
dous by subjecting the waste to the folio'
ing autoclave temperatures and dwell time
Steam Autoclave
(1) Trash: 250 P (121 C) for 1 hour with 1
minutes prevacuum of 27 in. Hg.
(2) Glassware: 250 F <121 C) for 1 hot
with 15 minutes prevacuum of 27 in. Hg. fc
filled NIH Glassware can.
(3) Liquids: 250 P (121 C) for 1 hour fa
each gallon.
(4) Animals: 250 P (121 C) for 8 hours wit;
15 minutes prevacuum of 27 in. Hg.
(5) Animal Bedding: 250 P (121 C) for
hours with 15 minutes prevacuum of 27 ir
Kg.
or equivalent treatment methods such a
gas sterilization or pathological -inciner
ation. Temperatures and dwell time wil
vary in relation to the volume of material
moisture content and other factors.
fications. page 58964 reads:
Comment: The proposed rules beginning on page
58957 (250.14) apparently apply to various depart-
ments in veterinary hospitals as facilities that
discharge hazardous etiologic agents according to
CDC classification. The proposed rule appears
applicable if such a facility does not discharge
waste into an approved sewerage system but does
perhaps utilize a trash pickup service, then the
requirements on page 58964-Appendix VII Infectious
Waste Treatment Specifications would apply.
The various listed departments of veterinary hospitals would discharge
microbial agents including bacterial, fungal, viral, rickettsial and
chlamydial up to and including a Class 3 hazard. Any such pathogens would
have to be treated as per Appendix VII by steam autoclave or equivalent
treatment methods. This would require all veterinary hospitals to install
at least an incinerator to process material such as trash, glassware,
liquids, animals, and animal bedding and render it non-infectious. The
economic impact of these proposed rules could result in an investment for
each facility or hospital $3,000 to $10,000.00 for adequate incineration
and/or autoclaving equipment.
4
-------
The data base which defines the present hazard from etiologic agents
in waste effluents as classified in Appendix VI is not mentioned. *
Observations have been that occupationally exposed people - the trash
collectors themselves - do not appear to suffer any higher disease rate
than other people in the public sector. Our epidemiological investigations
generally have not revealed disease transmission that has occurred from
waste material whether properly or improperly disposed of, but it is
admitted that a potential hazard exists in a sanitary landfill disposal
system for disease transmission.
Nevertheless, the need for these proposed rules is questioned based on the
actual incidence and subsequent reporting of disease. Also, other problems
such as air pollution may be created by drastically increasing the number
of incinerators necessary to adequately treat such hazardous waste.
<
8. Section 250., Subpart A, Appendix XI page 58966 regarding the persistance
of degradable chemicals. What is a biodegradation assay and does it really
represent conditions of actual release? No biodegradation assay is specified.
Certain compounds with allegedly short half lives have inexplicably persisted
(ex. chemical five incident and parathion) over a period of years.
Recommendation: It is recommended the degradation option be deleted until
more data is obtained.
-------
9. Section 250.15 pages 58959-60. Demonstration of Noninclusion in
the Hazardous Waste System.
Comment:
1. Wastes from certain manufacturing process and other sources
listed are considered hazardous unless proven non-hazardous by the
generator.
2. The testing procedures listed are extensive and specific. It
would be costly for generators, especially small generators without
laboratory testing capabilities to conduct tests to confirm or deny
the generation of hazardous wastes. There are few if any private
laboratories equipped and capable of performing the tests specified.
3. When in doubt generator may be expected to consider the waste
generated as hazardous rather than perform tests. This will place a
considerable burden on hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facility and require more testing by the facility operator.
-------
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND'RECOVERY ACT
PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
COMMENTS BY
ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION
1155 PEBBLEDALE ROAD
MULBERRY, FLORIDA 33860
MARCH 7, 1979
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
COMMENTS BY
ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION
MR. CHAIRMAN AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS
STEWART H. MILLER. I AM MANAGER OF ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION'S
PHOSPHORUS FURNACE FACILITIES AT PIERCE, FLORIDA. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.
I PROPOSE TO ADDRESS MY COMMENTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF
PHOSPHORUS FURNACE SLAG AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER 40 CFR PART 250
SUBPART A OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE REMARKS
I WILL MAKE HERE, I AM ATTACHING A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF OUR
POSITION, WITH SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION, TO BE CONSIDERED AS ELECTRO-
PHOS CORPORATION'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF RECORD. 1 AGREE THAT
INDISCRIMINATE AND IRRESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES MUST
BE PREVENTED, AND 1 COMMEND THE EPA FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD.
HOWEVER, I MUST POINT OUT WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS "
IN THE IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING RATIONALE IN 40 CFR PART 250 SUBPART A.
-------
FIRST, I SUBMIT THAT CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG FROM ELECTRIC FURNACE
SMELTING OF PHOSPHATE ROCK IS NOT A WASTE. ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION
CO-PRODUCES CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG IN THE APPROXIMATE RATIO OF 8.5 TONS
OF SLAG PER TON OF ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PRODUCED. ALL OF THE SLAG
PRODUCED AT ELECTRO-PHOS IS SOLD TO A PROCESSING AND MARKETING
COMPANY AS PRODUCED. THE SLAG ROCK COPRODUCED IN THE MANUFACTURE
OF PHOSPHORUS IS VERY HARD AND DURABLE. IT IS CHEMICALLY INERT IN SOIL
ACIDS AND WEATHERS WELL IN SURFACE APPLICATIONS. IT IS ALSO EASILY
WETTABLE WITH ASPHALT1C COMPOSITIONS. THESE ATTRIBUTES, PLUS THE FACT
THAT THERE IS NO OTHER LOCALLY AVAILABLE AGGREGATE POSSESSING THESE
SUPERIOR QUALITIES WITHIN 500 MILES OF THE PRODUCING AREA MAKE CALCIUM
SILICATE SLAG THE FIRST AND SOMETIMES ONLY CHOICE IN CENTRAL FLORIDA
FOR: I
- HIGHWAY PAVING AND ROADBED STABILIZATION
- RAILROAD BALLAST AND ROADBEDS
- SEPTIC TANK DRAINAGE FIELDS
- COMMERCIAL AND UTILITY USE FOR ROADWAYS, SUB-STATIONS AND
SOIL STABILIZATION
- MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
- PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY PAVING
- PRIVATE USE FOR DRIVEWAYS, PATIOS AND DRAINAGE
- BUILT UP ROOFING AGGREGATE
- CONCRETE PRODUCT USES
-------
OF SPECIAL INTEREST IS THE USE OF COARSE SLAG IN THE FILTER BEDS
OF TAMPA, FLORIDA'S, NEW MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT WHICH
INCORPORATES THE VERY LATEST TECHNOLOGY FOR TREATMENT OF WASTE
EFFLUENTS ENTERING TAMPA BAY.
ASSUMING THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE INTERPRETED
SO AS TO REMOVE SLAG FROM THE MARKET PLACE THE ECONOMIC IMPACT
WILL BE AT LEAST THREE-FOLD.
- A VITAL THREE MILLION DOLLAR AGGREGATE PROCESSING AND
MARKETING INDUSTRY WILL BE ELIMINATED WITH THE DIRECT LOSS
OF THIRTY (30) JOBS AND AN IMMEDIATE WRITE OFF OF CAPITAL
INVESTMENT.
- THE CENTRAL FLORIDA AREA WILL FEEL A RIPPLE EFFECT FROM:
- LOSS OF TRUCK DRIVING JOBS ASSOCIATED WITH DISTRIBUTION
AND HAULING OF SLAG
- HIGHER COSTS TO CONSUMERS FOR IMPORTED OUT OF STATE
AGGREGATE MATERIALS
- LOSS OF REVENUES TO THE LOCAL SERVICE INDUSTRY AND
HEAVY MACHINERY BUSINESS
- THERE WILL BE A NET COST TO ELECTRO-PHOS OF APPROXIMATELY
$1 .OMM PER YEAR, AN INFLATIONARY INCREASE WHICH THE _
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS WOULD HAVE TO BEAR.
SECOND, I SUBMIT THAT CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG FROM ELECTRIC FURNACE
SMELTING OF PHOSPHATE ROCK IS NOT A HAZARD.
-------
THE EPA FINAL DRAFT DOCUMENT, "IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
OF HAZARDOUS RADIOACTIVE WASTE PURSUANT TO THE RESOURCES
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976", EXPRESSES A CONCERN
FOR AIRBORNE RADIATION FROM RADON GAS AND ITS PROGENY IN
HOMES BUILT ON RECLAIMED LAND. THE EPA MEASURED RADIUM CON-
CENTRATION IN SOIL MATERIALS AND ATTEMPTED TO RELATE THESE
MEASUREMENTS TO INTERIOR RADIATION WORKING LEVELS THAT MIGHT
BE ANTICIPATED IN STRUCTURES BUILT UPON THESE SOILS. HOWEVER, THE
DATA UPON WHICH THE SUBJECT REGULATIONS ARE BASED APPARENTLY
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE .LATEST EPA STUDIES, AND DOES NOT ADEQUATELY
DEFINE SUCH A RELATIONSHIP. THE EPA'S GRAPH PURPORTING TO SHOW
SUCH A CORRELATION SHOWS EXTREME DATA POINT SCATTER AND AN
ALMOST MEANINGLESS CORRELATION FACTOR.
AMONG THE MANY FACTORS AFFECTING THE PRECISION OF A CORRELATION
OF RADIUM CONTENT AND RADON GAS FLUX IS THE EMANATING POWER OF
THE PARTICULAR MATERIAL INVOLVED. THE EMANATING POWER MAY BE DEFINED
«*
AS THE RATIO OF THE RADON GAS ESCAPING FROM A MATERIAL TO THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF RADON GAS BEING GENERATED IN THE MATERIAL FROM THE DECAY
OF RADIUM 226. IF FOR EXAMPLE, WE TAKE TWO DIFFERENT MATERIALS EACH
WITH THE SAME RADIUM CONCENTRATION, BUT DIFFERENT EMANATING POWERS,
THE ONE WITH THE LOWER EMANATING POWER WILL GIVE OFF OR DIFFUSE A
LOWER AMOUNT OF RADON GAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
-------
S1NCE THE MEASURE OF AIRBORNE RADIATION IS A MEASURE OF THE
AMOUNT OF RADON GAS AND ITS PROGENY, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL RADON FLUX PRESENT TO PROPERLY EVALUATE
HEALTH EXPOSURE RISK. THIS IS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT IN EVALUATING
SLAG AS A HEALTH EXPOSURE RISK1. INDUSTRY DATA SHOWS THAT
SLAG HAS AN EXTREMELY LOW EMANATING POWER, RANGING FROM
16/1000 OF ONE PERCENT TO 42/100 OF ONE PERCENT, DEPENDING ON
MATERIAL SIZING. COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED STANDARD OF 5 PCI
PER GRAM FOR SOIL, ON WHICH THE STANDARD WAS BASED, TO OBTAIN
AN EQUIVALENT RADON FLUX FROM SLAG WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE SLAG
CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 227 PCI PER GRAM (FOR FINE PARTICLES) AND UP
TO 6000 PCI PER GRAM FOR LUMP AGGREGATE. RELATING THIS TO THE
.v
REAL WORLD, SLAG WHICH NOMINALLY CONTAINS RADIUM 226 AT A LEVEL
OF 50-70 PCI PER GRAM HAS A RADON FLUX EQUIVALENT TO SOIL AT WELL
UNDER 1 PCI PER GRAM.
FURTHER, THE RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT STUDIES ON AIRBORNE RADIATION
AT PHOSPHORUS FURNACES, WHERE THE ACCUMULATION OF SLAG IS MANY
TIMES GREATER THAN ANY KNOWN COMMERCIAL OR PRIVATE USE SITE,
INDICATE WORKING LEVELS 1/10 TO 1/20 OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION STANDARD OF 0.03 WL. OBVIOUSLY, IT IS COMPLETELY
IRRATIONAL TO CLASSIFY CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG AS A HAZARD.
-------
IN SUMMARY,
- CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG IS NOT A SOLID WASTE AND THEREFORE
CANNOT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BE DECLARED A
HAZARDOUS WASTE.
- THE PROPOSED RADIATION ACTIVITY LEVEL OF 5 PCI/GM. WAS
DERIVED FROM RECLAIMED LAND MEASUREMENTS PRIMARILY FOR
PROTECTION AGAINST INDOOR A1RBORN RADIATION AND IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF FLORIDA SLAG USE.
- NO ALLOWANCE OR CONSIDERATION WAS MADE IN ESTABLISHING
THE 5 PCI/GM. STANDARD FOR THE EXTREMELY LOW EMANATING POWER
OF DENSE SLAG.
- AIRBORNE RADIATION WORKING LEVEL MEASUREMENTS MADE AT PLANT
SITES WITH HEAVY SLAG CONCENTRATIONS ARE WELL BELOW THE NRC
LIMIT 0.03 WL FOR CONTINUOUS PUBLIC EXPOSURE (168 HOURS PER WEEK).
- THE POTENTIAL $1 .OMM/YEAR INCREASED PRODUCTION COST IMPACT ON
ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS DUE TO THE CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATION
OF SLAG IS INFLATIONARY.
- THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATION OF SLAG COULD
SHUTDOWN THE VITAL SLAG AGGREGATE INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA,
ELIMINATING 30 JOBS AND INCREASING AGGREGATE COSTS FOR
CENTRAL FLORIDA CONSUMERS.
-------
WE BELIEVE THE ABOVE TECHNICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS
FORM AN OVERWHELMING BASIS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION
OF SLAG AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. NO EVIDENCE HAS YET COME TO OUR
ATTENTION INDICATING THAT FLORIDA SLAG POSES ANYTHING OTHER THAN
A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE HEALTH RISK TO RADIATION EXPOSURE.
THANK YOU.
CVx^/
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
"ECONOMIC AND RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CALCIUM
SILICATE SLAG FROM ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PRODUCTION"
"RADON EMANATION FROM PHOSPHATE FURNACE SLAG
AND PHOSPHATE ORE"
"EPA STUDY- INDOOR RADON LEVELS - FEBRUARY, 1976"
"SURVEY OF THE MOBIL CHEMICAL NICHOLS PLANT FOR
RADON AND RADON DAUGHTERS", M. E. WRENN, NYU,
REPORT.
"OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE IN THE FLORIDA
PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY", U. OF FLA. REPORT.
"PEMBROKE LABORATORY ANALYSES OF SLAG EFFLUENT
SAMPLES"
-------
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
of 7 PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
COMMENTS BY
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES CORP.
The following comments outline the official position of Southern
Industries Corp., P.O. Box 1685, Mobile, Alabama 36601, concerning the
classification of phosphorus furnace slag as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR
Part 250 Subpart A of the proposed regulations.
Southern Industries commends the EPA in its endeavors to limit or
eliminate any irresponsible disposal of hazardous wastes, however, based
upon scientific and technical studies conducted by various producers and
others in the Florida and Tennessee areas, we feel that phosphorus furnace
slag cannot be classified under 40 CFR Part 250 Subpart A as a hazardous
was te. ,
There are two reasons for this:
1. Phosphorus furnace slag is not a "waste".
2. Phosphorus furnace slag is not hazardous.
SLAG IS NOT A "WASTE"
At the present time Southern Industries purchases 100% of all phos-
phorus furnace slag generated by two elemental phosphorus producers in
Florida and two elemental phosphorus producers in Tennessee. The com-
bined annual tonnage amounts to approximately 1.3 million tons. Before
selling this material into a diversified market, which will be outlined be-
low, it is crushed and sized into several different grades or sizes, each
-------
'age 2 of 7
supplying a vital product source for its particular market. To process
this material for market required a substantial outlay of capital invest-
ment in land, plant equipment and material inventories. It also requires
the services of 78 employees, along with many outside contractors and in-
dustrial supply vendors.
In 1978, Southern Industries sold phosphorus furnace" slag into the
following market areas: .
1. Railroad Ballast * - 236,907 tons 18%
2. Road Aggregates - 788,740 tons 60%
3. Sewage Treatment - 154,018 tons 12%
4. Concrete Blocks - 90,498 tons 7%
5. Roofing - 40,034 tons 3%
6. Misc. (Driveways, etc) - 877 tons
1,311,074 tons 100%
This tonnage represents approximately 70% of all phosphorus furnace
slag in Tennessee and 100% of all phosphorus furnace slag in Florida that
*r
is generated by the various elemental phosphorus producers.
Gross sales of phosphorus furnace slag in 1978 amounted to $5,934,206,
Phosphorus furnace slag is marketed and shipped in Florida, Alabama,
Tenn., Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Indiana by SI Minerals and Southern Stone Co., both wholly
owned subsidiaries of Southern Industries.
Unlike limestone, which is the primary construction aggregate in
the Southeastern United States, it has non-polishing characteristics and
is specified in lieu of limestone by the Federal Bureau of Roads for use
in non-skid bituminous wearing surface pavements. This greatly enhances
-------
age 3 of 7
the safety characteristics of asphalt highway pavements.
Another unique feature of slag versus limestone is the non-cementing
properties which it possesses. This is a very important quality when used
as railroad ballast. This feature insures good drainage on railroad beds
and greatly increases the life expectancy of RR crossties and railroad
track life, which in turn is a definite safety factor.
If the 1.3 million annual tons of phosphorus furnace slag is witheld
from the marketplace, not only will the replacement cost be exorbitant,
but, in some cases, an aggregate of equal quality is simply not available.
How could a vital product such as this be designated as a "waste"?
-------
ige 4 of 7
SLAG IS NOT1"HAZARDOUS"
The EPA evidently lists phosphorus furnace slag as hazardous because ^
of its concern for airborne radiation from radon gas and its progeny, arising
from earlier EPA studies of the phosphate industry, and in particular homes
built on reclaimed land.
Since Florida slag shows a higher radium 226 decay activity (40-70 pci
per gram), than Tennessee slag ( 3-5 pci per gram), our comments are di-
rected to results of studies relating to phosphorus furnace slag generated
by Florida elemental phosphorus producers.
A major contributing factor concerning the concentration of radon gas
in a particular area is a direct function of the emanating power of the
particular material involved. The emanating power is defined as the ratio
of the radon gas escaping from a material to the total amount of radon gas
being generated in the 'material, from the decay of radium 226.
•¥
A study made by one Florida company reveals the following conclusion
and we quote:
"Data available to us shows that slag has an extremely low emanating
power, ranging from 16/1000ths of 1 percent to 42/100ths of 1 percent, de-
pending on material sizing. Compared to the proposed standard of 5 pci per
gram for soil, on which the standard was based, to obtain an equivalent radon
flux from slag would require that the slag contain a minimum of 227 pci per
gram (for fine par tides) and up to 6000 pci per gram for lump aggregate.
Conversely, slag which nominally contains radium 226 at an activity level of
40- 70 pci per gram would have a radon flux equivalent to soil at well under .
1 pci per gram."
-------
Three other studies of airborne radiation were made, including one in
1976 by U.S.E.P.A. with the following results:
University of Florida New York University U.S.E.P.A
(External) (External & Internal) (Internal)
.003 WL .0012 WL .0006 WL
.007 WL .0011 WL .005 WL
.0006 WL .0022 WL .003 WL
.0011 WL .005 WL
.0010 WL
. - - • .0003 WL -
The results of these studies,^ made at phosphorus furnace sites where
the accumulation of slag is*many times greater than any commercial or private
use site, shows airborne radiation at working levels 1/10 to 1/20 of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission standard of 0.03 WL for continuous public
exposure (168 hours per week).
A further study to determine the concentration of radium 226 in water
at a particular elemental phosphorus plant site gave the following results:
Sample Identification Radium 226 pci/liter
1. Floridan aquifer well 0.25
2. Hawthorne aquifer well 0.79
3. Recirculated pond water 0.08
4. Slag cooling water • 6.12
5. Slag Processing water 0.25
6. Leachate from slag storage area 4.30
These results are well below the 50 pci/liter proposed standard and
all but one is below the 5 pci/liter EPA standard for drinking water.
Other tests have been conducted by the University of Florida Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences on sugarcane fields in the South Florida
area. These tests indicate no trace of any measurable radiation in sugarcane
fields where phosphorus furnace slag had been applied to the soil to increase
sugarcane production per acre.
-------
Page 6 of 7
SUMMARY:
Southern Industries maintains that:
1. EPA has no authority under RCRA to regulate slag sold as a product
since it is not a solid waste.
2. EPA has no authority to list slag as hazardous because of radioactivity
without first establishing appropriate radioactivity hazardous waste
characteristic criteria.
\
3. The classification of slag as a hazardous waste would eliminate slag
from vital markets creating:
a. The loss of 78 jobs
b. Substantial assets to be written off
c. The loss of $5,900,000 in annual gross
sales to Southern Industries
d. Loss of revenue to outside contractors
and industrial vendors
e. Loss -x>f jobs and revenue to small private
trucking firms
f. An increased inflationary cost of vital
construction aggregates
g. An increased inflationary cost to elemental
phosphorus producers which may jeopardize
their continued operation and thus the source
of our business.
-------
Page 7 of 7
Please direct all response to:
Steve Allen, President
Southern Stone Co., Inc.
2111 Eighth Ave., South
Birmingham, Alabama 35233
Tele: 205/252-6104
T. G. Smith, Vice President
SI Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Box 5108
Lakeland, Florida 33803
Tele: 813/646-5741
-------
-------
March 7, 1979
STATEMENT OF ARAPAHOE CHEMICALS, INC.
In Re: HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976 - DENVER, COLORADO
My name is Earl R. White. I am the Health and Regulatory Affairs
Chemist for Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc. located in Boulder, Colorado.
Arapahoe Chemicals is a manufacturer of bulk Pharmaceuticals and
fine organic chemicals with facilities located in Boulder, Colorado
employing 273 people and in Newport, Tennessee, employing 206
people.
Arapahoe Chemicals is committed to the concept of social responsi-
bility tha.t includes active and convincing participation in
national pol icymaking. We have also made commitments of responsibility
in our relationships with our shareholders, our employees and
our community. In responding to these proposed measures we do
not wish to imply that we are fighting the concept of social
responsibility, nor are we blind to the real caus.es of environmental
insul ts .
-------
2.
We appreciate the difficulties in writing responsible regulations '
to enforce the technicalities of reasonable legislation.
Especially recognizable are the difficulties encountered when
dealing in the highly complex area of environmental protection.
We believe that public policy should be based upon an informed
view - one that is far-sighted, fiscally responsible, realistic,
supportable and non-selfserving. We believe in facing this
regulatory dilemma squarely without resorting to exaggeration
and overstatement of the possible ramifications to EPA's
proposals - a tactic which we recognize would polarize the exchange
of ideas. Furthermore, we believe that responsible business
can play a constructive role and not just a defensive one in
the formulation of regulatory policy..
In the comments to follow we have identified and responded to
certain technical, legal and economic issues which we feel will
have a profound impact on our business. Equally important,
however, is the fact that"neither RCRA nor the proposed implementing
regulations deal with the scarcity of hazardous waste treatment
and disposal facilities or the extreme difficulties faced by
government and private industry in siting additional facilities.
It is clear that these regulations, if finalized in their present
form, would place many generators in the position of having no
feasible means of disposing of some or all of their waste.
There is a good possibility that there will be no_ approved
hazardous waste disposal sites (landfills) in either Colorado or |
Tennessee. Furthermore, the legislatures of both States may refuse
-------
3.
to fund another expensive Federal program. The Colorado
Legislature took that posture this past year when it stopped
funding COSH, the State arm of the Federal OSHA program.
Arapahoe Chemicals' principal concerns with the proposed regulations
contained in Section 3001 are discussed first and our detailed
comments follow in a section-by-section format. In the opinion
of Arapahoe Chemicals, there are three basic problems with the
proposed Section 3001 hazardous waste regulations. These include:
(1) The potentially high cost, in both time and money, of
performing the tests to determine whether or not a
waste is hazardous.
(2) The exceptionally broad definition of a solid waste,
and
(3) The proposed controversial Extraction Procedure.
Our first concern centers around EPA's proposal beginning with
Sec. 250.10(d)(l)(i):
"Generators of solid waste may elect to declare their waste
hazardous and subject to the regulations of this Part. In
these oases, generators need not perform the specified evaluation. "
-------
4.
Arapahoe's comments,:
Since the cost, in both time and money, of performing the tests
to classify industrial wastes is so high and since the penalty
for not being in compliance is so great, the tendency for small
and medium sized generators is going to be to declare all
industrial wastes as hazardous. This in turn is going to put an
unnecessary and greater burden on the approved hazardous waste
landfill sites in the country and consequently decrease their
useful life, resulting in the wasting of a valuable natural
resource. Furthermore, as the easily accessible sites are
filled and it becomes necessary for industry to haul its wastes •
greater distances, the $35 to $4200* per metric ton EPA disposal
cost estimate, which is approximately four to 436 times our current
disposal cost, will be greatly exceeded.
We.recommend that EPA develop and adopt less expensive and easier
tests to make the determination of whether or not a waste is hazardous.
This would surely be a good use of public money.
*Memorandum from Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton to SOCMA
dated December 27, 1978.
-------
5.
I
Our second concern centers around EPA's proposal beginning with
Sec. 250.13(a)(l)(ii ):
"A solid waste is a. hazardous waste if a representative sample of
the waste: . . . when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently
as to create a hazard during its management."
Arapahoe's comments:
Is it the intent of this section to regulate non-domestic waste
paper, cardboard, wood scraps, sawdust, etc., as hazardous wastes?
Certain wastes, such as waste paper from office facilities of chemical
companies may be non-hazardous. These should not be classified as
hazardous merely because of the source, nor should companies have to
"justify by testing that their waste paper is not hazardous. Waste
paper from the office facilities of chemical companies should be
treated no differently than normal household refuse (Refer to Page
58969, Column 3 of these proposed regulations, which addresses the
intent of Congress) .
•
The clause "or when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently as
to cause a hazard during its management" should be stricken from
the regulations'.
-------
6.
Our third major concern centers around EPA's proposal beginning
with Sec. 250.13(d)(l);
"A solid waste is a hazardous waste if, according to the methods
specified in paragraph (2)3 the extract obtained from applying the
Extraction Procedure (EP) acited below to a representative sample
of the waste has concentrations of a contaminant that exceeds any
of the following values [e.g.,] cadmium at 0.10 mg/1."
And Sec. 250.13(d)(2)(E):
"Begin agitation and adjust the pH of the solution to 5,0 ± 0.2
using 0.5 N acetic acid."
Arapahoe's comments
It appears that the intent of this section is to incorporate
discarded concrete, piping, ductwork and other construction discards
to the EP test. Therein, it appears that building contractors,
wreckers, etc. would be classed as generators of solid waste and
would be required to apply the EP to determine if their solid waste
were hazardous. A classic example being a fragment of concrete from
drain tile, an aqueduct, a dam, a bridge, a highway, an airport
runway, a skyscraper, a neighborhood sidewalk, the foundation of a
home, or the storage pad of a chemical plant which, when subjected
to the proposed EP results in a "leachate" containing cadmium in
excess of 0.10 mg/1.
The EP test appears scientifically unsound in that: (a) This
laboratory test may not be indicative of actual environmental
-------
7.
situations; (b) Two chemicals used in the test, namely acetic
acid and deionized water, are not commonly found in nature;
(c) Disposal of acid waste is not considered state-of-the-art
practice by industry; (d) Acid analyGis as indicative of soil
erosion d-oos not co-v-or the mwnal alkaline soilo found in the arid
and 3cmi arid western two thirds of tho nation; and (e) No
consideration of soil types or characteristics (other than acidity)
was acknowledged or dealt with in this section.
This concludes our public statement of concerns relative to Section
3001. We appreciate the opportunity to have presented our concerns,
opinions and suggestions.
j~-* i
£c7«in l&*j]-rfi*c<
in.
-------
Suits 1120
1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20036
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 202/372-3110
Testimony of Francine Ballet Kushner
Associate Director, Legislative & Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
on Hazardous Waste Regulation Under §3001
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Good afternoon, my name is Francine Bellet Kushner, Asso-
ciate Director for Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Chemical
Specialties Manufacturers Association. CS?1A is a voluntary non-
profit organization consisting of more than 400 member companies
engaged in the manufacture, processing and distribution of chemical
specialty products. Production processes in the manufacture and
formulation of members'products generate substances that are
directly affected by the proposed regulations for identification
and listing of hazardous wastes as well as the proposed standards
for generators and owner/operators of treatment, storage and dis-
posal facilities. Accordingly, CSMA offers the following comments
regarding the hazardous waste regulations proposed under §3001
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These points
and others will be further developed in our subsequent written
submission.
We welcome this opportunity to present our views to the
Environmental Protection Agency on issues raised by these hazard-
ous waste regulations which will have significant impact on our
industry. The vitality of the chemical specialties industry is
dependent upon the opportunities for constant innovation. We
-------
are concerned that the proposed hazardous waste regulations will
have a negative impact on essential process and product innova-
tion and will impact disproportionately on small companies.
Identification Criteria Should Reflect Degree of Hazard
The proposed regulations create but one category of hazardous
waste and lump all wastes identified as hazardous in the category
regardless of the differing degree of hazard, persistence, degrad-
ability and bioaccumulation exhibited by the wastes actually
classified as hazardous. EPA's failure to consider degree of
hazard in identifying and classifying hazardous wastes violates
the provisions and intent of RCRA and will result in an irrational
regulatory scheme which vastly over-regulates many wastes while
possibly under-regulating others.
Both the legislative history and RCRA itself indicate the
degree of hazard should be considered in setting standards for
hazardous waste management. Section 1004(5) of RCRA indicates
Congressional intent to consider relative hazard in its definition
of hazardous waste as a "solid waste, or combination of solid
wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical or infectious characteristics...". Section 3004 of RCRA"
recognizes that financial responsibility should be based on degrees
of risk. This section refers to "assurances of financial respon-
sibility and continuity of operation consistent with the degree
and duration of risks associated with the treatment, storage, or
disposal of specified hazardous waste".
-------
Any designation of hazardous waste as such, because of the
management standards created by the RCRA regulations, should be
according to relative degree of hazard. This concept of relative
degree of hazard has been recognized in state hazardous waste
management programs of many states,including Washington and Mary-
land's well as in the designation of special wastes under §250.46
of these regulations. Any regulatory system based'on relative
degree of hazard must recognize factors of persistence, degrad-
ability, concentration, form, quantity, and exposure.
A regulatory system assessing relative degree of hazard is
also necessary in establishing an exemption mechanism. It is
more realistic to key the exemption mechanism under §250.29 to
relative degree of hazard than to provide a blanket exemption.
An exemption system based upon relative degree of hazard would be
more likely to afford greater protection against hazardous waste
mismanagement than an exemption system based on an across-the-board
exemption level. Such a system would provide significant relief
from extraordinary economic and technical burdens imposed by the
regulatory structure for less hazardous wastes and would reduce the
number of insignificant generators covered by the regulation,
thereby avoiding a shortage in treatment, storage and disposal
capacity while not reducing protection from hazardous waste mis-
management. A management and exemption system based upon relative
degree of hazard would also improve oversight of hazardous waste
management by freeing the Agency to concentrate on those wastes
which exhibit truly serious hazards and would establish priorities
-------
for hazardous waste management review.
Criteria for Designation as Hazardous Waste Should be Consistent
with DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations
EPA criteria for designation of a substance as a hazardous
waste should be consistent with the DOT criteria for hazardous
substances. CSMA urges that these criteria be consistent be-
cause the entire industry approach to hazardous materials is
based on the DOT regulations. Industry has already geared up to
deal with the DOT criteria. Any deviation from the DOT criteria
would not only necessitate a massive reeducation effort on the
part of those involved in the hazardous waste management chain
but would also be significantly complicated by any further devia-
tion from the criteria instituted in state programs.
For example, 0250.13(a) designates as- an ignitable waste sub*
ject to these regulations any substance with a flashpoint less
than 60°C (140°F) determined by a specified method. EPA should
adopt a definition of hazard based upon the DOT designation of
flammable substances as those with a flashpoint of less than 100°F
and of combustible substances as those with a flashpoint between
100°F and 200°F. Such a definition would be consistent with
existing DOT regulations and would also recognize relative degrees
of hazard. As another example, both EPA and DOT establish as
corrosive any substance which corrodes steel in excess of one-quar
inch per year. Nevertheless, EPA has gone bevond existing DOT
regulations to identify pH, in and of itself, as an indication of
corrosivity. Section 250.13(b) adds an additional criterion
-------
for designation of a waste as corrosive a pH of less than three
or greater than twelve. The invalidity of pH as an indicator of
corrosive hazard has been recognized by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and by its predecessor Bureau of Product Safety within
the Food and Drug Administration in detergent toxicity surveys.
Therefore, EPA should delete pH as a criterion for corrosive waste.
Definition of "Other Discarded Material"
The section 250.10 (b) definition of "other discarded material"
includes substances or wastes that are reused, reprocessed, re-
cycled or recovered/including materials treated prior to reuse.
The extension of the definition to such substances is clearly not
contemplated by RCRA. The legislative history .(H. Kept. No. 94-1491,
Part I) states that the term "other discarded materials" is not
to include reused waste. "Much industrial and agricultural waste
is reclaimed or put to new use and is therefore not a part of the
discarded materials disposal problem the committee addresses".
(H. Kept. No. 94-1491, Part I, p.2). Materials that are reused,
regardless of how, are not subject to regulation under RCRA. This
inclusion of material having economic value in the term "other dis-
carded material" is also inconsistent with the ordinary usage of ."
the term "discarded".
The proposed regulations should recognize that, by definition,
a waste has no commercial or economic value, and any used substance
with commercial or economic value should not be subject to these
requirements. And, this recognition should incorporate a presump-
tion that if a waste has inherent economic value, it will be used
-------
for the purpose that will exploit that commercial or economic value.
Furthermore, where the commercial or economic value of a.
hazardous waste is based upon heat generation from incineration,
the current definition of "other discarded material" would result
in regulation of this waste under these hazardous waste regulations.
This would result in making a waste incinerator used for heat
generation purposes, a treatment facility subject to the design
standards proposed under §3004 and the permit requirement of §3005.
Such a result was not contemplated by Congress. Accordingly, the
definition of "other discarded material" should be amended to
clarify that reprocessed,recovered, or returned reusable chemicals
do not constitute waste subject to regulation under RCRA and that
treatment of wastes prior to reuse is not subject to regulation
under §3004 of RCRA.
Regulatory treatment under RCRA of reused, recycled, or re-
processed waste should be consistent with rules under §5 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which recognize that exploita-
tion of full potential of a- waste or end product does not consti-
tute sufficient basis for regulation. For example, 40 CFR §720.13(d)
a rule under 15 of TSCA, does not classify co-products as chemical
substances subject to TSCA "if the only commercial purpose is for
sale to municipal or private organizations who burn it as a fuel".
Accordingly, waste materials burned primarily for heat recovery
should not be considered "other discarded material" for purposes
of disposal under §3004 regulations of RCRA.
-------
Summary
In summary, the proposed regulations under §3001 of RCRA \
should be amended to reflect CSIlA's major concerns, which are:
1. Identification criteria and listings to designate
hazardous waste should reflect relative degrees
of hazard. The regulatory system and any exemptions
thereunder should incorporate relative degrees of
hazard.
2. Criteria for designation as hazardous waste should
be consistent with criteria under DOT hazardous
materials regulations.
3. The definition of "other discarded material" should
P not include wastes that are reused, reprocessed, M
recycled, or recovered, including materials treated
prior to reuse.
CSMA appreciates this opportunity to share our views and we
offer our firm commitment to- work with the Environmental Protection
Agency toward development of viable hazardous waste management
regulations.
-------
0
RIO BLANCO" OIL SHALE COMPANY
DAYTON COMMONS 9725-E.'HAMPDEN AVENUE
7~ *--_ DENVER, COLORADO 8023T ~ -.. J303-.75T-2Q30 ..
A3ENEPAL=AHTN£3SH1P
:it COPPCPATICN • STANDAflO OIL COMPANv ^QiAf-JA,
March 7, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Lehman:
In 43 Fed. Reg. 58946 - 59022 (Dec. 18, 1978), the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) caused to be published certain proposed regulations under
II 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),1 which was passed
by Congress on October 21, 1976. Submission of written comments on these pro-
posed regulations has been invited by EPA and are due on or before March 16, '
1979.
In response to this invitation, Rio Blanco Oil Shale Company, a general
partnership comprised of Standard Oil Company (Indiana) and Gulf Oil Corporation
(RBOSC), would like to take this opportunity to submit our written comments
thereon for EPA's consideration. In addition, by letter under date of February 23,
1979 to Mrs. Geraldine Wyer of EPA, RBOSC has requested^ an opportunity to make an
oral presentation on these proposed regulations at the Denver hearing scheduled
March 7-9, 1979. A copy of this letter will be submitted as a part of that hearing
record. Mr. Kent R. Olson will make RBOSC's oral presentation.
Before addressing RBOSC's specific concerns, perhaps some background
information on how our written comments are organized would be helpful. We have
elected to treat at the outset certain fundamental legal questions which we believe
affect all three of these proposed regulations. For this reason, these legal
comments do not "identify the regulatory docket or notice number" as requested
in EPA's invitation to comment, but they should be understood to apply to II 3001
[6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] collectively. Thereafter, we will present
our specific comments, whenever practical, in the order in which these proposed
regulations appear in the Federal Register and in the chronological order in
1 Throughout these comments, the section number within the brackets following the
section number of RCRA refers to the corresponding section reference in Title
42 U.S.C.
2 This request was orally granted on March 1, 1979 by Mr. Kafara of EPA.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Two
which they appear within each such proposed regulation. Where, for example, a
comment on some feature of the proposed regulation under I 3001 [6921] would also
pertain to a concern of ours on an aspect of the proposed regulation under § 3002
[6922] and/or § 3004 [6924], we will attempt to coordinate those comments and
cross-reference the appropriate subsections in a manner so as to avoid any con-
fusion or repetition.
FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL COMMENTS
1. It is premature to presently include "mining waste" within the coverage
of II 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] of RCRA and within any regulations
promulgated thereunder.3 The definition of "solid waste" in 1 1004(27) [6903(27)]
of RCRA could be read as suggesting (erroneously) that, because discarded material
from "mining . . . operations" is "solid waste," such waste may be presently
regulated under these three sections of RCRA. However, the legislative history
of RCRA4 refutes that suggestion and makes it clear that Congress intended that
any such regulatory effort must be preceded by the study, reporting and consul-
tation procedures in I 8002(f) [6982(f)].
"Further, there are other aspects of the discarded ma-
terials problem, namely mining wastes and sludge, that
could pose significant threats to human life and the
environment. Becaus'e of a lack or [sic] information,
the Committee is unable to determine the hazards asso-
ciated with the improper management of these wastes.
The Committee has therefore directed the Environmental
Protection Agency to study the sources and composition
of these wastes;'the existing methods of disposal; and
the potential dangers to human health and the environ-
ment caused by the improper management of these wastes."^
[Emphases supplied. ]
3 Although "mining waste" is undefined in RCRA and in these proposed regulations,
the traditional mining industry usage of this term, recognized even in the
proposed regulations themselves, reveal that "mining waste" also includes
that waste for mining-related activities, such as, for example, the processing
of ores and minerals. See "other mining waste" subcategory under the category
"special waste standardsT1" § 250.46-5.
4 The atypical procedural history, including the hectic final days, of this legis-
lation is vividly described in KOVACS & KLUCSIK, The Mew Federal Role in Solid
Waste Management: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 3 COLDM.
J. ENVIR. L. 205, 216-20 (1977):
5 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 4 (1976).
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Three
"Three areas in particular are of such a nature as to
require either a special study or a special program.
These three areas are: mining waste, sludge, and dis-
carded automobile tires.
"A thorough study of mining waste is essential because
mining wastes represent 1.8 billion tons of waste a
year. (The second largest waste generator by volume is
agriculture at 687 million tons, industrial at 200 million
tons, followed by municipal waste at 135 million tons.)
The traditional theory regarding mining waste has been
that it is generally inert. However, a few recent
studies indicate that some mining wastes can be harmful;
some particularly so when mixed with water. Other mine
tailings, particularly those containing heavy metals
may be inert but nonetheless toxic even in their elemental
form. Committee information on the potential danger posed
by mining waste is not sufficient to form the basis for
legislative action at this time.For this reason, the
Committee has mandated a study of mining wastes.
"EPA will undertake a study of mining waste, its sources,
and volumes, present disposal practices and will evaluate
the potential danger to human health and environmental
vitality. EPA will study surface runoff or leachate
from mining wastes and air pollution by dust, as well
as alternatives to current disposal methods and the costs
of such alternatives . . . ."° [Emphases supplied.]
"The intent is for EPA to look at all mining waste
disposal practices, past and present, identify the
adverse effects of such wastes on the environment, in-
cluding people and property located beyond the boundary
of the mine, evaluate the adequacy of thosepractices
from a technical standpoint, including the adequacy of
governmental regulations governing such disposal, and
make recommendations for additional R&D, for improve-
ment of such practices and, where appropriate, for the
development and utilization of alternative means or
methods of disposal that are safe and environmentally
sound . . . ."/ [Emphases supplied.]
6 Id. at 15. Cf. Cong. Rec., June 30, 1976, S11092, 93.
7 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 97.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Four
Until these § 8002(f) [6982(f)] procedures are met, thereby giving
to EPA the information Congress found lacking8 to reasonably and non-arbitrarily
regulate that "mining waste" which is "hazardous," "mining waste" cannot be so
regulated as though it were "hazardous." In considering H.R. 14496, whose pro-
visions in this regard were essentially those of RCRA as finally passed, the
staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce of the House Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee (which was the subcommittee that reviewed this
bill) requested and received from EPA copies of all damage reports, totalling some
400 reports, for the express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from
what kinds of activities and facilities should be covered in RCRA's definition
of "solid waste." Not one of these reports involved "mining waste," nor could
EPA then (as it probably could not now if requested under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act) produce any information on "mining waste" for that exhaustive sub-
committee staff effort. It was precisely for this lack-of-information reason
that Congress mandated EPA to conduct the § 8002(f) [6982(f)] study on "mining
wastes."
This is not to say that EPA is precluded from finding now that specific
mine wastes from a specific site are "hazardous,"9 but rather that any finding
that certain mining wastes generally are "hazardous" can occur only "at some time
in the future,"^ after the 3 8002(f) [6982(f)l procedures are met. By this
method, Congress sought to give EPA the latitude to formulate the scientific
8 EPA apparently has found this information lacking, too. In the preamble to
its proposed Subpart D regulations under § 3004 [6924] of RCRA, EPA admits
that it
"has very little information on the composition, charac-
teristics, and the degree of hazard posed by these wastes,
nor does the Agency yet have data on the effectiveness
of current or potential waste management technologies
or the technical or economic practicability of imposing
the Subpart D standards on facilities managing such waste.
"The limited information the Agency does have indicates
that such waste occurs in very large volumes, that the
potential hazards posed by the waste are relatively low,
and that the waste generally is not amendable [sic] to
•the control techniques developed in Subpart D."
43 Fed. Reg. 58991-92 (Dec. 18, 1978).
9 It is this authority of the EPA Administrator to currently list specific mine
wastes, from specific mine sites, based on valid and thorough data, that the
following first full sentence on page 3 of H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491 refers: "This
however does not preclude any finding by the Administrator that specific mine j
[not mining] wastes are hazardous wastes within the scope of this legislation" "
[emphases supplied].
10 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 3.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Five
basis and data by which "hazardous" "mining wastes" thereafter could be so regu-
lated by EPA without the necessity of EPA1s having to return to Congress to obtain
the requisite regulatory authority; once EPA has met these § 8002(f) [6982(f)l
procedures, it then can promulgate regulations under II 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922]
and 3004 [6924] for such "mining wastes" without any further legislation.
With respect to RBOSC's oil shale operations relative to Federal Proto-
type Oil Shale Tract C-a in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, these operations, including
any generation, transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of "solid waste"
and "hazardous waste" are, and have been from their inception, regulated by numerous
and stringent lease stipulations^ and permits (federal and state). Moreover, such
operations are closely scrutinized by the Area Oil Shale Supervisor in frequent
consultation with the Oil Shale Environmental Advisory Panel. To superimpose yet
another layer of regulation over these already regulated operations would be an
example of the kind of situation Congress did not intend should be subject to
regulations like the three proposed, unless, in implementing the § 8002(f) [6982(f)]
study procedures, a regulatory "hazardous waste" hiatus in this federal prototype
oil shale program was unexpectedly discovered.
2. Assuming, arguendo, that §§ 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924]
of RCRA presently are applicable to "mining waste," and that EPA may promulgate
regulations thereunder, it is RBOSC's understanding that oil shale mining waste,
including processed (retorted) shale, falls under the proposed "other mining waste"^
subcategory in I 250.46-5. If this, however, is not EPA's intent, RBOSC would ™
appreciate prompt notification thereof and would hereby request, without preju-
dice to any of the fundamental legal comments herein, that a separate "oil shale
mining waste subcategory," which would include processed (retorted) shale be created
under the "special waste standards" category in § 250.46. Oil Shale development,
like many other kinds of mining, includes extraction, crushing, handling, pro-
cessing and transporting steps, and therefore should be treated equitably with
other mining.
3. It is unclear if EPA intends to regulate overburden under the "other
mining waste" subcategory in § 250.46-5 as it proposes to do for certain enumerated
"mining wastes."12 if so, any such regulation would have no basis either in
or in the legislative history^ thereof. The term "solid waste" is defined rn
RCRA to mean only certain kinds of "discarded material."^ Therefore, unless a
material is "discarded," it never is a "solid waste" under RCRA, nor can it ever
11 See Federal Tract C-a Oil Shale Lease No. C-20046, pages A-l through A-38.
12 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58951; § 250.lO(d)(2)(11)j § 250.14(b)(2); I 250.46-3(a)(l);
TT50.46-4(a).
13 See_ § 1004(27) [6903(27)].
14 See_H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 2-3.
15 Supra note 13. Cf. § 8002(f)(l) and (6) [6982(f)(l) and (6)].
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Six
be a "hazardous waste" under RCRA, because the term "hazardous waste" is defined
in RCRA16 to mean only certain kinds of "solid waste;" Nor can EPA's proposal
to expansively redefine both the RCRA term "hazardous"waste" (by defining this
term to mean not only what RCRA says it means but also "as further defined and
identified in [this Subpart by EPA]"17) and the language "other discarded material"
in the RCRA term "solid waste" (by incorporating a "reuse" concept18) circumvent
this basic statutory definition. Normally, such overburden is stockpiled and
protected for eventual return to the mine or other use. It is not "discarded."
Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that mining overburden in certain isolated
instances were "discarded,1 such discarded overburden would have to meet the
I 1004(5) [6903(5)] "hazardous" test in RCRA before it would come within II 3001
[6921], 3002 [6922] or 3004 [6924] of RCRA or any regulations promulgated there-
under.
4. The data collection and reporting procedures proposed to be made ap-
plicable to "other mining waste"19 are at variance with the § 3002(f) [6982(f)J
study procedures. Those procedures require the EPA Administrator to "conduct"
this study, "in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior," and, upon com-
pletion thereof, to "publish a report of such study and . . . include appropriate
findings and recommendations for Federal and non-Federal actions . . . . " There
is no requirement in RCRA that a generator or transporter of "hazardous waste,"
or the owner/operator of a facility for the treatment, storage or disposal of
"hazardous waste," prepare or participate in that study or that report, or collect
any raw data therefor, either at the sole cost of EPA or, as EPA proposes, at
the generator's, etc. sole cost. In effect, EPA proposes to force a generator,
etc. to work for EPA in the preparation of this study free of charge to EPA.
The cost of such forced labor to the generator, etc. will inflate the cost of
mineral development.
5. EPA has failed to follow the requirement in § 3001(b) [6921(b)] of
RCRA that any regulations "listing particular hazardous wastes" and "identifying
the characteristics of hazardous waste" be "based on the criteria promulgated-
under subsection (a) of this section."20 The legislative history clearly dis-
closes that Congress had three specific reasons why this bifurcation, in kind
16 See. § 1004(5) [6903(5)].
17 See §§ 250.11(b)(3), 250.21(b)(10), and 250.41(b)(39).
18 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58950 (Dec. 18, 1978); § 250.10(b). In this connection, your
attention is invited to note 15, supra.
19 See § 250.46-5.
20 See § 250.12.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Seven
and chronology, of the development of criteria, on the one hand, and the iden-
tification and listing of "hazardous wastes," on the other hand, was adopted.21
For example, EPA has identified the characteristics of "hazardous waste" and
made them applicable to "mining waste." Yet, no criteria have been promulgated
upon which such identification are supposed to be based. It would appear that
EPA already has decided on such characteristics and then, after the fact, will
prepare first the proposed, and then the final, criteria required by § 3001(b)
[6921 (b)l of RCRA.
6. RBOSC is concerned that these proposed regulations, if promulgated as
presently written, could inadvertently create a federal cause of action in tort
between a "generator," etc. and third-parties, and, if so, that a violation of
the standard could be negligence per se and/or the liability therefor could be
absolute.'2 Present state case law and statutes adequately cover such a cause
of action, and the creation of such a federal cause of action could overwhelm
an already overburdened federal judiciary. Nothing in the legislative history
of RCRA even suggests this was Congress1 intent. EPA's final regulations should
make this crystal-clear.
7. EPA's use of "notes" throughout these proposed regulations is, at worst,
legally confusing and, at best, cumbersome. It is RBOSC's understanding that thes
"notes" would be a part of the final regulations and therefore on an equal legal
footing with the other portions of these regulations. To avoid the potential
unintended result that a court might rule otherwise, and to clean up this awkward
syntactical approach, EPA should incorporate each "note" into the body of the
regulation to which it pertains through the use of "unless" language or something
similar, and delete the introductory-language portion of the "note."
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Without waiving, abandoning or diluting any of the fundamental lega.1
comments hereinbefore, RBOSC would like to show its desire to be helpful with
respect to EPA's invitation to comment by now addressing certain specific aspects
of the proposed Subpart A, B and D Regulations.
21 See_H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 25. See_also KOVACS & KLUCSIK,
supra note 4 at 224.
22 Cf. 43 Fed. Reg. 58973, col. 2, lines 55-65 (Dec. 18, 1978); 1 250.43-7(1).
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Eight
Proposed Subpart A Regulations ( I 3001 [6921] of RCRA):
1. § 250.14(b) — The "sources/process" distinction for listed "hazardous
waste" is confusing. Why 1s such a distinction made? Isn't the bottom line
whether a particular "solid waste" is or is not "hazardous," regardless of whether
it comes from a "source" or a "process"?
Proposed Subpart B Regulations ( I 3002 [6922] of RCRA):
In general, RBOSC finds these proposed regulations well-written and
balanced, and we would like to compliment EPA on a fine job. Our specific com-
ments are as follow:
1. Reference is made on page 58972, column 1, to the obligation of the
"generator" to report to EPA if it fails to receive a copy of the manifest "within
30 days." Presumably, this relates to the requirement in § 250.43-5(a)(2), page
59003. But how does a "generator" know what this 30-day period is and when it
expires?
2. § 250.20(c)(l) — Similarly, how is a "generator" to know if a "per- 4
mitted hazardous waste management facility" really is permitted? By asking that
facility?
3. A "generator's" obligation to principally shoulder the operation of
this manifest system should not be expanded into the area of enforcement by EPA's
adopting the four options under consideration which are described on page 58973.
column 3, especially those in the fourth option, quoted immediately hereinafter:
"(4) Requiring, that a generator who has not received
the original manifest from the facility designated on
the manifest within 35 days after the date of shipment,
or who determines that the returned manifest is incon-
sistent with the original manifest, must:
"(a) Take all actions necessary to determine the cause
of non-receipt or inconsistency;
"(b) Assure that all steps are being taken to locate
and receive the manifest and to assure that the waste
is properly disposed of;
"(c) If he has been unable to accomplish his require-
ments under (a) and (b) above, within 30 days, the gene-
rator must prepare and submit a report to the Regional
Administrator. This report must be submitted within
65 days after the date of shipment, and must contain the
information required in § 250.23(c) except (2). In 4
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Nine
addition, this report must include:
"1. The name, address and identification code of the
designated facility;
"2. The actions which have been or will be taken by
the generator to determine the reason the original mani-
fest was not returned;
"3. The results of the generator's investigation,
including any and all information involving the ship-
ment and cause of non-receipt; and
"4. The identity of all parties who may be respon-
sible for the non-receipt of the manifest."
It is one matter for a "generator to be required to reasonably keep records and
report to EPA, and quite another matter for a "generator" to be compelled to work
for free as a policeman for EPA. In this connection, please see also the last
sentence in § 250.43-5(a)(4).
4. § 250.20(c)(2) — Storage of a "hazardous waste" by a "generator" for
more than 90 days should not necessarily mean that that "generator" is an "owner/
operator of a facility for the storage of hazardous waste" under §1 3004 [6924]
and 3005 [6925] of RCRA and thus subject to all of the Subpart D and E Regulations.
In this connection, please see also I 250.41(b)(83). Some flexibility should be
injected into this absolute "90-day standard," especially in view of the far-
reaching implications of one's being subjected to the sweeping Subpart B, D and
E Regulations if this "90-day standard" is absolute, instead of only the Subpart B
Regulations.
Proposed Subpart D Regulations .( § 3004 [6924] of RCRA):
1. The following four comments pertain to the § 250.41(b) definitions:
(a) "contamination" (19) — To define this term solely as a "degradation"
is vague, overly broad and simplistic.
(b) "fugitive dust" (36) — For consistency, this term should be de-
fined identically to the definition thereof in EPA's PSD Regulations and in EPA's
"Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling."
(c) "hazardous waste facility personnel" (40) — This term is defined,
in part, as those persons "whose actions or failure to act may result in damage
to human health or the environment" [emphasis supplied]. This "damage" standard
is vague, overly broad, and ignores the definition ofhazardous waste" in RCRA,
which uses the qualifying language, inter alia, "significantly," "serious" and
"substantial."
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Ten
(d) It would be helpful If § 250.41(b) included a definition of "land-
fill" (cf. definition of "surface impoundment" (85) ).
2. § 250.43(f) — RBOSC fails to see any reason for determining in detail
what the chemical or physical properties of any waste rock might be, because
the only change in the waste rock from its natural state is its location.
3. § 250.43-1 — With respect to this "general site selection" requirement,23
it should be recognized that, unlike most sited facilities, a mineral developer
does not have much, if any, flexibility in "selecting" a site. It is difficult
enough to find a commercial ore body; the "selection" of the site follows the
"find," not vice-versa. These standards should reflect this reality. Also, the
term "new sources" should be very carefully defined and should exclude all mining
activities currently in existence and any expansion of such existing activities.
4. § 250.43-2(a) — The requirement herein for a "2 meter (6 foot) fence
completely surrounding the active portion of the facility capable of preventing
the unknowing and/or unauthorized entry of persons and domestic livestock" or
"a natural or artificial barrier" equivalent thereto24 is unrealistic. Flexibility
should be provided for those mining sites which are remote and isolated, which
is usually the case. Is it EPA's Intent that this fence be constructed to "float,"
i_.e_., to move with the "active portion of the facility" as mining progresses?
If so, this will greatly inflate mining costs.
5. § 250.43-6(a) — RBOSC fails to see the need for a detailed daily in-
spection of materials which EPA lists or requires to be characterized as "mining
wastes."25 Most mines are in operation seven days a week, 24 hours per day,
so the "facility" is in use. In the semi-arid regions of the West, frequent
inspections during the rainier months might prove to be desirable, but daily
visual inspections are unnecessary.
6. § 250.43-7(b) — An "operator" is without any legal right to insert
such a covenant in an "owner's" deed.2°
23 This requirement is made applicable to "other mining waste" by § 250.46-5.
24 Id.
25 _Id_.
26 Id.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Eleven
7. § 250.43-8(a) Note — This proposed regulation properly recognizes that
there may be times when the rigorous requirements of I 250.43-8(a) are unnecessary
to ensure groundwater is being properly protected. However, the Note provides
relief only where there is no potential for a discharge to groundwater. If there
is not such potential, no monitoring is necessary. The provision for a lesser
degree of monitoring should apply when there is a low potential for contamination.
RBOSC suggests the addition of the words "little or" after the word "indicate"
at the end of line 7 of the Note.
8. § 25Q.43-8(c) — This requirement would entail much unnecessary work
and expense.^ Section 250.43(f) requires a detailed analysis of the waste to
be treated, stored or disposed of. It seems unreasonable to require such compre-
hensive constituent data on groundwater background when the possible pollutants
may be only certain items. It would appear to be more useful to require a
background determination only on those constituents that have caused the wastes
in question to be classified "hazardous." Certainly the determination of the
long laundry-list of interim primary and proposed secondary drinking water stan-
dards for dirt and rock that is merely being relocated will generate a lot of
data that will be of little or no value.
9. § 250.43-8(c)(4) — RBOSC would recommend that a different identification^
of "a statistically significant amount" be utilized.28 The student's T single- ™
tailed test at the 95% confidence level is too restrictive. Very minute fluc-
tuations in baseline levels not attributable to the facility would be encompassed
by this level of significance. Orcfconsideration which makes the T-test inappro-
priate here is that to use a T-test", it has to be assumed that the mean background
level is constant over time so that all of the variation in sampling for the back-
ground level comes from special variation, because otherwise there would not be
independent sampling. This is-particularly severe because the proposed rules
require three monthly samples to establish the background levels. This is much
too short a time period to determine sampling error where there are seasonal
variations, no matter how the data is analyzed. Another problem with the method
here is that the confidence level of 95% is too low. Even assuming there were
independent samples and that there was no change from the background levels after
the facility went into operation, Type I error would occur 5% of the time. In
other words, because there are six measurements to be made quarterly and an ad-
ditional six to be made annually, it would be expected that about once or twice
a year there would be a significant result and the provisions of this subsection
would go into effect, including the requirement in (c)(4)(iii) that the "facility"
discontinue operation until the EPA Regional Administrator determines what actions
are to be taken.
27 Id.
28 Id.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Twelve
10. § 250.43-8(c)(4)(iii) — The "owner/operator" should not be required
to indefinitely ("until the Regional Administrator determines what actions are
to be taken") shut down the "facility" without due process, e_.£., a hearing,
unless an emergency situation exists.29
11. Although the "trust fund" financial security concept for closure and
post-closure of a "facility" in § 250.43-9 is not proposed to be made applicable
to "other mining waste" by § 250.46-5, RBOSC would respectfully offer the following
comments on this "trust fund" concept in case EPA finds them helpful:
(a) An "owner/operator" should be given the option of posting a surety
bond. EPA's fear that no one would qualify for such a bond30 is unfounded. If
an "owner/operator" can qualify therefor, the proof is in the pudding; if not,
then the "trust fund" concept should kick in. EPA's further fear that surety
bonds are subject to year-to-year renewal and therefore are insecure3* can be
overcome by requiring that such a surety bond provide for no cancellation with-
out 30 days' prior written notice to EPA. Following receipt of any such cancel-
lation notice by EPA, the "owner/operator" would have to comply with the "trust
fund" concept.
(b) Re post-closure security, no funds should be released to EPA upon
notice of a violation, as provided in 3 250.43-9(a)(2)(ii); due process, e_.£.,
a hearing, first must be afforded the "owner/operator."32
(c) Provision for a 2% annual inflation factor in calculating the amount
of both the closure and post-closure "trust funds" is unrealistic. It is note-
worthy that EPA, relative to re-evaluating the adequacy of the amount in these
"trust funds" would require a bi-annual evaluation.33 The annual inflation fac-
tor should be tied to an escalator, realistic at the outset and adjusted bi-annually
based on the actual inflation rate.
RBOSC appreciates this opportunity to submit these written comments to
EPA, and we hope that EPA will give them its most serious consideration.
Very truly yours,
R. M. Lieber
Executive Vice President
KROrgr
29 See_ Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n Inc. v. Andrus, Civil Action No.
78-0244-8 (W.D.Va., Feb. 14, 1979). This requirement may be made applicable to
"other mining waste" by I 250.46-5. |
30 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58986 (Dec. 18, 1978).
31 Id.
32 In this connection, please see the case cited in note 29, supra.
33 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58988 (Dec. 18, 1978).
-------
RITA E. EWING
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISOR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DEPARTMENT
UTAH INTERNATIONAL INC.
550 CALIFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
before
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In conjunction with
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
and
PROPOSAL ON IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
MARCH 7, 1979
DENVER, COLORADO
-------
My name is Rita E. Ewing. I am an Environmental Supervisor at ^
Utah International Inc., whose headquarters are located in San
Francisco, California. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
Utah International Inc. is an >ntiagnaticnaL mining company with
surface mining operations in the western United States. We shall
be submitting written technical contributions addressing the
Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations. Today we
would like to offer our general comments, giving a few specific
examples relating to the proposed regulations.
Before beginning our comments, we would like to express our
appreciation to EPA for the tone and format which the Agency has
offered in soliciting constructive public comment. We fully
support the premise that the disposal of hazardous waste is a
crucial environmental and health problem that, if regulated, must
be regulated by a sound and balanced program. We hope the
following comments will assist in formulating the most desirable
strategy for phasing implementation of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976.
-------
-2-
Our comments today address the following issues:
Subpart A - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes
1. Extraction Procedure
2. Definition of a Toxic Waste
3. Uranium Mining Waste Rock and Overburden
Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
1. Conditional Exclusion Based on Volume of Waste Produced
per Month.
2. Alternative Means of Regulating Small Quantities of Wastes
Subpart D - Standards Applicable to Treatment. Storage and Disposal
Facilities
1. "Notes" Category for Standard Deviation
2. Duplication in the Regulation of Mining Wastes
3. Conflict between Regulations
4. Assurance of Post-Closure Costs t
A recurring theme in our comments is the need for standards based
on the degree of hazard which depends on the characteristics of
specific wastes and the environment in which they are deposited.
-------
-3-
Subpart A - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes
1. Extraction Procedure
The legislative history of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 makes it evident that EPA is responsible
for determining and listing all hazardous wastes using cri-
teria developed by EPA (see e.g., H. Report 94-1491,pp5,25).
While in some cases it may be appropriate to require industry
to determine which wastes are hazardous according to EPA cri-
teria, we feel that industry should also be afforded the
flexibility to use alternative tests, methodologies and tech-
niques which, in fact, may be more appropriate for a particu-
lar waste and also meet the EPA criteria.
We cite the "Extraction Procedure" specified in 250.13 (d)(2)
as an example. This Procedure has been designed to "model"
improper management by simulating the leaching action of rain
and groundwater in the acidic environment present in open
dumps and landfills. However, this "model" just does not
reflect all possible conditions, circumstances or processes.
Mining wastes, for example, are usually disposed of without
the mix of non-mining wastes as in the case of public land-
fills. In fact some mining operations have alkaline rather
than acidic wastes. Therefore, the flexibility of allowing
alternative tests should be included in the regulation.
2. Definition of a Toxic Waste
The proposed identification criteria define a broad array of
materials as hazardous based upon reactivity, ignitability,
toxicity and corrosivity. These various "hazardous sub-
stances" are all subject to the same performance standards.
However, some of the identification, design and operating
standards as presently drafted are based on certain assump-
tions and specific conditions which are not necessarily uni-
versal for all kinds of hazardous wastes and disposal envi-
ronments .
For example, a waste is defined as toxic and therefore haz-
ardous if application of the specified Extraction Procedure
to a representative sample of the waste yields an extract
having concentrations of contaminants that exceed ten times
the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards for
those particular substances. The attenuation factor of 10
is qualified in the preamble as being based upon the assump-
tion that the waste is in a "nonsecure landfill' located over
-------
-4-
a fresh water aquifer and that a pumping well is located 500
feet down gradient. These assumptions may not, in fact, be
correct or appropriate for analysing other disposal circum-
stances. Therefore, we recommend that the identification
procedures and performance standards be made specific to the
waste and the disposal environment.
3. Uranium Mining Overburden
The procedure under which uranium mine waste is regulated as
a hazardous waste needs clarification. At present, waste
rock and overburden from uranium mines are listed as hazard-
ous because of inherent radioactivity. A "non-hazardous"
classification can only be attained if tests show that a
representative sample has an average concentration of less
than 5 picoCuries per gram.
We believe that a judgement of the allowable measure of
radioactivity based on a single radium concentration value
is questionable, because overburden characteristics such as
density, moisture content, particle size and soil type all
effect the amount of radon emanation and the gamma dose
generated by uranium mining waste. These factors must be ^
considered in forecasting the degree of radiation hazard.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently made this same
observation in the issued Branch Position paper entitled,
"Interim Land Cleanup Criteria for Decommissioning Uranium
Mill Sites." The paper states, and I quote, "The interrela-
tionship between radium 226 soil concentrations, radon 222
flux and gamma dose rates is a complex function of many fac-
tors ... therefore , since no simple numerical criteria in terms
of radium 226 concentrations in soil is applicable, no at-
tempt has been made to express criteria directly in terms of
radium 226."
EPA also makes this same observation in the background docu-
ment for radioactive waste. Your agency states that the re-
lationship between soil radium concentrations and the result-
ing radiation levels observed in Florida phosphate lands (on
which the 5 picoCuries per gram criterion was based) "may
not", and I quote, "be representative of radium/indoor radon
progeny relationships in a more extensive sample obtained
from a wide geographic area."
I might add that the preamble (p. 58950) states and I quote,
"EPA proposes to rely only on consideration of the first four |
characteristics because those are the only ones for which the
-------
-5-
Agency confidently believes test protocols are available."
Radioactivity is not one of these; therefore, we would argue
that the radiation criterion as proposed is inappropriate.
We recommend that radon flux and gamma dose be designated as
the limiting factors in setting the radiation standard to
circumvent the proven difficulties of relating radium concen-
tration to actual radon and gamma levels.
Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
1. Conditional Exclusion Based on Volume of Waste Produced
We feel that determination of conditional exclusion on the
basis of waste volume produced should be replaced by a more
scientific determination based on the characteristics of the
specific substance, and the conditions under which those sub-
stances will be disposed.
A broad range of wastes have been identified as hazardous,
and within this category, toxic potentials vary widely. We
believe that the amount of toxic waste that can be disposed
of legally should be determined on the basis of the level of
hazard inherent in a specific waste. Further, the site for
waste disposal should also be considered in determining ap-
propriate levels.
For example, one hundred kilograms per month of a specific
substance may be -an appropriate limit in an industrial met-
ropolis where thousands of industrial facilities may cumula-
tively affect the same hydrologic and air quality systems.
However, the effect of disposing of that same one hundred
kilograms might be minimal and insignificant in a more -re-
mote, less industrialized area that does not have to accom-
modate large amounts of hazardous wastes.
Further, the degrees of danger involved in disposing of 100
kilograms of waste oil per month is very different from the
danger inherent in disposing of the same amount of PCB's per
month.
We recommend that the regulations be altered to reflect both
site-specific and waste-specific conditions. Moreover, we
feel that the individual states have a better idea of local
tolerances and that each state should be given the flexi-
bility to administer and enforce a hazardous waste disposal
-------
-6-
program that not only meets the environmental intent of RCRA
but also considers the economic impact on the specific dis-
posal site .
2. Alternatives Addressing Regulation of Small Quantities of
Hazardous Waste
In response to your invitation for comment on the six alter-
natives, addressing small quantities of hazardous waste, we
propose a combination of alternatives three and four, which
would provide for:
Unconditional Federal exemption for small quantities of
hazardous wastes,
Cutoff quantities based on degrees of hazard,
. State responsibility for regulation of exempted waste
groups under the approved state plan and regulatory pro-
gram under Subtitle D o-£ RCRA.
Subpart D
- Standards Applicable to Treatment,
Disposal Facilities
Storage and
1. "Notes" Category for Strandard Deviation
In the preamble, EPA admits that very specific requirements
"might" discourage the development of new technologies or
that different design and operating requirements might be
necessary for a. particular facility which is disposing of
only one kind of waste".
*
Recognizing this problem, EPA has offered the "Notes" cate-
gory to allow for standard deviation. We find this approach
unsatisfactory. Although a note may have the same degree of
legal significance as the regulation it follows, the practi-
cal effect is to subordinate the note to the regulation. A
clearer procedure would be to incorporate the body of the
note into the standard qualified by the word "unless". A
specific example demonstrating this suggestion (as it relates
to 250.43-l(g)) will be provided in our written comments.
-------
-7-
2. Duplication in the Regulation of Mining Waste
The tone and format of the EPA invitation for comment imply
that EPA agrees with industry's sense of operating in an en-
vironment of over-regulation. EPA appears to be seeking to
remedy this situation, but we feel that the guidelines and
regulations may actually have the effect of compounding the
over-regulation problem.
The guidelines and regulations as proposed require mine and
mill operators to obtain hazardous waste disposal permits for
certain mine wastes, including overburden in the cases of
uranium and phosphate mining. The permits would be condi-
tioned by compliance with EPA's proposed "Standards for Owner
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Dis-
posal Facilities."
In the case of coal mining activities, some of the require-
ments duplicate the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act
regulations administered by the Department of Interior. Dup-
lication of regulations and thus of industry permit applica-
tions also exist because several states already have reclama-
tion programs that adequately address the disposal of all
mining wastes, toxic or otherwise. In fact, some state laws
require that open pits be backfilled by returning overburden
to the pits and this may not be acceptable under RCRA.
We believe that additional regulation in this area by RCRA
is a duplication of effort. Additional regulation will cause
more work for both the public sector and the private sector,
perhaps without substantive benefit to either. Thus, we urge
EPA to function as'.a coordinator among the Department of the
Interior and the various states to avoid this duplication
with other regulations.
3. Inconsistency with Other Regulations
In addition to the problem of duplication of regulations,
there is also inconsistency and conflict between the proposed
regulation and other existing regulations.
Sections 250.43 (c), 250.44-1, -2 and 25.45 - 3(d) (2), for
example, specify a 24 hour-25 year design storm, which con-
flicts with the 24 hour-10 year storm required by the Clean
Water Act regulations (40 CFR, Subchapter N, Effluent
Guidelines and Standards). As a result, an approved treat-
ment pond designed pursuant to an NPDES permit would still be
in non-compliance with the hazardous waste regulation. This
kind of inconsistency should be avoided.
-------
-8-
4. Assurance of Post-Closure Costs
We would be remiss without mentioning the necessity for a
provision to allow for the assurance of post-closure costs by
alternative means such as the use of surety bond guaranties.
Although eligibility for surety bonds is often regulated
stringently, and is thus limiting to many owners and opera-
tors, we believe that owners and operators who can obtain
bonding should not be handicapped by a provision that assumes
bonding will not be available. In reality, the availability
of insurance covering "non-sudden and accidental occur-
rences", as required by regulation', is equally difficult to
obtain.
Although we recognize that the responsibility of developing a
viable insurance market does not rest with EPA, inherent in
the proposed regulations is the requirement that owners and
operators obtain "non-sudden and accidental" insurance poli-
cies which are very difficult, if not impossible, for most
owners and operators to acquire. It would therefore be ex-
tremely helpful as we attempt to comply with the regulation
if insurance companies, through government encouragement,
were educated on the positive cost/benefit ratio of providing
this coverage on a less restricted basis.
In summarizing our general comments today, we urge the EPA to be
more specific in addressing the hazardous levels of specific
wastes and factor into your regulations consideration for the
disposal site. We urge you to function as the coordinator among
Federal Departments and State agencies to achieve a Hazardous
Waste program that does not duplicate other regulations and re-
sult in more work for both the private and the public sector. We
urge you to create regulations appropriate for the environmental
goals you are trying to achieve, and regulations that are appro-
priate for the substances addressed and feasible for the com-
panies that must work with the regulations to dispose of hazard-
ous wastes.
We again refer you to our technical written comments, and we
thank you for the opportunity to assist you in the formulation of
these regulations.
-------
WHITE RIVER SHALE PROJECT
1315 WEST HIGHWAY 40
VERNAL, UTAH 84078
{301) 739-0571
March 5, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman
Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-555)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations; Proposed Rules Under
Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
Amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Dear Mr. Lehman:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit our comments concerning the subject
proposed rules as published in the 43 FR-58946 on December 18, 1978. Our
review has shown that the proposed rules pose a severe potential impact on
our planned shale oil production operations.
By way of background, the White River Shale Project (WRSP) is a joint venture
of Phillips Petroleum Company, Sohio Natural Resources Company and Sunoco
Energy Development Company. WRSP .was formed by these companies in order to
develop two Federal oil shale leases located in Utah. No processing opera-
tions are currently occurring on the leases. But plans have been prepared
for the construction and operation of a 100,000 barrel-per-day commercial
shale oil production facility. Such a facility would require the under-
ground mining, crushing and processing of 160,000 tons per day of oil shale
rock.
Processing the rock involves heating the crushed material to over 930°F in
some type of equipment. At this temperature most of the organic material
in the rock separates from the inorganic matrix and is recovered.
The rock, holding much less organic material than before, will then be
discharged for ultimate disposal. About 129,000 tons-per-day of processed
shale rock will need to be disposed of under WRSP's planned 100,000 barrel-
per-day shale oil production rate.- This processed shale will be disposed of
above ground on WRSP leases near the shale oil production facility.'
The processed shale, in our opinion, constitutes a low risk nonhazardous
waste, the disposal of which can be adequately handled under existing and
proposed mine waste disposal regulations.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman -2- March 5, 1979
However, the proposed Subpart A regulations under Section 3001 "identification
and listing of hazardous wastes" could erroneously show processed shale to
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.
This characteristic is "toxicity" as established by the proposed "extraction
procedure" for determining leachate concentrations of several contaminants.
The fundamental problem with the extraction procedure is that it assumes an
acidic environment in the waste pile. As noted in the preamble: "The EP
(extraction procedure) that is included in the proposed rulemaking has been
designed to 'model' improper management by simulating the leaching action of
rain and groundwater in the acidic environment present in landfills or open
dumps."
We recognize that some screening mechanism is necessary. But we have a real
concern with the acidic assumption, since processed shale, or raw shale for
that matter, produces alkaline leachate waters. This is important because
the Teachability of the contaminants of interest are generally affected by
the pH.
A report distributed by Region 8 of the Environmental Protection Agency in
May 1977 entitled "Trace Elements Associated with Oil Shale and Its Processing"
discussed the Teachability of several trace elements. .The report noted that
data showed Selenium, MoTybdenum, Boron and FTuoride are present in processed
shaTe in onTy partialTy soTubTe forms. This' is primarily because these
materials can form water soTubTe anionic species under alkaline conditions
(e.g., SeQ4% Mo4=, 603*3, F~). In contrast, Cadmium, Arsenic, Chromium,
Copper, Zinc and Iron are present in essentially insoluble forms. This is so
because, except for Arsenic, these elements form insoluble hydroxides, oxides,
or sulfides. It is generally understood that as the alkalinity of the Teachate
as produced by processed shaTe materials increase, most metals exist in less
soTubTe forms.
It shouTd aTso be recognized that the oil shale rock is a common material
found in Utah and Colorado. Nature is eroding oil shale formations
continuously. It is important, in our opinion, to recognize the similarities
in quality between the Teachate from a processed shale pile and the leachate
or runoff produced from natural dissolution of the extensive parent rock
formations around the disposal area. It would be unreasonable, in our
opinion, to severely regulate a processed shale disposal site when natural
deposition of simiTar materials is occurring on a large scale all around
the site.
For these reasons we take strong exception to the use of the extraction
procedure as proposed in Part 250, Subpart A, 250.13 (d), for determining
whether processed shale exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic.
Further to this concern of ours, we note that EPA feels a quantitatively
stringent extraction procedure "is necessary, because only waste designated
as hazardous is subject to transport controls as well as disposal controls."
Apparently, EPA desires to be conservative in identifying and regulating
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman -3- March 5, 1979
hazardous waste sources so as to prevent serious accidents during transport
even though ultimate disposal could be adequately regulated for some
"hazardous" wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA, Section 4004.
In this regard we would like to point out that processed shale will not be
transported far. Handling costs are too great. In the case of WRSP, for
example, the material will be disposed of near the oil production facility
on WRSP leases. So a stringent extraction procedure is not required in the
interest of getting processed shale under the "hazardous" waste umbrella for
the purpose of insuring the rock reaches a disposal site safely.
It seems advisable for the EPA to build more flexibility into the toxicity
hazardous waste characteristic test. We suggest EPA consider providing for
alternate tests that can be shown to more closely duplicate the actual
disposal conditions expected.
At this time we have no specific comments regarding Part 250, Subpart B,
regarding proposed regulations pursuant to Section 3002 (Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Wastes).
However, our review of Part 250, Subpart D, pursuant to Section 3004
(Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities) did result in some comments.
First, if processed shale were to be classified as a toeardous waste, we
assume it would be handled as some type of special waste, and more specifically
some type of an "other mining waste" as described in £250.46-5. It would seem
that a unique classification comprised of a modified "special other mining
wastes" type would be advisable. We understand that rulemaking concerning
treatment, storage and disposal of special wastes will be developed in the
future. We very much want to have the chance to participate in this
development.
We fully expect processed shale to not be considered as a hazardous material.
This should occur if the "toxicity characteristic" is evaluated using a
realistic procedure that recognizes processed shale's alkaline nature and
the continuously occurring natural decomposition of shale rock in the disposal
area vicinity. The disposal of processed shale should be adequately con-
trolled by applicable regulations for disposal of nonhazardous wastes and
State mining waste handling regulations.
We appreciate your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Rees C. Madsen
Manager
RCM/nh
-------
The following is the text of an oral presentation made at the public
hearing held March 7-9 in Denver, Colorado, on the Hazardous Waste Guidelines,
Proposed Rules, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, P.L. 94-580, Oct. 21, 1976.
The presentation was made by:
R. N. Heistand, Vice President
Development Engineering, Inc.
Box A, Anvil Points
Rifle, CO 81650
Development Engineering, Inc. (DEI) is a subsidiary of Paraho Development
Corporation. Since 1973, DEI has been engaged in oil shale retorting research
at the Anvil Points Oil Shale Research Facility. This research has proved the
operability of the Paraho retort and has produced 100,000 barrels of crude shale
oil for refining into fuels for further testing and research. The next step in
the development of the Paraho technology is the construction and operation of a
module which could produce 6,000 barrels of shale oil per day.
During the past five years of research and production, many retorted shale
studies have been directed towards the evaluation of its chemical and physical
properties and the assessment of disposal techniques. DEI has been directly
involved in many of these studies and has cooperated with many researchers and
investigators working under contract with the EPA and other government agencies
(see References). Our comments expressed in this letter are based on our
experience and knowledge of Paraho retorted shale properties and the geography
of the Colorado-Wyoming-Utah shale country and the data obtained from studies
of the Paraho operations at Anvil Points.
-------
(A) The proposed extraction procedure (EP) outlined -LU o<=v. w.i_~.. _
(P 250.13) used distilled water maintained to pH = 5.0 +_ 0.2.
This criterion is unrealistic for oil shale operations in
Western U.S. First, the pH of various ground and surface
waters range from 7.5 to 8.1. Second, the leachate from
vegetation lysimeters using Paraho retorted shale and Colorado
River water and from laboratory studies ranged from pH = 6.5
to 11.6.
(B) Retorted shale, as produced by the Paraho operations, is not a
hazardous waste. It does not appear in lists presented in
P 250.14 of the proposed regulations. Paraho retorted shale
does not have the characteristics of a hazardous waste as
identified in P 250.13 of the proposed regulations.
(P 250.13a) Paraho retorted shale is not an ignitable waste.
No autoignition potential was noted. During a one-year
monitoring program, temperatures within a compacted shale
disposal site ranged from 45°F to 85°F.
(P 250.13b) Paraho retorted shale is not a corrosive waste.
The pH leachates, obtained under three sets of conditions,
ranged from 6.5 - 11.60. These data meet EPA proposed
specifications.
(P 250.13c) Paraho retorted shale is not a reactive waste. It
is not normally unstable jior capable of detonation. Under
normal conditions of handling, compaction, and contact with air
and water, it is an inert material. As noted previously, it is
an inert material under normal temperatures and pressures.
(P 250.13d) Paraho retorted shale is not a toxic waste.
Available data from lysimeter leachates show that Paraho
retorted shale meets the proposed EPA Toxic Waste Standards.
Most of these data even meet the more restrictive Primary
Drinking Water Standards. Although the natural pH of these
leachates was about pH = 11, leachates from succeeding seasons
from these lysimeters have pH = 5 and even lower concentrations
of the toxic metals than those shown. More evidence that Paraho
retorted shale is not a toxic waste is found in its chemical
composition. Assuming 100% solubilization under the proposed
EPA extraction procedure for hazardous wastes, cadmium, mercury,
and silver would meet the proposed EPA Toxic Waste Standards.
Since the listed chlorinated hydrocarbons are not naturally-
occurring substances and are not used in the Paraho retorting
process, they are not present in Paraho retorted shale.
-------
The foregoing comments are based on research results and experience gained
by DEI during the Paraho oil shale operations conducted at Anvil Points.
Because Paraho retorted shale is not classified as a hazardous waste under the
proposed regulations, we reserve comments on Subparts B-G of the proposed
regulation. Should there be any substantive changes or additions to the
proposed regulations, we would like to be informed so that we could make
comments at that time.
-------
REFERENCES
Woodward-Clyde Associates, "Disposal of Retorted Shale from the Paraho Oil
Shale Project", USBM J0255004, Dec. 1976.
Colorado State University, "Vegetative Stabilisation of Paraho Spent Oil
Shales, Lysimeter Studies 1976-1977", EPA R803788-03, April 1978.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, "Paraho Semi-Works Retort Preliminary
Data for Samples Collected August and November 1977", ERDA EY-C-06-1830,
July 1978.
Commercial Testing & Equipment Analysis, reported in "Environmental Evaluations,
Paraho Operations", DoE ET-77-C-03-1767, September 1978.
TRW Systems, Inc., "Sampling and Analysis Research Program at the Paraho Shale
Oil Demonstration", EPA 600/7-78-065, April 1978
4
-------
TEXACO STATEMENT
TO
EPA PUBLIC HEARING ON SOLID WASTE ACT REGULATIONS
MARCH 7, 1979
BY
DR. JOHN E. TESSIERI
I am John E. Tessieri, Texaco Inc's Vice President of Research,
Environment, and Safety. Texaco appreciates this opportunity
to comment on the regulations being proposed by EPA for the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Texaco personnel have participated with the American Petroleum
Institute in the review of early drafts of these regulations
and I would like to commend the EPA staff with whom we have
worked for their cooperative attitude and their willingness
to listen to our suggestions. Many of our suggestions have
already been incorporated into these proposed regulations to
make them adaptable to the needs of our industry. This
encourages us to believe that you will view our input during
this comment period with the same positive attitude you have
shown in the past.
Texaco is preparing detailed written comments which will be
presented,before the March 16 deadline, so I will not cover
those details today. Instead, I would like to limit my
comments to only one issue. This issue has been raised by
many others and we believe it to be of prime importance, and
to be fundamental to almost every detailed point about which
we are concerned.
The issue I want to address here has to do with DEGREE OF
HAZARD. That is, we must find a mechanism by which we can
apply a control-technology that is appropriate for the
particular class of waste being managed and its potential
hazard to the environment. Otherwise, there will be a
devastating effect on our industry's ability to produce
needed energy and on our nationwide inflation problems with-
out producing a significant environmental protection benefit,
Texaco agrees with and wholeheartedly endorses the philosophy
that extremely hazardous wastes should be controlled in a
very strict manner. We have little argument with the basic
approach presented in these proposed regulations for that
type of waste. But we cannot endorse the application of the
same degree of control as would be used to manage a dioxin,
PCS, or similar highly toxic material to a waste which fails
the criteria test simply because of the presence, for example,
of a minor amount of one of the drinking-water-standard
metallic species.
-------
Thus, the proposed acidic extraction classification criteria
based upon the philosophy of possible mismanagement in a
municipal waste disposal system^ has no place in many in-
dustrial waste disposal situations. For instance, for ex-
ploration operations in remote areas there is no possibility
that drilling wastes will be disposed of in a municipal
landfill, thus the criteria which applies an acidic extraction
test because municipal landfills are acidic is totally inap-
propriate. In a similar manner, on-site disposal at refineries
never involves municipal wastes so the acidic extraction is
again applying an inappropriate test of potential hazard.
As a result of this type of classification criteria we find
that a vast range of our operations will, inappropriately,
require full compliance with these regulations as though we
were handling highly toxic wastes.
Our industry is studying the impact of these proposed reg-
ulations. The first results of those studies will be pre-
sented to these hearings by the American Petroleum Institute
spokesman so I will not repeat those details, but I would
like to reiterate the basic conclusions. Those studies
indicate that the cost for our industry alone to comply with
RCRA regulations will be several orders of magnitude higher
than EPA's estimate for the total cost of the 17 industries
EPA studied. One impact of this cost burden would be against
many stripper wells which could not afford the cost of pit
lining and cash deposits for closure. (Average stripper well
production was 2.9 barrels^ per day in 1977.) This could mean
a loss of as much as 1 million barrels per day of crude
production, over 12 percent of our 1977 domestic production.
Many shallow exploratory and development wells would not be
drilled should the costs of pit lining, monitoring, and
closure be added to marginal profitability parameters. Yet,
these wells contribute significantly to industry's effort to
arrest the annual decline in domestic production. Also, the
committment of large amounts of capital in cash funds will
seriously affect the ability of other segments of the indus-
try to meet the country's energy needs.
The most significant point here, however, is that these
losses of energy resources would be caused by the fact that
wastes of extremely low potential hazard have to be handled
with the same strict methods as the most hazardous waste,
while in fact, the potential damage to health and the en-
vironment in these cases is insignificant.
We recognize that the "note" mechanism written into the
regulations allows for modifications to the requirements on
-------
-3-
a case-by-case basis, but we feel that the effort required
for the demonstrations to convince the administrator that no
hazard exists is in itself in many cases a wasteful burden.
We disagree with EPA's position that this issue of degree of
hazard is too complex to be handled. You have yourself taken
a first step in that direction by establishing the "Special
Wastes" category in the proposed regulations. There are
several other possible approaches available. We direct your
attention to the several states which are incorporating
degree of hazard in their classification criteria. We
endorse the categorization scheme being proposed by the
American Petroleum Institute. We also suggest that a type-
of-industry categorization similar to that used in the water
regulations could be applied to provide appropriate disposal
technology for each level of hazardous waste.
Consideration of the degree of hazard will provide the ad-
ditional benefit of reducing the initial regulatory load with
which EPA will be faced as the regulations take effect. This
will allow a more adequate coverage of the extremely hazard-
ous waste disposal problems and will provide time for EPA to
give further consideration to approaches for managing the
less serious wastes.
I thank you for your attention and trust that you will seriously
consider this issue and work to provide a sound approach so
that efforts may be applied to the most serious problems
without needlessly expending resources on programs which
provide little health or environmental benefit.
-------
STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. MORTON
COORDINATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, GULF MINERAL RESOURCES CO.,
A DIVISION OF GULF OIL CORPORATION
CONCERNING REGULATION 40 CFR PART 250, SUBPART A
PROPOSED ON DECEMBER 13, 1978, UNDER AUTHORITY SECTION 3001,
RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT
BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, IN DENVER
MARCH 7, 1979
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Panel:
My name is Philip W. Morton, of Gulf Mineral Resources Co., (GMRC),
a division of Gulf Oil Corporation. GMRC has a great interest in all aspects
of the proposed Title 40, Part 250 of the Code of Federal Regulations as pub-
lished on December 18, 1978. However, today my testimony will be limited to
those aspects of the proposed Subpart A, of Part 250, issued under authority
of Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 that
appear to impact on GMRC's uranium mining operations presently being conducted
in New Mexico.
First, perhaps I should make sure everyone here understands exactly what
our concern is. In paragraph 250.14(b)(2), the Environmental Protection Agency,
which I will hereafter refer to as "the EPA", has chosen, erroneously we believe,
to list all "waste rock" and "overburden" from uranium mining as hazardous
waste. Since neither Congress, in the legislation, nor the EPA, in their pro-
posals, has specifically defined the terms "waste rock" or "overburden", I will
use the terms as generally used by the mining industry:
Waste rock - that dirt and rock, usually from underground
mining, that must be moved to gain access to an ore body.
Any mineral content of interest would be of such low concen-
tration that it would not be economically feasible, at present,
to recover it.
-------
-2-
Qverburden - almost exclusively used in surface or
strip mining, is the soil and rock that covers a
mineral deposit that must be moved to gain access
to the ore body.
The term "waste" is also somewhat of a misnomer. Waste, as used by the
mining industry, means simply material that has no economic value for
mineral recovery. It may or may not be discarded to then become "waste"
or "discarded material" in a sense generally accepted by the public.
It is these items that I will be discussing today. I am in no way re-
ferring to mill tailings, which are the "waste" (in mining terms) from the
processing of the ore. Uranium mill tailings are regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, and are not within the
scope of RCRA. GMRC does believe there is some potential for hazard to ™
health associated with tailings and supports a reasonable, workable regula-
tory control of these tailings.
GMRC contends there is no basis for including any mining overburden
intended for return to the mine site in any listing of hazardous waste, as
is done in Section 250.14. Congress was very explicit in its intent regarding
mining overburden and mining waste. Specifically, Congress has exempted over-
burden intended for return to the mine site, and other mine reclamation activi-
ties, from regulation under RCRA.
It is, therefore, not within the scope of the EPA's statutory authority
to even regulate mining overburden. The EPA did recognize its lack of statutory
authority in the preamble to the proposed Section 3001 regulations, but then
erred in reading the referenced House Report. As stated by the EPA on page *
58951 of the December 18th proposals:
-------
-3-
"However, the House Committee Report also states certain I
mining overburdens may be considered hazardous; thus some
are listed in Section 250,14." [43 FR 58951] (Emphasis
added)
The referenced House Report actually states, on pages 2-3:
"Similarly, overburden resulting from mining operations
and intended for return to the mine site is not considered
to be discarded material within the meaning of this leqis-
lation." [HR Rep No. 94-1491, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. 3(1975)]
(Emphasis added)
GMRC further contends it is premature to presently include "mining waste"
or "waste rock" within the coverage under Sections 3001, 3002, or 3004 of RCRA,
or within any regulations promulgated thereunder. Congress, in Section 8002(f)
of RCRA, excluded mining wastes from RCRA coverage until the completion of a
"detailed and comprehensive study on the adverse effects of solid wastes from
active and abandoned surface and underground mines on the environment". Further
this study, in "consultation with'the Secretary of the Interior", is to be '
conducted by the Administrator of the EPA, who shall then "publish a report
of such study and shall include appropriate findings and recommendations for
Federal and non-Federal actions concerning such effects." (Emphasis added)
Thus, it is clear that Congress intended that any regulatory effort must be
preceded by the mandated study, consultation and reporting procedures.
Until these procedures are met, thereby providing to EPA the information
Congress found lacking to reasonably and non-arbitrarily regulate that "mining
waste" is "hazardous", "mining waste" cannot be regulated as though it were
"hazardous". In considering H. R. Sill 14496, the staff of the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Commerce of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee
(which was the subcommittee that reviewed this bill) requested and received
-------
-4-
from EPA copies of all damage reports, totaling some 4QO reports, for the
express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from what kinds of
activities and facilities should be covered in RCRA's definition of "solid
waste". Not one of these reports involved "mining waste", nor could EPA then
produce any information on "mining waste" for that exhaustive subcommittee
staff effort. It was precisely for this lack-of-information reason that
Congress mandated EPA in Section 8002(f) to conduct the study on "mining wastes".
The EPA, further, has failed to follow the requirement in Section 3001(b)
of RCRA that any regulations "listing particular hazardous wastes" and
"identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste" be "based on the criteria
promulgated under subsection (a) of this section". The EPA has recognized this
proper approach, in its draft proposals of December 22, 1978 for Part 122,
Title 40 CFR, the so-called "One-Step Permitting Program", thusly: (I quote
from Section 122.27(a)}
"Section 3001 of RCRA requires the Administrator to 'develop and
promulgate criteria for'identifying the characteristics of
hazardous waste and for listing hazardous waste, which should
be subject to the provisions of this subtitle...' and to 'promul-
gate regulations identifying the characteristics of hazardous
waste, and listing particular hazardous wastes...which shall
be subject to the provisions of this subtitle...' based upon the
criteria." (Emphasis added)
However, the EPA then proceeded to list a "hazardous waste", based on
'the criterion of Section 250.12(b)(2) because the waste contains radioactive
substances." Also, the EPA has identified the characteristics of "hazardous
waste" and made them applicable to "mining waste". Yet, no criteria have been
promulgated upon which such listing and identification are supposed to be based.
It would appear that EPA already has decided on such lists and character-
-------
-5-
istics and then, after the fact, will prepare first the proposed and then
the final criteria required by Section 3001 (b) of RCRA. More specifically,
looking at the category of "Uranium Mining;l in the "Special Waste" table in
43 Fed. Reg. 58992 as illustrative, the EPA has concluded (listed?) that 150
million metric tons per year is "hazardous", and thus proposed to regulate
such "special waste" under certain portions of the Subpart D regulations.
Yet, in view of the questions raised by the EPA itself, and the complete lack
of any data or information referenced in the proposed regulatory package,
how was this conclusion derived?
In view of the above, and lacking the mining wastes study discussed
earlier, GMRC urges that all "processes" listed because of radioactivity in
Section 250.14, all references to levels of specific Radium isotopes in
Section 250.15, and Appendix VIII be eliminated from the proposed rules. In
the preamble to the December 18th proposals on page 58950, the EPA states that
only the first four of eight listed hazardous waste characteristics will be
relied upon because "those are the only ones for which the Agency confidently
believes test protocols are available." Further, "The characteristics that
EPA plans to use immediately are relatively straightforward, the tests are
well developed, inexpensive, and recognized by the scientific community, and
they cover a large proportion of the total amount of hazardous waste the EPA"
belives should be controlled. Generators will not be required to test for
characteristics of waste outside these characteristics for purposes of determining
if the waste is hazardous. However it was also decided to list specific
hazardous wastes using all the candidate characteristics."
If the test protocol for radioactivity is not reliable enough to be in-
cluded, it is unconscionable for the EPA to determine any specific waste is f
-------
-6-
hazardous on this count, and further use this unreliable protocol as the
only means to demonstrate non-inclusion of a waste within the hazardous waste
system.
GMRC is not aware of any instance where uranium mine wastes have
caused or significantly contributed to an increase in mortality or an increase
in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or posed a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment.
After more than 20 years of large scale uranium mining, none of the above
cited conditions have been demonstrated. Uranium mining wastes should there-
fore be considered to be outside the ambit of the Section 1004(5) definition.
EPA's admission of the low risk and the fact that these wastes have never
caused any harm through their radioactivity are conclusive. Thus, these
materials should not be listed, as EPA proposes.
EPA's use of "notes" throughout these proposed regulations is, at worst,
legally confusing and, at best, cumbersome. It is GMRC's understanding that
these "notes" would be a part of the final regulations and therefore on an
equal legal footing with the other portions of these regulations. To avoid
the potential unintended result that a court might rule otherwise, and to clean
up this awkward syntactical approach, the EPA should incorporate each "note"
into the body of the regulation to which it pertains through the use of "unless"
language or something similar, and delete the introductory-language portion
of the "note".
In summary, GMRC urges serious consideration be given to the following
points in the formulation of any final rules:
1. Overburden is not included within coverage of RCRA.
2. Mine waste should not be included within coverage of RCRA until
completion of the Section 8002(f) study.
-------
-7-
3. No material be listed in 250.14 until criteria for identifying
the characteristics of hazardous waste have been developed and
promulgated.
4. Discontinue the use of "notes" throughout the regulation.
I thank you for this opportunity to present Gulf Mineral Resources
Co.'s comments on the proposed regulations. Mr. Kent R. Olso:n or I will
be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the issues raised
in this testimony.
Thank you.
-------
COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
U. S0 Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7» 1979
Dear Sirs, j
As President of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and
representing the Veterinary Profession in the State of Colorado I would
like to have the opportunity to speak before the board at your public;
meeting this date and present the veterinarians concerns about Sections
3001, 3002, and 3004 under the Hesource Conservation and Recovery Acto
Sincerely yours,
John T. Makens, DVM
Telephone 303-759-1251; Suite 321: 1777 South Bellaire; Denver. Colorado 80222
-------
4
COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 1979
Dear Sirs,
The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association wishes to express its
concern about the implications of Section 3001, 3002, and 3004 under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94-330) as these apply
to Veterinary hospitals, clinics and associated veterinary premises*
It is our opinion that the largest quantities of waste material generated
in these facilities does not present a special threat to the environment
or its inhabitants and since pathological waste of a dangerous nature is
already handled to render it sterile the inclusion of all our waste under
this law would present a disposal problem which would prove extremely costly
for all veterinary facilities and for many an insurmountable obstacle; to
operating their practices*
Therefore be it resolved that the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association
on behalf of the Veterinary Profession in the State of Colorado expresses
our desire to have Veterinary hospitals, clinics and associated premises
excluded from this Law*
Sincerely yours,
~i
' ,'
-'John T* Makens, DVM
President, CVMA 4
Telephone 303-759-1251; Suite 321: 1777 South Bellaire: Denver, Colorado 80222
-------
COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
U* S* Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 1979
Dear Sirs,
Please consider the following facts which relate to the practice of
veterinary medicine which have a strong bearing on the implementation of
the Resource Conservation and Becovery Act as it applies to veterinarians*
1, There are no studies which establish the fact that the waste from
veterinary hospitalsf clinics and associated premises is a greater threat to
the environment or human health than other forms of common waste matter
if handled in the presently accepted manner for general waste disposal*
2* The sterilization of all veterinary hospital waste presents the
following, possibly insurmountable, problems:
A* The equipment necessary to sterilize or incinerate the
quantities of waste especially dead animals and many tons of animal
bedding generated by many facilities would be cost prohibitive for
most veterinarians*
Be The quantity of -refuse if incinerated would add considerably
to the existing air pollution problems and probably result in a greater
known health hazard even with approved equipment*
C* Many veterinary facilities are located in areas such as
shopping centers and land use zones which do not allow for incineration
equipment*
D* There is no equipment available for destroying animal bodies
a™** a*" mal waste either by sterilization or incineration which doea not
generate unacceptably offensive odor*
B« Most biological and pharmaceutical materials used in veterinary
practice are regulated by present laws which direct their proper disposal<
Telephone 303-759-1251: Suite 321: 1777 South Bellaire; Denver. Colorado 80222
-------
COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
U. S, Environmental Protecion Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7» 1979
Page 2
P« The small amounts of truly hazardous biological material such
as cultures of bacterial, viral and fungal agents which arise from the
practice of veterinary medicine are sterilized before disposal. The
modern veterinary practice has the equipment to do this at the present
timeo
3* The Veterinary Profession as an integral part of this nations health
industry is totally committed to protecting the nations environmental health
as well aa human and a"*™01 health and has always attempted to protect the
same from wastes created by our endeavors through practical and effective
waste disposal*
Sincerely yours,
John To Malcens, DVM
President, CVMA
4
Telephone 303-759-1251: Suite 321: 1777 South Bellaire; Denver. Colorado 80222
-------
MINNESOTA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (MVMA ) RESOLUTION #8 ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13,
1979
PROPOSED EPA REGULATIONS AFFECTING VETERINARY FACILITIES (
Whereas: The Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register on
December 18, 1978, proposed regulations on Hazardous Wastes,
Item 1. The proposed regulations cover criteria for identifying and listing
hazardous wastes,
Item 2. Requirements for record keeping, labeling, containerizing and using a
transport manifest,
Item 3. Performance standards for hazardous waste management facilities 3
Whereas: These regulations affect the disposal of wastes from the emergency
departments, surgery and patient rooms, morgue, pathology department, autopsy
department, isolation rooms, laboratories and Intensive Care Units of veterinary
hospitals, unless it is autoclaved or specifically handled as a bio-hazardous wastet
Whereas: There is no documentation that waste from veterinary hospitals as ^
presently handled by professional people constitutes a public health hazard,
Whereas: Wastes are presently autoclaved, disinfected, incinerated, recycled in
rendering plants, sanitary sewers or controlled sanitary landfills or handled as
agricultural wastes,
Whereas: Although infectious diseases cause important public health problems,
veterinarians are leaders in developing prevention and control measures for
these diseases,
Whereas:, These proposed regulations only add more manpower to the already staggering
cost of government,
Therefore: Be it resolved that the MVMA request that veterinary hospitals be exempted
from the proposed EPA regulations that concern veterinary hospitals.
This resolution was passed unanimously by the MVMA and by the Administrative Council
of the College of Veterinary Medicine and University of Minnesota.
-------
MVMA Resolution 38 Adopted feornary j.^~, iy
Dr's Stanley Diesch and Ben Pomeroy request that a status report concerning the
presentation of this resolution at the EPA hearing in Denver, Colorado, on March
7, 1979 to sent to them.
-------
266
1 BEFORE THE
2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3
4
5
6 In The Matter of:
) TRANSCRIPT OF
7 HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND
REGULATIONS ) PROCEEDINGS
8 "
9 „
Thursday, March 8, 1979
10 8:30 a.m.
Holiday Inn
11 4040 Quebec Street
Denver Colorado
12
APPEARANCES:
13
DOROTHY A. DARRAH,Chairperson, Office of General
14 Counsel. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C.
15
LISA FRIEDMAN, Office of General Counsel, EPA,
16 Washington, D. C.
17 JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director. Hazardous Waste Managemen
Division. Office of Solid Waste,
18 • EPA, Washington. D. C.
19 ALFRED LINDSEY, Chief Implementation Branch
Hazardous Waste ManagementDivision
20 Office of Solid Waste, EPA, Washing
D. C.
21
AMY SCHAFFEP, Office of Enforcement, EPA, Washingto
22 D. C.
23 HARRY TPASK , Program Manager, Hazardous Waste
Management Division. Office of Solid
24 Waste. EPA,Washington, D. C.
JON P. YFAGLEY Chief, Solid Waste Section, EPA,
25 Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
-------
267
APPEARANCES continued:
2 TIMOTHY FIELDS, Program Manager, Section 3004,
Hazardous Waste Management Division
3 Office of Solid V/aste, EPA,
Washington, D. C.
4
ALAN ROBERTS, Associate Director for Hazardous
5 Materials Regulation, Department of
Transportation, Washington,D.C.
6
7 ALAN CORSON, Chief, Section 3001 Guidelines Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
3 Office of Solid Waste EPA,
Washington, D. C.
9 "
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
• 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
• «
24
25
I~N D E X
WITNESSES
JOHN P. LEHMAN
S. NORMAN KESTEN
WILEY W. OSBORNE
JIM V. ROUSE
ORVILLE STODDARD
BARRY HUTCHINGS
EARL R. WHITE
-FRANCINE B. KUSHNER
WILLIAM D. ROGERS
JOHN G. RE ILLY
ELLIS T. HAMMETT
JOHN R. BERGER
GARY DOUNAY
ANNA MARIE SCHMIDT
ALFRED LINDSEY
JACK WESTNEY
. JOHN WINKLEY
FRANK R. LEE
CONLEY P. SMITH
DENNIS BURCHETT
WILEY W. OSBORNE
F. FARRELL HIGBEE
GLENN M. EURICK
PAGE NO.
268
280
286
292
297
302
314
322
333
338
344
349
366
374
380
391
410
421
422
438
446
450
455
-------
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
INDEX
|
WITNESSES PAGE NO. ^
JOHN HARRIS 463
RON BISSINGER 467
LYLE A. RATHBUN 471
TIM McCLURE 476
WILLIAM HUTTON 480
4
-
4
-------
268
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3
4 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH• If we can come to order.
5 MR. JOHN P. LEHMAN: Good morning, my name is John
6 P. Lehman. I am Director of the Hazardous Waste Management
7 Division of EPA's Office of Solid Waste, in Washington. On
8 behalf of EPA I would like to welcome you to the public hearing
9 which is being held to discuss the proposed regulations for
10 the management of hazardous waste. We appreciate your taking
11 the time to participate in the development of these
12 regulations which are being issued under the authority of the
13 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act — RCRA
14 For a brief overview of my we are here•
15 The Environmental Protection Agency on December 18, 1978
16 issued proposed rules under Sections 3001. 3002, and 3004 of
17 the Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended by the
18 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-580)
19 These proposals respectively cover: (1) criteria for
20 identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification
21 methods, and a hazardous waste list- (2) standards applicable
22 to generators of such waste for record keeping, labeling, using
23 proper containers, and using a transport manifest: and (3)
24 performance, design, and operating standards for hazardous
25 waste management facilities.
-------
269
These proposals together with those already published
I
2 pursuant to Section 3003. (April 28, 1978), Section 3006
3 (February 1, 1978), Section 3008 (August 4, 1978), and Section
4 3010 (July 11. 1978) and that of the Department of Transportati
5 pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (May
6 25, 1978) along with Section 3005 regulations constitute the
7 hazardous waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Act.
8 EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for facility
9 permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for State hazardous waste
10 program authorization pursuant to Section 3006 of the Act with
11 proposals under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
12 System required by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the
13 Underground Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking "
14 Water Act. This integration of programs will appear soon as
15 proposed rules under 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124.
16 This hearing is being held as part of our public
17 participation process in the development of this regulatory
18 program.
19 The panels members who share the rostrum with me are
20 Harry Trask, Program Manager, Hazardous Waste Management
21 Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA. WAshington, D. C. Mr.
22 Trask if the principal staff member responsible for Section
23 3002 and 3003 regulations.
24 Lisa Friedman from the Office of the General Counsel,
25 EPA Headquarters in Washington.
-------
270
1 Dorothy A. Darrah, Office of General Counsel. EPA,
2 Washington, D. C.
3 Fred Lindsey, Chief, Implementation Branch, Hazardous
4 Waste Management Division. Office of Solid Waste, EPA,
5 Washington. D. C.
6 Amy Schaffer, Office of Enforcment, EPA headquarters,
7 Washington,, D. C.
8 Jon P. Yeagley, Chief, Solid Waste Section, EPA. Region
9 VIII, Denver, Colorado.
10 As noted in the Federal Register our planned agenda is to
11 cover comments on Section 3001 today, Sections 3002 and 3003
12 tomorrow and 3004 the next day. Also we have planned an
13 evening session today,. covering: all four sections. That sessior
14 is planned primarily for those who cannot attend during the
15 day.
16 The comments received at this hearing and the other hearir
17 as noted in the Federal Register-/ together with the comment
18 letters we receive, w.ill be a part of the official docket in
19 this rulemaking process. The comment period closes on March
20 16 for Sections 3001-3004, This docket may be seen during
21 normal working hours in Room 2111D, Waterside Mall, 401 M
22 Street, S. W.. Washington. D. C. In Addition we expect to have
23 transcrips of each hearing within about two weeks of the close
24 of the hearing. These transcripts will be available for reading
25 at any of the EPA libraries. A list of these locations is
-------
271
1 available at the registration table outside.
2 With that as background I would like to lay the groundwor
3 and rules for the conduct of this hearing.
4 The focus of a public hearing is on the public's response
5 to a regulatory proposal of an Agency, or in this case, Agencies
6 since both EPA and the Department of Transportation are
7 involved. The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the
8 April 28, May 25, and December 18, 1978 Federal Registers, is
9 to solicit comments on the proposed regulations including any
10 background information used to develop the comment.
11 This public hearing is being held not primarily to
12 inform the public nor to defend a proposed regulation, but
13 rather to obtain the public-?s response to these proposed \
14 regulations, and thereafter-' revise them as may seem appropriate
15 All major substantive comments made at the hearing will be
16 addressed during preparation of the final regulation.
17 This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with the
18 right to cross examine. The members of the public are to
19 present their views on the proposed regulations to the panel,
20 and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting
21 statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presentations.
22 Since we are time limited, some questions by the panel
23 may be forwarded in writing to the speaker. His response
24 if received within a week of the close of this hearing, will
25 be included in the transcript, Otherwise, we will include it
-------
272
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
in -the docket.
Due to time limitations, the chairman reserves the right
to limit lengthy questions, discussions, or statements. We
would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement to
make orally, to please limit your presentation to a maximum
of ten minutes, so we can get all statements in a reasonable
time. If you have a copy of your statement, please submit it
to the court reporter.
Written statements will be accepted at the end of the
hearing. If you wish to submit a written rather than an oral
statement, please make sure the court reporter has a copy.
The written statements will also be included in their entirety
in the record.
Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have not
made an advanced request by telephone or in writing should
indicate their interest on the registration card. If you have
not indicated your intent to give a statement and your decide
to do so, please return to the registration table, fill out
another card and give it to one of the staff.
As we call upon an individual to make a statement, he
or she should come up to the lectern after identifying himself
or herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or her
statement.
At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson will
inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to entertain
-------
273
1 questions from the panel. The speaker is under no obligation
2 to do so. although within the spirit of this information sharing
3 hearing, it would be of great assistance to the Agency, if
4 questions were permitted.
5 Our day's activities, as we currently see them, appear
6 like this:
7 We will break for lunch at about 12:15 and reconvene at
8 1:^5 p.m. Then, depending on our progress, we will either
9 conclude the day's session or break for dinner, at about 5:00
10 Phone calls will be posted on the registration table at the
11 entrance, and restrooms are located outside to the left.
12 If you wish to be added to our mailing list for future
13 regulations, draft regulations, or proposed regulations, ™
14 please leave your business card or name and address on a three
15 by five card at the registration desk.
16 The regulations under discussion at this hearing are the
17 core elements of a major regulatory program to manage and
18 control the countryTs-hazardous waste from generation to final
19 disposal. The Congress directed this action in the Resource
20 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, recognizing that
21 disposal of hazardous waste is a crucial environmental and
22 health problem which must be controlled,
23 In our proposal, we have outlined requirements which set
24 minimum norms of conduct for those who generate, transport, f
25 treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste.
-------
274
1 These requirements, we believe will close the circle
2 of environmental control begun earlier with the regulatory
3 control of emissions and discharges of contaminants to air,
4 water, and the oceans.
5 We do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty of
6 our proposed regulations. Rather, they reflect the large
7 amounts of hazardous waste generated and the complexity of
8 the movement of hazardous waste in our diverse society.
9 These regulations will affect a large number of industries.
10 Other non-industrial sources of hazardous waste, such as
11 laboratories and commercial pesticide applicators, as well as
12 transporters of hazardous waste, will also be included,
13 Virtually every day, the media carries a story on a
14 dangerous situation resulting from improper disposal of
15 hazardous waste. The tragedy of Love Canal in New York State
16 is but one recent example. EPA has information on over
17 400 cases of the harmful consequences of inadequate hazardous
18 waste management. These cases include incidents of surface
19 and groundwater contamination, direct contact poisoning,
20 various forms of air pollution, and damage from fires and
2i explosions. Nationwide, half of all drinking water is supplied
22 from groundwater sources and in some areas contamination of
23 groundwater resources currently poses a threat to public
24 health. EPA studies of a number of generating industries in
25 1975 showed that approximately 90 percent of the potentially
-------
275
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
hazardous waste generated by those industries was managed by
practices which were not adequate for protection of human
health and the environment.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 was
passed to address these problems. Subtitle C establishes a
comprehensive program to protect the public health and
environment from improper disposal of hazardous waste. Althoug!
the program requirements are to be developed by the Federal
government the Act provides that States with adequate programs
can assume responsibility for regulation of hazardous waste.
The basic idea of Subtitle C is that the public health and the
environment will be protected if there is careful monitoring
of transportation of hazardous waste and assurance that such
waste is properly treated stored or disposed of either at
the site where it is generated or after it is carried from that
site to a special facility in accordance with certain standards
Seven guidelines and regulations are being developed
and either have been or will be proposed (as noted earlier)
under Subtitle C of RCRA to implement the Hazardous Waste
Management Program. Subtitle C creates a management control
system which, for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires
a cradle to grave cognizance, including appropriate monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting throughout the system.
It is important to note that the definition of solid M
wastes in the Act encompasses garbage refuse, sludges and
other discarded materials, including liquids, semisolids and
-------
, and with a few exceptions, from both municipal
1 contained gases
2 and industrial sources.
3 Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid wastes,
4 and which will be identified by regulations proposed under
5 Section 3001, are those which have'particularly significant
6 impacts on public health and the environment.
7 Section 3001 is the keystone of Subtitle C. Its purpose
8 is to provide a means for determining whether a waste is
9 hazardous for the purposes of the Act and, therefore, whether
10 it must be managed according to the other Subtitle C regulations
11 Section 3001 (b) provides two mechanisms for determining
12 whether a waste is hazardous- a set of characteristics of
13 hazardous waste and a list of particular hazardous wastes.
14 A waste must be managed according to the Subtitle C regulations
15 if it either exhibits any of the characteristics set out in
16 proposed regulation or1 if it is listed. Also, EPA is directed
17 by Section 3001(a) of the Act to develop criteria for
18 identifying the set of characteristics of hazardous waste and
19 for determining which wastes to list. In this proposed rule,
20 EPA sets out those criteria, identifies a set of characteristics
21 of hazardous waste, and establishes a list of particular
22 hazardous wastes.
23 Also the proposed regulation provies for demonstration
24 of non-inclusion in the regulatory program.
25 Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to generators
-------
277
I of hazardous waste. A generator Is defined as any person
2 vrhose act or process produces a hazardous waste. Minimum
3 amounts generated and disposed per month are established to
4 further define a generator. These standards will exclude
5 household hazardous waste.
6 The generator standards will establish requirements for:
7 recordkeeping, labeling and marking of containers used for
8 storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous waste; use of
9 appropriate containers, furnishing information on the general
10 chemical composition of a hazardous waste; use of a manifest
11 system to assure that a hazardous waste is designated to a
12 permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility;, and
13 submitting reports to the Administrator, or an authorized ™
14 state agency, setting out the quantity generated and its
15 disposition.
lg Section 3003 requires the development of standards
17 applicable to transporters of hazardous wastes. These proposed
18 standards address identification codes, recordkeeping,
19 acceptance and transportation of hazardous wastes, compliance
20 with the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous waste;
2i spills of hazardous waste and placarding and marking of vehicles
22 The Agency has coordinated closely with proposed and current
23 U. S, Department of Transportation regulations.
24 Section 300^ addresses standards affecting owners and
25 operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
-------
278
1 facilities. These standards define the levels of human health
2 and environmental protection to be achieved by these facilities
3 and provide the criteria against which EPA (or state) officials
4 will measure applications for permits. Facilities on a
5 generator's property as well as off-site facilities are covered
6 by these regulations and do require permits- generators and
7 transporters do not otherwise need permits.
8 Section 3005 regulations set out the scope and coverage
9 of the actual permit granting process for facility owners and
10 operators. Requirements for the permit application as well as
11 for the issuance and revocation process are defined by regulatic
12 to be proposed under 40 CPR Parts 122, 123 and 124. Section
13 3005(e) provides for interim status during the time period that
14 the Agency or the states are reviewing the pending permit
15 applications. Special regulations under Section 3004 apply to
16 facilities during this interim status period.
17 Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines under which
18 States may seek both -full and interim authorization to carry
19 out the hazardous waste program in lieu of an EPA administered
20 program. States seeking authorization in accordance with
21 Section 3006 guidelines need to demonstrate that their hazardou
22 waste management regulations are consistent with and equivalent
23 in effect to EPA regulations under Sections 3001-5.
24 Section 3010 reauires any person -generating, transportin
25 or owing or operating a facility for treatment, storage, and
-------
279
1 disposal of hazardous waste to notify EPA of this activity with
2 90 days after promulgation or revision of regulations identi-
3 fying and listing a hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001.
4 No hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regulation may be
5 legally transported treated, stored, or disposed after the
6 90 day period unless this timely notification has been given to
7 EPA or an authorized state during the above 90 day period.
8 Owners and operators of inactive facilities are not required
9 to notify.
10 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all
11 sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979- However, it is
12 important for the regulated communities to understand that the
13 regulations under Section 3001 through 3005 do not take effect"
14 until six months after promulgation. That would be approximate
15 June of 1°80.
16 Thus, there will be a time period after final promulgatio1
17 during which time public understanding of the regulations can b>
18 increased. During this same period, notificati ns fequired
19 under Section 301° are to be submitted and facility permit
20 applications required under Section 3005 will be distributed
21 for completion by applicants.
22 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the proposed
23 regulations to be considered at this hearing, I return this
24 meeting to the chairperson. Dorothy Darrah.
25 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: ' "" Our first speaker is
-------
260
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
S. Norman Kesten from the American Mining Congress.
MR. S. NORMAN KESTEN: My name is S. Norman
Kesten and I am employed by ASARCO, Inc., and I represent
here the American Mining Congress. In case anybody has
forgotten from yesterday, I would remind you that the American
Mining Congress is a national association embracing virtually
all companies that supply the mineral commodities to the
American economy, and some of the products of processing
mineral commodities. While producing these essential materials
the member companies necessarily generate large quantities of
mine waste rock, waste materials from milling and other forms
of beneficiation often called tailings, plus furnace slags and
other similar processing waste from later stages of total
processing toward useable products as well as other wastes
in relatively minor quantities, The American Mining Congress
is thus very interested and concerned about the economic impact
upon the minerals industry of any regulations promulgated for
the purpose of implementing provisions of this amendment to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, In addition we want to try to
ensure that during the formulation of such regulations the
Agency is fully aware of the technological limitations that
the very nature of its wastes places upon the industry and
takes into account the large number of physical and chemical
variables that tend to make each operation unique-. In
general, the industry has a series of special problems in
-------
- ^ J.
15
1 complying with proposed regulations because of the sheer volume
2 of the wastes that are generated and the large areas of land
3 that those wastes must occupy.
4 Using copper and copper ores as examples, new mine
5 production, including beneficiation, smelting and refining,
6 in this country is of a magnitude that there is also produced
7 annually about 600 million tons of mine waste rock, 250
8 million dry tons of mill tailings and perhaps five million tons
9 of furnace slag. The smelting of iron ore produces some 24
10 million tons of furnace slag annually.
11 It is not likely that waste products from mining and
12 from beneficiation of mine products in the long run will be
13 found to fit the criteria for hazardous waste. Indeed, we ™
14 contend on the record that mining wastes are exempt from the
15 RCRA regulations from a legal standpoint. However, if it
15 finally is determined that they are not exempt, to the extent
17 that mining and milling wastes are found to be hazardous they
18 will come under the classification of Special Wastes in Section
19 250.46. In that case, we as the owners and operators of
20 facilities for Special Wastes, shall not have to comply with
2i this Subpart B with respect to any Special Waste. This
22 exception is stated in Section 250.46 of Subpart D which is
23 rather remote from Subpart B. The exception should be stated
24 in close proximity to the regulations from which exception is
25 made; to wit, at the end of the first paragraph of Section
-------
1 250.20Cc) on pages 58975,
2 It is hoped that furnace slags will be added to Special
3 Wastes in Section 250.46, for the same reasons that those
4 wastes now listed have been included. However if these
5 slags are not so categorized, then to the extent that they are
6 hazardous the operators of smelters are ^'generators" for
7 purposes of this Subpart and others. Plants belonging to
8 member companies of the American Mining Congress may be "gene-
9 rators" in another sense, Bothmine-s and smelters are often
10 located in remote areas and therefore must have either septic
11 tanks or package treatment plants for sewage. Those facilities
12 generate solid waste which may be hazardous. However, in
13 Section 1004 of the Act solid waste is defined to exclude,
14 for purposes of the Act, "solid or dissolved material in
15 domestic sewage.'" As long, as domestic type sewage generated
16 at a location where it cannot be discharged to a municipal
17 treatment plant is kept separate from any other type of waste
18 generated, sludge and pumpings should be exempted from the
19 requirements of this and other Subparts. The confusion arises
20 when the Agency substitutes the word ''household'' for the
21 broader term "domestic" that appears in the Act.
22 We have trouble with the definition of ron-siter (250.21'
23 (18) page 58976 in one of the other Subparts as well as here.
24 We believe that the term should be defined as broadly as
25 possible. For several or many years we and other generators
-------
283
are going to be able to find approved commercial disposal
™
2 sites for hazardous wastes within reasonable transporting
3 distances of the plants at which they are generated. We will
4 be forced, therefore, to provide our own disposal or storage
5 sites on nearby property that we control. Approval of even
6 these sites will be. difficult to obtain because of the many
7 prohibitions listed in Subpart D. We shall need the encourage-
8 ment of EPA and in part that encouragement might be provided
9 in a fairly liberal definition of 'on-site,r For example, when
10 the disposal facility is separated from the point of generation
11 only by private property to which the public does not have acce
12 disposal should be considered to be on site. It separation is
13 only by a natural barrier, disposal also should be considered ^
14 to be on-site. If the waste is transported to the disposal
15 site by a closed pipeline private railroad, company-owned
16 and operated trucks or similar means, this should be considered
17 to be on-site disposal.
18 A "spill5' Is proposed to mean any unplanned release or
19 discharge. (250.21(26). page 58976. However, for the
20 purposeof these regulations the paperwork resulting from a spil
21 should only be required if the spill results In lowering the
22 auality of land, air or water beyond the allowable levels set
23 forth. Otherwise reporting would be required only for the
24 sake of reporting.
25 There are five separate requirements in this Subpart for
-------
284
1 certification by an authorized representative of the generator.
2 A corporation is not likely to authorize a workman, a shift bos;
3 or even a foreman to sign for it, particularly when penalties
4 are involved. On the other hand, a more senior person is not
5 going to personally supervise all the operations having to'do
6 with hazardous waste but is going to rely upon the good faith
7 of trusted employees to some extent. He should not be criminal
8 liable for inadvertent errors made by such employees. Thus,
9 there should be added to the end of the first sentence of the
10 certification statement the words ''to the best of my knowledge
11 and belief." Incidentally. EPA agreed to add these words to
12 certification on reporting forms for the preliminary inventory
13 under TSCA,
14 In Section 250.27(a) on page 25879 the Agency makes a
15 statement which means, I feel sure, that information provided
16 to EPA as required by these regulations cannot be kept
17 confidential. However that is not what it says. Let me auote
18 "All information provided in connection with the manifest and
19 reporting sections established by this Subpart shall be availab
20 to any person...'' This should read "All information provided
21 to the Administrator in connection...1' After all, EPA has no
22 control under this Act or the Freedom of Information Act over
23 information provided to anyone other than EPA.
24 The member companies of the American Mining Congress ha\
25 no idea how much these and other regulations that are going to
-------
285
1 be promulgated under the Act will cost, The major determining
2 factors are whether or not our many and very large disposal
3 sites will be characterized- as open dumps and whether or not
4 appropriate criteria will be substituted for those proposed
5 for for determining if any of our wastes are hazardous. Looki
6 at worst case scenarios in relation to those two factors alone.
7 all I can say is "May God help us,'
8 I am reminded by this morning's Denver contribution to
9 journalistic excellence of an old pre-Columbian map, or
1° pre-Columbian maps that we have seen from time to time. There
11 is shown in the Eastern Atlantic, the words ''Beyond this
12 point there are monsters," That is where we are now.
13 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH• I guess I thank you for
14 those comments.
15 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Kesten, I want to get some
16 clarification on your suggestions concerning the broadening
17 of the definition of on-site. As I understood your remarks,
18 one of the suggestions you made was that as long as the
19 management system was wholly owned, in other words, if you
20 used the company-owned trucks and so on, even though the
21 property wasn't contiguous., that all of that should be on-site.
22 Now. just to put that in some sort of context, we are aware
23 of certain industries, which have a disposal site in one
24 state and with their own transportation systems, transport ™
25 materials from their various facilities into 20 or 30 other
-------
286
1 states, are you suggesting that ought to be considered on-site
2 or were you not?
3 MR. KESTEN: In .that kind of complicated situation,
4 I am suggesting nothing, You work it out.
5 ' CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Any further questions? Thank
6 you. I will next call Mr Wiley W. Osborne, Texas Department
7 of Health
8 MR. WILEY W, OSBORNE: I found out yesterday you
9 can't read these statements up here as fast as you can back in
10 your office.
11 I am Wiley W. Osborne, Chief, Plans and Programs Branch.
12 Division of Solid Waste Management, Texas Department of Health.
13 First, I wish to have the record reflect that this is a
14 continuation of my statement given yesterday on Subpart A.
15 Again. I would express Mr. Carmichael's regrets that he
16 is unable to be here to give this statement.
17 Our comments relating to Subpart B is an extension of our
18 recommendations to identify hazardous waste into two sub-sets.
19 Yesterday, I recommended these be defined as ''primary hazardous
20 waste' and ''special wastes,r
21 Today, I would like to bring forth the idea that Subpart
22 B. as presently written or slightly modified, would remain
23 as standards applicable to generators of primary hazardous
24 wastes, The exception to this proposal is that Section 250.29
25 would not be applicable to those producing and disposing of
-------
287
21
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
hazardous waste characterized as primary hazardous waste.
Under Section 250.20, we recommend the addition of
a Subsection (c)(6) authorizing generators of special wastes
to send special wastes to a treatment, storage or disposal
facility ''authorized" by the regulating agency.
Under this concept. the regulating agency could either
require the site to be a permitted site under Subtitle C or
a Subtitle D site, meeting standards proposed for such special
wastes under Subpart D. when written authorization is issued
by a state agency authorized in accordance with Subpart F of
this part.
Generators of special waste should be required to comply
with the manifest and reporting requirements of Section 250.22^
and Section 250.23
The requirements of Section 250.24 Identification Codes,
Section 250,25 Containers Section 250.26 Labeling Practices,
and Section 250.27 Confidential Information and Presumption,
shall also pertain to generators of special waste.
As mentioned earlier, Section 250,29 would not pertain to
persons producing or disposing of primary hazardous waste.
This section should be rewritten to apply only to special
waste, In this way. the risk of having highly toxic waste
enter the Subtitle D waste stream uncontrolled is reduced
considerably, while at the same time, a goodly portion of
special waste can be handled through the relaxed standards
-------
288
1 under Section 250.29 without a great risk.
2 This is essentially our recommended changes to Subpart
3 B, changes based on identifying hazardous as primary hazardous .
4 and special wastes. By requiring different standards for
5 generators of each subset'of hazardous waste, adequate controls
6 are exercised to protect the health and the environment. While
7 recognizing the need to exercise more stringent control over
8 primary hazardous waste, we also see the cost effectiveness
9 in having less stringent controls over special waste.
10 The next few comments relate to recommendations on
11 Subpart B, outside the comments given above.
12 Section 250.21 (a)(25) Retailer - the definition should
13 be explicit that a retailer is a person engaged solely in the
14 business of selling to the general public. Wholesale/retail
15 and sale to contractors should be excluded from the definition.
16 Section 250.29 (a)(l) relating to the disposal of waste
17 in an off-site waste disposal facility - should require only
18 that the facility has been permitted by the state. That
19 portion of the requirement relating to an ''approved state plan"
20 is inconsistent when it is recognized that a state plan may
21 not be approved for several months after the effective date of
22 these regulations.
23 (a) Any person who produces and disposes of no more
24 than 100 kilograms (approximately 220 pounds) of hazardous
25 waste in any one month period is not a generator provided that
-------
289
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
"
the hazardous waste:
1. Is disposed of in an on-site or off-site
solid waste disposal facility, which facility has been
permitted. , .
(b) Delete
Comment- We disagree with the reasoning behind special
generator requirement for automobile waste oil retailers
established by Section 250.29(a), The preamble states, "Waste
automobile oil presents a special environmental problem because
of its ubiquitiousness and its potential as a carrier for
other hazardous wastes. For example, it is sometimes mixed
with transformer oil containing PCB's. Regulation of used
automobile oil under this Section will tend to direct such oil^
to permitted recovery or treatment facilities which will promot<
resource conservation and reuse, a major goal of the Act.1'
The reasoning is not consistent with the intent of the Act.
This is an indirect means of forcing the waste automotive oil
to be recycled and reused rather than promoting recycling and
reuse. The reference to waste automobile oil being "sometimes
mixed with transformer oil containing PCB's is a weak argument
to this approach of controlling and recycling it. If such oil
is in fact contaminated with PCB's, it would not be allowed
to be recycled, but would have to be disposed of in accordance
with requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The
disposal of waste automotive oil should not be a subject of
-------
290
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
these regulations unless a more direct approach is taken and
a stronger indication that these oils are hazardous is proven.
Regulations should not be us.ed solely to make disposal an
unattractive option and thus indirectly force recycling.
Thank you. I will respond to any questions.
MR. TRASK: Mr, Osborne, you mentioned a number
of conditions that would apply to the two different categories
of waste that you have discussed yesterday. Unless I am mistak
you left out record keeping on the Special Waste. Was that
your intent to do that?
A Mo. that would be required-only on the-part of the
generator.
MR, TRASK: Yes.
A
That would require record keeping.
MR. TRASK: So record keeping would be required
in every case?
A Yes, that is correct.
MR. TRASK: I am not sure I know what the real
difference there is between these two classes in terms of
the generators responsibilities.
A Well, I think the primary difference here would be
allowing an exclusion or an exemption by a certain quantity.
We would not want to allow an exemption of quantities of
primarily hazardous waste as we would define it.
MR. TRASK: Then you would favor the alternative
-------
291
1 that we discussed in our preamble?
2 A I think it falls in- there.
3 MR. TRASK; The degrees of handling some conditions:
4 A Actually there is none.of those that would exactly
• 5 fit our recommendations, but I believe three comes pretty
6 close.
7 MR. TRASK: Thank you.
8 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Osborne, the last part of your
9 comment had to do with the waste oil regulation, which you
10 apparently are against. Your statement says: "...should not
11 be a subject of these regulations unless a mo-re direct approach
12 is taken..." What do you mean by a "more direct approach?"
13 DO you have suggestions on how we should handle the' waste .
14 oil issue?
15 A Well, I think the only indication here that is to
16 show that waste oil is hazardous, "is the fact that it might
17 be contaminated with some other hazardous waste.
18 MR. LI NDSEY: I think this has to do with lead
19 and other -heavy metals being concentrated, there, and are freque
20 blended and burned in school boilers and things of that
21 nature, and thus spreading the materials around. That is part
22 of the concern.
23 A If the waste oil meets the criteria of the
24 hazardous waste, then I would agree with these regulations.
25 However, if it is just on the possibility that it may be
-------
292
1 come contaminated from some other source,
2 MR. LINDSEY Would it still have to meet the
3 characteristics, whatever it was? in order to be covered here?
4 A Yes. But it looks like the way these are written,
5 that waste oil just by category is placed in the hazardous
6 waste without really requiring any identification that it is
7 hazardous. As a matter of fact we have proposed regulations
8 that follows the EPA model law along that recycling of used oil
9 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. sir. Next is
10 Jim V, Rouse of Envirologic Systems. Inc.
11 MR. JIM V. ROUSE: Thank you. I will try to keep
12 my remarks quite brief this morning,
13 We recognize the requireemnts of Section 3002 are not
14 to be imposed on mining waste as stated in the material on
15 Special Waste. However, we also note in the preamble to the
16 Section. 3004 regulations, that at a later date, material is
17 coming into Special Waste, and for the timebeing, these are
18 all that apply to Section 3002. So part of our remarks are in
19 the way of trying to lay some groundwork now.
20 Also, we recognize, as Mr. Kesten does, that these are
21 auite remote and we find, for example, in Section 250.24,
22 250.25 and 250.26 wording about every generator shall do this
23 and every generator shall do that, and not being a lawyer, I
24 am somewhat questionable whether you can have these kinds of
25 very strong words in the early part of the regulation followed
-------
29
27
1 later by exemptions, and I will leave that up to the lawyers.
2 However, anyway, the comments I would like to make this
3 morning are more in the way.of a preventitive situation.
4 I note that every generator must determine whether the
5 waste meets these rather arbitrary criteria for hazard which we
6 discussed yesterday. I note that provisions exist for contest-
7 ing whether or not the waste meets the criteria, whether the
8 pH is or is not less than three, but no provisions exist for
9 contesting whether pH of three is truly a hazard. This becomes
10 crucial when we note in the following section, 250.20(c)
11 that even the fact that a waste passes the test is no guarantee
12 it will not be subsequently regulated, because the note states
13 failure to properly designate a waste as a hazardous waste •
14 may constitute a violation of the Act and may subject the perse
15 , or federal agency to the compliance requirements and penalty
16 I prescribed in Section 3008 of the Act.
17 I would submit to you that when you consider a material
18 heterogeneous as most mining waste is, and when you consider
19 the rather stringent criteria which are listed in Section
20 3001, it would appear to me that with a desire to do so, you
21 could identify any mining waste in the world as a hazardous
22 waste, even though the operator may have in all good
23 conscience sampled and found that such was not the case.
24 It seems in reading this note, basically there is no
25 right of appeal to the generator if he collects samples and
-------
1 and thinks he has got a non-hazardous waste, which I cannot
2 visualiz-e, but if he got lucky and took a sample that came out
3 non-hazardous and then EPA came out and took a sample and
4 said it was hazardous, he would then, according to this note,
5 as I read it, be subject to the violation of the Act with no
6 right of appeals, and no way of negotiating subsequent sampling
7 or anything. You might want to consider that possibility.
8 The only other point I want to discuss briefly in this
9 regulation this morning is. that Section 250.20(c)(l) where it
10 discusses reauirements for on-site versus off-site, Mr. Kesten
11 pointed out here, and I see some others that we also ought to
12 consider. Many mining operators actually do not own the site
13 of their waste disposal, but rather they are disposing
14 of the material on lands owned by the Federal government, and
15 operated through a special user permit, which would make the
15 federal government the operator of the off-site disposal
17 facility and I rather question whether the BLM or the Forest
13 Service is going to assign someone to stay out there around
19 the clock to sign and receive the manifest for every truck
20 load, for example, of uranium mine overburden, which would be
21 delivered and placed in one of these disposal sites not owned
22 by the operator. This could be overcome by some wording to
23 the effect that on-site disposal is land owned or controlled
24 under special permits or lessees.
25 For example, some of the uranium mining operations that
-------
29
295
1 that I am familiar with are operated under leases where the
2 owner or the operator does not own the property at all, but
3 rather is operating through.leases with the property owner, and
4 again, I think the property owner, who many times is a
5 rancher that has leased out his land, is not going to want
6 to be saddled with the responsibility of being a hazardous
7 waste disposal operator.
8 One final point. I wonder if you might give some
9 consideration to whether a mine operator is responsible for
10 sampling analysis and reporting of each truck load of mine
11 overburden, again, going back to uranium mine operations,
12 uranium mine waste that is placed in the waste storage pile.
13 i notice 250.23(b)(6) requires reporting of each ship- ^
14 ment of uranium. Each shipment can occur on 30 second
15 to one minute intervals, which would get pretty horrendous,
16 i especially if one had to get into the problem of sampling of
17 each of these truckloads, because each truckoad will be differ*
18 as you go up and down in the overburden.
19 Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
20 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
21 MR. TRASK: First a point - o'f clarification on that
22 last point that you made. The term shipment, as it is used
23 here, takes the meaning that is used in transportation circles
24 which means that it is not every truckload, ™
25 MR. ROUSE- Okay, that might want to be clarified,
-------
296
1 because much of this transportation is, of course, off-road anc
2 not subject to Department of Transportation requirements.
3 - MR. TRASK: Well, DOT may choose to clarify that
4 in their regulations. I am not sure, but we see so much is
5 under DOT.
6 In this business of off-site versus on-site, I am not
7 suere that I understood who would be responsible for that
8 material that was disposed of in the case that you described.
9 MR. ROUSE: Well, that is what I am not sure about
10 myself. That is why I request some clarification. As I read
11 the on-site versus off-site, the way it is now worded, that
12 on-site has to consist of property owned by the operator. Most
13 of these operations I am familiar with would consist of
14 off-site disposal and the operator would have the disposal
15 facility — well, either the Forest Service or BLM, who own
16 the property or originally the rancher who owned the property,
17 and who leased the mineral rights to the mining company. Many
18 of these people do not own the surface facility. Some own
19 the mineral rights and some just lease the mineral rights.
20 ' MR. TRASK: Wouldn't that be the owner of the
21 property and not the operator? Wouldn't the operator be
22 whoever dumped the waste there?
23 MR. ROUSE: The owner of the property is not the
24 mining company doing the dumping, yes. I don't think the
25 ranchers are going to want to find themselves into the
-------
1 hazardous waste disposal site business. They lease it out.
2 MR. TRASK: YOu are probably right about that.
3 MR. ROUSE: They lease it out for a royalty, and
4 I don't think it is their responsibility. I think it is
5 more the mine operator.
6 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
7 The next speaker is Mr. Orville Stoddard from the Colorado
8 Department of Health.
9 MR. ORVILLE STODDARD: I am Orville Stoddard,
10 engineer for the Hazardous Waste Department, speaking for the
11 Department of Health and Mr. Al Hazle, Division Director.
12 These comments are pertinent to the Section 3002.
13 My" first comment is on page 5896, Comumn 2. paragraph 2.
14 '"The Agency has proposed that persons who produce and dispose
15 of less than 100 kilograms (Approximately 220 pounds) of
15 hazardous waste in any one month are exempt from the requirement
17 of this Subpart if they comply with paragraph 250.29
lg Categorizing a hazardous waste by weight, making no
19 allowance for toxicity, physical form, dilution and so forth
20 is a questionable approach. Some hazardous waste cannot be
2i adeauately measured by weight (for example, pathological
22 organisms and radioactive materials.)
23 We recommend provisions be made to establish rextremely
24 hazardous waste" and ''hazardous waste1' categories to enable the™
25 establishment of higher priorities to control extremely hazardou
-------
298
waste,
2 Section 250.20(c). page 58975 reads:
3 (c) "Any person or Federal Agency who generates
4 a solid waste must determine, pursuant to Subpart
5 A if the waste is hazardous. If it is and if
6 that person meets the definition of a generator
7 contained • in 250. 2Kb) (9) herein, he must comply
8 with this regulation to the degree and in the manne
9 specified below."
10 it may be almost impossible for some generators of
11 potentially hazardous waste to perform the required tests if
12 they have complex or variable wastes from many processes
13 even though some of these wastes are not hazardous. Therefore,
14 many wastes which are not hazardous would be classified as
15 such just for expedience. The result of this would be to
16 overwhelm hazardous waste disposal for small businesses without
17 laboratory testing capabilities.
18 We recommend there should be provisions for exemptions
19 from requirement subject to the approval of the State Agency
20 and Regional Administrator.
21 Section 250.20(c)(4) page 58976.
22 (4) "Any person or Federal Agency who generates
23 only household refuse or household septic tank
24 pumpings is not required to comply with the
25 requirements of this Subpart.
"
-------
33
299
1 Septic tank pumpings from household sewage systems
2 contain pathogenic organisms prevalent in raw sewage. Septic
3 tank pumpers may also collect liquids and sludes from industria
4 operations. These wastes discharged at landfills, if tested,
5 would most likely be categorized as hazardous waste.
6 We recommend septeic tanks pumping discharged into sanita
7 sewer systems should be exempt from these regulations. Septic
8 tank pumpings should be considered a hazardous waste if dispose
9 of in landfills.
10 Page 58976, column 1, paragraph 250.20(2):
11 "Every generator must comply with Subpart D and Subpart
12 E of this part if the waste remains on site for 90 days or
13 more.'"
14 Obtaining compliance by generators that store
15 hazardous waste for more than 90 days with the requirements of
16 Subparts D and E appears difficult to regulate.
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Are there question
19 MR. TRASK: Mr. Stoddard, you indicated there
20 ought to be an extremely hazardous waste category and I think
21 you said some waste, such as pathogens or pathological waste
22 would be candidates for that. Do you have any other thoughts
23 on what other wastes should be in that category?
24 MR. STODDARD: No, sir. I am sure with some ™
25 thought, I could come up with something, but not on the spur
-------
300
of the moment. That was just used as an example.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
later?
on this.
MR. TRASK: Are you submitting some written comment
MR. STODDARD: YEs, there will be an enlargement
MR. TRASK: Would you think about that and do what
you can on that.
MR. STODDARD: Yes, I will.
MR. TRASK: We would appreciate it if you would.
MR. STODDARD: Okay.
MR, LEHMAN: Mr. Stoddard, you mentioned that in
your belief there should be a distinction between the final
disposition on how you classify septic tank pumpings if" they
go in a sewer system, then if they_go into a sewer system and
to the sanitary landfill, and then should be classified
differently: is that what you are saying?
MR. STODDARD: That is correct. They go to the
waste water treatment.plant, then it gets additional treatment
there, and the residue from the waste water treatment plant is,
of course, regulated by the Water Quality Control Act. The
material ending up at the landfill site does not receive this
treatment, and usually there is reasons for this.
MR. LEHMAN: I wonder if you could share with us
your thoughts about how you would do this. In other words, it
is very difficult to bring something into a system or outside,
-------
301
1 and keep it out of the system based, you know, sort of after
2 the fact, in that the driver and the pumper delivery has a
3 choice in a sense of whether he takes it to the landfill or
4 whether he takes it to a sewer system, and I am just wondering
5 if you thought through how you would practically carry out this
6 recommendation about how you would construct a program that
7 would do that.
8 MR. STODDARD: No. I don't know how to do that, but
9 I think there should be some mechanism there becasue it does
10 present problems at disposal sites and facilities; this is for
11 sure.
12 MR. TRASK: To follow up on that point a bit.
13 Who would be the generator in that case? ™
14 MR. STODDARD: I think that is the question. It
15 wouldn't be the home owner if he is just having it collected
16 by the transporter. Maybe the transporter would be considered
17 the generator. I don't know. That is one of those areas that
18 is a problem, but it.is difficult to solve.
19 MR. YEAGLEY: For those septic tank pumpings that
20 are being disposed of in landfills, I really have two questions
21 Are those landfills permitted landfills based on your
22 state regulations and what kind of impacts are you seeing from
23 that type of disposal?
24 MR. STODDARD: Let's see. The Solid Waste Act
25 really pertains to solid waste at landfills. We do have a
-------
302
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
certifying authority through the county commissioners for the
landfill sites. Now, the liquid waste received at the landfill
sites are considered in their certification process, but they
do present problems in terms of potential water pollution
problems, and in terms of potential methane gas generating
problems and in terms of odors and so forth.
MR. YEAGLEY: Based on your understanding of the
Subtitle D Section 4004 regulations for classification of
landfills, if those landfills were up to speed as far as that
Subtitle D regulation, do you feel then that this problem would
still exist?
MR. STODDARD: I don't know. That would do a lot
to solve the problem.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH- Thank you. Mr. Barry Hutching
MR. BARRY HUTCHINGS: I am Barry Hutchings, and on
behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, I would like to
express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear at the
hearing today to discuss the proposed regulations implementing
Section 3002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
particularly as the pertain to the control of the disposition
of used, or waste, motor oils.
While I plan to direct the majority of my remarks to
specific recommendations, I would first like to center att<§ntic
on the distinction made in paragraph 250.29 between retailers
whodispo-se of waste oil and all others who are not disposers of
-------
303
1 waste oil. Section 250.29(a) states, with two conditions, tha
2 any retailer disposing of hazardous waste other than waste oil
3 is not a generator. This extraordinary exception appears to be
4 unnecessarily discriminatory against retailers of motor oil —
5 specifically gasoline service stations who drain used motor
6 oil and/or accept used oil from individuals who drain and chang<
7 their own oil.
8 The apparent justification for including only this class
9 of retailer is that waste oil is ubiquitous and is a potential
10 carrier for other hazardous waste and substances. I would like
11 to comment briefly on both of these premises.
12 First of all, we see no problem with the service station
13 contribution to this ubiquity. In fact, there is a positive
14 aspect. The most important source of improperly disposed
15 waste oil today is the individual who changes hts/ own oil. As
16 touched on before, thousands of service stations now accept
17 this material from the do-it-yourselfer and efforts are under
18 way to further encourage such activity. They provide a ubiquitt
19 means of containing this potential pollutant. Placing
20 administrative burdens on these small businesses will be
21 counterproductive to this effort. Waste oil accumulated at
22 service stations does not represent a significant environmental
23 problem today becuase it is a valuable commodity that is
24 eagerly sought by transporters, for example, collectors or
25 scavengers, who have a strong financial interest in providing
4
-------
304
removal or pick up service and who presumably will be controll
2 adequately under other Subparts.
3 With regard to the hazardous carrier aspect, there
apparently are documented cases wherein waste oil has been
mixed with transformer oil containing PCB's. However, to
our knowledge, this practice has never occurred, nor would it
be expected to occur, with waste motor oil at service stations
I would now like to address the subject of specific
recommendations.
10 It is the contention of API that paragraph 250.29(a) is
11 sufficient to control waste at all retail outlets and, therefo
12 we ask that service stations be similarly excluded from the
13 generator definition. Nevertheless, to support the "cradle
14 to grave" control concept, we recommend that all retail outlet
15 that accumulate waste oil bex^equired:
16 (1) To be identified by code.
17 (2) To allow removal of waste oil only by transporters
18 who are permitted or otherwise controlled under
19 Section 3003,
20 (3) To maintain a record of the identity of transporter
21 utilized and the approximate volume of waste oil
22 transferred, and
23 (4) To prepare and submit, within 30 days after the
24 closing date of the year, an annual report to the
25 appropriate authority, for example, the EPA Regiona
-------
305
39
1 Administrator or the administrator of an approved
2 state plan. Such report should include all of the ^
3 information set forth in paragraph 250. 23 (b)
4 except item (.3) which pertains to identification of
5 the permitted' treatment, storage, or disposal
6 facility to which the waste oil was sent. With
7 regard to item (9), the certification we recommend
8 for obvious reasons that the sentence rl am aware
9 that there are significant penalties for submitting
10 false information, including the possibility of
11 fine or imprisonment,' be changed so as to include
12 the word vknowingly" before the word ''submitting."
13 RCRA clearly provides for this concept. ™
14 Another means of reducing what API feels would be
15 unnecessary burdens on service stations would be to modify
16 their requirements, if any, under Subparts D and E, pertaining
17 to storage. By way of background, the changing of motor oil
18 tends to be seasonal . — that is, most of the activity takes
19 place in spring and summer, both at stations and by do-it-yourse
20 Thus, there are times during the year in which the accumulation
21 rate is very low. Couple this with the fact that collectors or
22 scavengers are not very interested in picking up small quantitie
23 for economic reasons. The result is that many stations,
24 especially those in rural areas, are forced to hold the
25 accumulated oil on-site for longer than 90 days. Thus, under
-------
306
1 the proposed rules for Section 3002, service stations might
2 face requirements under Subparts D and E, as well as B. In all
3 likelihood, many service station operators would decide in
4 this case to discontinue changing oil and accepting oil from
5 individuals in order to avoid the regulatory burdens. In line
6 with an earlier comment, such action would be counterproductive
7 to the industry's effort to maximize the return of do-it-your-
8 selfer oil and would lead to increased pollution.
9 A further extension of this situation could be that a
10 transporter would not be willing to enter into an assumption
11 of duties contract if he" had to pick up from service station
12 clients every 90 days or less — regardless of the amount of
13 oil involved. Of course, this point is immaterial if the EPA
14 acts favorably on the API request to exclude service stations
15 from the generator category.
16 In view of the considerations just discussed, we
17 recommend that paragraph 250.20(c)(2) be revised so as to chang
lg the phrase ''90 days or longer1' to read "'twelve months or
19 longer." In addition, a change may be necessary in the
20 definition of "Storape Facility'' in paragraph 250 . 4l(b ) ( 83) .
2i Last, but not least, API continues to have a grave concer
22 about the issue of burning waste oil. particularly waste motor
23 oil. We have previously discussed this matter on numerous
24 occasions with EPA representatives. Briefly stated, however,
25 our position is that with minimal controls, the use of waste
-------
30'
1 oil as a fuel supplement is a constructive means of resource
2 conservation and recovery. More to the point, it is the
3 belief of API that unnecessary restriction of this means of
4 recycling will lead to an increase in undesirable disposal of
5 waste oil within the meaning of disposal as clearly defined by
6 RCRA. That is, the dumping, and so forth, into or'on land
7 or water. We further believe that the minimal controls needed
8 to guard against significant air pollution fall within the
9 purview of the Clean Air Act, not RCRA.
10 API will be addressing other aspects of the Section 3002
11 proposed regulations in detail in its written comments. Howeve
12 our central concern is that EPA use its authority over hazardou
13 waste management to adopt a flexible approach which first ™
14 identifies the substantial hazards to human health and the
15 environment, and then uses this information to adopt regulatory
16 measures which achieve a substantial reduction in these hazards
17 Having reviewed the proposed regulations under Section 3002, AP
lg Remains concerned that EPA's desire for administrative simplici
19 will result on the one hand in the continuation of significant
20 hazards, and on the other, lead to inefficient compliance
21 requirements which attempt to eliminate a minimal or non-existe
22 hazard. Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
24 questions from the panel? m
25 FR. HUTCKIMGS: Yes.
-------
3(
1 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Hutchings, I have two questions.
2 You mentioned that you thought the 90 day exclusion was too
3 short and that would put a burden on the gas station who
4 maybe would stop changing oil, or stop receiving home owner
5 oil. Assuming that the 90 day exclusion is not a problem,
6 would the rest of the regulation, which we have, as written,
7 in your opinion, cause service stations to perhaps not stop
8 receiving waste oil from home owners?
9 MR, HUTCHINGS: Particularly the reporting and
10 record keeping requirements, yes.
11 MR. LINDSEY- In other words, just the simple fact
12 of having to sign off on a manifest and maintain a report would
13 be enough? They would have to do it anyway, wouldn't they?
14 MR. HUTCHINGS- I think it is a very good possibilii
15 it would.
16 MR. LINDSEY: You would?
17 MR. HUTCHINGS: The reason for this is, they make
18 some profit on changi'ng oil, but the average service station
19 makes perhaps a hundred changes a month, that is about all. It
20 is a fair contribution to their profit, but they are so burden
21 now with controls that we put on them, and the government puts
22 on them, and the accountant of an average service station is
23 usually the operator's wife, and it is not a big business.
24 This is a small business we are talking about. With regards to
25 the value of this waste oil, it is almost zero to the service
-------
309
1 station operator. He makes five cents or perhaps ten cents
2 a gallon for it, but collecting it at a hundred gallons a montfl
3 MR. LINDSEY: He. gets paid for changing it?
4 MR. HUTCHINGS: That istrue, he does.
5 MR. LINDSEY: Well, wouldn't the assumption of
& duties provision, wouldn't that relieve him? That was the
7 intent was to relieve him of all that record keeping.
8 MR. HUTCHINGS: API is considering looking very
9 closely at that particular aspect, which obviously has been
10 added to try to relieve the burden.
11 MR. LINDSEY: I think.it will work.
12 MR, HUTCHINGS: The assumption of duties contract?
13 MR. LINDSEY: Do you think it will happen? 4
14 MR, HUTCHINGS: I think in some cases it will, but
15 in other cases, it will not, particulary if the consumer has-to
16 come and pick up the oil more frequently then he has to. More
17 to the point, if you are going to transfer a duty by this
18 contract, let's just .directly explicitly tranfer the duty
19 right in the regulation. We believe the responsibility
20 primarily lies with the transporter. He is the one that has
21 the primary financial interest, and he is the one that has the
22 major control over the flow of this material, not the service
23 station operator.
24 MR, LINDSEY: Changing the topic just a bit. You
25 also commented on the use of waste oiir.as a fuel. Our regulati<
-------
3K
1 don't preclude that. It .fust says you-would-have to have a
2 permit to use it as a fuel. You felt that certain controls
3 may be necessary, but I gather that you feel that the
4 permitting approach is too burdensome. What controls would
5 you have?
6 MR. HUTCHINGS: Already as pointed out by Mr.
7 Trask, there are metals in used motor oil, predominantly lead,
8 which is probably running now something like about .06 percent
9 of the total material. About half of this does get emitted to
10 the atmosphere when you burn the material, but as you also are
11 well aware, that lead is being phased down very rapidly in
12 gasoline, which, of course, is the source of lead in used
13 motor oil, so now we are down to barium and perhaps some
14 zinc and so forth, which is a lesser problem as far as we can
15 see compared to lead. We think based on work we have done in
16 the past, that you people are well aware of, that controlling
17 the use of motor oil as a fuel, say below five to ten percent
18 is adequate as a viable and constructive resource recovery
19 procedure. We are short on fuels, and this is a good fuel.
20 MR. LINDSEY: So you think just a rules perhaps
21 that says you can't have lead concentration in waste oil used
22 for fuel above a certain concentration, five percent or
23 something like that?
24 MR. HUTCHINGS: I think something along that line.
25 It might be a little bit of an administrative problem, but if
-------
311
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
put a high enough penalty on it if somebody violates, yes, I ^
think that could be the approach.
MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Hutchings, in your remarks, you
made a distinction between service station retailers as
collectors of waste oil and I am wondering if you would care
to comment on other collectors of waste oil that are not
necessarily retailers. Our information has it that large
amounts of waste automotive oil are collected by truck terminals
and other types of automotive operations besides retailer
service stations. Now, your remarks apply to all of those,
or are you saying we really ought to do this only for retailer
service stations?
MR. HUTCHINGS: I am deliberately singling out the"
service station because I think they are the ones we are
primarily interested in our industry, but I think the same
kind of reasoning applies to them also. We think there is
minimal hazard, and we think it is such a viable commodity
now that irresponsible dumping into the atmosphere or into
land or water is a thing of the past, because it is just
worth too much. If the transporter is properly controlled,
we think the same line of argument applies to truck stops,
maintenance centers and that sort of thing.
MR.LEHMAN: .Well, moving on to that other point
you just made, if I understand your recommendations correctly,^
you were recommending that a permit system be set up for
-------
312
1 for collectors of waste oil- Is that correct?
2 MR. HUTCHINGS- I didn't mean to do that. I think
3 some type of control. I rather not actually stand here and
4 be the one that actually recommends that they have to be
5 permitted. I think that is within your judgment of how to
6 control them.
7 MR. LEHMAN: Your comments mentioned only transport
8 whereas the regulation provides for collection by owners and
9 operators of disposal facilities directly. Mow, you want to
10 make a distinction there, or is that intentional-on your part?
11 ' MR. HUTCHINGS: No," it really wasn't intentional.
12 I think a rerefiner may be hard pressed to operate a system foi
13 all of the people who are the original source of material,
14 because on an average, a rerefiner will produce let's say
15 three million gallons a year. He is picking up from ^/
16 individual point sources at the rate of maybe one thousand
17 gallons a year. So you can see he is going to have an awful
18 lot of these manifests flooding him. I am not sure they are
19 going to be willing to pick up this responsibility. I don't
20 think I would.
21 MR. LEHMAN: Well, my point was, that your
22 recommendation just applied to transporters and I was
23 wondering if that was intentional or whether you would have no
24 objection in your recommendation then if the same recommendati<
25 would apply to owners and operators of facilities?
-------
313
1 MR. HUTCHINGS: As far as stringent controls over ^
2 what happens to the material?
3 MR. LEHMAN: Yes'.
4 MR. HUTCHINGS: Absolutely none.
5 MR.LEHMAN: You don't really care if it is strictly
6 transporter or owner/operator?
7 MR. HUTCHINGS: I think it is going to have to be
8 both.
9 MR. LEHMAN- That is what I am driving at.
10 MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.
11 MR. TRASK: Mr.- Hutchings, in dealing with the
12 assumption of duties between the transporter and the service
13 station, di I understand your point to be that all of the duties
14 ought to be transferred to the transporter or rerefiner as
15 Jack mentioned?
16 MR. HUTCHINGS: Not by an assumption of duties
17 contract, but explicitly in the regulations. In other words,
18 unburden the generato'r as you have suggested at this point.
19 . MR. TRASK: In other words, the service station
20 would have no responsibility whatsoever?
21 MR. HUTCHINGS: Other than what I have mentioned,
22 that is, only allowing a properly controlled — to use that
23 word rather than permitted transporter in turning in a yearly
24 report, which gives you some means of control, not as good as ^
25 you would like, I admit, but you will have some material
-------
1 balancing available to you by that year end report.
2 MR, TRASK: What abour record keeping?
3 MR, HUTCHINGS: That would be the only record
4 keeping that we would suggest that would be placed upon them,
5 that is, sufficient data to be accumulated by the service
6 station operator so he can generate his year-end report.
7 MR. TRASK: So he would keep records and turn in
8 an annual report, and that would be his responsibility?
9 MR. HUTCHINGS- That is correct, yes.
10 MR. TRASK: Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Our next
12 speaker is Earl R. White of Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc.
13 MR. EARL R. WHITE- Good morning. My name is
14 Earl R, White, I am the Health and Regulatory Affairs Chemist
15 for Arapahoe Chemicals. Inc. located in Boulder, Colorado.
16 Arapahoe Chemicals' principal concerns with the proposed
17 regulations contained in Section 3002 are discussed first and
18 our detailed comments-follow in a section-by-section format.
19 In the opinion of Arapahoe Chemicals, there are four basic
20 problems with the proposed Section 3002 hazardous waste
21 regulations. These include:
22 (1) The option under consideration for requiring routine
23 reporting on a regular schedule more frequently
24 than annually.
25 (2) The lack of an appropriate disclaimer statement in
-------
315
1 EPA's proposed certification statements.
2 (3) EPA's effort to integrate proposed rules with DOT
3 rules applying to transportation of hazardous wastes
4 and
5 (4) Lack of confidentiality provisions in the manifest
6 and reporting forms.
7 Our first concern centers around EPA's proposed option
8 found on page 58973, column 3, line 1 in the preamble to the
9 proposed Section 3002 regulations.
10 Subpart B, Section 3002 Standards Applicable to Generator
11 of Hazardous Waste EPA's proposal — Preamble (Columb 3,
12 Line 1, page 58972):
13 "Options under consideration include: (1)
14 Requiring quarterly rather than annual reports
15 on each manifested shipment of hazardous waste.
16 [and] (2) Requiring that a copy of each manifest
17 be sent to the Regional Administrator on a
18 quarterly basis."
19 Quarterly reporting would unnecessarily increase our
20 administrative reporting costs for this section by threefold
21 (.300!?) over annual reporting. Because of the sufficient
22 number of examples calling for immediate supplemental reporting
23 routine reporting on a regular schedule more frequently than
24 annually would be unnecessary and burdensome for both ™
25 industry and EPA. Equally important, the overall intent of th<
-------
316
1 reporting function would not be jeopardized by annual reporting
2 Our second concern centers around EPA's proposed certifi-
3 cation statements in Section 250.22(h)(12) and Section 250.23
4 (b)(9),(c)(9), (d)(9), (g)(9) and (h)(9).
5 EPA's proposal, Section 250.22(h)(12):
6 ''The following certification: This is to certify
7 that the above-named materials are properly
8 classified, described, packaged, marked ...Agency."
9 We recommend a certification statement following the
10 example found on the EPA/TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory
11 Report forms: for example, "I hereby certify that, to the best
12 of my knowledge and belief, the above-named materials are prope
13 classified, described, packaged, marked ....Agency" to replace
14 the proposed certification."
15 Section 250,23(b)(9 ), (c)(9),(d)(9),(g)(9) , and (h)(9).
16 "The following certification: TI have ..., and I
17 hereby certify under penalty of law that this
18 information is true accurate, and complete.'1'
19 We recommend a certification statement following the
20 example found on the EPA/TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory
21 Report forms, for example, ''The following certification 'I
22 have..., and I hereby certify that, to the best of my
23 knowledge and belief, that this information is true, accurate,
24 and comDlete.'1'
25
Our third concern centers around EPA's proposal in
-------
317
1 Section 250.25(a)(l):
2 ''Every generator shall place the hazardous waste
3 to be shipped: .(1) In packages in accordance
4 with the Department of Transportation regulations
5 on packaging under ^9 CFR 173, 178 and 179."
6 It is uneconomical, inflationary and inefficient to
7 require the use of a new or reconditioned drum to transport
8 a waste ^5 miles, only to have the drum punctured when it
9 arrives at the disposal site, as is the actual case with our
10 present Colorado facility. A better use of resources would
11 be achieved if wastes designated to be landfilled within a
12 short period of time (30 days) were allowed to be disposed of ii
13 used drums in this limited time. ™
14 The cost for reconditioned and new drums is $10.00 and
15 $35.00 respectively. Since we anticipate using 6300 drums per
16 year *our 1978 usage), this regulation could mean an
17 additional cost of $63,000 -•- $220,000 annually. The costs
18 incurred by this regulation would be punitive and burdensome.
19 A valuable resource would be wasted without any resulting
20 benefit to human safety or the environment. This additional
21 unnecessary cost which must be absorbed by our customers
22 through higher cost of goods will definitely be inflationary
23 and put a burden on our ability to be competitive.
24 Our fourth major concern centers around the lack of
25 confidentiality provisions in EPA's proposal in Section
-------
250.27(a):
318
1
2 ''All information provided in connection with the
3 manifest and reporting sections established by this
4 Subpart shall be available to any person to the
5 extent and in" the manner authorized by Section
6 3007(b) of the Act, the Freedom of Information
7 Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C. Section 552). and the EPA
8 Regulations adopted in compliance with the FOIA
9 (Jio CFR Part 2).'
10 We are very concerned that satisfactory confidentiality
11 provisions are not yet in place. Our products are typically
12 complex chemicals and their manufacture can be complicated
13 and expensive. Furthermore, the manufacturing process
14 represents the culmination of years of very expensive research
15 and development. Much' of this R & D work may not be protected
16 by patent coverage and it is common for the process chemistry
17 and yield data to be very closely protected. At Arapahoe
18 Chemicals this confidentiality protection of our technology
19 constitutes the very essence of our competitive position.
20 Without it, the viability of our business may well be in
21 jeopardy. In some cases the very appearance of a specific
22 chemical waste on the manifest or generator report could give
23 proprietary information. If quantified disposal data were
24 released, even inadvertently, then a competitor could
25 conceivably estimate yields and processes, extremely confident!
-------
319
53
I subjects.
2 Another concern about the confidentiality of reporting is
3 that many companies such as . Arapahoe Chemicals doing custom
4 chemical manufacture for other firms typically have signed
5 contractual secrecy agreements. Thus both the manufacturer
6 and the customer have real needs to protect their business
7 interests.
8 The announced intention of EPA to share information with
9 other Federal agencies and with the public according to the
10 provisions of the Freedom of Information Act is obviously in
11 serious conflict with the very important confidentiality needs
12 of the chemical industry. We ask that EPA respond to these
13 confidentiality concerns in a manner similar to the actions ™
14 provided for under TSCA: for example, providing for
15 confidentiality claims on the forms.
16 If the confidentiality of industry is protected in the
17 way herein requested, the intent of the Act would not be
18 impeded. Thank you.. I will be open to questions from the
19 panel.
20 CHAIRPERSON DARRAK: Thank you.
21 MR. TRASK: Mr. White, I would like to make a
22 comment to your comment, if I may. On the reuse of containers,
23 I think you ought to read the DOT proposal dated May 25, 1978,
24 in which they propose to allow the reuse of NRG and STC
25 containers for a one time trip to the disposal facility. That
-------
320
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is why our regulation is written the way it is, to follow the
DOT rules. However the DOT rules are changing, so you may
not need a new container.
MR, WHITE; Thank you.
MR. TRASK: You mentioned a problem on
confidentiality regarding contractual-secrecy agreements. I
assume that is why you are doing toll processing?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. TRASK- What kind of secrecy arrangement do
you have? Does that lay all of the burden towards holding
information on you?
MR. WHITE: I am afraid toxic substances does that
for us. The contractual agreement that are drawn in a toll
conversion are typically that our customer provides the raw
materials and we provide the synthesis, the R&D and the follow
up with how to get rid of our waste materials, classifying
whether they are hazardous or not. The burden of the entire
batch process from fhe time we receive the raw materials
until we dispose of the waste in our hands.
MR, TRASK: What specifically is it that should be
kept confidential. Is it the quantity of waste, the kind of
hazard? What exactly?
MR. WHITE- We have a number of customers who have
maybe just a hedge on a competitor by making a different
intermediate in the process or coming out with a different
-------
321
1 waste stream. If our competitor has a process to make say,
2 aspirin in a different way and comes out with a waste stream
3 that takes 90 percent less effort to dispose, and 90 percent
4 less costs, that is very interesting to him to keep that in a
5 confidential matter. So he has a competitive edge on his
6 counterpart wherever they may be. This is all hypothetical,
7 but another case might be making an ester, if we could make
8 an ethyl ester rather than say a butyl ester, we could make
9 this product cheaper for our customers. The waste stream will
10 Show that up in the form of ethyl alcohol. It doesn't take
11 much enginuity to get back to square one.
12 MR. LINDSEY; Not only composition but I think you
13 referenced assuming that composition could be kept confidential
14 you also mentioned that volume would be. VJhy would volume be
15 something that should be held confidential, so many tons or
16 so many million gallons, whatever it is.
17 MR. WHITE- We have a number of companies that
18 are competitive in the United States in batch operation. If
19 they knew how much we could produce with our limited facility,
20 they may be able to scale up and say we can be more competitive
21 with you, by buying a bigger kettle, and locating this in
22 South Texas rather than in expensive Boulder, Colorado. There
23 are numerous reasons. That is, without getting into some
24 confidential areas, I can only talk around the generalities. ™
25 Quantification and identification are very closely guarded in
-------
32;
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
the chemical industry, especially in batch operations,
MR. TRASK- Well, as you know, the manifest
nomenclature which we require is what DOT requires on shipping
papers already, and does not form the basis for your report. ]
it your contention then that release of the DOT name of that
material would be harmful to your confidential problem?
MR. WHITE- It could be. We are both looking down
the road. If we have to do this extensive testing evaluation
and identification of our waste streams, this could eventually
end up on the manifest form, or in the reporting forms. It
depends on the degree of specificity, I guess, you want on
those forms.
MR. TRASK: What we have said, using the DOT
names if it applies, if not, then use the EPA name. If that
is not sufficient to guard the confidentiality, then we would
be open to more specific suggestions then that.
MR. WHITE: I have these in written form which I
will send to the Agency before March 16th.
MR. TRASK: Thank you. We appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Ms.
Francine Bellet Kusher of Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association is our next speaker,
MS. PRANCINE BELLET KUSHNER: Good morning. My
name is Francine Bellet Kushner. Associate Director for
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Chemical Specialties
-------
323
1 Manufacturers Association, CSMA is a voluntary non-profit
2 organization consisting of more than 400 members companies
3 engaged in the manufacture, processing and distribution of
4 chemical specialty products. Production processes in the
5 manufacture and formulation of members' products generate .
6 substances that are directly affected by the proposed
7 regulations for identification and listing of hazardous wastes
8 as well as the proposed standards for generators and
9 owner/operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
10 Accordingly, CSMA offers the following comments regarding the
11 hazardous waste regulations proposed under 3002 of the
12 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These points and
13 others will be further developed in our subsequent written I
14 submission.
15 We welcome this opportunity to present our views to the
16 Environmental Protection Agency on issues raised by these
17 hazardous waste regulations which will have significant impact
18 on our industry. The vitality of the chemical specialties
19 industry is dependent upon the opportunities for constant
20 innovation. We are concerned that the proposed hazardous
21 waste regulations will have a negative impact on essential
22 process and product innovation and will impact disproportionate^;
23 on small companies.
24 Section 3002, Standards for Generators of Hazardous
25 Waste. Generator Exemption Levels should be based on Relative
-------
324
1 Degree of Hazard.
2 Section 250.29 provides for an exemption from this
3 manifest, reporting, container and labeling provisions for
4 generators who produce and dispose of no more than 100 Kg of
5 hazardous waste in any one month period. Any exemptions grantee
6 from the hazardous waste regulations should be based on
7 relative degree of hazard. The exemption contained within
8 250.29 fails to recognize relative degrees of hazard and,
9 instead, provides a blanket exemption.
10 As CSMA stated in its earlier testimony on the 3001
11 regulations, the criteria for designation of hazardous waste
12 fail to recognize relative degrees of hazard. CSMA has
13 recommended that both the identification criteria for
14 hazardous waste and the exemption mechanism be based on degree
15 of hazard rather than an exemption applied across the board.
16 Designation of hazardous waste should take into account such
17 factors as persistence, degradation, bioaccumulation, exposure,
18 toxicity and concentration. Both the statute and the legis-
19 lative history indicate that designation or identification of a
20 hazardous waste should consider the degree of hazard. For
21 example, paragraph 1004(5) of RCRA states that the term,
22 ''hazardous waste means a solid waste or combination of solid
23 wastes, which because of its quantity Concentration, or
24 physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may../'.
25 Section 300U of RCRA further recognizes the concept of
-------
325
1 relative degree of hazard in requiring facilities to provide
2 assurances of financial responsibility and continuity of
3 operation "consistent with the degree and duration of risks
4 associated with the treatment, storage, or disposal of
5 specified hazardous waste': and the' legislative history indicates
6 that any exemption should be based on toxicity elements.
7 While CSMA recognizes that any exemption system based on
8 relative degree of hazard could complicate the regulatory
9 program, administrative convenience is not sufficient to
10 support a regulatory program which ignores the requirements of
11 RCRA. unnecessarily increases the burden of the program and
12 fails to concentrate agency resources on the regulation of
13 truly hazardous wastes.
14 Shipping Manifest Should Better Coordinate with the DOT
15 Shipping Paper System.
16 Section 250.22 creates a manifest system for tracking
17 hazardous waste shipments. This system should be modified to
18 track consistently with the DOT hazardous materials shipping
19 paper system. Any manifest or shipping paper system should be
20 uniform for all Federal regulatory purposes. Only one form of
21 shipping paper should be required for both DOT and EPA. CSMA
22 recommends that to accomodate both DOT and EPA requirements
23 only one lengthened DOT form be utilized. The economic
24 impact analysis prepared in conjunction with this proposed '
25 regulation, in its 'Option C'". calls for simplified manifest
-------
326
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
reauirements limited to existing shipping paper — bill of
laden documentation fulfilling DOT requirements. 49 CFR,
paragraph 172.202(a)(4) of the DOT Hazardous Materials
Regulations provides that ra shipping paper may contain
additional information concerning the material provided the
information is not inconsistent with the required description".
This is consistent with the CSMA recommendations that the DOT
paper be lengthened to accomodate the information desired by
EPA. Both 250.22 of these proposed regulations and 49 CPR
172.200-204 require the following information to be included
on the manifest or shipping paper: description of the
hazardous materials, name of the shipper, proper shipping
name, hazard class, total quantity of each hazardous material
and certification and signature, (the certification is identica
with the exception that EPA adds EPA regulations to the list
of those regulations'1, that must- be> complied'with) . Accordingly,
it would be very easy to adopt the mechanism whereby a DOT
shipping paper would"form the basis for the manifest system
with the RCRA-required information added. This RCRA informatio
would include the balance of the requirements under the manifes
system of 250.22. This information would include the
manifest document number, the genrator's identification code,
name, address and date of shipment, the transporter's
identification code, name and address, the facility's
identification code, name and address, spill handling direction
-------
327
1 or 24-hour telephone number for emergency response, directions
2 and number -for contact with the National Response Center of ~
the U. S. Coast Guard, special handling instructions when
available, and any additional comments.
It is also essential that the modified DOT/EPA shipping
paper/manifest be established as the form for use under all
state hazardous waste programs. If states are forced to alter
the form, the consistency and ease of compliance obtained by
integrating the DOT and EPA form will be lost as soon as the
10 states assume RCRA authority.
11 Presumption that a Generator Produces More Than 100 kg
12 of Hazardous waste.
13 Section 250.27 provides that in all civil enforcement
14 proceedings a presumption will arise that a generator of
15 hazardous waste produced and disposed of more than 100 kg
16 of hazardous waste during the time period specified in the
17 enforcement proceeding. This presumption defeats the whole
18 purpose of any exemption in that it requires generators of
19 less than 100 kg to maintain extensive records in order to
20 be able to rebut the presumption. The result of the presumptio
21 is that a person who is not a generator under 250.29 must devel
22 elaborate waste tracking and waste monitoring programs. Such
23 records would involve extensive sampling, monitoring, and
24 record keeping of all production and waste streams. These
25 requirements impose unnecessary burdens upon a person who
-------
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
would otherwise not be a generator, would mandate action on
the part of such persons that is clearly not contemplated by
the proposed regulations, and would not reduce the administrate
burden imposed by the regulation.
In summary, the proposed regulations under 3002 of
RCRA should be amended to reflect CDMA's major concerns, which
are:
(1) Exemption levels for generators of hazardous
waste should be based on relative degree of hazard.
(2) The RCRA manifest system should track the DOT
hazardous materials shipping paper system, and only
one DOT form, modified to accomodate RCRA
requirements, should be mandated.
(3) The presumption that a generator produces more than
100 kg of hazardous waste within the time period
specified in an enforcement proceeding defeats the
purpose of any exemption by requiring maintenance
or extensive records to rebut the presumption.
CSMA appreciates this opportunity to share our views
and we offer our firm commitment to work with the
Environmental Protection Agency toward development of viable
hazardous waste management regulations. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
Questions?
MS. KUSHNER- Yes
-------
329
63
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
MR. TRASK: Do I understand from the discussion
that you have in here about the DOT/EPA generator manifest
of shipping papers, that CSMA is recommending that a national
uniform form be mandated?
MS. KUSHNER: We are suggesting that under RCRA
a separate form should not be required, whether that form-takes
the idea of just stapling an additional paper containing RCRA
required information to the DOT for, I think is one alternative
Another alternative would be just expanded DOT form.
What we are suggesting is, that it would be confusing for
generators acting as shippers to have to worry about several
different forms.
MR. TRASK: Well, you talked about the DOT/EPA
shipping paper manifest being established as the form?
MS. KUSFNEP: Yes.
MR. TRASK: I am sure you know that neither
DOT or the EPA requires a form at the moment.
MS. KUSHNER: That is true. There is no one
specified form, all that is designated is certain information
that must appear on any shipping paper.
MR, TRASK: Right, and we worked long and hard to
get the DOT and EPA requirements together, so that one piece
of paper can be used. But are you now suggesting that we go
to a form?
MS. KUSHNER: I am not suggesting you mandate a
-------
330
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
specific form. What I am suggesting is, that any form that is
recommended or considered suitable for compliance purposes'
should recognize that separate papers should not be required.
MR. TRASK: Okay, to turn to another subject, you
talked about a category of truly hazardous waste and then you
earlier mentioned a number of factors that ought to be singled
out, some of those like persistence, degradability and so
forth. The ones you did not mention were ignitable, corrosive
and reactivity. Is it a reasonable assumption that you would
put that in the other hazardous waste category?
MS. KUSHNER: No. We are just suggesting
additional consideration should be made and any designation of
hazardous waste and any exemption mechanism should include
these other considerations as well.
MR. TRASK: Do you have specific suggestions on
which hazardous material should be in the truly hazardous waste
category?
MS. KUSHNEP: We anticipate that several of our
members in their separate written submissions will address that
issue.
MR. TRASK- We will look forward to that.
MS. SCHAPPER: I am curious as to why you think
in your comments about our enforcement statement about the
rebuttable presumption that if one produces more than a
hundred kilograms, why do you assume that such extensive
-------
331
I records would be required? I think my question is, why do
I
2 you think extensive sampling and monitoring records would be
3 required? Don't you think that just general business records
4 of how much waste is produced or gotten rid of per month would
5 be sufficient to prove that the hundred kilograms has not been
6 achieved?
7 MS. KUSHNERr I would suggest that any firm that
8 would be subject to enforcement proceedings would like to have
9 full resources behind their position, and that as a practical
10 matter, to protect themselves, would engage in extensive
11 monitoring and sampling programs.
12 MS. SCHAFPER: Thank you.
13 MS. KUSHER: Our main concern there is the burden
14 of proof would be shifted.
15 MS. SCHAPPER: Righ^.
16 MR. LEHMAN: Ms. Kushner, your commentary states
17 at one point that you believe that the current exemption
18 system on--the basis of quantity '"unnecessarily increases the
19 .burden of the program.'1' And yet, just before that, you say
20 that CMSA recognizes that any exemption system based on
21 relative degree of hazard could complicate the regulatory
22 program. Now, I am confused about that, because you appear to
23 be saying that the existing proposal is burdensome and yet,
24 you are also saying that a degree of hazard system would also ^
25 complicate.
-------
332
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
MS. KUSHNER: What I suggested, it would complicate
the regulatory program. I was suggesting that EPA would have
to go through the additional step of setting forth an exceptior
program for a classification system that would recognize a
degree of hazard.
MR, LEHMAN; That would also make a more complicate
program?
MS. KUSHNER: I don't think it would add to the
burden by having a relative degree of risk incorporated into
the mechanism. What we are suggesting is substance such as
spent solvents, isopropyl alcohol should not be subject to the
same requirements as say, a waste resulting from pesticide
manufacture.
MR. LEHMAN: Okay.
MR. LINDSEY: YOu made the charge earlier, I guess.
in your statement yesterday and today, that you felt the
regulatory scheme would have negative impact on the innovation.
It has been our thinking that just the opposite would probably
happen, that the increased cost and burden which is associated
with these regulations for disposal and control of these waste
would probably lead to increased innovation with regard to
modifying products so as to eliminate the toxic or otherwise
hazardous nature of the product, and/or modify the process
so as to do the same thing. Why is it that you feel that there
would be a negative impact in innovation as a result of this?
-------
333
67
4
5
6
^
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. KUSHNER- If a formulator or manufacturer
develops a new process that would create an additional hazardou
waste for which he cannot find any facility to accept for
treatment, disposal or storage, that would certainly be a
disincentive for him to produce the product if he could
not find somebody to handle the hazardous waste generated by
the process generating that product.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH : Thank you.
We will take a 15 minute recess and reconvene at
10:30
(Recess taken)
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Next speaker is Mr. William
D. Rogers from Rogers' Sales. Inc.
MR. WILLIAM D. ROGERS: Good morning. I am Will Ian
Rogers of Rogers' Sales, Inc, Monument, Colorado.
Rogers' Sales Company is the marketing contractor to
market Commanche Flyash generated at the Comanche Power
Plant in Pueblo, Colorado. I have been actively marketing
Comanche Flyash for over three years. I would like to briefly
tell you our story. Starting in January 1976 after exhaustive
tests of the quality of Comanche Flyash. we began to sell
first the concrete masonry producers and following immediately
most of the ready mix concrete producers. We were able to mar
ket a considerable amount of flyash tonnage right from the
beginning because of the excellent quality of comanche flyash.
-------
33^
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
It can be said that we have developed the use of the Class C
type flayash and are the leaders in the technology of its use.
Comanche flyash is used for.making:
1. Ready mix concrete.
2. Packaged Dri-Mixes.
3- Concrete Masonry units.
4. Stucco and plaster wall systems.
5- Pre-cast concrete.
6. Mud Jacking.
7. Asphalt mineral filler.
8. Water pipe relining.
Andthe list of products that can use flyash in them
continues to grow each year. .
In the year 1977 according to statistics from the
National Ash Association, 6.3 million tons of flyash were used
A very large percentage of that figure represents flyash
produced in the east and midwest states. The states in the ar<
starting approximately at the Mississippi River and coming
west, are seeing escalation of coal burning power plants
that are burning the so called western coals. These western
coals produce a flyash that is far superior to any flyash we
have seen previously consequently after many years of testing
and research, ASTM C-618-77 includes the type C flyash. We
fully expect to market 85 to 95 percent of the total flyash
generated by the Comanche power plant.
-------
335
1 Our future certainly looked to be the brighest star in
2 the heavesn until December IB, 1978.''The proposed regulations
3 by the EPA could put us and -every flyash marketer in the United
4 States out of business. I have researched all of the
5 available literature for reports of adverse efforts on humans
6 or the environment, and cannot "'find one incident where flyash,
7 when used in the list of products previously mentioned has
8 caused any problems.
9 Plyash does not deserve to be in the all encompasing
10 EPA Subtitle C Regulations. I am in complete disagreement
11 that flyash is a waste material. Plyash is a byproduct from
12 the power plants. It should not be placed in the waste
13 category until it has actually been wasted. Waste is something
14 that is a useless or worthless material, as described by the
15 World Book Encyclopedia. Flyash is a very valuable material
15 and has been declared a natural resource recovery material by
17 the Energy Department. The Concrete Industry in the State of
18 Colorado, Kansas and"New Mexico used 65 thousand tons of
19 Comanche flyash in 1978. Had it not been for the flyash
20 available to supplement the cement shortage, the whole
21 construction industry would have suffered. To terminate the
22 many uses of flyash is contrary to the RCRA's legislative
23 history, which indicates that congress specifically viewed
24 utility byproduct reuses as non-hazardous and beneficial. ^
25 We are concerned that the time frame in which this act
-------
336
1 has been required to be implemented, does not allow an orderly
2 process of technological development. The potential dangers
3 of any waste are always real, if you include the possibility
4 of being buried alive in it. Therefore, we request the Agency
5 to use maximum efforts in extending the time required for
6 compliance that we may develop the necessary technology and
7 information.
8 We do not need another TVA fiasco or another Snail Darte
9 fiasco. I am speaking to you today about the jobs of thousand
10 of persons in the United States who are related to the flyash,
11 coal byproducts industry. Our nation cannot afford to waste
12 an ounce of energy. Consequently we urgently request you to
13 reflect on the damage that could be caused by a hasty
14 implement of the proposed regulations. By declaring flyash
15 and coal byproducts hazardous waste, the advantages of energy
16 conservation through recycling of coal byproducts is destroyed
17 In summary, our ultimate goal is to sell and use every
18 pound of coal byproducts material available. We firmly
19 believe that the final solution is utilization. Regulations
20 that would hamper or terminate reaching that goal would deny
21 the total concept of Congress's RCRA bill. Let us then procee
22 together, to develop the necessary guidelines needed to ensure
23 a safe environment and enjoy the fruits of a recycled byproduc
24 It is our solid belief, that all of these things can happen
25 without first destroying a valuable industry.
-------
337
1 May I thank you for the opportunity to present our
2 comments.
3 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
4 MR. TRASK: Mr. Rogers, what is it about these
5 regulations that is going to cause you a problem? I didn't
6 understand what your recommendations were.
7 MR. ROGERS: The recommendation is, that the flyash
8 per se should not be called a waste and should not even be
9 considered to be in the hazardous waste management program.
10 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Assuming that it was waste,
11 do you have any information as to whether the flyash that you
12 are talking about, which you called Excellent quality flyash"
13 would meet any of the four characteristics listed in Section ™
14 3001?
15 MR. ROGERS: We do not have any information at
16 this time. The National Ash Association in conjunction with
17 all of us private contractors are trying at this time to
18 develop the information that we need. I might add that it is
19 presenting a tremendous burden as far as finances go to
20 work in this area. You must hire people of excellent quality.
21 For instance, our consultant is Dr. Diamond from Purdue
22 University, and it costs us $350 dollars a day.
23 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I guess what you are saying
24 is, that the label hazardous.again is the comment we have
25 been hearing, that you are objecting to
-------
338
1 MR. ROGERS: Yes. Yesterday there were two
2 speakers that alluded to the fact that being just guilty by
3 association being labeled a. hazardous material. I can give yoi
4 a firsthand account that I personally went through with operat
' 5 of two mines in the State of Colorado where an article appeare<
6 in a magazine, a trade journal about two years ago. A person
7 in California said that flyash caused cancer, and that set me
8 back tremendously with this mining company, and it also
9 jangled my phone right off the hook from everybody that I was
10 selling it to. So the association is a very severe situation
11 for us to deal with.
12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. The next speaker
13 is J. G. Reilly from St. Joe Minerals Corporation.
14 MR. JOHN G. REILLY: My name is John G. Reilly
15 with St. Joe Minerals Corporation.
16 We are operators of mines, mills and smelters in the
17 lead and zinc industry, and operators of coal mines and
18 processing facilities in the coal industry.
19 I didn't get a chance to speak yesterday, although we
20 wer going to give all of our comments yesterday, one or two
21 of them I didn't get a chance to finish.
22 First, I would like to say that Ms. Dorothy Darrah asked
23 for any positive comments that we might have, were acceptable,
24 and I think the ones that appears to me the most positive
25 is, that is a great improvement in the panel, in that they
-------
339
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
raised you up to where we can see you today. poi» various ^
reasons3 that is a great improvement.
We have one comment on the generator portion of this
hearing, and I would like to state it for the panel's
benefit so they would know the problems. It has to do with
Section 250.20(c) where the time limit for a generator expires
after 90 days and after which he is no longer a generator, and
yet, he becomes a storer and subject to Subpart D.
In our zinc smelting operation, we produce various
oddball materials that are hard to categorize. They are in
relatively small quantities, perhaps one section might be
20 tons a year, and another 40 tons a year, or 100 tons a year^
and these are intermediaries that are hard to categorize, and
what to do with them. They may be waste. They may be
something that can be recycled to some-mother company to extract
the metal values from them. Each so called lot has to be
negotiated on its own metal contents and what the market will
absorb at that time." If we can't get rid of them in that
way, they have to go to a waste facility which would be off-sit<
and not on our property.
The problem that our smelter people tell us they have is,
that when they decide they have to dispose of a waste,
because they can't sell it. it is very hard to arrange to have
this waste disposed of in the propermanner by a commercial ^
waste facility.
-------
3^0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think this problem will somewhat disappear after the
effects of this series of regulations go into effect. There
will be more hazardous waste facilities that will accept
these types of products, but right now, they have a very
difficult time in trying to dispose of them, because they can't
find anybody that will take it. They have to negotiate with th
person and that person and so what we are asking for is for the
next, let's say three years, to allow people to have more than
90 days to dispose of a waste if they can prove this or
show that they can't reasonably get rid of it. We are
suggesting six months, and again, it is an arbitrary figure,
but it is to help alleviate this problem.
These particular waste I am speaking of from the zinc
smelting operation should not be confused with tailings,
slag piles or some of the other mining wastes. These are
relatively small volume, high metal content and indeterminate
type of waste in that they have no consistency. One year,
you will accumulate so much of this, and another year, it is
this kind of material. They are not consistent, and they are
hard to categorize.
The other thing I would like to say is not directly
related to generators, but it has to do with somewhat with
a very important question that was asked by the members of
the panel yesterday to people in the mining industry. I
don't know if it was Mr. Lindsey or Mr. Lehman that asked thes
-------
341
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
questions, but I think they are very important. The question
was,, why are you in the mining field so concerned of whether
your waste is called hazardous waste or not. We have provided
this nice category of special waste, and deal with them
separately according to the characteristics of the special
waste, and it appears that the panel was almost shocked that
the mining industry was trying to avoid being categorized as
hazardous waste, and I done some thinking on that over the
night. I would like to answer those questions, although they
weren't asked of me.
One of them is, that the requirements for the special
waste as spelled out in the proposed regulation, they are not
all as innocuous as you might think.
First of all, the six foot fence, I quickly in my
head looked at our various mining operations in lead and zinc,
and I calculated that we ha-e approximately 30 to 40 mile of
perimeter in our various locations. We would have to put a
fence up, and at eight dollars a foot, that is forty thousand
.dollars a mile. What are we talking about, one or two
hundred thousand dollars for a six foot fence around areas
we don't believe to be a need for fencing, because in many
cases, the remoteness of the mining facility in the countryside
around the mining areas are as hazardous, you might say, as
the mining tailing piles themselves. So this six foot fence ™
is not an innocuous thing. It is a big expense. It is a
-------
342
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
big expense and a security requirement to monitor to keep
people in and out, and it becomes an unnecessary operating
burden, burden. The maze of reports that have to be filled
out, even though they may not be as much as common storage
facility or treatment facility, ahs to do, you read that over
with the idea in mind you are operating a tailings dam
operation here and one there, and you got that whole page
in the Federal Register of all those reports he has to make,
teh quarterly, the daily and the annual, and keeping track
of the lots and it is not an insignificant administrative
function to comply with all of those reports and we think it
is completely unnecessary. We are submitting in our comments
how we think they could be improved by making it much similar
and simpler to use.
The other thing is the leach testing for monitoring
wells. It doesn't look like much, but if you have a waste
that you don't believe should be hazardous, and you have allowe
yourself to get in the hazardous waste category, you are
monitoring wells, and if the background, if you exceed the
background quality of the water by significant amounts accordir
to the test, you can be told to close down your facility. So,
of course, we are concerned.
We don't want to become hazardous waste if we are not,
and we are going to stay away from that. This is why you are
hearing so much about it.
-------
3^3
77
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
The other thing is more innocuous. You read through
Federal Register where — what do you call the part where you
are explaining things —
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The preamble.
MR. REILLY: Often you see the words for now or
for the time being, or until something else has happened. Well
we are looking down the pike five years, ten years or twenty
years from now, and a whole bunch more regulations are going
to come out, because you said so (laughter), and I know they
will. Alright, why shouldn't we break our backs to get out fro
underneath the term hazardous waste. There is a lot of things
coming down the pike that we don't know about yet. A
The other point has been brought out real well, is the
branding, the painting, as you may, of an operation as
hazardous waste. Most of us in the mining industry out in
the hinterlands, and we got a small population of people
around, and it isn't long before those people say, oh yes,
stay away from there, that is hazardous waste. Well, it is
branding by these words, is enough to raise a hair up on the
back of your head from a public relations standpoint. The
state agencies that come around and look at you and they look
a lot different when they know you are a hazardous waste, or
that if you are not a hazardous waste.
The other thing, and this is what was" brought out very
well by Mr. Rogers and two people that answer your questions
-------
1 yesterday, the future use of the so called hazardous waste?
2 our tailings operation and our slag piles, are the mines of
3 the future. Someday people will find uses for these.
4 In our Missouri operation, this dolomitic tailings is
5 excellent for top dressing and agricultural uses. It has got a
6 calcium carbonate content of more than one hundred. If it
7 is called a hazardous waste, how many people do you think we
8 can give it to.
9 So, again, this comes under the branding. Once we get
10 painted as hazardous waste, we got another ballgame. I just
11 wanted to point this out, and I will be glad to answer any
12 questions if there are any.
13 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. You are so clear,
14 we understand it. Next speaker is Mr, Ellis T. Hammett.
15 MR. ELLIS T, HAMMETT: I am Ellis Hammett,
16 petroleum engineer with the U. S. G. S. Geothermal group,
17 Menlo Park, California,
18 I was at tne IDC Convention yesterday, or the day before
19 -and I heard about this meeting, and about the three that are
20 coming up in San Francisco, and I hadn't had really an occasion
21 to go over your proposals, but what was reported to me was the
22 drilling waste from drilling — active drilling operations woul<
23 be considered more or less if there was any toxic materials in
24 them at all, or any amounts would be considered in this
25 hazardous waste. Is this true?
-------
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: If you need clarification,
you should speak to us during the break.
MR. HAMMETT: Alright. Let me make my statement,
and it is based on forty some years as a petroleum engineer and
four as a geothermal drilling engineer.
I think it is essentially this, no one wants to
unnecessarily impact on the environment, but I think they
8 should be handle on a material by material or individual
9 material basis, and I happen to know that drilling fluid
1° material, safety sheets are available from almost all the
11 manufacturers. They use to call it proprietary material.
12 Most of them no longer do that. Part of it is because we
require it for the geothermal drilling, and as a result, I
i4 have most of them and will be happy to provide the panel with
them when you get to San Francisco.
16 Quite often in the past, during my experience back in
the Fifties in drilling in Oklahoma and Texas, I settled
claims for damage from drilling waste on the farmers fields,
and in most cases where the farmer said the wastes were, was
20 not right. And when we checked it out on the maps, we found
21 the most lush crops were right over the old waste reserve
22 pits. This is understandable, because quite a lot of chemical
23 used in the drilling industry are actually used as commercial
fertilizers.
25 Now, as far as restoration of drill sites, every since
-------
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
the beginning of drilling industry, they have spread drilling
cuttings and waste drilling materials right on the drill sites,
and as I say, this is usually enhancing the agricultural
crops right over the top where the drilling had occurred.
This is, as I say, true of the oil and gas and geo-
thermal drilling during the past four years and as a drilling
engineer, I have bene responsible for writing the regulations
and for enforcement of all the federal geothermal lease
operations. I have reviewed essentially all federal geo-
thermal lease operations and most of these were furnished with
proprietary data, deleted to the appropriate EPA personnel for
review and comment.
All geothermal lease drilling mud proposals are checked
to insure that they include no hazardous or toxic materials.
The only exception to that is that we do permit caustic soda
to be used as a neutralizer and pH control. We have required
they either furnish us these materials safety sheets on any
new products they propose to use. or we ask the supplier
directly and then almost in most cases, they have been very
cooperative with us. Since no hazardous materials are usually
used, it has been common practice to spread the wet drilling
fluid waste and drill cuttings providing we don't get a toxic
effluent within which the geothermal process we sometimes do.
But providing you don't get a toxic effluent, we spread the
drilling flud waste to a depth of about six inches right over
-------
3^7
1 the drill site, and allow it to dry and then work it into the ^
2 topsoil, or cover it with stockpiled topsoil. The results of
3 the geysers in the last four years of federal operation, native
4 plants have been reestablished right over the old drill sites,
5 and using seed mixtures and mulches approved by the Surface
6 Management Agency, Ukiah District. When you get to San
7 Francisco, I will provide you pictures for the before and
8 after operations, and if any of you could take a trip to the
9 geysers, why, we would be more than happy to take some of you
10 up there and show you around.
11 As I said, I haven't read 'these over, and I think I was
12 misinformed, and I apologise for that, but since I was here, I
13 thought this was a good time to give you the benefit of my
14 experience and to recommend that no industry or not everybody
15 be branded that way.
16 Now, there are occasions in the drilling industry when
17 they will be using chemicals and materials that are toxic and
18 hazardous, and at that time, we should consider they have put
19 themselves in a position where they do have to control it.
20 I should make one more comment, and that comment is from
21 talking to Larry Trask before the meeting. When he found out
22 who I was and wehre I came from, why, he asked me this comment.
23 He wanted to know about this. He says, what about monitoring
24 these restored sites. I have to plead a little ignornace,
25 but not entirely, so in the geothermal regulations, before we
-------
348
1 can produce geothermal or start up a gecthermal power plant
2 with federal resources, it is required that the operator
3 provide us with the nearest environmental baseline data, and
4 this includes the monitoring of the surface streams, the ground
5 water, just about every environmental aspect. If you are
6 familiar with our regulations, it is under 36 CFR 270.34, and
7 I will be happy to provide all of you with a copy of those
8 when we get to San Francisco.
9 Also, since my base is Menlo Park, I will probably not
10 burden you with another statement there, but I will provide
11 you with all the help and I do offer all our help that we can
12 give you.
13 i think with this environmental baseline data and
14 monitoring, which is already a requirement, plus the fact the
15 area geothermal supervisor, who I work for, will be requiring
16 further environmental monitoring during all the production
17 operation that the geothermal industry will probably generate,
18 very little, if any, "hazardous waste. Thank you very much.
19 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Will
20 you answer questions?
21 MR. HAMMETT: I will answer any questions you have.
22 MR. LINDSEY: I just have a request. Mr. Hammett,
23 you said you din't have a chance to read these specifically.
24 i would like to call your attention to 250.13 in the regulations
25 I don't want you to read it now. but if you would, go through
-------
3^9
83
1 that and let us know if you think that any of the waste, or
2 what kinds of waste or what percentage or whatever of the kind
3 of waste we are talking about, either geothermal or from your
4 prior experience, would in fact fail these criteria?
5 MR. HAMMETT: Well, when I went through them
6 hurriedly here, and that is why I apologise for maybe being
7 misinformed as to whether these are in fact being included
8 as an industry waste and giving us a problem. After reading it
9 over, I was about of the opinion that what I had said would
10 not be necessary to protect the industry. I only wanted to
11 pull out that there are safety sheets available, and to also
12 offer my cooperation in the area of the geothermal supervisor's
13 cooperation. So, I really am not questioning what you
14 have already. I just want to put a little more on the line and
15 kind of come out in the open and say I really don't think that
16 it is, as far as the drilling industry is concerned, that we
17 are generating what I consider to be hazardous waste, and what
18 little we have generated or are generating, can be very readily
19 controlled, and we are doing so, at least, in the federal
20 geothermal program. Thank you very much for your time.
21 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. The next speaker
22 is John R. Berger.
23 MS. JOHN R. BERGER: Thank you for affording me the
24 opportunity to address this group, and to enter our testimony
25 in this proceedings. I am John Berger, Vice President for
-------
350
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
Inland Chemical Corporation is a resource recovery
company, which operates three plants, two in the states and
one in Puerto Rico, Our only business is the recovery of
useful organic chemicals from industrial wastes.
I want to address five points in the proposed regulations
I would like to start by saying that last night at the end of
the session, the Chairperson proposed that with one final
reading of the names of the people who hadn't testified,
or entered testimony, the meeting be adjourned. I want to go
on record as saying, that is the first time I have seen an EPA
proposal accepted without objection, (laughter)
The five points I want to discuss are these. The
provisions which are provided for generators holding hazardous
waste for 90 days or for less than 90 days, be exempted from
regulation of storage facilities. The lack of the requirement
for characterization and quantification of waste on the
manifest. The failure to provide for degree of hazard in the
classification of waste. The non-uniformity of the manifest
form and the manner in which it is to be handled, and the
unreasonable identification burden placed on the generators.
Now, with respect to the first point. It is quite
obvious in these public hearings, the individual commenting
is concerned about the impact of the regulation on his own
industry, and, of course, I am thinking about the regulations
as it affects our business. We pick up waste from generators
-------
351
85
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
for transport to our recover plants, and many of our generators
have their waste in storage tanks that are quite large. Large
in our type industry, small in the mining industry. The
procedure for handling waste streams into these storage tanks
on the generators plant sites is to continually introduce waste
in the tank and continually draw waste from the tanks for
transportation.
In reality, there will be wastes contained in these
tanks which will be held for more than 90 days, even though
the flow of materials through these tanks is continuous,
because of mixing and separation within the tank. So technical
even though the entire contents of volumetric content of a
storage tank will turn over, say within 30 days or 60 days,
at the end of the 90 days, some of the original material is
still in the tank.
We suggest that some consideration be given to this
because we found that in the administration of regulations,
when we get down to the detailed workings, these questions
crop up, and at that time, there is difficulty to resolve it.
V/ith respect to the lack of requirement for
characterization and quantification of waste and the waste on
the manifest.
The guiding principle in the entire program is that the
material not cause detriment to public health or welfare, or ™
pose a hazard to the environment. It is difficult for me, a
-------
352
1 chemist working with organic chemicals to accept the fact or
2 the concept that a wide spectrum of organic chemicals,over a
3 million of them have been characterized, and there are thousands
4 of them in commercial use, that all organic chemicals are
5 assigned the same degree of hazard. I would like to give you
6 just a couple of quick examples.
7 Two organic chemicals, both chlorinated chemicals,
8 carbon tetrachloride is one and trichloroethylene, and one is
9 classified as tocic and hazardous waste. Carbon tetrachloride
10 is accumulative toxic poison. Repeated exposure results in
11 increased damage to the human system.
12 Trichloroethylene has been used as a general anesthetic.
13 The most noteworthy example of this is vihen Queen Elizabeth
14 gave birth to Prince Charles, she was anesthesized with
15 trichloroethylene. It is hard for me to see two chemicals
16 of the same general chemical classification, but with such
17 widely differing effects on the human system, both classified
18 under the same category,
19 The purpose of the program is to prevent damage to
20 the environment and adverse effect on human health and welfare.
21 We believe that some consideration should be given to classi-
22 fication of hazardous waste and to subclassification that gives
23 some real meaning to the hazards that have to be faced and
24 dealt with by the people who deal with them.
25 The third point is a failure to provide for a lack of
-------
353
87
4
1 requirement for characterization of and quantification, A
2 because as a processer of organic substances that we take into
3 our plants, and handle and recover,and incidentally,
4 generate residuals, and therefore, we are generators in that
5 respect, it is important to us to know what is in the material
6 coming into our plants.
7 There isn't any provision on the manifest forms that I ha
8 seen generated by the various states that are using them
9 now, or proposed by the states, that are developing manifest
10 forms in their handling system.
11 The State of California has been operating a manifest
12 system for over four years. We function under that manifest
13 system and we operate a plant in California. They require
14 more detailed information on the manifest forms, so they are
15 in a better position to determine the proper location for
15 the residual waste after they have been processed by the
17 processing plant.
18 Many of the wastes that are handled, are handled by
19 unknowing or unknowledgeable people, and people that can't
20 be expected to understand the degree of hazard to which they
2i are exposed. There are many cases on record of improper
22 disposal under improper conditions. By that, I mean improper
23 disposal of hazardous waste under conditions that were deemed
24 proper at the time that a disposal was made,
25 The most noteworth examnle of this, of course, is the
-------
354
Love Canal situation, but that is noteworth because it is such
2 a tremendous problem, and there are so many similar problems
3 in that area, and other area's of the country, but there are man,
4 cases where waste were disposed of improperly, simply because
5 the people involved in it didn't know what they were handling
and didn't know in sufficient detail what they were handling.
The fourth point, the non-uniformity of manifest forms
and manifest handling procedures. Now, the regulations provide
9 for manifest forms. The form is printed in the proposed
10 regulations, but it is up to .the individual states to develop
their enabling legislation, their regulations and their
12 handling procedures,
13 I am currently following the developing situations in
14 thirty states in this country, and believe me, if you think
15 that following the federal government is tough, you should get
16 out into the boondocks where the real things are happening.
17 Serious effort is being made in EPA regions to come up
18 with regionally uniform manifest systems. Right now, in
19 Region IV, it looks like there is a pretty good chance this
20 may happen.
21 In Region V, which is out of Chicago, the five states
22 there are trying to come up with uniform manifest systems.
23 They agree it is necessary, but of the five states, they all
24 want their special input into this system.
25 I think it was a serious mistake for the federal EPA not
-------
355
89
1 to include a manifest form, a uniform manifest form and handlio|
2 procedure to be used uniformly by all administering agencies.
3 There are situations developing here in this country where one
4 state will have a manifest system that says, the generator will
5 or the recover plant or the treatment disposal or detoxificatioi
6 plant will provide the form to the generator.
7 Another it will follow a certain procedure and all the
8 forms will go back to either the generator or the treatment
9 plant, and then forwarded to the state.
10 Another state will say no. we will use a state form.
11 You will follow this procedire, and the next state says you
12 will use state for, but their forms are different. .
13 I asked the question in a conversation with one of the
14 agency's people, and in one of the states, are we going to
15 have to reduce our payloads by five thousand pounds per
16 transport vehicle in order to provide carrying capacity for
17 the filing cabinet, typewriter, secretary and desk to handle
18 this — you follow what I am saying. (laughter)
19 I posed the question in several state agencies, how about
20 the toxic waste that are picked up in one state and transported
21 through your state to a third state. Are you going to require
22 that these hazardous wastes be reported in your staterand
23 responses in many cases were yes, we are. Responses in other
24 cases, yes, we hadn't thought about that, but we better do it.
25 We are not against this program. There'is ample.evidence
-------
356
1 of the need for a regulatory system in this country to control
2 the handling and disposal of toxic wastes. We are willing to
3 spend the time and effort necessary to make the system work.
4 I am speaking for my company and as an individual. We don't
5 want to see a system that is so cumbersome, so unmaneagable,
6 such voluminous paperwork that it becomes economically
7 unfeasible to continue the process. Right now, the program is
8 going to make it difficult, if not impossible, for many smaller
9 generators to get to dispose of their waste.
10 That is the five points I wanted to address this morning.
11 There are two kinds of generators. There is the big
12 generator who is well facilitated with technical staff and
13 laboratories to determine the composition of the waste. He
14 knows what he is putting out of his plant. There are small
15 users, or many cases, big users, big companies in terms of the
16 size of the corporation, but small in terms of the quantity
17 of toxic and hazardous materials handled, who are not
18 facilitated to determine the nature of the waste that is handle
19 . A specific type of example. A manufacturing firm in the
20 metal working industry that purchases a proprietary cleaning
21 solvent for cleaning metal prior to finishing or subsequent
22 operation. Those proprietary substances contain mixtures of
23 organic solvents, some of which, are classified as hazardous
24 under the regulations and some of which are considered non-
25 hazardous, or different class of hazardous. The composition
-------
357
1 of the material Is withheld from the person purchasing it. 4
2 Often he only has a material safety data sheet provided by
3 the manufacturer to tell him what he has got in this container
4 when he receives it into his plant. Many of these material
5 safety data sheets such as the one used by the coating industry
6 doesn't reveal the chemical composition of the substance. It
7 only identifies the solvent portion as solvent. Now, it is
8 entirely possible that solvent could be carbon tetrachloride
9 if it was coming from an unscrupulous manufacturer who had an
10 opportunity to make a fast buck, and there are those people
11 in the industry out there in the real world also. So the
12 possibility exists that the generator will generate a waste. *
13 Remember a hundred kilograms is 220 pounds, about twenty
14 gallons of many of these substances, and that is not very much.
15 Twenty-one gallons a month and he is a generator who must
16 generate the information for the manifest to identify the waste
17 So, there are some unreasonable burdens placed on industry on
18 the generators which are going to have really adverse impacts
19 on the materials used in the way they are handled and disposed
20 of.
2i Thank you. I will answer questions.
22 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
23 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Berger, I am a little confused
24 by your last remark in view of a previous remark. At one
25 point, I believe you indicated strong desire that you need
-------
358
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
more detailed information on chemical composition on the
manifest? And yet, you say that it is unreasonable burden
to require that the generators comply. So. could you help us
out on that?
MR. BERGER: Well, as a chemist, I am suppose to
have an answer for the questions that I pose, right? Since
1970, I hve been following regulations that you have developed
and I find myself freely in the position where I can't meet
that requirement (laughter).
MR. LEHMAN: You say you get certain information
from the people that send you their waste. Do you accept waste
from these, what we will characterize, as small generators?
MR. BERGEP: Let me tell you what is happening in
our industry and in our business. I think that is the best
way to handle that question, because this is based on actual
experience. This is the track record now.
At one time, we accepted only one type of organic
chemical chlorinated-hydrocarbons, and since then, branched
into many different types of organic chemicals, and have
become auite sophisticated in our business. We are well
facilitated. We have IR and GC and the rest of the laboratory
tools necessary to make tests and characterize wastes. We are
not facilitated, however, to characterize waste in the areas
of heavy metals and so on. which we are probably going to
have to get into. We are going to have to follow California
-------
359
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
regulations and get chromatography or something to let us find
these things out. We told our customers from whom we were
accepting quantities of materials in drums, we would no longer
accept drum shipments. One of the reasons for this was the
DOT regulations requiring the use of a tested drum, tested unde:
DOT regulations for the use of transportation of materials and
public comments and so forth. Someone earlier testified as to
the cost of reconditioned drums. This is a real burden on the
person who is generating the waste, particularly if he is not
in the drum filling business. A company that buys twenty drums
of something and can't put the waste back in those same drums,
but must purchase reconditioned, retested or new drums, says,
no, wait a minute, I am just going to dump it out in the
backyard, that is an additional cost I can't stand. So, we
stopped taking drums from customers. We got quite a bit of
static from the customers but it was necessary to do this in
order to protect our own business. We cannot violate. We are
out in the open.
Think of it this way. If I went home Saturday after
leaving this place and walked in the house and said to my
wife, Ruth, why don't you sweep the kitchen floor. She would
say, John, the kitchen floor is pretty clean. I said sweep
it. She would sweep it and there in the middle of the floor
would be a little pile of dirt. If you don't believe me, go "
home and tell your wife, if she lets you get away with it, you
-------
360
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
will find a little pile of dirty.
We take the waste from a large- area, which is kind of
hidden in the bushes, bring'it all into one place, and we
become very visible.
I remember a meeting at Region II in New York of EPA, whi<
had to do with some problems in our plant in Newark, New
Jersey. Yes, we have permit problems too. One of the
gentlemen who was responsible for air pollution control in
Puerto Rico, which is administered out of Region II in New
York heard I was in the building and came in the room in which
the meeting was held, and asked me, John, are you dealing with
any — he named a bunch of pharmaceutical firms in Puerto
Rico. I said, yes, we are taking the spent chemicals from
all of those people. He says, that explains it, you are the
only company we are having trouble with in Puerto Rico. That
is the situation we find outselves in, because- we are highly
visible.
As aresult. we" have to take the necessary steps to
protect our business in order to keep from being put out of
business by violations. That is one of the results of this
kind of thing.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Our specific question was and
is, what information do you require from the people who send
you waste, if you do the characterization, and what is the
cost of that characterization?
-------
1 MR. BERGER: We are to the point now where we are
2 handling only quantities — tank truck quantities, which we
3 transport incur own vehicles,. Before we will take a waste
4 from a supplier, we require that they give us the composition
5 of the waste if they are facilitated to do so.
6 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: In what detail?
7 MR. BERGER: Within a percent or two of what the
8 components are, and within a percent or two. We also analyze
9 the waste in our own laboratory samples and we find sometimes
10 that the samples don't match up with the shipments, so we have
11 a continuing monitoring program on incoming program materials.
12 One of the things that concerns us incidentally is a provision
13 in your regulation for — I am sorry, this is in New Jersey's
14 regulation.
15 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Tell us what the cost is of
16 running a sample. How many samples would you run on a ten
17 truck shipment?
18 MR. BERGER: I can't tell you the cost, because I
19 don't have those figures with me. The incoming material, if
20 it is analyzed, like under different circumstances, if it is
21 a large stream from a large supplier, and is established that
22 it is uniform in nature, such as pharmaceutical strength, and
23 we have seen over a period of time there is very little
24 variation in many compositions. It is just quantities, not
25 materials, we analyze periodically.
-------
362
1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Would you be able to submit
2 to us in written form the cost data that it cost you to perform
3 these characterizations?
4 MR. BERGER: I will have go go back to our people,
5 but I will do that.
6 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
7 MR. TRASK: You indicated earlier on that you
8 needed some more level of detail on the manifest, and I think
9 you indicated such, and I gather from that that the DOT
10 nomenclature is not specific enough to suit your needs.
11 MR. BERGER: The DOT system is quite detailed.
12 Many chemicals are named specifically and I would have to
13 go back and check the materials that we are processing to see
14 if all of them are on that list. If that system is followed,
15 if they are identified that way on the load, that will be
16 helpful. But how is a load identified is it contains a
17 mixture of two or more of those DOT classified chemicals, and
18 varying in composition.
19 MR. TPASK: To avoid getting into specific
20 situations, you know there are provisions for mixtures in the
21 DOT system and you classify the hazard as one of the greatest
22 under their ranking of hazard. What I am looking for, is there
23 a finer level of detail thatyou need-to somehow mark the tank
24 or tank truck or whatever, is there some marking or labeling
25 provision thatyou need to alert the people who are working in
-------
363
97
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
your plant about the handling danger or specific identity of
the material?
MR. BERGER: No -identification of material by
content, by composition and by quantitfication is also helpful
to our people so they know what they are handling when it hits
the plant.
You see, we don't really have any control over this.
For example, the State of New Jersey says you must use our
manifest system if you transport waste into New Jersey, but
New Jersey cannot tell the generator for the State of New
York, you have to fill out our manifest form, because that is
a state trying to dictate to another state. So we say to the'
generator, look we won't pick up your waste unless you fill
out the New Jersey form, and we supply them the form. Now,
we don't mind doing this, because it does accomplish the purpos
of tracking the waste. We can't dictate to the customer what
is to go on the form, only New Jersey can do that.
That is where we need some help on more detailed
requirements on the form. Again, thatis out of the hand of
the Federal EPA, because the state is going to administer the
program
MR. LIMDSEY: I have one more question here on
a matter you touched on, but I would like to get your feeling
on this. As a recycler of waste, in that you bring waste in
and produce a product, unless you dispose of this material,
t
-------
364
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
your own generated waste, bury it or whatever, they maybe on
site, you don't need a permit under the federal system, nor do
the people who send waste to' you need to manifest in order
to do that.
MR, BERGER: Under the federal system?
MR,LINDSEY: Do you think that is a good idea from
the standpoint of encouraging recycling of waste, and do you
think it is a bad idea from the standpoint of losing control of
hazardous waste movement?
MR. BERGER: I think it is a good idea from this
standpoint. If I am picking up a tanktruck of trichloroethylene
from a major producer, or if I am picking up a tanktruck that
contains 90 percent trichloroethylene and 10 percent lubricating
oil from an industrial plant that is using it in vapor
degreasing operation, that is. the hazaroud substance is
trichloroethylene. The substance is just as hazardous coming
out of chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing plant as it is
coming out of a users plant, so from that standpoint, the
program does not address the whole hazardous materials problem.
It doesn't address the problem of the people who use most of
the trichloroethylene, the primary user, so there is a fault
in the program right there. The glaring hole in the program
right there. If you are going to regulate a chemical
because of its toxic nature, then by George, regulate the
chemical.
-------
365
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
Now, the second problem in the treatment and disposal
of toxic waste, and I am quoting something that I read and was
said by Mr, Costle, where he- said, and I forget the number,
I am not quoting a number, because I will quote the wrong
number, but there was a very small number of secure landfills
in the United States. It was less than fifty. I know it was
less than fifty, which means there is not one in every state.
So, therefore, based on that observation, it is logical to
assume that there is, at least one state without a secure
landfill, and on that basis, it is logical to assume that
material is going to have to be transported out of that state
to another state in interstate commerce. Therefore, you got a
situation that clearly is one that should be regulated under
federal regulation that is uniformly applied to all states,
because otherwise, if it is left up to the states, the state
can refuse to accept the waste from another state, although
it has been tried, it is going to be tried again.
there is
a federal program to regulate the handling and disposal of
toxic waste, then the key factors in that program should be
uniformly applied, state-by-state. Now, there are states
that don't have certain kinds of toxic materials in their state:
They just don't have to deal with those.
MR. LINDSEY: I don't think we understand your
comment about trichloroethylene. Are you saying that we
should be listing thatnaterial and that any waste containing
-------
366
1 that material should be a hazardous waste?
2 MR. BEPGER: No, I am saying if the material is
3 hazardous, then the material is hazardous.
4 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Do you understand under RCRA,
5 we only have authority over waste.
6 MR. BERGER: Yes, under RCRA, you only have
7 authority over waste, but EPA has authority over air, water
8 and land pollution. Okay. The authority of EPA transcends
9 well beyond the authority given to EPA under RCRA. This thing
10 is fragmented into many parts, that some of the major
11 considerations aren't being considered.
12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Okay. I understand your
13 comment then.
14 is there anyone who wants to speak on 3002? Okay, come
15 forward and give your name for the court reporter.
16 MR. GARY DOUNAY: My name is Gary Dounay and I am
17 employed by S. W. Shattuck Chemical Company, Inc as a
18 chemist and also coordinator of environmental affairs. We
19 are located here in Denver, Colorado.
20 I would like to make as a matter of record and for your
21 review, comments on behalf of the S. W. Shattuck Chemical
22 Company, Inc., regarding the proposed guidelines and regulation
23 and proposal on identification and listing of hazardous wastes
24 as published in the December 18, 1978, issue of the Federal
25 Register. My comments pertain to Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004.
-------
367
101
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
My first comment regards the concentration of the
contaminant from the procedure specified in toxic waste
definition, article 250.13 Cd) page 58956, column 2, paragraph
2. I object to the concentrations of arsenic, lead, mercury
and selenium to be considered as the limit for declaring a .
solid waste hazardous because, as an analytical chemist with
considerable experience, I am certain these levels cannot
always be determined in all matrices by atomic absorption
procedures with absolute certainty. I would suggest that this
portion of this act be amended to allow the concentration of
arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium to be 10 milligrams per
liter in the extract before being considered hazardous waste.
The EPA should also permit the use of colorimetric or other
instrumental methods in the determination of the specified
hazardous materials in waste- this would allow a small business
to comply with the law without undergoing financial hardship.
My second comment regards the method of adjusting pH in
the extraction procedure as specified in article 250.13(d),
page 58957, column 1. paragraph (E). The procedure specifies
using 0.5 N acetic acid to adjust the pH to 5.0 +_ 0.2. My
objection to the use of acetic acid is this is not an acid
found in nature. There are many compounds which are essential-
insoluble as found in nature which form quite soluble acetates
For example, hydrocerussite, 2 PbC03.Pb(OH)2, would react
with acetic acid to form lead acetate. Hydrocerussite is
-------
.o;
368
1 insoluble in water but lead acetate has a solubility of 44.3
2 grams per 100 ml of water at room temperature. I suggest that
3 the pH be adjusted with an acid found in nature such as carbonic
4 acid: this would cause the extract contaminant concentrations
5 to be more nearly representative to what one would expect to
6 happen naturally.
7 My third comment concerns the tests for mutagenic
8 activity as listed in article 250.15, page 58960, column 1,
9 paragraph (i). The tests listed in this paragraph are too
10 vague to be of any use. This test should be removed until a
11 universally accepted procedure for mutagenic activity is devisee
12 My fourth comment regards ground water and leachate
13 monitoring as described in article 250.43-8, page 59005,
14 column 3, paragraph 5, This paragraph specifies the
15 determination of the total dissolved solids, the concentration
16 of the chloride ion, and the concentration of the principal
17 hazardous constituents found at each installation. Therefore.
18 it is superfluous to'recmire at all installations the
19 determination of conductivity, dissolved organic carbon, and
20 the concentrations of beryllium, nickel, cyanide, phenolic
21 compounds and organic constituents as determined by a scanning
22 by a gas chromatograph.
23 My fifth comment regards the standards for storage
24 as described in 40 CFR Part 250 Subpart D, page 58988, column
25 2, paragraph 2. Ninety days is not a reasonable period of
-------
369
1 time for a generator to reprocess hazardous wastes before
2 being considered a storage facility. A processor, such as
3 Shattuck Chemical, accumulates residues which are later
4 reprocessed to reduce metals not previously removed. It
5 requires a period of time to accumulate enough residues or
6 to change process parameters to make the reprocessing step
7 economically feasible. With the emphasis of this Act on
8 conservation of resources it would seem that the EPA would
9 encourage a reprocessing step. I suggest that the ninety day
10 limit on storage be changed to one year. We would like to
11 arrange a separate and discreet meeting with the EPA to review
12 these possibilities.
13 My last and final comment regards the confidentiality
14 of the information as referenced in article 250.27, page 58979,
15 column 2, paragraph (a). Much data as to processing
16 capabilities, efficiencies and production volumes could be
17 gathered by competitive chemical processing companies. It
18 is absolutely essential for business reasons that some types
19 • of data supplied to the EPA remain strictly confidential. I
20 would suggest that a form similar to "Form A" of the Toxic
21 Substances Control Act Initial Inventory be used: this would
22 allow the reporting company the option to check off areas
23 of desired confidentiality. |
24 All of the comments made in this statement are made in
25 the posture of working with the EPA. but concomitantly, in the
-------
370
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
interest of S. W. Shattuck Chemical Company remaining a small
business. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH• Thank you.
MR. LINDSEY: The first thing you took issue with
was the concentrations for a couple of heavy metals, and I thin
one was cadmium.
MR. DOUNAY: That is on the list. That is one
I mentioned.
MR. LINDSEY: What were'.the three?
MR. DOUNAY: Arsenic, lead and selenium.
MR. LINDSEY- I think you said we ought to make
those 10 parts per million?
MR. LINDSEY- Ten milligrams per liter in the
abstract.
MR. LINDSEY: As you know, the note underneath says
these things are based on a factor of 10 dilutions to ground
water, and then based on the drinking water standards. Given
that, do you think we would be able to provide enough protectioi
. since we are facing this on the drinking water standard, if we
were to go to something like a hundredfold or whatever it would
be above that, we would be allowing quite a degradation as to
ground water beyond what I think would be hazardous.
MR. DOUNAY- First of all, you are assuming you
can absolutely determine this, and that somebody is going to
certify that this is true, and I am saying in all matrices,
-------
371
105
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
you cannot absolutely determine these concentrations. Secondly
you are saying that you have groundwater standards or some such
thing, and multiplying b'y a _ factor of ten, that is arbitrary,
it isn't anymore arbitrary then ten milligrams per liter
until you establish what is healthy and unhealthy. It depends
on the region you are working in, how much water is going to
be leached through the ground as groundwater.
MR. TRASK: You indicated that the 90 day storage
provision ought to be extended to one year in your situation.
MR. DOUNAY: Yes.
MR. TRASK: I am not entirely sure it would apply,
but let me try to find that out. You said that you used
tanks, I think thatis what you said, to store the waste ^
until you get time to run it back through your plant to do
something with it; is that correct?
MR. DOUNAY: We store it in containers and it coulc
be tanks or drums, whatever.
MR.TRASK.: But you always do that;, is that
correct? You always run the waste back through and then it
goes to the disposal after you run it back through the plant?
MR. DOUNAY: About 99 times out a 100 we reprocess
yes. There may be occasions where we don't, but in most of
the solid waste we do.
MR. TRASK: Most of the time it would not be a
waste until that one time it comes out, then it is a waste?
-------
372
105
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
MR. DOUNAY- Okay, but your definition of waste
is really vague in some cases.
MR. TRASK: Your concern is definition of waste
then?
MR. DOUNAY: Yes.
MR, TRASK: Well, you didn't mention that.
. MR. DOUNAY: Okay.
MR. LEHMAN: Both you and Mr, White of Arapahoe
Chemicals indicated concern about the confidentiality provision
of the regulations, indicating thatyou feel that a substantial
degree of protection of trade secrets and so on is required in
a particular business you are in, and yet- we just heard from
Mr. Berger that a great deal more information should be put on
manifest lists for shipment. Would you like to comment on
that as to the difference. There seems to be two competing
aspects here. One is need for processors to know the type of
material that i s being handled and others to protect trade
secrets. Would you care to comment on that?
MR. DOUNAY: If you want to arrange a private
meeting, we will discuss that.
MR. LEHMAN: I don't want to arrange a private
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH- Do I understand you don't
want to make another statement this afternoon? You were on
our list for this afternoon?
-------
373
1 MR, DOUNAY: No.
2 MR. HAMMETT: Since you have questioned the
3 proprietary information thing — I mean, under the Freedom
4 of INformation Act.
5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH- I would appreciate it if you
6 would submit written comments. We haven't been really having
7 answers to that.
8 MR. HAMMETT- I will be glad to do that.
9 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We don't have very many
10 people for this afternoon, and if we don't get a lot more
11 people signed up, we will be able to close the hearing early
12 and accept your written questions. If you have sort of a
13 complicated or a series of questins on the way you expect the
14 December 18, 1978 proposal to work, you may want to see us
15 during a break, but we will probably have time to take written
16 questions solely to clarify the proposal. We cannot comment
17' now on someone else's suggestions. All those things have to
18 be analyzed as part of the rule making, but if you do need
19 . clarification of the proposal, we will probably have time to
20 do that this afternoon. So, we will recess for lunch and
21 reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
22 (Noon recess taken.)
23
24
4
25
-------
374
I AFTERNOON SESSION
2 • (Mr. Alan Roberts, Associate Director of Hazardous
3 Materials Regulation. Department of Transportation is now
4 present on the panel.)
5
6 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Our next scheduled speaker
7 is a representative from the Adams County Planning Department
g MS. ANNA MARIE SCHMIDT: I am Anna Marie Schmidt
9 from the Adams' County Planning Department.
IQ As you may be aware, Adams County is located north and
H adjacent to the City and County of Denver in one of the most
12 industrialized areas of the State of Colorado. Situated in
13 the County are a regional sanitation facility (Denver Metro-
14 politan Sewage District), the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a
15 chemical manufacturing plants, and a proposed sludge drying
,g and distribution center. For these reasons, Adams County
,j is particularly concerned with EPA's proposed guidelines for
jo hazardous waste and is in accordance with their efforts to
19 mandate crade-to-grave management of such waste.
20 Upon promulgation of the regulations, the County is
2i somewhat wary of the schedule as proposed for the interim
22 status period. Since the County does not currently provide
23 specific regulations for the operation nor the generation
24 of or transportation of hazardous waste, and considering the
25 number of wastes to be defined as "hazardous1' would increase
-------
109
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
substantially as proposed in the guidelines, and the fact that
in the State of Colorado, no such facility for disposal of
hazardous waste exists,, working within the proposed time
frame is extremely doubtful. Serious consequences will result
if a multitude of waste is defined as "hazardous" without
providing effective means for qualifying intern disposal sites
The generators will be held accountable for the enormous
transportation costs that would be incurred at final disposal.
Undoubtedly, improper disposal methods and abuse of temporary
storage authority will occur thereby creating excessive
enforcement problems and eventual environmental damage.
Difficulties will be certain to occur with the
industrial and local government sectors of this community.
Presently, industry has little capacity to recover resources
from hazardous waste. Educational and planning efforts are
mandatory in the business and public sectors in the County.
Available land for a site is at a premium, difficulty in locati
a sanitary landfill has met substantial opposition let alone a
hazardous waste disposal site. The proposed standards for
facility operators require significant capital investment for
site preparation and multiple financial assurances providing
for the result of operating accidents and for post-closure
site management, which relatively few agencies or individuals
could provide. Ij
Therefore, the state and federal governments must accept
-------
37<
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
the responsibility and provide authorized disposal sites that
are available in reasonable proximity to waste generators
specifically during the interim status period. Financial
assistance for any site modifications and operating cost
incurred in order to meet minimum standards for waste disposal
is critical to the successful adherence to the proposed
regulations. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. Will
you take questions from the panel?
MS. SCHMIDT: I will try to answer them as best
I can.
MR. LINDSEY: Your problems seems to be a concern
for the lack of facilities which we have heard other speakers
talk on. Do you have any suggestions on how we might do
this? Should we. for example, phase in the regulations in suc]
a way as to allow for capacity problems or what?
MS. SCHMIDT: I think presently more time is
and more educational efforts are needed for the sake
of our county as well as the metropolitan area.
MR, LINDSEY: Education of whom?
MS. SCHMIDT: Industry.
MR. LINDSEY : Of industry?
MS. SCHMIDT Communities, local governments. The
are not ready for such.
MR, LINDSEY- Is the problem going to be one of
-------
377
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
citizen opposition to the siting of facilities you suspect?
MS. SCHMIDT: That will be part of it. I foresee,
especially in Adams County's case, that we have a reputation
of being everyone's disposal area, and certainly that will be
a major problem where we are concerned.
MR. LINDSEY: Do you think education will help
solve that probelm?
MS. SCHMIDT:. Hopefully, yes.
MR. TRASK: Did I understand from your comments
that perhaps time would help this? Is that what you are
saying?
MS. SCHMIDT: I am not qualified to actually make
recommendations for the county. I am sure time would aid us.
My recommendation from what I spoke of is financial assistance
in the conversion and establishing interim sites, is mainly
what we would be looking for in the State of Colorado.
MR. LEHMAN: Ms. Schmidt, regarding your last
comment about financial assistance, I just wanted to make a
comment. I presume you realize that the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act does not provide for federal financial assistance
for facility development.
MS. SCHMIDT: In this instance, I was speaking of
facility conversion to a site, since we don't have a hazardous
disposal site in the State of Colorado. ™
MR LEHMAN: Nonethless, any type of federal
-------
378
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
financial assitance along those lines is expressly prohibited
by the statutes as it now stands. I would just comment if you
feel that this type of financial assitance is necessary, that
you ought to address those kinds of remarks to the U. S.
Congress and not to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YEAGLEY: There is obviously a considerable
amount of hazardous waste, regardless of the definitional
problems, that is generated in Adams County. To your knowledge
where is that material being disposed of now?
MS, SCHMIDT- Most of the industrial waste will
be going to Lowry. We do have a flyash landfill currently,
and we also have two, essentially one large private landfill
in the county now, so it is going to our landfill or Lowry.
MR. YEAGLEY: Just for/ the record, the Lowry
Landfill is operated by the City and County of Denver?
MS. SCHMIDT: Right.
MR. YEAGLEY: So any administrative burden of thes
regulations would be on that community?
MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. That
isthe last speaker we have to speak on Section 3002. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to speak on our propose
Section 3002 regulations? Okay, if not, as we announced earli
we will take written questions from the audience concerning
-------
379
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
the operation of the regulations. I will close the hearing
officially and we will adjourn until this evening at seven
o'clock.
(Hearing recessed until 7:00 p.m. this date.)
-------
30L
1 EVENING SESSION
2 7:00 P.M.
3 MB. ALFRED LINDSEY• Good evening, I am Alfred
4 Lindsey, Chief, Implementation Branch, Hazardous Waste
5 Management Division, Office of Solid Waste, Environmental
6 Protection Agency. I would like to welcome you to the public
7 hearing which is being held to discuss the proposed regulations
8 for the management of hazardous waste. We appreciate your taki
9 the time to participate in the development of these regulations
10 which are being issued under the authority of the Resource
11 Conservation and Recovery Act — RCRA.
12 For a brief overview of why we are here. Those of you
13 who have been to the other sessions will recognize this little
14 presentation has been given every morning for each of these, but
15 I am going to repeat it tonight for those who are here for the
16 first time this evening will be able to have an appreciation of
17 what it is we are trying to do here.
18 The Environmental Protection Agency on December 18,
19 1978 issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002, and 300U
20 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended by
21 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public
22 Law 9^-580. These proposals respectively cover: (1) criteria
23 for identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification
24 methods, and a hazardous waste list- (2) standards applicable
25 to generators of such waste for record keeping, labeling, using
-------
381
115
1 proper containers, and using a transport manifest: and (3)
2 performance, design, and operating standards for hazardous was
3 management facilities.
4 These proposals together with those already published
5 pursuant to Section 3003, (April 28, 1978). Section 3006
6 (February 1, 1978), Section 3008 (August 4. 1978), and
7 Section 3010 (July 11, 1978) and that of the Department of
8 Transportation pursuant to the Hazardous Materials
9 Transportation Act (May 25, 1978) along with Section 3005
10 regulations constitute the hazardous waste regulatory program
11 under Subtitle C of the Act.
12 EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for facility
13 permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for state hazardous waste
14 program authorization pursuant to Section 3006 of the Act with
15 proposals under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
16 System required by Section 402 of the Clean Vlater Act and the
17 Underground Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking
18 Water Act. This integration of programs will appear soon as
19 proposed rules under ^0 CFR Parts 122. 123, 124.
20 This hearing is being held as part of our public
21 participation process in the development of this regulatory
22 program.
23 The panel members who share the rostrum with me are:
24 Jon P. Yeagley, Chief,. Solid Waste Section, EPA, Region VIII
25 Amy Schaffer. Office of Enforcement. EPA, Washington. D. C.
i
-------
38
1 Dorothy A. Darrah, Office General Counsel, EPA, Washington,
2 D. C. and Lisa Friedman, Office of General Counsel. EPA,
3 Washington, D. C.
4 The responsible staff person for each section will join
5 us on the panel. As noted in the Federal Register our planned
6 agenda is to cover comments on Section 3001, 3002 and 3003-
7 Also we have planned this evening session covering all four
8 sections. That session is planned primarily for those who
9 cannot attend during the day.
10 The comments received at this hearing, and the other
11 hearings as noted in the Federal Register, together with the
12 comment letters we receive, will be a part of the official
13 docket in this rulemaking process. The comment period closes
14 on March l6th for Sections 3001-3004. This docket may be
15 seen during normal working hours in Room 2111D, Waterside Mall,
16 401 M. Street, S.W., Washington, D. C. In addition we expect
17 to have transcripts of each hearing within about two weeks
18 of the close of the hearing. These transcripts will be
19 available for reading at any of the EPA libraries. A list of
20 these locations is available 'at the registration table outside.
21 With that as background, I would like to lay the ground-
22 work and rules for the conduct of this hearing.
23 The focus of a public hearing is on the public's response
24 to a regulatory proposal of an Agency, or in this case, Agencies
25 since both EPA and the Department of Transportation are involved
-------
383
117
1 The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the April 28,
2 25 and December 18, 1978 Federal Registers, is to solicit
3 comments on the proposed regulations including any background
4 information used to develop the comment.
5 This public hearing is being held not primarily to
6 inform the public nor to defend a proposed regulation, but
7 rather to obtain the public's response to these proposed
8 regulations, and thereafter revise them as may seem appropriate.
9 All major substantive comments made at the hearing will be
10 addressed during preparation of the final regulation.
11 This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with the
12 right to cross examine. The members of the public are to ^
13 present their views on the proposed regulation to the panel,
14 and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting
15 statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presentations.
16 Since we are time limited, some questions by the panel maj/
17 be forwarded in writing to the speaker. His response, if
18 received within a week of the close of this hearing, will be
19 included in the transcript. Otherwise, we will include it in
20 the docket.
21 Due to time limitations the chairman reserves the right
22 to limit lengthy Questions, discussions, or statements. We
23 would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement to
24 make orally, please limit your presentation to a maximum 10
25 minutes, so we can get all statements in a reasonable time. If
-------
38
1 you have a copy of your statement, please submit it to the cour
2 reporter.
3 V/ritten statements will be accepted at the end of the
4 hearing. If you wish to submit a written rather than an oral
5 statement, please make sure the court reporter has a copy.
6 The written statements will also be included in their entirety
7 in the record.
8 Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have not
9 made an advanced request by telephone or in writing should
10 indicate their interest on the registration card. If you
11 have not indicated your intent to give a statement and you
12 decide to do so, please return to the registration table, fill
13 out another card and give it to one of the staff.
14 As we call upon an individual to make a statement, he
15 or she should come up to the lectern after identifying himself
16 or herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or her
17 statement.
18 At the beginnin'g of the statement, the Chairperson will
19 inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to entertain
20 questions from the panel. The speaker is under no obligation
21 to do so, although within the spirit of this information
22 sharing hearing, it would be of great assistance to the Agency
23 if Questions were permitted.
24 If you wish to be"added to our mailing'list for future
25 regulations, draft regulations, or proposed regulations, please
-------
335
1 leave your business card or name and address on a three by five
2 card at the registration desk.
3 The regulations under discussion at this hearing are the
4 core elements of a major regulatory program to manage and
5 control the country's hazardous waste from generation to final
6 disposal. The Congress directed this action in the Resource
7 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, recognizing that disposa
8 of hazardous waste is a crucial environmental and health
9 problem which must be controlled.
10 In our proposal, we have outlined requirements which set
11 minimum norms of conduct for those who generate, transport,
12 treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste.
13 These requirements, we believe, will close the circle of
14 environmental control begun earlier with regulatory control
15 of emissions and discharges of contaminants to air, water,and
16 the oceans.
17 We do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty of
18 our proposed regulations. Rather, they reflect the large
19 amounts of hazardous waste generated and the complexity of
20 the movement of hazardous waste in our diverse society. These
21 regulations will affect a large number of industries. Other
22 non-industrial sources of hazardous waste, such as laboratories
23 and commercial pesticide applicators, as well as transporters
24 of hazardous waste, will also be included. ™
25 Virtually every day. the media carries a story of a
-------
386
1 dangerous situation resulting from improper disposal of
2 hazardous waste. The tragedy at Love Canal in New York State
3 is but one recent example. 'EPA has information on over 400
4 cases of the harmful consequences of inadequate hazardous waste
5 management. These cases include incidents of surface and
6 groundwater contamination, direct contact poisoning, various
7 forms of air pollution, and damage from fires and explosions.
8 Nationwide, half of all drinking water is supplied from
9 groundwater sources and in some areas contamination of ground-
10 water resources currently poses a threat to public health.
11 EPA studies of a number of generating industries in 1975
12 showed that approximately 90 percent of the potentially hazardo
13 waste generated by those industries was managed by practices
14 which were not adequate for protection of human health and the
15 environment,
16 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 was
17 passed to address these problems. Subtitle C establishes a
18 comprehensive program to protect the public health and enviro-
19 ment from improper disposal of hazardous waste. Although the
20 program requirements are to be developed by the Federal
21 government, the ACt provides that States with adequate program
22 can assume responsibility for regulation of hazardous waste.
23 The basic idea of Subtitle C is that the public healt and the
24 environment will be protected it there is .careful monitoring c
25 transportation of hazardous waste, and assurance that such
-------
387
1 waste is properly treated, stored or disposed of either at
2 the site where it is genrated or after it is carried from that
3 site to a special facility in accordance with certain standards
4 Seven guidlines and regulations are being developed and
5 either have been or will be proposed (as noted earlier)
6 under Subtitle C of RCRA to implement the Hazardous Waste
7 Management Program. Subtitle C creates a management control
8 system which, for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires
9 a cradie-to-grave cognizance, including appropriate monitoring,
10 record keeping and reporting throughout the system.
11 It is important to note that the definition of solid
12 wastes in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges and M
13 other discarded materials, including liquids, semisolids and
14 contained gases, with a few exceptions, from both municipal
15 and industrial sources.
16 Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid
17 wastes, and which will be identified by regulations proposed
18 under Section 3001, are those which have particularly
19 significant impacts on public health and the environment.
20 Section 3001 is the keystone of Subtitle C. Its purpose
21 is to provide a means for determining whether a waste is
22 hazardous for the purposes of the Act and, therefore, whether
23 it must be managed according to the other Subtitle C regulatio
24 Section 3001(b) provides two mechanisms for determining
25 whether a waste is hazardous: a set of characteristics of
1
-------
388
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
hazardous waste and a list of particular hazardous wastes.
A waste must be managed according to the Subtitle C regulations
if it either exhibits any of .the characteristics set out in
proposed regulations or if it is listed. Also, EPA is directed
by Section 3001(a) .of the Act to develop ciriteria for
identifying the set of characteristics of hazardous waste and
for determining which wastes to list. In this prposed Rule,
EPA sets out those criteria, identifies a set of characteristic:
of hazardous waste, and establishes a list of particular
hazardous wastes.
Also the proposed regulation provides for demonstration
of non-inclusion in: the -regulatory, program.
Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to generators
of hazardous waste. A generator is defined as any person whose
act or process produces a hazardous waste. Minimum amounts
generated and disposed per month are established to further
define a generator. These standards will exclude household
hazardous waste.
The generator standards will establish requirements for:
record keeping, labeling and marking of containers used for
storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous waste: use of
appropriate containers, furnishing information on the general
chemical composition of a hazardous waste: use of a manifest
system to assure that a hazardous waste is designated to a
permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility; and
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
submitting reports to the Administrator, or an authorized stata*
agency, setting out the quantity generated and its disposition.
Section 3003 requires the development of standards applica
to transporters of hazardous wastes, These proposed standards
address identification codes, record keeping, acceptance and
transportation of hazardous wastes, compliance with the manifest
system, delivery of the hazardous waste; spills of hazardous
waste and placarding and marking of vehicles. The Agency has
coordinated closely with proposed and current U. S. Department
of Transportation regulations.
Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal ^
facilities. These standards define the levels of human health
and environmental protection to be achieved by these facilities
and provide the criteria against which EPA (or state) officials
will measure applications for permits. Facilities on a generate
property as well as off-site facilities are covered by these
regulations and do require permits;, generators and transporters
do not otherwise need permits.
Section 3005 regulations set out the scope and coverage
of the actual permit-granting process for facility owners and
operators. Requirements for the permit application as well as
for the issuance and revocation process are defined by
regulations to be proposed under 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124. ^
Section 3005(e) provides for interim status during the time
-------
390
1 period that the Agency or the States are reviewing the pending
2 permit applications. Special regulations under Section 3004
3 apply to facilities during this interim status period.
4 Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines under
5 which states may seek both full and interim authorization to
6 carry out the hazardous waste program in lieu of an EPA
7 administered program. States seeking authorization in
8 accordance with Section 3006 guidelines need to demonstrate
9 that their hazardous waste management regulations are consistent
10 with and equivalent in effect to EPA regulations under Section
11 3001-5.-
12 Section 3010 requires any person generating, transporting
13 or owning o-r operating a facility for treatment, storage, and
14 disposal of hazardous waste to notify EPA of this activity
15 within 90 days after a promulgation or revision of regulations
16 identifying and listing a hazardous waste pursuant to Section
17 3001. No hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regulation
18 may be legally transported, treated, stored, or disposed after
19 the 90 day period unless this timely notification has been given
20 to EPA or an authorized state during the above 90 day period.
21 Owners and operators of inactive facilities are not required to
22 notify.
23 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all
24 sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979- However, it is
25 important for the regulated communities to understand that the
-------
391
I regulations under Section 3001 through 3005 do not take
2 effect until six months after promulgation. That would be
3 approximately June of 1980.
4 Thus, there will be a time period after final promulgatic
5 during which time public understanding of the regulations can
6 be increased. During this same period, notifications required
7 under Section 3010 are to be submitted, and facility permit
8 applications required under Section 3005 will be distributed
9 for completion by applicants.
10 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the proposed
11 regulations to be considered at this hearing, I return this
12 meeting to the chairperson. M
13 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH' We have all through this
14 hearing limited people to ten minutes, and I will enforce
15 that rule this evening also, so that each person has ten minute
16 and then after your statement, I will inquire as to whether you
17 will accept questions from the panel.
18 The first person is Mr. Jack Westney of the Houston
19 Chamber of Commerce,
20 MR. JACK WESTNEY: Madam Chairwoman and members
21 of the panel, I am Jack Westney of the Houston Chamber of
22 Commerce, and I appreciate the opportunity to make this
23 presentation on behalf of the Board of Directors and the
24 membership of the Houston Chamber of Commerce. My function
25 is not technical. I cannot perhaps answer the questions you
-------
392
1 might ask, but I am sure that within the audience, we hav
2 technical people who could. So. I would suggest you go ahead
3 and ask the questions and se-e if we can't get an answer from
4 the audience.
5 The Houston Chamber of Commerce is a voluntary organizati<
6 of approximately 6,300 business and professional establishments
7 working together for the betterment of our Houston area. One
8 of the Chamber's goals is to enhance the quality of the
9 environment without unduly hindering the continued conomic
10 development that provides benefits and opportunities to all the
11 residents of this area.
12 We appreciate the fact that defining what is a "hazardous
13 waste'' and a non-hazardous waste, is extremely difficult.
14 Similarly, the creation of a laboratory procedure for
15 distinguishing between the nature of the wastes is equally
16 difficult. Under Section 3001 of the proposed rules, there are
17 two major areas of concern about the definition of hazardous
18 wastes:
19 (1) We feel that the definition of hazardous
20 waste is too broad, and
21 (2) The type of testing is inappropriate.
22 The broad definition, as propored in the rules, will caus
23 large Quantities of relatively low hazard, industrial waste to
24 regulated and handled in a manner similar to truly dangerous
25 materials. For example, under the hazardous waste definition,
-------
393
1 Coca Cola waste would be treated in the same fashion as waste
2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Each of these wastes will require
3 special hazardous waste disposal sites, increased disposal
4 costs, specialized record keeping, and numerous other
5 procedures, completely justifiable in the case of the truly
6 hazardous materials, such as PCB?s. On the other hand, the
7 encompassing nature of the hazardous waste definition will not
8 only cause Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and other truly
9 hazardous materials to be handled in this manner, but will also
10 include most industrial waste which is relatively innocuous.
11 This will create:
12 (1) An unprecedented demand on the regulatory
13 agencies.
14 (2) An overloading of safe disposal sites.
15 (3) An insatiable demand for additional and
16 safe disposal sites.
17 (4) Special handling methods, and other procedures.
18 The only solution we see to reducing this problem, which
19 is provided for by Section 1004 of the Act, is to change the
20 definition of hazardous waste to encompass the various degrees
21 of hazard. We would propose that a three classification system
22 be utilized, similar to that employed by the Texas Department
23 of Water Pesources, in their Hazardous Waste Guidelines. In
24 the development of the RCRA regulations, many of 'the guidelines,
25 provided by the Texas Department of Water Resources, were used
-------
394
1 as a model for the RCRA regulations. We suggest that the
2 Texas Department of Water Resources three class system of solid
3 waste be studied in developing an alternative definition of
4 hazardous waste.
5 Testing plays an important role in the establishment of
6 whether or not a waste material is hazardous. The extraction
7 procedure for determining if a material is hazardous is not
8 inappropriate for industrial waste. This procedure calls for
9 the extraction of materials using an organic acid solution,
10 and analysis of those materials dissolved in the solution. Thi
11 procedure has been severely criticized by the American Society
12 of Testing Materials and other technical groups. We feel that
13 an appropriate alternative to the extraction procedure would be
14 a procedure suggested by the ASTM, using water in lieu of the
15 organic acid solution. Water is the medium by which most
16 industrial waste possibly could be transported from a site into
17 the groundwater or aquifers of a region. Organic acid, on the
18 other hand, can be generated from municipal wastes, so it may
19 be appropriate to apply such a proposed extraction procedure to
20 municipal waste. We do not feel Qualified to comment on its
21 suitability to industrial applications.
22 In addition, we feel that the definition of other
23 discarded materials which has been used by the EPA, to mean any
24 material which is reused even if the reuse constitutes
25
destruction or disposal, such as the burning of a material i
n
-------
395
129
1 an incinerator, is inappropriate. The classification of used
2 lube oil 3 and other oils as hazardous wastes exceeds the
3 intent of the law, when these materials are applied to utility
4 boilers or incinerators. Such use fulfills the intent of
5 Congress for resource conservation and should be promoted and
6 not hindered by the proposed rules.
7 In addition to the above comments, we are concerned that
8 the corrosivity section on page 58951 of the regulations calls
9 for a pH of 12.0. This maximum limit would cause lime sludes
10 from water treating operations to be included under the
11 hazardous waste definition. The pH should be raised to 12.5
12 since materials 12.5 pH; are not harmful to the skin.
13 Finally, Section 3001 of the proposed rules indicates
14 the EPA retains an independent authority to enforce the
15 standards of Section 3001. The law implies that the regulation
16 under the RCRA Act, should be administered through the states.
17 Consequently, we trust that the states will be given complete
18 authority to administer the Federally approved, state programs,
19 without intervention of the EPA. unless the State fails to do
20 so. Direct enforcement by the EPA of an industry generator
21 or disposer would not be in keeping with the RCRA law.
22 The purpose of Section 3002 is to provide a means of
23 tracking hazardous waste from the generator to the disposal
24 facility to insure proper disposal. Basically, this section ™
25 provides that any person who produces , disposes of or accumulat
thf
-------
396
1 in excess of 100 kg/month of a hazardous waste, is covered by
2 this section of the proposed rules. It calls for_a manifest
3 system, which will keep track of the waste material from the
4 time it is generated, to the time "It is disposed of in an
5 approved disposal site. It also provides for proper containeri-
6 zation and labeling of the waste materials, however, some
7 improvements should be made to the proposed rules, un'der
8 Section 3002. There should be provisions for making the record
9 keeping requirements more reasonable. Allowances should be mad<
10 for reporting summaries, through the use of computer systems.
11 Acceptable alternative forms and data processing procedures
12 should be allowed.-' In addition, the certification statement
13 on the manifest and reports, which are submitted to the EPA,
14 should include a phrase showing that the forms are filled out
15 to the best of the knowledge of the reporter. The notification
16 and reporting on foreign shipments appears to be needless,
17 since Environmental Protection Agency has no jurisdiction, once
18 a shipment of waste material reaches a foreign country. The
19 tracking of waste material, while in the Continental United
20 States, is appropriate, but once it reaches international
21 boundaries, their jurisdiction should cease. We support the
22 establishment of a cut off point of those affected by the
23 quantities of waste material. However, we feel that the cut
24 off level should be on an annual average basis rather than a
25 monthly basis.
-------
397
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
Subpart C, Transportation of Hazardous Waste (Section
3003) "
This section of the proposed rules requires trasnsporters
to maintain records of hazardous waste carried from the sources
to the delivery point. It stipulates that the transporter can
only accept wastes for transportation, which are properly
labeled and accompanied by the signed manifest, and requires
that the transporters deliver those wastes only to a designated,,
hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facility,
indicated on the manifest. This may sound like a very
straightforward and easy task to accomplish. However, let us
take a look at the real world situation, through the eyes
of the transporter. The manifest required by the EPA, is on
one of the several documents required by such regulatory
agencies as the Department of Transportation, the Interstate
Commerce Commission, the Texas Railroad Commission, to name a
few. These forms and record keeping requirements must be
consistent. In Texas and California, the three part trip
ticket, or manifest system has been adopted. We recommend
that the existing paperwork, either state or federal, be used
as fulfilling the requirements of the manifest regulations
in the proposed rules. The incorporation of the EPA procedures
into the existing network, would provide for an effective and
smooth transition into the handling of these waste materials.
The impact of these regulations on the generators 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
-'.<. will be tremendous. The classification
waste in a community
system required under Section 3001. will define many wastes as
being hazardous. Consequently, these facilities will resist
the classification and resent the additional financial burdens
imposed on them. Finally, and most importantly, they will be
reluctant to acknowledge that these wastes exceed the current
100 kg/month breakpoint in the regulations. All 6'f these
factors leave the transporter in the precarious position of no-
having the expertise or the manpower to inspect every containe
before it is placed in his equipment, to be hauled to a dispos,
site. The question here is, what recourse does the transporte
have, if the mixed load ever contains hazardous waste? What
will happen to the load: and who is financially responsible?
The concensus of the trucking community, serving this ar
is sufficient attention to practical application and enforceme
of these proposed regulations has not been addressed. Only
through a massive education program, followed by vigorous
enforcement, will these regulations truly become effective.
Subpart D. Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
Section 3004.
There are four major concerns, which highlight the issue
that the Houston Chamber of Commerce wishes to be considered
in this part of the proposed rules. These are:
(1) General Site selection criteria.
-------
399
1 (2) Surface impoundment requirements.
2 (3) Groundwater and leachate monitoring criteria.
3 (4) Financial requirements.
4 The criteria for the general site selection of solid
5 waste disposal facilities, could virtually eliminate the siting
6 of any hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilitie
7 in the greater Houston area, and along much of the Gulf Coast
8 of the United States. The 500 year flood plain requirement
9 alone, could preclude the use of many acceptable and safe sites
10 from being used to dispose of hazardous wastes. It is our
11 understanding that maps will not be available for three to five
12 years, which will establish where the 500 year flood plain
13 is located. While the Agency assures us that the notes ~
14 in the proposed rules have the weight of law, we are concerned
15 that these assurances may not be adequate to allow alternative
16 engineering specifications for some of these facilities.
17 The criteria for landfills and surface impoundments deals
18 with barrier requirements to protect the environment from
19 these facilities. In Texas, one requirement for a Class I
20 hazardous waste disposal site is a three foot, compacted clay
21 barrier, with a permeability of 1 x 10-' cm/second. This
22 barrier thickness is the same as the EPA requirement for
23 Polychlorinated Biphenyls disposal sites, as published in the
24 Federal Register. The EPA, during the preliminary drafting
25 of this regulatin. proposed a fifty foot barrier, then'changes
-------
400
1 it to 100 foot, and now proposes a five foot barrier. The
,2 reasoning behind these changes is hard to follow. For all
3 practical purposes, a barrier is primarily designed to insure
4 the integrity between the bottom of the landfill or a surface
5 impoundment and the top of the surrounding and possibly the
6 surrounding groundwater. It seems reasonable that if the
7 barrier is made thick enough, the probability of causing
8 breaks by mechanical means, during construction and operation,
9 will be minimal. On the basis of this premise, Texas has
10 adopted a three foot barrier because that thickness was
11 believed to" be ample to insure the integrity of the facility.
12 Further, it is believed that a Class I site, constructed in
j3 good faith, under the Texas regulations for the disposal of
14 hazardous wastes, should be formally acknowledged by the EPA as
15 satisfactory through some form of regulatory recognition. In a
16 more practical vane, there is no need for a thickness of a
17 barrier greater than that required for the disposal of PCB's —
18 deemed to be one of the very worst environmental offenders.
19 We must insist that the performance standards required
I
20 under the rules, go well beyond what is necessary for the
21 protection of groundwater and the Human Health and Environments
22 Standard. The Human Health and Environmental Standard states
23 that all facilities shall be located, designed, constructed and
24 operated in such a manner as to prevent endangerment of an
25 underground drinking water source beyond the facility property
-------
1 boundary.
2 We submit that each situation must be assessed on its
3 individual merits. For example a unique situation exists, in
4 the Gulf Coast Area, which is documented in the Texas Department
5 of Water Resources Technical Guidelines for Hazardous Waste
6 Disposal. The situation is one of low permeability, high water
7 table typified by the Beaumont clay formation. Pill placed
8 below the water table causes local contamination, but extremely
9 slow movement of the groundwater precludes wide spread
10 distribution of the contaminants. Typical groundwater flow
11 rates through the clay sediments, under small hydraulic
12 gradients are one-tenth to five-tenths of a foot per year. Thus
13 in fifty years, the leachate would move only five to twenty-fivw
14 feet from the fill. Since a hazardous waste landfill must be
15 sited at 500 feet from any functioning public or private water
16 supply, we are now talking about 100 to 500 years to reach
17 this point, not taking into account the bicdegradation and the
18 mixing zone dilution..
19 Furthermore, we do not believe that it is the intent of
20 the EPA to cause the landfill to be built in an area of low
21 permeability and high groundwater table. The hydraulic head,
22 which would build up. would cause a much higher rate of
23 permeation into the liner. Therefore, we must maintain that
24 direct contact of the landfill with groundwater be allowed in ^
25 certain situations, where because of unique soil characteristics
-------
1 there is minimal chance that contamination of a usable aquifer
2 could occur, and where the contamination will not cause a
3 violation of water quality standards.
4 The most practical approach to this entire matter would b
5 that of the delegation of the authority to the state regulatory
6 agency, to determine each case situation, and take corrective
7 action where imminent hazards exist.
8 A somewhat similar concern to the site selection criteria
9 just discussed is about the typically slow flow rates through
10 clay sediments in the Gulf Coast coupled with the low hydraulic
11 gradients necessitates the handling on a case-by-case basis.
12 Groundwater and leachate monitoring as required by the proposed
13 rules' will not be as effective as in the Gulf Coast as other
14 areas.
15 Under the proposed rules it is stated that after backgro
16 levels are established, and analysis show that the quality of
17 groundwater or the water in the zone of aeration, significantly
18 differs from background quality, that the facility must
19 discontinue its operation until the Regional Administrator
20 determines what actions are to be taken. It is totally
21 unreasonable to expect that a facility could shut down within
22 seven days of analysis, if an apparent deterioration in water
23 quality should appear. As an example, if this were done in the
24 case of an NPDES permitted, bio-oxidation facility, it would
25 necessitate shutdown of the entire complex. This sort of haste
-------
403
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
is entirely unnecessary, particulary in cases where a surface
impoundment or landfill is located in an impervious clay
formation, and there is not even a remote chance that human
health or the environment are being endangered. Once again,
we maintain that, by disallowing any contamination of the
groundwater, the EPA has gone beyond the conclusions reached
in its own published background documents, for the protection
of human health and the environment.
We maintain that at the time a perimt is issued, the
consequences of excessive groundwater contamination should be
determined and written into the permit. Only in circumstances
where a groundwater source, which must be protected, due to
potential use for drinking water, should the Regional ™
Administrator have the authority to close the facility. We
furthermore, support the position that once the state assumes
the responsibility for the program, there is no reason to
continue reporting to the Regional Administrator. Finally, the
financial requirements stipulated in the proposed rules are
significant. This section provides for financial responsibility
of owners/operators of the hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facilities. However, as drafted, there is no
provision whereby small businesses, engaged in waste disposal,
which, although they are technically considered hazardous
waste disposal facility operators, do not create the degree
of danger addressed by the overall Subtitle C program. It is
-------
404
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
even more interesting to note that according to the Act,
Section 3004 (6), IJno private entity shall be precluded by
reason of criteria established under Paragraph (6), from the
ownership or operation of facilities providing hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal services, wehre such entity can
provide assurance of financial responsibility, and continuity
of operation consistent with the degree and duration of risk
associated with the treatment storage or disposal of specified
hazardous wastes."
It is our interpretation that Congress intended for the
EPA'to provide for a mechanism, in a case-by-case evaluation
of particular hazardous waste facility operators, and which
allows for relief from the financial responsibility requirement
if the hazardous waste facility operator can establish, by
other means (or in some lesser amount) that he is financially
capable.
We suggest, as an alternative to the federal proposed
financial responsibility requirements, that the states which
provide an alternative to these requirements be exempted from
these provisions. The State of Texas is currently working on
a program, where a fund would be established from revenues
generated by amounts of wastes disposed of in Texas. We submit
that if this program is a viable alternative, it should be
allowed as a substitute, for the proposed financial requirement
under Section 3004 of the rules.
-------
40'
1 The authority from RCRA to regulate NPDES- permitted M
2 facilities is questioned. Inclusion of waste treatment ponds
3 already permitted, adds another layer of regulation to an area
4 already fully controlled.
5 Waste treatment facilities were built within the last few
6 years, using the best engineering practice available at the
7 time, and should not now have to be retrofitted, leachate
8 collection and monitoring system Installed and so forth.
9 Advances in engineering technology are going to provide yearly
10 innovations in pond design. However, the cost and fact that
11 industry would have to bypass their NPDES treatment facility
12 while retrofitting, make this proposal totally impractical. ^
13 Existing sites should be ''grandfathered" as long as
14 there is no imminent hazard which would violate a principle
15 source aquifer according to Section 1424 of the Safe Drinking
16 Water Act of 1974.
17 A similar concern exists where RCRA attempts to control
18 emission points, which were regulated under the Clean Air
19 . Act. Likewise, controls directed toward incineration design an
20 construction, along with the control of fugitive emissions,
21 is inappropriate, under the RCRA regulations. The Clean Air
22 Act adequately takes care of air emissions, and there is no
23 ne£d for further regulations by RCRA,
24 In order to be effective in the implementation of
25 hazardous waste controls, we feel that it is essential that
-------
406
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
there be a spirit of cooperation between the EPA and the state
agencies. Presently, the State of Texas has an NPDES permittin
system, as does the EPA. The implementation of a dual permitti
enforcement program in the area of solid waste, is not acceptab
ra3 should, at virtually all cost, be eliminated.
Finally, and most significantly, the broad definition of
hazardous waste, as explained in our comments under Section
3001, and the specific requirements, irrespective of location,
regarding the operation of disposal sites, and the details,
labeling, handling procedures for transporters of the waste,
make the present program unworkable. We submit that the pro-
posed rules be revised in a manner which is practical and will
allow the coordination among federal agencies and consistent
regulation by federal agencies of these hazardous waste
materials. The definition of hazardous waste should be
narrowed to include only those compounds which indeed present
a hazard to the environment and existing regulation should be
used to cover areas imrleated to solid waste, and only new
regulations developed in areas where they are essential. Only
through an effective and realistic program of managing
hazardous wastes, can this program be reconciled.". There is
is no need to attempt to cover all bases in the initial
promulgation of these regulations. It would be more practical
to amend the rules in areas where amendment is needed. Thank
you.
-------
407
1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH• Thank you very much. I would
2 remind you and everyone that your entire statement certainly
3 will be included in the transcript of the hearing. One
4 question, do you want these attachemnts that you submitted up
5 here for the chairperson be included in the transcript or as
6 part of the public docket or both?
7 MR. WESTNEY- Certainly with the public docket.
8 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Would you attempt to answer
9 questions if there are any?
10 MR. WESTNEY: Let's ask them, and if we can find
11 some experts on the floor, because if they are technical, I
12 can't.
13 MR. CORSON: In your testimony, you indicated that^
14 somewhere in Section 3001, the EPA retain independent authority
15 to enforce the standards. I am curious precisely what it is
16 that you are referring to in that.
17 MR. WESTNEY: Anybody on the floor answer that
13 question, or are you .familiar with it?
19 MR. CORSON: 3001 defines hazardous waste. I am
20 curious about some areas of ambiguity of what we have written.
21 MR. WESTNEY: Let me say this. I will have an
22 answer for you.
23 MR.TRASK: There is a single statement without
24 amplification in your comments that says we ought to make ™
25 provisions for record keeping requirements that would be more
-------
408
1 reasonable. Could you expand on that?
2 MR. WESTMEY: No, sir, I can't.
3 MR. TRASK: Will you ask your people to do that?
4 MR,WESTNEY: Now, you are dealing with people
5 that are actually in the business. I am talking about the
6 generators and transporters, so I have nothing to do with these
7 record keepings. I am a staff member of the Chamber. This is
8 somewhat foreign to me, but yes, I will be glad to.
9 MR. TRASK: If you would, we would appreciate it.
10 MR. WESTNEY: I think they are indicating here
11 that perhaps the system now in use in California and Texas
12 might be reviewed.
13 MR. TRASK: In your comment you were discussing
14 transporting and record keeping requirements, and they keep
15 a copy of the manifest for three years, and that is all.
16 MR. ALAN ROBERTS: At the bottom of page five of
17 your statement you make the comment: ''Let us take a look at
18 the real world situation through the eyes of the transporter."
19 We would like to have you introduce, not tonight, but when you
20 go back into the real world down there, and kindly tell us.
21 MR. WESTNEY: I will be going into the make
22 believe world at that point.
23 MR. ROBERTS- I understand. I am from Pennsylvania
24 MR. WESTNEY: So am I. How about that. (laughter
25 If it helps or means anything, I also went to the University
-------
143 I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
409
of Pennsylvania,
MR. ROBERTS: I went to Penn State.
MR. WESTNEY: Nothing wrong with Penn State.
MR, ROBERTS: If you would please, it is a rather
important statement you are making about documentation. You
are alleging there is some kind of conflict between EPA's
proposal and DOT's proposal and DOT ' s existing regulations
and the INterstate Commerce Commission weighting requirements
which are not bills of laden requirements. But since EPA has
proposed a sample manifest, not as a mandatory document,
just a suggested layout, we would like to have some specific
illustration what the conflicts are in laying out a manifest
document to accomplish all three items. We see no conflict
at that point .
MR. WESTNEY: Right.
MR. FIELDS: You indicated in your comments that
500 year flood plain map is not available for three to five
years in your comments, and I would like to know who told you
that .
MR. WESTNEY: The Corp of Engineers indicated
this to us.
MR. FIELDS: The Corp of Engineers stated this
to you?
MR. WESTNEY: Yes.
MR. FIELDS: You are talking to the wrong people.
M
1
9
th<
f
^w
-------
1 MR, WESTNEY: That may well be.' May I ask you,
2 when adn where would they be available?
3 MR. FIELDS- The. Federal Insurance Administration,
4 regional office.
5 MR. WESTNEY: Mo, because I requested them about
6 14 months ago. and I have yet to get them.
7 MR. FIELDS: Alright.
8 MR.WESTNEY: As indicated in this document, I will
9 try again.
10 MR. FIELDS- Since that time, some have been
11 developed for every region of the country.
12 MR. WESTNEY: I will also check the Dallas Corp
13 again.
14 MR. FIELDS: If you contact me in Washington,
15 Timothy Fields, I will be glad to send you some maps.
16 MR. WESTNEY- We do have calls for them, as you
17 might recognize, development is going on.
18 MR. FIELDS: Some are available and are being done.
19 MR. WESTNEY- We have flood plain maps, not the
20 500 flood plain.
21 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much.
22 I will next call Mr. John Winkley from CF&I Steel
23 Corporation.
24 MR. JOHN C. WINKLEY: Good evening. My name is
25 John C. Winkley and I am Manager of Air and V/ater Quality
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Control for CF&I Steel Corporation located in Pueblo, Colorado.^
I am appearing here this evening to present to you some of the
concerns we have regarding the proposed hazardous waste
regulations as published in the Federal Register on December 18,
1978. In addition to these verbal comments, written comments
in more detail are being provided.
CF&I Steel Corporation is relatively small as measured
by steel industry standards, and we represent about 1-
percent of the productive capacity of the American Steel
Industry. CF&I's corporate offices and integrated steel
plants are located in Pueblo, Colorado. We also operate iron
ore mines in Wyoming and Utah, together with limestone and
dolomite quarries and coal mines in Colorado. We produce
approximately 1-1/2 million tons of steel per year and in the
production of this amount of steel, handle significantly larger
quantities of raw materials. Needless to say, waste disposal
is a continuing part of steel plant operations,
The steel industry historically has used the principle
of recycling and reuse of materials. Examples of this are the
large amounts of scrap metals which are utilized in the steel
making processes to produce steel. Another commonly
practiced recovery is the collection of the roll scale
which results from the mechanical working of the steel at the
various rolling mills and recycling this material through a
sinter plant to form an agglomerated iron bearing constituent
-------
41;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as a used blast furnace feed material for the production of
iron. In spite of the amount of recycling which is employed,
waste materials are generated, many of which have come about
through the installation of air and water pollution control
facilities which can range in quantity from approximately 12
tons per year to 60,000 tons per year of material. Some of
these materials are stockpiled in the anticipation that as
technology is developed, a recovery of the iron units or other
uses may be possible in the steelmaking process.
The Pueblo Plant has been in operation for over 100
years and the waste materials from the steelmaking operations
of this plant have been historically placed in various
landfills on CF&I property. To my knowledge this has not
created a significant health or environmental problem as of
this date. In our review of earlier drafts of the proposed
regulations, we believed that the steelmaking wastes handled
did not fall within the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Acts definitions of a hazardous waste. The December proposed
regulations appear much broader.
It is this past history which makes one ask what the
agency is actually trying to control, and what is the degree o
control necessary to achieve the objectives contained in the
Act's definition of hazardous wastes. It is recognized that
there have been several incidents in some locations within
the United States which have received widespread publicity
-------
413
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
associated with certain chemical constitutents for which
claims have been made that they do cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness
But
the matter is one of degree. Is the objective at this •
point in time to achieve a total zero risk situation with
regard to all materials handled no matter what the degree of
risk? I am not aware of any situation that can be developed
that results in zero risk. I would reference you to a paper
published by Merril Eisenbud entitled, "Environmental Causes
of Cancer" which was published in Environment Volume 20, No. 8,
of October 1978. In that article on page 15 under ''What about
the Future?", the author cautions, '...many questions remain
to be answered. Is there a safe dose? How safe is safe? How
does one translate laboratory findings into sensible regulation;
These questions will require both scientific wisdom and a sense
of social perspective.1 It is hoped that both scientific
wisdom and a sense of social perspective are applied before
these proposed regulations become finalized.
Our preliminary screening using the toxic extraction
procedure forces us to questio whether this procedure
recognizes the geographic differences throughout the country.
In the Pueblo area, for example, one would be hard pressed
to find soils which are acidic or rainfall which is acidic, ™
both of which are basic premises upon which this toxic
-------
1 extraction procedure was established. It is also difficult
2 to understand how a test procedure can be established
3 nationwide to simulate a leaching action, representative of
4 particular geographical area. For example, the differences
5 in amount of rainfall and the pH of that rainfall will certainl
6 have an effect on the concentrations which one would actually
7 measure in leachate from any waste disposal site. Our annual
8 average rainfall in Pueblo of about ten inches is significantly
9 different from other areas. Also, our preliminary screening
10 has indicated that we hve been unable to duplicate analytical
11 results between laboratories, or within the same laboratory.
12 If a toxic extraction procedure is to be used as a basis for
13 determining a hazardous waste, it is necessary that a repro-
14 ducible sampling and analytical protocol be developed.
15 At this time, I am not certain as to what the total cost
16 impact of these regulations could be; however some of the
17 areas investigated at our plant and based upon preliminary
18 estimates yield the following:
19 1. The cost for insurance coverage for a hazardous
20 waste disposal facility would probably run about,
21 $50,000 per year
22 2. The record keeping and reporting requirements
23 could approximate $150,000 per year.
24 3- The costs of monitoring leachate and background
25 wells for a particular site would probably be in
-------
415
1 i the order of magnitude of $36,000 per year for the
2 hazardous analysis and approximately $240,000 per
3 ! year for the background analysis. Going a step
4 further, to create a new hazardous waste disposal
5 facility for a quantity as small as 200 tons per year
6 j and based upon a 20 year life capital cost
7 approaching $400,000 have been estimated.
8 These costs certainly add up quite rapidly. Added to
9 these, of course, would be the requirements for a fund to assure
10 closure, the amount of which is unknown. Thus, the costs
11 associated with the creation of a waste disposal site of this
12 size could involve capital, monitoring, and reporting costs
13 of $876.000. VJhen operating and closures costs are added,
14 the overall cost will likely approach or exceed $1,000,000.
15 With this order of magnitude of costs associated with a single
16 waste disposal facility, it is believed that a good cost
17 impact statement should be made as well as a cost benefit
18 analysis, particularly if the goal is to approach zero risk.
19 In the evaluation of what is a hazardous waste, the
20 degree of risk should be recognized and priorities should be
21 established so that flexibility is built into the regulations
22 to permit either the EPA or the State, if the states would
23 assume the program, to issue permits based upon the degree
24 of risk associated with the particular waste material and
25 site in mind. Being a company which would have high volume
-------
1 solid wastes that may eventually be determined to fit into
2 this 'hazardous waste'' category, we would certainly encourage
3 the application of special waste standards to many more wastes
4 than are presently listed. There does not appear to be any
5 mechanism within this regulation to provide an owner or operate1
6 an avenue and method for having its wastes defined as special
7 wastes. It is believed that many steel making wastes would
8 more appropriately be treated as special wastes to meet the
9 intent of the Act.
10 The Agency in its certification requirements has failed
11 to recognize that the corporate officials required to report
12 under the terms of these regulation are not generally the
13 individuals who perform either the sampling or the analytical
14 owk. Therefore, it is believed that any required certification
15 should be that ''to the best of my knowledge, the information
16 provided is accurate and complete''. The individual filing the
17 report must utilize the analysis, weights, and/or other infor-
18 mation which is provided by others in preparing reports.
19 I appreciate the opportunity to present these concerns
20 and I hope these verbal comments, together with our written
21 comments, will receive consideration in establishing regulation
22 which may result in a workable system economically achievable
23 for the control of hazardous wastes to achieve the objectives
24 of the Resource Conseration and Recovery Act. Thank you very
25 much.
-------
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
questions from the panel?
MR. WINKLEY: Certainly.
MR. GODSON: I note in your testimony, you
apparently have at least tried to run extraction procedures.
I am wondering if you can supply to us, or whether you may
have it in the written submittal, copies of the data generated
from that.
MR. WINKLEY: IN the written submittal are some
of the ranges of values. When I say ranges, the orders of
magnitudes of difference that we have obtained. At this point
in time, we have not been able to be in each lab to "look over
their shoulder and see if they are explicitly following
procedures.1' That part I cannot address. I can address the
fact that having a plant in Pueblo, and in order to find three
laboratories to run analysis, ve found one in Denver and one
in PUeblo and one in Santa Pe , New Mexico. That isn't very
condusive to prompt results.
MR. CORSON: If possible, if you don't mind sharing
the data with us, we would appreciate it if you would do so,
and if you want, you can call the lab 1, lab 2 and lab 3- We
are really not interested in names of the labs, just so we can
get some single operator results as well as some labs- from
the area.
MR. FIELDS: Mr. Winkley , you have the assumptions
-------
418
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
that you utilized in developing the costs estimates for
compliance.
MR, WINKLEY: The capital cost estimates were
developed by one of our design engineers using standard
estimating- manuals. The cost of insurance was obtained from
our accounting department,, and that is the extent of my
knowledge of that, and similarly with this estimate of what
the regulations says the reporting requirements would be.
MR. FIELDS: I know you assumed the cost of
monitoring.
MR. WINKLEY- As far as cost of monitoring, if you
are interested in what some of the costs that went into that,
like the toxic extraction procedure, you could probably get the
heavy metals run for a couple of hundred dollars, and the
pesticides four to five hundred dollars, the organics three to
four thousand dollars. Those are the orders of magnitudes
as I recall them.
MR. FIELDS: It would be beneficial if your writter
statement would contain the assumptions you made in making the:
overall estimates that are contained in your verbal statement.
MR, WINKLEY- The number of monitoring wells are
in the detailed comments.
MR. TRASK- Approximately how many tons were
involved in these cost estimates. I gather it is annual?
MR. WINKLEY- In which costs?
-------
1 MR. TRASK: I am particularly interested in record
2 keeping: just an approximate figure.
3 MR. WINKLEY: Well we have various wastes that
4 range anywhere from 12 tons to a year to 60,000 thousand tons
5 a year, and so I say it is over a hundred thousand tons, but
6 that isn't the number that went into the costs of a facility.
7 This was looking at a particular waste, if this waste was
8 determined to be hazardous, it would be in the range of like
9 200 tons a year source, and therefore you got to have so
10 many square feet and so deep and pile it so high. That is sort
11 of a rough estimate.
12 MR. TRASK: It is on the order of 100,000?
13 MR, WINKLEY- Theret'rs nothing in these numbers whic
14 you would call a finalized designed number, budgetary estimated
15 type numbers.
16 MR. TRASK: I was just trying to get a frame of
17 reference.
13 MR. FIELDS: One statement in your verbal statement
19 made today says there does not appear to be any mechanism
20 within this regulation to provide an owner/operator an
21 avenue and method for having his waste defined as special waste.
22 Could you emphasize that? Are you talking after the regulations
23 are promulgated?
24 MR, WINKLEY: Yes. When the regulations are "
25 promulgated, how would someone go about having their waste
I
-------
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
classified as a special waste. It isn't there. At least, I
didn't find it. I would appreciate being pointed to it.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: That is not really the intent
of the regulation. This is the time if you think that under
the characteristics that have been proposed, if you would be
classifying certain of your waste as hazardous, if you don't
believe that they require the same degree of control that
300M would require, then you should point that out. Those are
the types of comments we are looking for right" now.
MR. WINKLEY: Well, what if there is a waste thet
comes up after the regulations are promulgated, how do you
address it? The point is not covered.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: If you can submit a citizens
petition under the Act, or under the special waste category,
which comes under Section 3004, it is not a listing. It
doesn't come under Section 3001. which is identity of hazardou;
waste. Basically thought, this is not the forum for getting
into that. If your comment is. you think there should be
a mechanism for a listing of wastes as special wastes, then
we will take that as your comment. If you do need clarificati
this is not the time to do that. You can see us during the
break.
MR WINKLEY: This was in two contexts. One was
having the mechanism and the other being, that there are
other wastes which should perhaps be addressed in there,
-------
421
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
particulary if you take the time to address the degree of ristogj
associated with the quantities and I get into that in more deta
in my specific comments, but in the interest of time, I tried
to stay out of detailed discussions.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Okay. That is fine.
MS, FRIEDMAN; A number of people have touched
on the cost figures in which you have provided in both your
oral and written statement. Could you give us the assumptions
underlying those cost figures? Would you submit them later for
the record?
MR. WINKLEY: As far as capital costs, those from
the facility, I probably could, but the other numbers are the
numbers I received.
MS. FRIEDMAN: Well, your people must have had
some assumptions uoon which these figures were based. It is
very hard to evaluate them.
MR. WINKLEY: I can investigate what the basis
of those were.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Our next speaker
is Mr. Conley P. Smith, representing the Independent Petroleum
Association of Mountain States, and Mr, Frank R. Lee, Executive
Director of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
States.
MR. FRANK R. LEE: I will be sharing my time witlr
Mr. Conley P. Smith. We both have prepared statements. We wil
-------
-5<
422
1 be able to stay within the confines of the time limit, if you
2 will withhold any questions until we both finish.
3 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: That is great.
4 MR. CONLEY P, SMITH: Madam Chairman, members of
5 the panel, I am Conley P. Smith. Smith-Fancher Petroleum. I
6 am an independent oil and gas producer engaged in the exploratio
7 for and the production of crude oil and natural gas. I am a
8 member of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
9 States, and I am the Immediate Past President of that fine
10 outstanding organization.
11 or years there has been an increasing volume of
12 hazardous waste materials which could, and in many cases have,
13 polluted the air, water, and the earth, It is my understanding
14 that in the wisdom of Congress, the Environmental Protection
15 Agency was designed to monitor and, insofar as possible, to
16 prevent degradation of the environment.
17 Now, some ten years after the EPA was formed, we finally
18 see some proposed guidelines on disposal of hazardous waste.
19 But, when we see that hazardous wastes include drillingmud,
20 salt water brine, and crude oil wastes, those regulations become
21 incredible. Even though your agency acknowledges that the
22 potential risk to the environment of these substances is
23 minimal, even though you propose a study to show whether a
24 hazard exists, even though you propose to defer applicability
25 of some of the treatment, storage and disposal standards for
-------
423
1 these substances Into a category called ''special waste-s';, —
2 the proposed regulations indicate that owners and operators of
3 facilities for storing and disposing of mud and brines are
4 confronted with myriad, complex and onerous regulations.
5 Further, it is our understanding that non-compliance of these
6 regulations can result in civil and criminal penalties of as
7 much of $25,000 per day for each and every day of violation,
8 and up to a year in jail. Yet, you have no study to even
9 demonstrate that these wastes are demonstratively hazardous.
10 Why are we so upset about these regulations? Because,
11 we independent-oil operators are included under your definition
12 of "generator"... "Any person whose act or process produces
13 hazardous waste and apparently any person who accumulates ™
14 hazardous wastes, because, the process of accumulation results
15 in a hazardous waste diposal problem.
16 Ladies and gentlemen, drilling muds have been used in the
17 oil business since 1901. Salt brines have been produced for
18 a longer period than .that. I have heard in the old days of the
19 great damage caused in some portions of the country by a massive
20 salt water flows down the creeks and drainage systems, and
21 have seen some of the evidence of damage which remains to this
22 day. However, salt water flows of this nature have not been
23 allowed for years and years years and years before the
24 EPA was formed, or even dreamed up.
25 Why were these damages stopped since there were no
-------
1 Environmental Protection Aency laws to tell us to stop them?
2 Because, we all realize the environment is too valuable to
3 be allowed to be damaged in this fashion. Because, we in the
4 industry are the" true enviornmentalists and we are determined
5 to protect it. Because, the existing damage laws in this
6 country are so great that one cannot afford to damage it.
7 We in the industry know that if some of the fluids get
8 loose and enter a water system, and the clean up costs and the
9 expense of restoring a clean water system are so prohibitive
10 that it can scarcely be tolerated. We know that if a cow shoulc
11 get into a reserve pit or even if a cow dies of unknown causes
12 in the area of a reserve pit, she either becomes a prize
13 winning cow. which either just won the prize ribbon at the
14 county fair, or would have just won at the next county fair,
15 if she hadn't died.
16 The point of all this is the legal protections against
17 damages of this sort are already in place in terms of property
18 protection throughout-the country. Yet, for the so called
19 hazardous wastes of drilling muds, salt water brines, and crude
20 oil wastes, we read that you call for:
21 (1) Detailed chemical and physical analysis
22 of each so called hazardous waste.
23 (2) A permit from you as to where drillsites
24 may be located, permits which may be denied
25 in so called "wetlands", i.e. The Gulf Coast
-------
425
159
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
of the United States, in 500 years flood
plain areas, in the active fault zone and
so forth. (a criteria, which taken collectivel
would effectively prohibit exploration and
development of some of the most attractive oil
and gas potentials in the United States.
(3) Site security requiring fences, gates, and
multi-language signs. (Obviously a precaution
aimed at permanent large well staffed plants,
but which borders on the ridiculous when appliet
to temporary drilling pits.)
(4) Likewise, your requirements for daily visual
site inspections, endless reporting requiremen^j
and site closure and post closure responsibility
cannot be complied with by small independent
operators, such as myself and virtually the
rest of the members of the Independent
Petroleum Association of Mountain States.
We independent operators account for 90 percent of the
oil and gas exploration in the Rocky Mountain area. The
Environmental Protection Agency has not provided an economic
impact analysis of the effect of these regulationson the
independent operations. Let me tell you that the economic
impact is monumental. Let me further tell you that when you gj
do get around to calculating the ecnomic impact of these particul
-------
426
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
regulations, the actual impact will be greater than your
calculations show because:
(a) We cannot comply with the requirements for
temporary facilities.
(b) We independent operators are tired of being
treated as a criminal element in this country.
We would rather sit on our hands than expose
ourselves and our families to the ridiculous
criminal penalties you impose on these regulat:
These regulations are a classif example of regulatory
overkill.
It is similar to Don Quixote jousting with the windmills.
Except in this case, for all his fusty armor, Don Quixote has a
sharp swor. and the windmills are flesh and blood.
Let me give you an example involving an operator in
Wyoming concerning disposal of salt water. This operator
produces a small amount of salt water (approximately 15,000
parts per million, mostly chlorides) with crude oil production
in an arid ranching section of Wyoming with totally inadequate
water supplies. The rancher has requested this water to be mixg
with other fresher water to water his cattle. The Agriculture
Department of the Uniersity of Wyoming has provided a written
report to the effect that it would be beneficial to use this
water to prevent water belly, The surface of the ground is
hundreds of feet above anv aauifers, which could be considered
-------
427
1 remotely potable, yet:
2 (1) The Federal Goverment required the operator
3 to fence the water pit and deny the rancher
4 and his cattle access to it.
5 (2) An impervious pit together with sensing
6 facilities to demonstrate that no leakage would
7 occur was required by the Federal Government .
8 C3 ) Some bright young scientist in the
9 Environmental Protection Agency calculated that
10 tons of salts would pollute the underground
11 aquifer each month if the pit were not made
12 impervious .
13 (4) Yet, when the operator constructed the
14 impervious facility to meet the requirement
15 of the Federal Government , it was found that
16 the original pit, which had been used for years
17 was bone dry below a depth of three feet.
18 Further, that the impervious facility in use
19 for more than a year now has had no fill up of
20 salts whatsoever. Further, that facility was
21 constructed at a cost of $18,000 to the owners
22 of that facility under a requirement of the
23 USGS in anticipation of regulations of the
24 EPA which have never been implemented.
25 Such .is a small portion of the irreversible costs of
-------
428
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
proposed punitive regulations.
An acquaintance of mine in the City of Louisville tells
me the City has been emptying its raw sewage into the Ohio
River for over a year, because some party put his toxic waste
in the sewage disposal system and destroyed the sewage plant.
There is an urgent demand for competent supervision for
the disposal of hazardous wastes. Yet, rather than supervise
the installatino of such systems in a protective manner, it
appears to me that the EPA has taken the punitive route of
punishing those who are already active in the development of th«
land and the use of its resources. It appears to me the EPA
is engaged in windmill jousting. If so, it is a shame.
Now. members of the panel, I am embarrassed to report
that a final key paragraph of my statement is not included
in the written statement. I am embarrassed to report that
that presentation simply becomes a tirade without a key para-
graph, and here it is. It is a recommendation.
(1) That drill-ing mud and hydrocarbon brines or
crude oil wastes be excluded from all regulations
until the specific need for regulations has been
demonstrated.
(2) That the regulation distinguish between temporary
hazardous waste facility and permanent hazardous
waste facility.
We do thank you for the opportunity to appear.
-------
429
1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Mr. Lee, that was ten minutes
2 long, so if you can very briefly summarize your remarks, or if
3 you prefer to wait until the.end of the evening, we would
4 hear you then.
5 MR. PRANK R. LEE: My name is Frank R. Lee and I am
6 the Executive Director of the Independent Petroleum Association
? of Mountain States headquartered here in Denver, Colorado. Our
8 Association is made up of over one thousand members, most of
9 whom are engaged in the exploration for and production of crude
10 oil and natural gas. We are a regional association whose
11 geographic spread includes eleven states from Canada to Mexico.
12 Although IPAMS is an autonomous association it does have
13 common interests with other such regional associations around ^
14 the country, many of whom we expect will have represented
15 themselves at one or more of these hazardous waste hearings
16 in other cities. My comments this evening will be brief inas-
17 much as more extensive testimony will be given on our behalf
18 by Mr. Francis Wilson-, Chairman of the Environmental and
19 Safety Committee of the Independent Petroleum Association of
20 America, at the San Francisco hearings next week.
21 On behalf of IPAMS. I wish to take this opportunity to
22 thank the EPA for allowing us comment on the proposed
23 regulations. It is our considered opinion, that the impact
24 these regulation as presently proposed on our industry, and ^
25 particularly upon independent oil and gas operators, would be
-------
430
1 devasting. Therefore, we fervently hope the EPA will seriously
2 reconsider its course of action in this matter.
3 While we fully realize'that we are dealing with proposals
4 as opposed to final regulations, the onerous aspects of these
5 proposals is so great as to cause considerable alarm among
6 our members. We are particularly concerned over the possible
7 ultimate inclusion of drilling muds, brines and crude oil
8 wastes in the definition of hazardous wastes. This is
9 difficult for us to understand in view of the lack of
10 evidence available to the EPA or anyone else confirming that
11 these substances are in fact hazardous. History alone would
12 tend to contradict such a conclusion.
13 The biodegradeable characteristics of crude oil wastes
14 coupled with the long record of experience within the industry
15 of dealing with muds and brines without significant negative
16 environmental impacts suggests as a minimum that more study is
17 needed before these substances can be labeled "hazardous'"
18 and subject to such regulation. To the extent that excessive
19 amounts of these substances might cause problems, they are
20 adequately controlled by existing state and federal regulations
21 Therefore, in order that the public interest may be truly
22 served we strongly recommend that drilling muds, brines and
23 crude oil wastes be exempted from these regulations until the
24 EPA is able to justify their inclusion with empirical evidence.
25 We understand the EPA is considering an extensive study on this
-------
1
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
431
matter. It is our hope that the decision making bodies within
the Agency will await conclusion of that study before burdening
the industry with regulations we believe are unjustified and
will eventually have to be lifted.
If drilling muds, brines and crude oil wastes are ultimate
included in the present regulations many operators, most of
whom will be small independents,, will simply be forced out of
business. The costs, delays and paperwork burdens of compliance
will be so great, those who remain in business will reduce
their exploration activities. Inasmuch as approximately 90
percent of the wildcat wells in the domestic United States are
drilled by the independent operator who will be hardest pressed
to comply, the impact on new oil and gas reserves discovered
could be very significant.
At a time when America itself may be teetering on the
brink of disaster due to excessive and growing reliance on
foreign oil imports it is imprudent, to say the least, to be
considering regulations which will further hamper our
domestic industry. (Parenthetically, let me interject here
that mistakes of this nature are very nearly irreversible.
The lead time, technical expertise and capital requirements
inherent in the exploration for crude oil and natural gas are
such that one cannot simply change the rules a few years hence
and expect a return to normal, It is in some ways analagous ™
to the space industry, wherein it must not be allowed to stand
-------
432
1 idle for lack of projects if one expects it to retain its
2 capabilities over time. Those involved will take their
3 technical expertise and capital elsewhere and may not be
4 available when needed later )
5 We recognize that at the present time all facilities whi
6 handle special wastes are exempt from the storage standards
7 as well as the treatment and disposal standards. However,
8 such facilities are not exempt from the general facilities
9 standards which are also quite burdensome.
10 We also are aware of distinctions being drawn between
11 T'generators'; and '"owner/operators." We feel, however, that
12 many independents may fit into either or both definitions,
13 making such distinctions academic. For example, as we read
14 the proposed regulations, 'the ''owner/operator1' is subject to
15 considerable regulation in the following areas: detailed
16 chemical and physical analysis of each so called hazardous:
17 where he may locate his drill site- site security requiring
18 fences, gates and multilanguage signs; endless reporting
19 requirements', daily visual site inspection; site closure and
20 post-closure responsibilities with which no small operator
21 can comply and others.
22 It is also our understanding that non-compliance with
23 these regulations can result in civil and criminal penalties
24 of as much as $25,.000 a day for each day in violation and up
25 to one year in prison. Surely penalties of this magnitude do
-------
^33
1 not fit the nature or seriousness of the so called t:crime''. The
2 net effect of such regulatory overkill will be to drive
3 operators out of the business rather than expose themselves,
4 their families and their estates to such unreasonable
5 possibilities. This is particularly true where there is no
6 evidence that muds, brines and crude oil wastes are indeed
7 hazardous.
8 In closing let me reiterate our appreciation for the
9 opportunity to testify on this important subject. Our members
10 are as anxious to protect the environment as much as the
11 employees of the Environmental Protection Agency. After all,
12 we live in this part of the country and have ho desire to see
13 if desecrated. We want to work cooperatively with the EPA in
14 accomplishing this objective and hope you will call upon us
15 as the need arises.
16 Finally, let me request that most careful attention be
17 given to the upcoming San Francisco hearing testimony of Mr.
18 Francis Wilson, who will be representing the IPAA, ourselves
19 and a number of other independent associations. His
20 testimony will be much more detailed than ours today and we
21 want you to know in advance that we wholeheartedly endorse
22 what he will be saying to you about these proposed regulations.
23 Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Will you and Mr. Smith (
25 answers questions from the panel?
-------
434
1 MR. LEE: Certainly will be delighted to try.
2 MR. LINDSEY: I would like just to point one thing
3 " out, and then ask a question.
4 These particular materials that we are talking about here
5 are not listed as hazardous waste under Section 3001, which
6 means then that unless they fail to meet one of the four
7 criteria that are there, that is, ignitable, corrosive,
8 inflammable and so on, they would not be covered under this
9 Act. On the other hand, we had some information that at the
10 time of the proposed draft, these things, or some portion of
11 these waste might fail these characteristics and apply thereto.
12 Do you have information which you intend to support that
13 with? You came across as if all these wastes would always
14 be covered, and that is not what the Act calls for, unless you
15 fail the criteria.
15 MR. LEE: I think we are placed in a position of
17 assuming the worst scenario.
18 MR. LINDSEY: But you don't have any data or
19 anything that would back that up?
20 MR. LEE: We are unable to read what the EPA is
21 going to do in this regard.
22 MR. SMITH: Let me say, I am an engineer, and it
23 is impossible to tell from a lay standpoint whether or not
24 these waste materials are covered at all. We have a legal
25 opinion, which is not my liberty to divulge, because it is not
-------
435
1 for me. I am not at liberty to divulge It, but we have a M
2 legal opinion that we certainly are covered under this Act
3 and not in the special waste- category.
4 MR, LINDSEY: The wastes are hazardous.
5 MR. SMITH: In the absence of other information,
6 we are now covered under it. And furthermore, those of us who
7 are already disposing of salt water underground in
8 underground facilities are covered under those existing salt
9 water disposal systems, which are prevalent throughout our part
10 of the country on federal land.
11 MR. LINDSEY: What is the disposal method that is
12 normally used? ^
13 MR. SMITH: We are presently disposing of salt
14 water brine in accordance with U.3.G.S requirements, either
15 impervious surface facilities or on federal lands or in
16 underground disposal facilities, or salt water disposal
17 systems or in water injecting systems.
18 MR, LINDSEY: Injecting or ponding them?
19 MR. SMITH- Injecting them or ponding them in
20 Impervious pits on fee or federal land. If they are on
21 fee land, we have no such obligation.
22 MR. LEE: I might just interject here, that in
23 the absence of some need by EPA to include those, the
24 industry would very much appreciate it if EPA specifically
25 excluded those, since the question has been raised.
-------
436
MR, LINDSEY: Maybe a point of explanation would
help here. If we were to do away with the special waste
categories, which are here, what we would end up with, would be
the alternative, that any waste which anyone of these wastes
-------
171 !
2
3
437
MR, FIELDS: You address the six foot fence. YOU
address only our standard. You talk about the impact of the
special waste standard applying to drilling mud and brine
i
1
-------
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
comment. Thank you very much.
A VOICE: We got too many of these regulations
already.
MR. SMITH: Sir. I would say that I do take the
notes as being part of the applicable regulation. I would say
that maybe in some cases we could file for an exception,
but unless it is going to be a standard policy on each and
every exception. Filings are a major undertaking by
independent operators, who are filing to drill oil and gas
field under the present situation. It is already heavy and
now it is increased. I think you can see that it will inhibit
oil and gas exploration and development if facilities are going
to be required that are going to cost plenty if a pit is to
be imperviously filled, on the order of 15 to 20 thousand
dollars per pit. This will substantially add to the drilling
cost and cost of energy in the country.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH• Thank you very much. Our
next speaker is Dennis Burchett of Balcolm Chemical.
MR. DENNIS BURCHETT: Madam Chairman and members
of the panel, I appreciate the opportunity of coming and
testifying.
I have known Mr. Trask for many years from the pesticide
business.and then we had numerous problems with other regulatior
and now we run into Mr. Roberts' piece of legislation in
getting all of our DOT things squared away, and finally set
-------
73
1 there., and then TOSCO comes along and we are trying to figure
2 that out, and RCRA comes along, and we are trying to square
3 that out, and last Friday, I.found more stuff on DOT coming
4 out to square another act away that we haven't figured out.
5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAHr Would -you state your name and
6 affiliation for the record?
7 MR, DENNIS BURCHETT I am Dennis Burchett from
8 Balcolm Chemical, and I am representing the Colorado
9 Agricultural Association this evening.
10 With one who tries to deal with most of these regulations
11 a fair part of his time, it is part of my job, and. I find it
12 rather difficult to understand and quite frankly, after the
13 third reading thorugh this piece of legislation, I still "
14 say that I don't understand what is being said, so the comments
15 are based on that.
16 I want to go through the comments for you very quickly.
17 250.10(d)(i) and I know this copy of this will be sent to
18 Washington, rather than trying to hustle you through this.
19 What appears to be stated here, if one does not wish to go
20 through the time and expense of determining the hazard of one'
21 waste, then you may simply take the option and say, well, it
22 is just hazardous waste,
23 We are a little bit concerned from the standpoint of
24 the facilities that are available, for example, in Colorado,
25 there are none. All of our waste from my particular plant, v
-------
1 must take to Idaho at a cost of about two thousand dollars
2 a truck load, and we would hate to see, with limited facilities
3 that this particular option; if the tests are rather difficult
4 to get done, say like an LD 50 test, my best option, rather
5 than spending this type of money is to simply declare it
6 hazardous waste, and I think you are going to end up tripling
7 the amount of waste that maybe is simply not waste sometimes,
8 because you simply are not going to find that many Class I dump
9 I certainly hope you do, but I question in Colorado if we would
10 have one in Colorado. Hopefully you will give some considerati
11 to having some form of incentive to test one's product rather
12 than just declaring it hazardous waste.
13 Section 250.10Cd)(1), Roman Numeral VI. This Section
14 does seem rather contradictory in determining waste and kind
15 of indicates that if an individual company or agency that
16 does the same test can come up with two different answers, and
17 if you look at it you will see what I mean. I am sure this
18 isn't what you intended, but as I read it, I get this
19 interpretation and hopefully in a rewrite, this can be
20 simply clarified, is all we would ask.
21 The same thing would go with 250.12(c). We feel this
22 paragraph, what we would like to see would appear that
23 somebody wants to petition to declare something a hazardous
24 waste. What has happened in the past way too often is the
25 burden is put back on the generator, although this doesn't
-------
1 say it will be, but if somebody wants to, they can. We would .
2 like to see some clarification put in this particular provision
3 that they should generate this, and not necessarily the
4 potential generator.
5 Section 250.13(d)'. This is the most alarming part as
6 far as we are concerned. We would say as far as like the heavy
7 metals, we can appreciate why those would be there in the
8 drinking water standard, but when you get down to some of the
9 others without going to look at them, the one just sticks in
10 my mind, declaring 2-4-D at' one part per million as I read
11 it a hazardous waste, and I can just not believe I am reading
12 that. Maybe I am all wrong, but I think if one went through
13 all the records Mr. Trask has for as long as he has been in
14 this game, and started checking in the toxicity and hazard
15 of 2-4-D, unless it is something we are missing, I would
16 certainly be curious as to why in the world you would ever
17 declare this as hazardous waste, and then if you get to the
18 point of looking at some of the applicators who actually
19 . apply this material, because nobody is looking at these
20 people. Let's say he has to change products to apply, and
21 let's say an insecticide, and he flushes out his tanks. There
22 is no way you will flush any tank and clean out any drum and
23 not have far more than that. He has got to retain and hold.
24 We just can't believe what we are reading, if the same
25 goes with some of the other pesticides. We just question why
-------
1 you should take the drinking water standard and say, if they
2 are bad for drinking, they are waste, and adopt them. It
3 appears to us from what we are reading, that is what has been
4 done, whether that is so or not.
5 We would like to see them evaluate and if we are going
6 to declare this pesticide as low level hazardous waste, we
7 would appreciate a little more information to help us under-
8 stand why they are.
9 Section 250.l4(a). We feel, and this particular one
10 involves, or I guess my comment here involves the DOT portion
11 that was put in here, the (Ora Mae) (sic) products, again as
12 I understand, Title 49 in the regulations, the (Ora Mae)
13 products were put in primarily as examples. They could be
14 irritating or nauseating as I recall. YOu have put several of
15 these (ora Mae) products, let's say in this case, and my
16 concern is pesticides, Malthion and Diasinon(sic) and what
17 have you, have taken DOT or (Ora Mae) products and put them in.
18 They may meet certain- standards as hazardous waste, and we
19 would would go back and look at DOT regulations, and number
20 one, they were only hazardous from a standpoint of nauseating
21 effect, and number two, the same products only when they were
22 shipped by water or air. They are not even considered a
23 hazardous product when shipped by highway. You have adopted
24 these and indicated they could be hazardous waste, and we would"
25 just question that, because DOT has a reason of doing something
-------
443
-77
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
And lastly, Jufet a correction, I think, should be inserted|
in the table that we spoke of in 250.13, the drinking water
standards. It lists 2-4-D in this particular point as one
part per milion hazardous waste. If you go back to Appendix
4, the (Ora Mae) products, I was just speaking of, it is also
listed there under 2-4-D, and they are listed twice. They have
got to be one way or the other. It can't be hazardous under
one, and a different standard for the other, and if it has to
be there, ad we do not think it should be, at least take it out.
That would conclude my comments.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH : Would you accept questions from
the panel?
MR. BURCHETT: Yes, ma'am.
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Burchett , the comment when in
doubt, classify as hazardous waste and move accordingly. Do
you have your own laboratory?
MR. BURCHETT- Yes. We are very small.
MR ROBERTS: Suppose you have a quantity of
material there, and know there is some ingredient in there,
organic phosphate, for example, or something like that, do you
know how long it takes to run the laboratory test?
MR. BURCHETT: All I know is, one we did for you
cost us $1,200 dollars.
MR. ROBERT'S: I mean the standard LD 50, you know,
is not just DOT. Do you know how long it takes to run a test
-------
444
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
to observe it animals after dosage?
MR. BURCHETT No.
MR. ROBERTS: About 14 days.
Now, I am the author of the very first interpretation
of the classification of hazardous waste before EPA went in
the business on hazardous waste, because industry people kept
asking us these questions, what would you suggest we do. I
understand the problem you raise about cluttering up the
facility with these materials, but I don't think you gave us
constructive comments about how to deal with this. Do you want
to?
MR. BURCHETT: I don't know the answer. I wish
I did, I wish I had the answer.
MR, ROBERTS; I have had my neck out for years on
this one.
MR. BURCHETT: It is an example of the kind of
alarm we have. I am asked, is anybody going to come in and
apply for a Class I dump. If you get in certain areas in the
State of Colorado and are going into aerial application,
for example, and try to get an evaporation pond for pesticides
put at a municipal airport, forget it. It is not going to
happen. What we are trying to say, industrial people in
many many states, and again, I am speaking of the agricultural
and chemical 'industry, to solve this problem, is simply going
to be monumental for us. If the state could take the initiative
-------
445
1 and put on state property, some type of Class I dump, fine,
2 that is terrific, and if the federal could do it, that is even
3 better, but if we expect industry to do this, and combat all
4 the city fathers and everyone else, I think that is simply
5 too much. I don't know the solution, but if the sites were
6 - available, I don't think it would be a big problem.
7 MR. ROBERTS: I was just thinking of my point,
8 because we are asking for constructive response.
9 The EPA adoption basically was started by DOT years
10 I ago, or five years ago, and announced rather widely, when in
11 doubt, and you don't have the ability to do the proper test,
12 and there is sufficient reason to believe the material may
13 classify as such, by all means it should be classified, don't
14 get yourselves nailed down the road under the criminal statutes
15 Now, you are suggesting we shouldn't do that, because
16 we are going by that interpretation that came from the DOT
17 years ago, and now EPA is picking up on it, it is going to
18 clutter up the waste-dump. I think in fairness, if you make
19 this comment, you should give us some constructive suggestion.
20 How do you feel about it? Just on that classification, when
21 a thing becomes subject to regulation or not, when there are
22 doubts. You know, you have an ingredient in there of the type
23 and character that could casue material to be classified as a
24 corrosive or any of the other things that we are looking at.
25 The question is how do we "deal with it, when you don't have
-------
446
80*
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
an animal testing laboratory immediately available, and we know
it takes time to run some of these tests, and as you say, are
very expensive.
MR. BURCHETT: Very expensive. I wish I had an
answer, but I do not.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. Our next
speaker is Wiley W. Osborne.
MR. WILEY W. OSBORNE: I am Wiley W. Osborne, Chief
Plans and Programs Branch, Division of Solid Waste Management,
Texas Department of Health.
This is a continuation of my statements given March 7
and 8, 1979.
I wish to go into the standards that we recommend for thi
disposal of special waste as we have defined it earlier. For
the benefit of those that may not have been here at the earlier
meeting, the Texas Department of Health is recommending that
EPA define hazardous waste in a two tier system. The more
noxious waste be termed Primary Hazardous Waste and that
-hazardous-waste which represents lesser danger to the health
and the environment would be termed Special Waste. The term
Special Waste as I use it has no direct relationship to the
high volume, low level hazardous waste as used in the proposed
regulations. In a sense, there is a relationship between the
concepts, for we propose that standards for the treatment,
storage, or disposal of special waste, as we define it, be
-------
44?
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
added to Subpart D as Section 250.47, Briefly, it establishes^
requirements for a Section 4004 solid waste disposal facility to
receive Special Wastes.
(1) Special Waste may be accepted at a municipal solid
waste disposal facility if it is a permitted Section 4004
facility and is approved in writing by the authorized state
agency.
(2) Generator must provide certification of the physical,
chemical and biological characteristics of the waste.
(3) The owner/operator provides an operational plan.
(4) 250.43(g) General Facility Standards — waste
analysis obtained from generator.
250.43-! General site selection with item (d)
amended to reauire that a facility shall not be
located in a 100 year flood' plain.
250.43-2 Security all of those would apply except
three or four strand barb wire fence
"would suffice.
250,43-3 Contingency plan and emergency procedures.
250.43-4 Training requirements.
250.4305 (a),(b)(l), (b)(2)(i), (iii),(v), (vi).
b(.5)j (b)(6), and (c) These concern
manifest requirements. Manifest system.
record keeping and reporting, except
exclude monitoring data required by permii
-------
448
1 250.^3-6 Visual inspections.
2 250.43-7 (k), (1) -and (m) closure and post
3 closure. These sections concern
4 closure certification survey plat should
5 be provided.
6 250.43-8 (a), and applicable requirements of (c)
7 and (d) which relate to groundwater
8 monitoring, groundwater and leachate
9 monitoring for groundwater monitoring onlj
10 250.43-9 Financial requirements. Financial
11 requirements may be waived for publicly
12 owned and operated facilities.
13 250.45-2 Landfill:, except for leachate collection
14 system and liner requirements.
15 These are minimal standards for owners and operators of
16 special waste treatment and disposal facilities. Any other
17 requirements of this Subpart may be required by the Regional
18 Administrator or the -administering state agency, in
19 accordance with the quantity or concentration of the waste, as
20 necessary to protect human health or the environment.
21 The proposed guidelines and regulations require greater
22 flexibility to adequately deal with the waste specific and site
23 specific problems.
24 Specific comments relating to Subpart D are included in
25 our more detailed statement being submitted later.
-------
183
449
1 In summary, all of my statements on 3002 and 3004, I wish
2 to make clear that we do not want municipal solid waste
3 facilities to become engaged.in the principal business of
hazardous waste management. However, where such facility can
safety handle low level hazardous waste incidental to their
normal operation, we would support a cost effective mechanism
of which this can be accomplished.
8 I think this involves three things. First, identifying
the low level hazardous waste.
10 Secondly, establishing minimal standards for safe disposal
11 Three, providing for authorization by written approval frc
12 the regulating agenty for a permit where such permit is in
13 existence. ^
14 We appreciate this opportunity to provide our input to
15 the proposed regulations, and we have enjoyed the opportunity
16 that we have had in working with the group through the NGS
17 Task Force.
18 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much.
19 MR. OSBORNE: I will respond to questions.
20 MR. FIELDS: You indicated that you envision
21 establishing another class of special waste.
22 MR. OSBORNE: Unfortunately you weren't here on the
23 first day. or maybe fortunately.
24 MR. FIELDS: No, I was here. I" heard your stateme^
25 i am assuming then that all the Subtitle C regulatory requirerr
-------
1 would be enforced. This special waste would be a subsection of
2 hazardous waste?
3 MB. OSBORNE: The more flexibility you can put
4 into it, I think the more pleased we will be with it, but at
5 least, we would ask to have a two tier system.
6 MR. FIELDS: Your statement did not address
7 incineration.
8 MR. OSBORNE- Well, primarily the reason I didn't
9 address that, we have very few municipalities that do
10 incinerate waste. There are some, and I think we just soon
11 they not get involved in that type of thing.
12 MR. FIELDS: This class of special waste.
13 MR. OSBORNE: I am talking about landfill disposal
14 primarily.
15 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. OUr
16 next speaker is F. Farrell Higbee, National Agricultural
17 Aviation Association.
18 MR. F. FARRELL HIGBEE: Madam Chairperson, ladies
19 and gentlemen. I am F. Farrell Higbee. Executive Director of
20 the National Agricultural Aviation Association in Washington,
21 D. C. I do not have a prepared statement, because I didn't
22 really come here to make one, but after listening to some of
23 the other speakers here today. I thought maybe that I shoul
24 address a couple of things, and it won't take very long.
25 First of all. there are about 300 companies in the United
-------
451
185
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
States that do this kind of work. NASA has recently run a
study, and has determined that our actions on farms are ^
responsible for about ten percent, or ten billion dollars worth
of our food supply. So we consider the industry vital in
terms of providing enough food and fiber for our country.
We are pretty much small businessmen and so the burden
of government regulations falls on us very heavy. We have to
track PRPA(sic) and water quality and air quality and solid
waste and toxic substances, and now RCRA, and we sometimes
wonder, you now, which one of you in EPA is fighting the
hardest to regulate us.
The main problem, I think as far as the ambiguity is, that
you state that the identity of hazardous waste generators "
gives an example of genrators of hazardous waste, or some of
the manufacturers included in the SIC Codes, so 39 laboratories
and aerial and commercial pesticide applicators, but we feel
that we are certainly in a position to qualify under 250.29, wh
is the definition of farmers, so I guess everybody that has
called me after reading these regulations, has pointed out
that they just can't decide whether they are a generator or
not, and when we look at Section 250.13, as Mr. Burchett
pointed out, it seems we are the ones that are going to have
to determine if we are generated " a toxic waste or hazardous
waste, and yet,tnere doesn't seem to be any real provision for^j
us to consider ourselves the same as a farmer in this case.
-------
452
1 We know that in that section in itself will provide a very
2 negative impact on our small businessmen, and perhaps if we
3 have to determine, according to the definitions that are
4 referenced into these regulations, whether or not we are in
5 fact generating a waste, I think we will come up_ with an
6 almost unbearable economic burden as far as our business are
7 concerned.
8 I think I should point out that there doesn't seem to be,
9 at least I can't find it, a method in here to address the
10 fact that our business is in the large part seasonal, so
11 therefore, we are not a generator of hazardous waste all the
12 time.
13 We would like to have more information-from you from the
14 standpoint of — well, I will put it this way. I think all
15 the members of our association want to do what you want us
15 to do, and yet, we don't feel that these proposals tell us
17 what you want us to do. I certainly will be available for
18 questions. Thank you,
19 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
2o MR. ROBERTS: You are aware of the fact from a
21 DOT standpoint, there is a specific exclusion in 49 CFR for
22 aerial spraying operations?
23 MR. HIGBEE: Yes, I was aware of that.
24 FR. ROBERTS: So therefore, DOT in this particular
25 rule making procedure would be in default so far as your
-------
453
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
operations are concerned on hazardous waste, because this ^
particular operation would not be subject to the subchapter
covering our proposal.
MR, HIGBEE: I see.
MR. ROBERTS: So that answers it for the
DOT so far.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I guess our question is,
what do you do now with what we would call your waste, or
your rinsing?
MR. HIGBEE: Well, we are trying to adopt the
principles that have been outlined in examination of (PRFA)
Csic) in terms of traiple rinsing and taking the rinse and
reusing it, if at all possible, as part of the dilution of
the peesticide, if it is a pesticide we are applying. We
are small, as I say, and so maybe a man has one or two
airplanes and in a single day, he may apply pesticide on as
many as 90 different drops in some areas of the United States,
and in other areas 'of the United States, he may be only doing
one thing, like putting 2-4-D on wheat and so as a
consequence, it is how we handle what is left over. It just
varies all over the map.
Now, as a result of talking to Mr. Trask and some of
his people some years ago, I think we pretty much decided
that sooner or later, particularly these people who do deal
with so many different materials, we are going to have to put
-------
1 in some kind of a rinse system. A whole bunch of those have
2 been developed around the United States, and they vary
3 according to the local situation,
4 For example, in Delaware where the water table is very
5 close to the surface of the ground, why they are looking
6 towards putting in a wash system where you drive the airplane
7 over a concrete pad and you rinse it out. It goes into a
8 septic tank and then into a leach, into a pond and this is,
9 of course, lined, and keeps it from entering the ground water.
10 in Kansas, for example, they pump the material out of
11 the cesspool where it has been collected and it is taken to
12 a disposal site that they consider to be safe. I don't know
13 whether it is any Class I site or not. I just have no idea.
14 In Colorado, there are many places where the ground water
15 is hundreds of feet below surface of the ground and except
16 for the very surface water, and one fellow from CF&I pointed
17 out, we don't have very much rainfall in most of Colorado,
18 and so consequently .that is why we are putting in some kind
19 of system and then going out into a leach field somewhere,
20 like a cesspool or leach field you would have in a home. As
21 I say, we do not really feel we are generating what you
22 have defined here as a hazardous waste. It is being handled
23 in most cases in a proper way and may be the only waste
24 that we are generating is the cans that go to a dump. But
25 again, they are now being tripled rinsed, so they shouldn't
-------
1 be considered below that level, which you talk about in
2 250.29.
3 MR. TRASK: One comment, Mr. Higbee. Tripled
* rinsed containers are not hazardous waste. We have specifical
5 s aid that.
6 MR. HIGBEE: Okay. Well, I missed that.
' MR. TRASK: So they are not hazardous waste. Thens
° as I understand your major problem is left over spray material
9 and'tank washing: is that correct?
10 ' MR.HIGBEE: Yes.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Our next speaker
12 is Glenn M. Eurick speaking for the Minnesota Power and Light
13 Company. ^
14 MR. GLENN M. EURICK: Madam Chairperson, members
15 of the panel, hearing attendees, I am Glenn M. Eurick,an
16 environmental engineer with Minnesota Power and Light Company.
17 I appreciate this opportunity to be here today to share the
18 views of my company_ with you on these proposed rules under
19 Sections 3001, 3002 and 300^ of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
20 as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
21 1976, (P.L. 9^-580).
22 I would like to present some background information on
23 my company and its associated operating characteristics.
24 Minnesota Power and Light Company is a mid-sized investor
25 owned utility which generates and distributes electrical
-------
1*56
1 energy to 105,000 customers.. Our service area covers
2 approximately 26,000 square miles in Northeastern Minnesota ari<
3 Northwestern Wisconsin, Minnesota Power and Light currently
4 generates solely or in partnership 1200 megawatts or coal
5 fired capacity. We fire Montana sub-bituminous coal with
6 present consumption at roughly 2x 10° tons/year.
7 Minnesota Power and Light has numerous comments with
8 respect to the December 18, 1978 proposed rules. Written
9 comments will be submitted to the Environmental Protection
10 Agency in the near future addressing in greater detail these
11 concerns. My comments here today address only Section 3004,
12 specifically the designation of utility wastes as hazardous
13 under "special waste standards."
14 It was described on page 58991 of the December 18, 1978
15 Federal Register that the "special waste standards" j^ere
16 conceived by the Environmental Protection Agency upon the
17 realization that "certain very large volume wastes will be
18 hazardous' under Suhpart 250.13 criteria. This very
19 definitive statement does not appear to be supported by furthe:
20 EPA wording in the ensuing description of '"-special waste
21 standards.r EPA has acknowledged it has ''very little
22 information'" on utility waste hazards or the effectiveness
23 of implementing certain Subpart D standards for these wastes.
24 EPA also states they feel the hazard to be ''relatively low"
25 and do not yet know ''how much of the total quantity of
-------
457
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
of utility flyash, bottom ash and scrubber sludge is, in
fact, hazardous.'• ™
This apparent admission by EPA to the lack of support
data is not consistent with the designation of certain Subpart
D 250.43 General Facility Standards for utility wastes.
Minnesota Power and Light Company feels EPA, through this
"special waste classifcation'7 is prematurely judging utility
wastes as hazardous under any definition without the benefit
of sound engineering and analytical support data.
Certain General Facility Standards of Subpart D 250.43
to be imposed on utility waste streams, not sufficiently
proven to be hazardous, reflect the unreasonable approach to
regulation of these high volume wastes. For illustration, ^
these proposed standards include:
250.43(f) A detailed chemical analysis will be
required for each hazardous waste pro-
duced. Since there are potentially 20
utility waste producing activities
impacted by these rules, and numerous
cycles within each activity, the
resulting analyses required is staggerin
all at a cost yet to be determined but
felt to1 be significant.
250.43O) Although somewhat reduced for on-site |
disposal, the requirement for sampling
-------
458
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
each waste when produced is non-applicab^
to utility wastes such as ash and scrubbe
sludge. These systems operate almost
continuously, and the mechanics of the
sampling program as presented are
infeasible. We should not be required
to analyze the slurry every time we
pull bottom ash or dump a load of fly
ash into our disposal site. As
mentioned for 250.43(f) the number of
samples obtained for analysis and their
associated costs would be great, the
benefits which result questionable.
240.43 2 The security provisions of this section
should not be binding upon utility
wastes until it is proven that ash
disposal sites, on a case-by-case basis,
do indeed contain hazardous material
as defined under 250.13 criteria. Forci]
utilities to install a six foot fence
around ash disposal sites at this time
is unwarranted.
250.42-5(a) The manifest system, record keeping
and reporting provisions should also be
(B)(l)
waived at this time. If utility wastes
-------
1 • (B) (6-7) eventually proven to be hazardous under
2 and (c) 250.13 criteria, an individual Subpart D ™
3 250.43-5 should be written. The
4 proposed section should not be applied
5 to continuous utility waste production
6 streams. Without citing specifics,
7 it is fair to say that the required
8 information represents an overkill of data
9 necessary to demonstrate compliance with
10 the Section.
11 Written comments of more substance and detail will be
12 submitted on these and the remaining general facility
13 standards now being proposed for utility high volume wastes Q
14 under Subpart D 250,46-2.
15 The intent of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
16 Act of 1976 is desirable for the nation. The proper
17 identification, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances
18 is necessary, However, caution must be exercised to ensure
19 such designations are warranted and based upon sound data.
20 Minnesota Power and Light Company welcomes the opportunity to
21 assist EPA in the research necessary to more accurately
22 categorize utility waste. Failure to properly designate
23 utility wastes may result in eventual economic strains upon
24 our industry and its customers. In addition, other desirable^
25 goals of this nation, such as reducing, oil dependence on
-------
= 460
1 foreign suppliers and increased domestic coal production on
2 a regionally balanced scale, may be je6pardized if a
3 hazardous designation of utility wastes, especially ash and
4 scrubber sludges, is implemented without justification.
5 Therefore, it is the position of Minnesota Power and
6 Light Company that all general facility standards prescribed
7 for utility wastes per Subpart D 250.U6-2 and the labeling
8 of such wastes as "special waste1' be removed at this time
9 pending further research for justifiable classification.
10 Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Will you answer questions
12 from the panel?
13 MR. EURICK: Those to which I am qualified, yes, I
14 will.
15 MR. FIELDS: One of your statements, I am not
16 quite sure I understand it. You said the security provision
17 of this section should not" be 'binding upon utility wastes
13 until it is proven that ash disposal sites on a case-by-case
19 basis do indeed contain hazardous material as defined under
20 250.13 criteria. That isn't in fact the case, and we don't
21 understand your comment. We are only requiring those people
22 that have a hazardous utility waste to in fact comply with
23 these security requirements.
24 MR. EURICK: Okay. Well, some concessions are
25 in order here, I feel. The primary thrust of this presentatioi
-------
461
1 was the designation of utility waste, even a special waste
2 under hazardous definition is detrimental to the siting
3 of any coal fired steam electric generation station. And
4 utility ash, as I stated, until it is proven, you know,
5 based upon sound data to have hazardous characteristics,
6 shouldn't be included in this. It is in this light that I
7 make these comments, and I realize that it will be done on a
8 case-by-case basis.
9 MR. LINDSEY: We have heard from other people who
10 have commented on the special waste category that are in
11 these regulations, that guilty by association, that tends
12 to hurt whether or not the waste would in fact be hazardous.
13 It wouldn't hurt to point out, that the test which we
14 have run so far with extraction procedure on flayash,
15 indicated that very little flyash is probably going to
16 fail the extraction procedure, although, we haven't run
17 thousands of tests on it.
18 Incidentally, -in that regard, has your company done
19 any experiments along those lines in trying to determine
20 whether your flyash and scrubber sludges and so forth would
21 fail this criteria?
22 MR. EURICK: Yes, we have. Vie analyzed flyash
23 slurry and bottom ash slurry and dry flyash.
24 MR. LINDSEY: Would they fail these criteria?
25 MR. EURICK: They do not fail these criteria.
I
-------
1 However, I might qualify that by saying that the characterist:
2 of the ash are dependent upon the characteristics of the
3 coal mined in Montana, which is fairly evident. My statement
4 that coal production on regional balanced scale might be
5 adversely impacted upon is true. As has been pointed out
6 by a study done for EPA, it might be more beneficial to use
7 western sub-bituminous coal then eastern coal, because of
8 the low ash content. However, the characteristics of the
9 ash may be just the other way around, and it is very site
10 specific.
11 MR. LINDSEY: When you send in your detailed
12 comments with the results of your testing using the extractior
13 procedures and so forth, it would be helpful to us to get
14 that data to help us make the decision on this matter.
15 The other thing you mentioned was guilt by association.
16 The fact there is a section in here which relates to utility
17 waste, which if they are hazardous, would it be more
18 beneficial from your standpoint, given that you use coal which
19 doesn't generate a waste, which would fail these criteria,
20 I gather, would be better then if we just remove the whole
21 special waste category, and if a small quantity of these
22 materials failed the criteria, it would be subject to the
23 regulations, whereas the bulk of them would not be saddled
24 with this onus?
25 MR. EURICK: Yes, that is correct. We recognize
-------
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
that certain waste streasms, boiler cleaning wastes, and you
know, certain other small waste streams in -the utility operatic
may indeed come under this,, especially toxic and corrosive.
Those two categories are the primary ones aimed at the
utility industry right now. But, yes, removal of the special
waste standard, except as applied to very small waste streams
will be beneficial. We will be more than willing to test the
waste streams indicated to give you an idea, and we will
submit that data. We have some.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Our next speaker
is John Harris representing International Minerals.
MR. JOHN HARRIS: Good evening, my name is John
Harris with International Minerals and Chemical Corporation.
This evening I would like to take just a few minutes to very
briefly comment upon one specific provision that gives me some
concern. Specifically I would like to comment upon the
impact of the imposition of the Section 250.H3-2, Security
Regulations on those- large volume low risk waste proposed
for inclusion under the Section 250.46, Special Waste
Standards.
In general terms, as mentioned by others, these proposed
security regulations require erection of a fence six foot high
completely surrounding active portions of the facility, and
provisions for controlling access to the active portion of "
the facility and next, posting of warning signs at each
-------
464
1 access to the portion of the facility. Although the security
2 provisions are not addressed specifically in the preamble to
3 Subpart D, other than as an. example, where in the use of notes
4 this subject is briefly addressed in the December 15 draft
5 background document applicable to the Section 250.46 standard
6 for special wastes,
7 In that document, the security section states as follows,
8 and I quote:
9 ''Fences, signs and controlled access are the
10 requirements for security. Such standard provides
11 a basic' protection by limiting unauthorized and
12 unknowing access to the waste. The economic
13 impact of instituting these controls are not
14 prohibitive even for the large volume waste.".
15 The basis for the statement regarding the economic
16 impact was hot referenced however.
17 i would like to present some information that I have
18 had put together regarding fencing costs.
19 in Florida. IMC has phosphate mining, beneficiation and
20 processing operations, having wastes that would fall under the
21 special waste disposal category, and which under the
22 proposed regulations would have a fencing requirement approach
23 one hundred miles in length. A quote has been received from
24 a fencing supplier for material and installation cost
25 applicable to erection of one hundred miles of six foot fabric
-------
465
1 fencing on flat terrain in basically sandy soils. This quotes
2 which I shall attach to my written submission list is1, roughly^
3 $3-97 per linear foot for fencing materials, whicn includes
4 six foot of two mesh coated fabric, a top rail, ten foot line
5 post spacing, one 30 foot swing gate every mile, plus gate
6 corner and line post set in concrete. The installation costs
7 is quoted as $3,89 per linear foot. The erected cost then
8 totals $7.86 per linear foot, or roughly $41,500 dollars a
9 mile.
10 Realizing that local labor markets, inhouse fence
11 erection capabilities, terrain considerations and other factors
12 can result in variations in this figure for the site specific
13 installation, the cost of $41,000 plus dollars per mile is a *
14 very generalized figure. For illustrative purposes however,
15 using this $41,000 dollars per mile,and considering the
16 number and acreage of facilities falling solely in the
17 listed special waste category, the economic impact does
18 become quite significant.
I
19 Power utility flyash and flue gas desulfurization
20 sludge impoundment or- phosphate sludge ponds and gypsum
21 stacks are quite sensitive as are oil shale and other mine
22 waste disposal areas. Additionally, drilling mud and oil
23 production brine ponds are very very numerous. Although
24 not knowing the actual extent of fencing requirements that
25 would result from the Section 250.43-2 regulation on a special
-------
466
1 waste disposal site, an aggregate fencing requirement of
2 a nominal 25,000 miles say at $40,000 dollars per mile equates
3 to a^very significant one billion dollars.
4 Secondly, I would suggest that the security provisions
5 proposed for imposition on special waste operations are not
6 justified since, as noted in the proposed regulations, such
7 waste presents low risk to human health and the environment.
8 in summary, I would respectfully request that considerati
9 be given to the deletion of the imposition of Section 250.^3-2
10 Security Provisions on the special waste category. Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
12 questions?
13 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
14 MR. FIELDS: Mr. Harris, what types of security
15 requirements or provisions do you have at your facility in
16 Florida around the facilities? What do you have now?
17 MR. HARRIS: A few orange groves, nothing else,
18 a road.
19 MRT< FIELDS: So you don't think there is any
20 need?
21 MR. HARRIS: Again, as was mentioned the other day;
22 the slime ponds, these have been in existence and in
23 operation for over 80 years. And now, all of a sudden,
24 it is a big problem securitywise. As I look at somebody
25 getting access to it, we don't see the problem. When I was
-------
46?
201
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
talking with John earlier, he pointed out that the reason
for listing as a potentially hazardous waste, maybe for ™
radioactivity. Again, the criteria there was both exposure
from being in an enclosed structure for long periods of time.
Someone wanted to climb up and look into a slime -pond, why
not.
MR. FIELDS: So your comment is, you feel there sho]
be no security requirement whatsoever for these slime pofid
operations; is that yoru comment basically?
MR. HARRIS; Yes, I think this not only holds
true for slime poinds in the phosphate industry, but as best
I can ascertain from my travels for all of the waste that
will fall under the special waste category. The economic
burden,acknowledged low risk associated with these wastes
should preclude this burden being imposed until something
very specific can be pointed out to require this, and then
only as a case-by-case basis,
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
Our next speaker is Ron Bissinger representing Union Oil.
MR. RON BISSINGER: My name is Ron Bissinger. I am
an Environmental Engineer with the Union Oil Company of
California.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to comment on the regulations proposed in the April 28 and
December 18, 1978 Federal Registers pursuant to provisions of
-------
468
1 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Union will submit
2 detailed comments at the scheduled hearings in San Francisco.
3 Today, however, I would like to highlight concerns
4 with the proposed regulations that may affect plans for the
5 development of oil shale resources. Union plans to construct
6 a 10,000 T/D experiemental shale oil plant on its Parachute
7 Creek property in western Colorado providing all environmental
8 permits and suitable federal incentives can be obtained.
9 Union Recognizes the need for environmentally sound solid
10 waste disposal practices but wishes to point out that states
H such as Colorado and some local regulatory agencies who
12 share these same concerns have adopted strict requirements
13 governing the disposal of wastes including retorted shale.
14 For example. Union must obtain permits from both Garfield
15 County and the Colorado Mined Land Reclamatiqp/ Board in
16 order to construct a retorted shale disposal pile for its
17 planned shale oil plant. Under these current regulations,
18 the design of the waste piles must meet criteria aimed at
19 protecting surface and groundwaters, minimizing degradation
2Q of air quality, and protecting and restoring wildlife habitat.
2i We believe that disposal of retorted shale wastes are
22 already adequately regulated by Colorado. The state regulatior
23 recognize that each mining operation is unique, and that for
24 any given operation, a unique set of practices is necessary
25 to ensure protection of water, wildlife, and other resources.
-------
469
1 Flexibility has been built into the state requirements to
2 account for differences in size, potential toxicity of waste,
3 and environmental needs.
4 Since oil shale industry is in its infancy, no commercial
5 size oil shale facilities exist on which specific waste
6 disposal practices can be evaluated. It is, therefore, desiral
7 for new types of activities, such as oil shale, not to have
8 rigid waste disposal practices imposed which may be based on
9 experience with other types of mining operations. Disposal
10 practices which are widely used elsewhere may be unfeasible
11 for shale oil.
12 EPA has already recognized that mining wastes,-when
13 shown to be toxic, should be regulated differently than f
14 other such wastes, V/e support the concept of a special waste
15 category such as Section 250.46-5 of the regulations which
16 would contain general disposal criteria, and not specific
17 practices, for hazardous mining wastes. Flexibility in the
18 specifics of mining waste disposal would then be left to the
19 states to implement the criteria in a manner which reflects
20 the differing needs of the states and the wide variety of
21 operations which exist. Such an approach would maximize the
22 use of existing state permitting systems for mined land
23 reclamation while reducing duplication of effort on the
24 federal level. It must be emphasized that any waste disposal^
25 criteria promulgated by EPA should not conflict with similar
-------
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
efforts by the Office of Surface Mining or other federal
agencies.
I would now like- to address some specific concerns with
the promulgated regulations.
The Extraction Procedure defined in Section 250.13(d)(2)
has been designed to simulate, and I quote, "...the leaching
action of rain and groundwater in the acidic environment
present in landfills or open dumps.'' In Western Colorado
the groundwater is generally alkaline with a pH greater
than seven. Rainwater equilibrated with atmospheric carbon
dioxide would have a pH of 5.5, and once it falls on the alka-
line soils typical of western states, would increase past a p]
of seven. The extraction Procedure is obviously not indicati'
of any leaching action which would occur naturally in most
mining waste piles. While Union cannot, at this time,
recommend an alternative method, a group comprised of EPA
and industry representatives should be formed to define a
suitable alternative.
As currently proposed some provisions of the regulation
required by Section 250.46-5, titled, ''Other Mining Waste"
are impractical for many mining and oil shale operations.
Section 250.^3-2, Secuirty, would not be appropriate for
many mine wastes disposal piles because of their large size
and because such fencing would interfere with wildlife use
of, and migration over the reclaimed disposal site.
-------
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
In summary, we believe regulations should stress objective
or end results, with techniques to achieve them remaining
flexible and permitting varying disposal practices to meet
these desired objectives.
Again5 I want to thank you for this opportunity, and I
will try to respond to any questions you may have.
I have one further statement to make. I am aware of your
concern with the use of fugitive dust control suppressants
in mining activities. I would like to suggest that as part
of this mining study, which you have ongoing, you examine
the use and application of those dust suppresants to see
whether or not they are management practices which can be
used to minimize the adverse impact on the environment. The
reason we are concerned about this, your agency for one
requires that in these projects, the minimization of
the fugitive dust, and often because of the scarcity of
water and other agents, these dust suppressants are the only
things available.
CHAIRPERSON DARPAHr I guess there are no questions
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Mr. Lyle A. Rathbun.
MR. LYLE A. RATHBUN: My name is Lyle Rathbun. I
am happy to be here and to talk to you people about the
RCRA provisions. My comments are not so much pertaining to
the various sections of RCRA tonight as they are to some work
and experience I have had with the uranium overburden situatio,
-------
472
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I might preface my remarks by saying that, first of all,
I feel that it is premature to put the mining overburden from
uranium mines with low radium concentration into the
hazardous waste classification system at this time. However,
I understand from reading the December 18th Federal Register
that this really is apparently not EPA's choice. It is
something that was in the RCRA when it was legislated, but at
any rate, if the uranium mine overburden is to be regulated.
I feel the numbers that have been bandied about so far are
much too low and I have a prepared statement concerning this.
The title of my paper is, ''Establishing a Radium
Concentration in Reclaimed Mine Overburden.
Potential radiation exposure to the public from radium
in mine overburden falls into the category of low dose and low
dose rate exposure. Lauriston S. Taylor in 1971 described our
knowledge on the subject, thusly: 'Despite many millions of
dollars worth of experimental studies carried out the world
over, and despite many attempts at the clinical level, no one
has yet been able to establish a dose effect relationship in
this range.'; In the range. Mr. Taylor describes less than
one rems, this is still true. There is considerable evidence
to support an argument for no adverse effect at doses of
several rems. Cases in point include: malignant tumors
arising from skeletal radium and mesothorium burdens (threshol
1200 rads): leukemia incidence among atomic bomb survivors
-------
473
1 (threshold 100 rads); cataract formation (threshold 200 rads^
2 lung cancer among miners (threshold 1000 rads). The levels
3 'designated threshold are intended to indicate apparent or
4 practical rather than absolute thresholds. Absolute
5 thresholds can neither be proved nor disproved due to
6 large population that would be required for statistical
7 validation.
8 In the EPA hazardous waste proposal final draft concernin
9 radioactive waste, they talked about other studies, and this
10 is not included in any statements here. I, on the other
11 hand would put much more faith in United States Uranium
12 Mine Studies and I feel that the thousands rads is a pretty
13 good figure.. ~ ^
14 In the absence of a definite dose — effect relationship
15 for low level radiation, three hypotheses have been put
16 forth. The most widely used of these is the linear, non-
17 threshold concept. This relationship has been established for
13 lethal effects due to huge radiation doses administered in
•19 a short time period. An extrapolation of this curve into the
20 very low dose region is considered prudent: it overestimates
21 the injurious effect at low dcses. But is this course of
22 action really prudent, if, in fact a small radiation dose
23 is really beneficial?
24 The second theory is that the body requires trace
25 amounts of radioactivity in order to maintain its natural
-------
1 defenses against larger exposures. There is no support, too,
2 for the idea that a threshold exists for each radiation
3 effect and that below the threshold, no effect beneficial or
4 detrimental exists.
5 An unquestioning reliance, by regulatory agencies, on
6 the non-threshold concept has driven ''acceptablet: radiation
7 limits near and below background values. Of course, assuming
8 the linear relationship, there is no "safe1 level of radiatior
9 exposure. This leads to risk estimates, when trend ever more
10 toward conservatism. Simply stated, there is no radiation
11 limit indivisable by 10 nor any risk factor which cannot be
12 multiplied by 10. Even though most of the Federal Radiation
13 Council supported a 12 working level month standard of
14 explsure for the uranium miners, the Administrator of EPA
15 chose to divide that by three. The exposure limit for a membe
16 of the general population is then 1/10 of four working level n
17 month/year, unless you live in Grand Junction or Florida.
18 The surgeon General decided, sort of, that the limit for
19 Grand junction should be either 0.5 or 2.5 working level montl-
20 year. For Florida, the EPA divided the Surgeon General's
21 number by two and rounded dcwn,
22 Based on the foregoing dilemma, it may be time to
23 modify the linear concept for estimating the effects due to
24 low level radiation. We might justifiably assume that the
25 effects is less than linear at values of radiation near
-------
475
209
1 natural background values. Also, background should be that
2 for a given locale or area rather than a whole country or,
3 the world. Thus, rather than a single restrictive value,
4 we would have a range of values, based on natural occurence.
5 Ad'ler and Weinberg have suggested a more reasonable
6 method of setting radiation standards. They show that the
7 mean of a natural value of radiation plus one standard
8 deviation could be considered as acceptable. However, due to
9 the incompleteness of the data concerning natural surface
10 values of radium in mining areas, an initial setting of the
11 mean (for a specific mine site) plus two standard deviations
12 (based on composite data for a mining region) would seem to
13 a reasonable starting point. Mr. Peterson used this concept
14 for screening, purposes in his Grand Junction studies. In
15 consideration of the ALARA principle, the two standard
16 deviations would apply only to the lower end of the scale
17 and taper to one standard deviation near the upper range
18 of typical values. A graph of the suggested allowable increas
19 in surface radium content due to mining activities is shown
20 in the attached figure. This graph assumes a range of 1-65
21 pCl/gm of soil, with a mean of 8pCl/gm and a standard deviatio
22 of 12 pCi/gm, This may be subject to modification as more
23 data is obtained.
24 I might add in closing that the views I have expanded
25 here are something that I put together as a result of
-------
1 previous work, and really are not the views necessarily of
2 the people I work for. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Would you answer questions?
4 MR. RATHBUN: Yes, I will entertain questions.
5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH- I guess there are none.
6 Thank you. Our next speaker is Tim McClure.
7 MR, TIM McCLURE: I am Tim McClure and I am
8 representing the Colorado Recycling Cooperative Association.
9 It is a group"of recycling groups throughout the State of
10 Colorado. We are all non-profit groups, attempting to recycle
11 everything in the waste stream we can, mostly cans., newspapers
12 glass and wood, tires, used oil, just about everything that
13 comes to us.
14 it seems that what we are dealing with tonight is
15 where to draw the line on what is hazardous and what isn't
16 hazardous, and how are you going to handle it if it is, and
17 what I am really concerned about, what our group is concerned
18 about is what comes-below the line.
19 It seems like what you will be drawing the line on is
20 most of the generators of big producers of hazardous waste,
21 aid well you should. It is a serious problem.
22 But there is also all those people below the line
23 that aren't going to be addressed, at least as I read the
24 regulation.
25 I was reading a magazine article awhile back about smoke
-------
477
1 detectors, and I said that can't be, they are not putting
2 radioactive substances in my house. I went and got the smoke
3 detector off the ceiling and I opened it up and sure enough,
4 it contained five picoCuries of C-241. My God. what is
5 happening. These hazardous waste infiltrating my house and I
6 started thinking about PCB in the TV set and nickel cadmium
7 batteries, and household pesticides, and the list goes on and
8 on. What happens to all these things. Well, being in the
9 recycling business,, we run into it all the time, I get calls
10 from friends who asked what am I going to do with my lacquer
11 thinner, I hate to pour it down the drain. I said, I wish
i
12 you wouldn't either, but I have no solutions. What do you
13 i do with lacquer thinners in small quantities.
14 Another good one is photographers, what do they do
15 with their chemicals. Do they just pour them down the
16 drain. Do I save them. Where do I take them? We will try to
17 store them, if you want. I have no answer for them.
18 So what I really would like to do is address everything
19 below the line that you drop in your process. The course to
20 us is clear. We got to establish recycling mechanism,
21 channeling systems in each and every community, and it is
22 not going to be done with all these promulgations upon
23 promulgations.
24 The EPA people have all these positions created, and it "
25 filters down into the state health departments, at least in
-------
478
1 this state, and then they create a whole bunch of positions
2 and all this paperwork gets performed, and all this red tape
3 and bureaucracy goes on. Nothing happens in the community,
4 and we have people all over the state. I can name you 14
5 people in 14 different cities across the state who are wantin;
6 to do something,willing and able to do something, but
7 have not the means to do it, or the capital, the tools or
8 the equipment. Right now, we are proposeding $128,000 dollar
9 request from the county commissioners for a simple facility,
10 and all of our paper is out under four feet of snow, what do
11 we do. It is basically ruined. We have gone to all this
12 trouble to try to collect the stuff, and if you start adding
13 in the hazardous end into that, which eventually we will end
14 up taking, because no one else will, and if you add that in,
15 and you have the laboratory equipment and things like that
16 to that, it will eventually require a lot more than $128,000
17 dollars.
18 So, I guess what I am saying is, in order to accomplish
19 a lot of this, we are going to need some money to do it.
20 And as I say, we have got people all over the state
21 ready and willing and some of them are very active and all
22 these people want to do something, but they don't have the
23 means to do it.
24 I would like to give you a good example of the kind of
25 help I am talking about, because sometimes it comes, but not
-------
479
1 in enough quantity, EcoCycle in Boulder was granted about
2 sixty thousand dollars by EPA a little more than a year ago,
3 and I guess most of you may be familiar with that. You know,
4 sixty thouand dollars to start up a process of recycling
5 various kinds of materials., and this was not reasonable. I
*> mean it was more like five hundred thousand. You have to
7 have trucks and sorting equipment, shredders and the list
8 is almost endless, because you have all these different
9 materials and again, if you get into hazardous waste, it is
10 going to take even more complicated system, but each community
H needs to have a system, a channel to have so that people who
12 are not categorized as a generator.- or someone who is just
13 a conscientious citizen, can have a place to take their ^
14 stuff, so it will be channeled in the proper direction. Thank
15 you. ,
16 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you.
17 MR. YEAGLEY- While Tim is walking back to his
18 seat, about the grant of sixty thousand dollars, while not
19 relating to hazardous waste, it is the largest source
20 separating grant that EPA has ever given.
21 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Does anyone else want to offer
22 any comments on the Subtitle C regulations?
23 A VOICE: I would like to try to comment on some
24 of the questions that were asked of Mr. Westney of the
25 Chamber of Commerce.
-------
480
1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Okay, if you will come up
2 and identify yourself please.
3 MR. WILLIAM BUTTON: My' name is Bill HUtton. I wil
4 try to respond to some of the questions I think he was asked.
5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Do you have an affiliation
6 that you are here under.
7 MR. HUTTON: Houston Chamber of Commerce.
8 I believe there was one other question asked about
9 page four of his statement of the Chamber's statement regardin
10 the enforcement of the rules under the EPA, and I think
11 there was a question there about the intent or interpretation
12 of what we were-',trying "to say. The Chamber was trying to say,
13 and that is basically that we agree with what is said in
14 Section 308 of the Act. because that is in the Act itself.
15 - However, in Section 3006 of the Act, it calls for authorizatio
16 of state program, and the purpose of the statement was to
17 show or make a point that we feel once a state program is
18 authorized, that the EPA should allow that program to function
19 Should it fail to function, or fail to be approved, and
20 certainly in the area of enforcement, EPA has a right to
21 move in, but we feel that the effective implementation of the
22 Act would be best served through the state programs that are
23 approved.
24 Another comment was made about the record keeping
25 requirements and what we wanted to say under that section,
-------
481
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that since the record keeping requirements are so onerous,
we would like to see that they be consistent as much as
possible, and also allow for the use of computers or data
processing of those records in the reporting requirement
to eliminate some of the longhand compiling of the records.
And then the comments that we made regarding the
manifest system. The point that was being made there is,
that if we can eliminate the redundancy of manifest
documentation by the various federal and state agencies, it
would only serve the best purpose of the Act, and I think
certainly industry and others concerned, if we could
standardize those reports and programs so they are not
redundant. The transporters have undue burden, at least it
has been reported "to us, and we would like to have those
consistent and the number and type of requirements streamlined
And then the final comment that we made regarding the
500 year flood, or was made regarding, or a statement about
the 500 year --- establishing a 500 year flood plain map,
and their availability. I guess it was our understanding
at the St. Louis hearing, that the comment was made that these
maps were not available and have not been able to obtain them.
Certainly if Mr. Fields has those, we would like for him to
send them to the Chamber of Commerce, because we do have
a need for them.
MR. FIELDS: I can put you in touch with the right
-------
482
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
people.
MR, HUTTON• I hope that addresses the questions
that were asked.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Very well.
MR. TRASK: To follow up this record keeping
thing a little bit. I finally located that comment. It was
in your comment on the standards applicable to generators
and what it says was, there should be provision for making the
record keeping requirements more reasonable, and I gather
that you would propose that we do that by putting the data
into a data processing system?
MR. HUTTON: no, we are not particularly talking
about what you are doing. If the requirements in the Federal
Register are rigid and specific and not allow for some
automatic data processing on the part of those that generate,
it would have a lot of data keeping or record keeping that
today would be much easier if they could do that through
data processing then a standard EPA for they would have to
fill out.
MR. TRASK: Well,, the record keeping is done by
keeping a copy of the manifest.
MR. HUTTON: I understand that.
MR.TRASK: Now, the manifest is a format. In other
words, it has data on it, but it is not a form.
MR. HUTTON: Okay.
-------
217 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
483
MR. TRASK: So I think there are ample opportunities
there to put that on the ADP system if that is what a generator
wants to do.
MR. SUTTON: Yes, that is the point we are trying
to make, I just wanted to make sure we have an understanding
there are allowances for that.
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH : Thank you. Is there anybody
else who would like to offer us any comments on these
hazardous waste regulations? Okay, we will close this hearing.
We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m.
(Hearing recessed until Friday, March 9, 1979 at 8:30 a.m.
4
,
<
-------
STATEMENT OF S. NORMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, ASARCO INC,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS
WATER QUALITY CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE
CONCERNING REGULATIONS 40 CFR PART 250, SUBPART B
PROPOSED ON DECEMBER 18, 1978, UNDER AUTHORITY OF
SECTION 3002, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, IN DENVER,
MARCH 8, 1979
-------
Ladies and Gentlemen of the panel:
My name is S. Norman Kesten, of ASARCO, Incorporated, where
I am the Assistant to the Vice President for Environmental Affairs.
I am also Chairman of the Solid Waste Task Force of the Water
Quality Control Subcommittee of the American Mining Congress and
I appear here today on behalf of that group.
The American Mining Congress is a national association of
companies that produce most of the nation's supply of metals,
coal, and industrial and agricultural minerals. While producing
these essential materials the member companies necessarily gen-
erate large quantities of mine waste rock, waste materials from
milling and other forms of beneficiation often called tailings,
plus furnace slags and other similar processing wastes from later
stages of total processing toward useable products, as well as
other wastes in relatively minor quantities. The American Mining
Congress is thus very interested and concerned about the economic
impact upon the minerals industry of any regulations promulgated
for the purpose of implementing provisions of this amendment to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. In addition we want to try to ensure
that during the formulation of such regulations the Agency is fully
aware of the technological limitations that the very nature of its
wastes places upon the industry and takes into account the large
number of physical and chemical variables that tend to make each
operation unique. In general, the industry has a series of
special problems in complying with proposed regulations because of
the sheer volume of the wastes that are generated and the large
areas of land that those wastes must occupy.
-------
Using copper and copper ores as examples, new mine produc-
tion, including beneficiation, smelting and refining, in this
country is of a magnitude that there is also produced annually
about 600 million tons of mine waste rock, 250 million dry tons
of mill tailings and perhaps 5 million tons of furnace slag.
The smelting of iron ore produces some 24 million tons of fur-
nace slag annually.
It is not likely that waste products from mining and from
beneficiation of mine products in the long run will be found to
fit the criteria for hazardous waste. Indeed, we contend on the
record that mining wastes are exempt from the RCRA regulations
from a legal standpoint. However, if it finally is determined
that they are not exempt, to the extent that mining and milling
wastes are found to be hazardous they will come under the class-
ification of Special Wastes in Section 250.46. In that case we,
as the owners and operators of facilities for Special Wastes,
shall not have to comply with this Subpart B with respect to any
Special Waste. This exception is stated in Section 250.46 of
Subpart D which is rather remote from Subpart B. The exception
should be stated in close proximity to the regulations from which
exception is made; to wit, at the end of the first paragraph of
Section 250.20 (c) on page 58975.
It is hoped that furnace slags will be added to Special
Wastes in Section 250.46, for the same reasons that those wastes
now listed have been included. However, if these slags are not
so categorized, then to the extent that they are hazardous the
-2-
-------
the operators of smelters are "generators" for purposes of this
Subpart and others. Plants belonging to member-companies of the
American Mining Congress may be "generators" in another sense.
Both mines and smelters are often located in remote areas and
therefore must have either septic tanks or package treatment
plants for sewage. Those facilities generate solid wastes which
may be hazardous. However, in Section 1004 of the Act, solid
waste is defined to exclude, for purposes of the Act, "solid or
dissolved material in domestic sewage". As long as domestic-
type sewage generated at a location where it cannot be discharged
to a municipal treatment plant is kept separate from any other
type of waste generated, sludge and pumpings should be exempted
from the requirements of this and other Subparts. The confusion
arises when the Agency substitutes the word "household" for the
broader term "domestic" that appears in the Act.
We have trouble with the definition of "on-site" (250.21(18)
page 58976) in one of the other Subparts as well as here. We
believe that the term should be defined as broadly as possible.
For several or many years we and other generators are going to
be able to find approved commercial disposal sites for hazardous
wastes within reasonable transporting distances of the plants
at which they are generated. We will be forced, therefore, to
provide our own disposal or storage sites on nearby property
that we control. Approval of even these sites will be difficult
to obtain because of the many prohibitions listed in Subpart D.
We shall need the encouragement of EPA and in part that encourage-
ment might be provided in a fairly liberal definition of "on-site".
-3-
-------
For example, when the disposal facility is separated from the
point of generation only by private property to which the public
does not have access, disposal should be considered to be on-site.
If separation is only by a natural barrier, disposal also should
be considered to be on-site. If the waste is transported to the
disposal site by a closed pipeline, private railroad, company-
owned and operated tucks or similar means, this should be con-
sidered to be on-site disposal.
A "spill" is proposed to mean any unplanned release or dis-
charge. (250.21(26), page 58976). However, for the purposes
of these regulations the paperwork resulting from a spill should
only be required if the spill results in lowering the quality of
land, air or water beyond the allowable levels set forth. Other-
wise reporting would be required only for the sake of reporting.
There are five separate requirements in this Subpart for
certification by an authorized representative of the generator.
A corporation is not likely to authorize a workman, a shift
boss or even a foreman to sign for it, particularly when penalties
are involved. On the other hand a more senior person is not
going to personally supervise all the operations having to do
with hazardous waste but is going to rely upon the good faith
of trusted employees to some extent. He should not be criminally
liable for inadvertent errors made by such employees. Thus,
there should be added to the end of the first sentence of the
certification statement the words "to the best of my knowledge
and belief". Incidentally, EPA agreed to add these words to
certification on reporting forms for the preliminary inventory
under TSCA.
-4-
-------
In Section 250.27 (a) on page 25879 the Agency makes a
statement which means, I feel sure, that information provided
to EPA as required by these regulations cannot be kept con-
fidential. However, that is not what it says. Let me quote:
"All information provided in connection with the manifest and
reporting sections established by this Subpart shall be avail-
able to any person ..." This should read "All information pro-
vided to the Administrator in connection ..." After all, EPA
has no control under this Act or the Freedom of Information Act
over information provided to anyone other than EPA.
The member-companies of the American Mining Congress have
no idea how much these and other regulations that are going to
be promulgated under the Act will cost. The major determining
factors are whether or not our many and very large disposal
sites will be characterized as open dumps and whether or not
appropriate criteria will be substituted for those purposed for
determining if any of our wastes are hazardous. Looking at
worst case scenarios in relation to those two factors alone,
all I can say is "May God help us!"
-5-
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS AND
PROPOSAL ON IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
FEDERAL REGISTER, DECEMBER 18, 1978
GENERAL COMMENTS
40 CFR, Part 250 - Subpart B
By
Texas Department of Health
to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
Public Hearing
Denver, Colorado
March 8, 1979
-------
Introduction: ^t
I am Wiley W. Osborne, Chief, Plans and Programs Branch, Division of Solid
Waste Management, Texas Department of Health.
First, I wish to have the record reflect that this is a continuation of
my statement given yesterday on Subpart A.
Again, I would express Mr. Carmichael1s regrets that he is unable to be here
to give this statement.
Our comments relating to Subpart B is an extension of our recommendations to
identify hazardous waste into two sub-sets. Yesterday, I recommended these be
defined as "primary hazardous waste" and "special wastes." ™
Today, I would like to bring forth the idea that Subpart B, as presently
written, or slightly modified, would remain as standards applicable to generators
of primary hazardous wastes. The exception to this proposal is that Section
250.29 would not be applicable to those producing and disposing of hazardous
waste characterized as primary hazardous waste.
Under Section 250.20, we recommend the addition of a Subsection (c)(6)
authorizing generators of special wastes to send special wastes to a treatment,
storage or disposal facility "authorized" by the regulating agency.
-------
Under this concept, the regulating agency could either require the site to
be a permitted site under Subtitle C or a Subtitle D site, meeting standards proposed
3***;
for such special wastes under Subpart D, when written authorization is issued
by a State agency authorized in accordance with Subpart F of this Part.
Generators of special waste should be required to comply with the manifest
and reporting requirements of Section 250.22 and Section 250.23.
The requirements of Section 250.24 Identification Codes, Section 250.25
Containers, Section 250.26 Labeling Practices, and Section 250.27 Confidential
Information and Presumption, shall also pertain to generators of special wastes.
As mentioned earlier, Section 250.29 would not pertain to persons producing
or disposing of primary hazardous waste. This section should be rewritten to
apply only to special waste. In this way, the risk of having highly toxic
waste enter the Subtitle D waste stream uncontrolled is reduced considerably,
while, at the same time, a goodly portion of the special waste can be handled
through the relaxed standards under Section 250.29 without a great risk.
This is essentially our recommended changes to Subpart B, changes based
on identifying hazardous as primary hazardous and special wastes. By requiring
different standards for generators of each sub-set of hazardous waste, adequate
controls are exercised to protect the health and the environment. While re-
-------
cognizing the need to exercise more stringent control over primary hazardous waste, 4
we also see the cost effectiveness in having less stringent controls over
special waste.
The next few comments relate to recomnendations on Subpart B, outside the
comments given above.
Section 250.21 (a) (25) Retailer - The definition should be explicit that a
retailer is a person engaged soley in the business of selling to the general
public. Wholesale/retail and sale to contractors should be excluded from the
definition.
Section 250.29 (a)(l) relating to the disposal of waste in an off-site
waste disposal facility - should require only that the facility has been per-
mitted by the State. That portion of the requirement relating to an "approved
State Plan" is inconsistent when it is recognized that a State Plan may not be
approved for several months after the effective date of these regulations.
(a) Any person who produces and disposes of no more than 100 kilograms
(approximately 220 pounds) of hazardous waste in any one month period, e-f
, is not a
generator provided that the hazardous waste:
-------
(1) Is disposed of in an on-site/solid waste disposal facility in-a-
S-tete
-j— as-amended , which facility has been permitted...
(b) Delete
Comment: We disagree with the reasoning behind special generator
requirement for automobile waste oil retailers established by Section
250.29(a). The preamble states, "Waste automobile oil presents a special
environmental problem because of its ubiqui tiousness and its potential
as a carrier for other hazardous wastes. For example, it is sometimes mixed
with transformer oil containing PCB's. Regulation of used automobile oil under this
Section will tend to direct such oil to permitted recovery or treatment facilities
which will promote resource conservation and reuse, a major goal of the Act." The
reasoning is not consistent with the intent of the Act. This is an indirect means
of forcing the waste automotive oil to be recycled and reused rather than promoting
recycling and reuse. The reference to waste automobile oil being "sometimes mixed
with transformer oil containing PCB's is a weak argument to this approach of con-
trolling and recycling it. If such oil is in fact contaminated with PCB's, it
would not be allowed to be recycled, but would have to be disposed of in accordance
-------
with requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The disposal of waste
automotive oil should not be a subject of these regulations unless a more direct
approach is taken and a stronger indication that these oils are hazardous is proven.
Regulations should not be used solely to make disposal an unattractive option and
thus indirectly force recycling.
-------
COMMENTS OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CONCERNING REGULATION 40CFR PART 250, SUBPART IJ
1'ROl'OSE!) ON DECEMBER 18, 11J7«, AS AUTHORIZE!)
t>
.."BY SECTION 3002 OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
1. Pago 5896 column 2 paragraph 2: "TIu1 Agency has proponed thac
persons who produce and dispose of l<\s;; than 100 kilogram:; (approx-
imately 220 pounds) of hazardous waste in any one month are exempt
from the requirements of this Subpart if they comply with paragraph
250.29.
Comment: Categorizing a hazardous waste by weight, making no
allowance for toxicity, physical form dilution etc. is a questionable
approach. Some hazardous waste cannot be adequately measured by
weight. (e.g. pathological organisms and radioactive materials).
Recommendation: Provisions be made to establish "extemely hazardous
waste" and "hazardous waste" categories to enable the establish-
ment of higher priorities to control extremely hazardous waste.
2. Section 250.20(c) page 58975 reads
(c) Any persof> or Federal Aurnry
who generates a solid waste must de-
termine, pursuant to Subpart A, if the
waste Is hazardous. If it is and If that
person meets the definition of a Renor-
ator contained In § 250.21(b)(9) herein,
he must comply with this regulation
to the degree and in the manner speci-
fied below.
NOTE.—Failure to properly designate a
'.va.ste as a hazardous waste. If the waste Is a
hazardous waste as Identified or listed In
Subpart A of this Part, constitutes A viola-
tion of the Act and may subject the person
or Federal Agency to th£ compliance re-
quirements and penalties prescribed in Sec-
tion 3008 of the Act.
-------
-2-
Comment: It may be almost impos.sib] o for .some generator:; of
potentially hazardous waste to perform the required tests if they
have complex or variable wastes from many processes even though
the wastes are not hazardous. Therefore many wastes which are not
hazardous would be classified as sucli just for expedience. The
result of this would be to overwhelm hazardous waste disposal
facilities. This proposed requirement would be extremely costly
for small businesses without laboratory testing capabilities.
Recommendation: There should be provisions for exemptions from
requirement subject to the approval of the State Agency and the
Regional Administrator.
3. Section 250.20(c)(4) page 58976
(4) Any person or Federal Agency
who generates only household refuse
or household septic tank pumpings is
not required to comply with the re-
quirements of this Subpart.
Comments: Septic tank pumpings from household sewage systems
contain pathogenic organisms prevalent in raw sewage. Septic tank
pumpers may also collect liquids and sludges from industrial operations
These wastes discharged at landfills, if tested, would most likely
(XuJ- hazardous &**&/*&• •
Recommendation: Septic tank pumpings discharged into sanitary
sewer systems should be exempt fromJLregulations. Septic tank
pumpings should be considered a hazardous waste if disposed of
in landfills.
4. Page 58976 columnl paragraph 250.20(2);
"Every generator must comply with Subpart D and Subpart E of this
-------
-2-
changes his own oil. As touched on before, thousands of service stations
now accept this material from the do-it-yourselfer and efforts are under
way to further encourage such activity. They provide a ubiquitous means
of containing this potential pollutant. Placing administrative burdens
on these small businesses will be counterproductive to this effort.
Waste oil accumulated at service stations does not represent a significant
environmental problem today because it is a valuable commodity that is
eagerly sought by transporters - i.e., collectors or scavengers - who
have a strong financial interest in providing removal or pick-up service
and who presumably will be controlled adequately under other Subparts.
With regard to the hazardous carrier aspect, there apparently are documented
cases wherein waste oil has been mixed with transformer oil containing
PCB's. However, to our knowledge this practice has never occurred, nor
would it be expected to occur, with waste motor oil at service stations.
I would now like to address the subject of specific recommendations.
It is the contention of API that paragraph 250.29(a) is sufficient to
control waste at all retail outlets and, therefore, we ask that service
stations be similarly excluded from the generator definition. Nevertheless,
to support the "cradle to grave" control concept, we recommend that all
retail outlets that accumulate waste oil be required:
(1) To be identified by code,
-------
-3-
(2) To allow removal of waste oil only by transporters who are
permitted or otherwise controlled under Section 3003,
(3) To maintain a record of the identity of transporters utilized
and the approximate volume of waste oil transferred, and
(4) To prepare and submit, within 30 days after the closing date
of the year, an annual report to the appropriate authority,
i.e., the EPA Regional Administrator or the administrator of
. an approved State plan. Such report should include all of the
information set forth in paragraph 250.23(b) except item (3)
which pertains to identification of the permitted treatment,
storage, or disposal facility to which the waste oil was sent.
With regard to item (9), the certification, we recommend for
obvious reasons that the sentence "I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including
the possiblility of fine or imprisonment," be changed so as to
include the word "knowingly" before the word "submitting."
RCRA clearly provides for this concept.
Another means of reducing what API feels could be unnecessary burdens on
service stations would be to modify their requirements, if any, under
Subparts D and E, pertaining to storage. By way of background, the
changing of motor oil tends to be seasonal - that is, most of the activity
takes place in spring and summer, both at stations and by do-it-yourselfers.
Thus, there are times during the year in which the accumulation rate is
-------
-4-
very low. Couple this with the fact that collectors or scavengers are
not very interested in picking up small quantities for economic reasons.
The result is that many stations, especially those in rural areas, are
forced to hold the accumulated oil on-site for longer than 90 days.
Thus, under the proposed rules for Section 3002, service stations might
face requirements under Subparts D and E, as well as B. In all likelihood,
many service station operators would decide in this case to discontinue
changing oil and accepting oil from individuals in order to avoid the
regulatory burdens. In line with an earlier comment, such action would
be counterproductive to the industry's effort to maximize the return of
do-it-yourselfer oil and would lead to increased pollution.
A further extension of this situation could be that a transporter would
not be willing to enter into an assumption of duties contract if he had
to pick up from service station clients every 90 days or less - regardless
of the amount of oil involved. Of course, this point is immaterial if
the EPA acts favorably on the API request to exclude service stations
from the generator category.
In view of the considerations just discussed, we recommend that paragraph
250.20(c)(2) be revised so as to change the phrase "90 days or longer"
to read "twelve months or longer." In addition, a change may be necessary
in the definition of "Storage Facility" in paragraph 250.41(b)(83).
Last, but not least, API continues to have a grave concern about the
issue of burning waste oil, particularly waste motor oil. We have
-------
-5-
previously discussed this matter on numerous occasions with EPA represen-
tatives. Briefly stated, however, our position is that with minimal
controls, the use of waste oil as a fuel supplement is a constructive
means of resource conservation and recovery. More to the point, it is
the belief of API that unnecessary restriction of this means of recycling
will lead to an increase in undesirable disposal of waste oil within the
meaning of disposal as clearly defined by RCRA - that is the dumping,
etc., into or on land or water. We further believe that the minimal
controls needed to guard against significant air pollution fall within
the purview of the Clean Air Act, not RCRA.
API will be addressing other aspects of the Section 3002 proposed regulations
in detail in its written comments. However, our central concern is that
EPA use its authority over hazardous waste management to adopt a flexible
approach which first identifies the substantial hazards to human health
and the environment, and then uses this information to adopt regulatory
measures which achieve a substantial reduction in these hazards. Having
reviewed the proposed regulations under Section 3002, API remains concerned
that EPA's desire for administrative simplicity will result on the one
hand in the continuation of significant hazards, and on the other, lead
to inefficient compliance requirements which attempt to eliminate a
minimal or non-existent hazard.
BWH:bgm
3/5/79
-------
March 8, 1979
STATEMENT OF ARAPAHOE CHEMICALS, INC.
In Re: HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976' - DENVER, COLORADO
My name is Earl R. White. I am the Health and Regulatory Affairs
Chemist for Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc. located in Boulder, Colorado.
Arapahoe Chemicals' principal concerns with the proposed regulations
contained in Section 3002 are discussed first and our detailed comments
follow in a section-by-section format. In the opinion of Arapahoe
Chemicals, there are four basic problems with the proposed Section
3002 hazardous waste regulations. These include:
(1) The option under consideration for requiring routine
reporting on a regular schedule more frequently than
annually.
(2) The lack of an appropriate disclaimer statement in EPA's
proposed certification statements.
(3) EPA's effort to integrate proposed rules with DOT rules
applying to transportation of hazardous wastes, and
(4) Lack of confidentiality provisions in the manifest and
reporting forms.
-------
2. March 3, 1979 4
Our first concern centers around EPA's proposed option found on
page 58973, column 3 line 1 in the Preamble to the proposed
Section 3002 regulations:
Subpart B - Section 3002 Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste EPA's proposal - Preamble (Column 3, line 1, page 58973):
"Options under consideration include: (1) Requiring quarterly,
rather than annual, reports on each manifested shipment of hazardous
waste. [and~\ (2) Requiring that a copy of each manifest be sent to
the Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis."
Arapahoe's comments:
Quarterly reporting would unnecessarily increase our administrative
reporting costs for this section by threefold (300%) over annual
reporting. Because of the sufficient number of examples calling for
immediate supplemental reporting, routine reporting on a regular
schedule more frequently than annually would be unnecessary and
burdensome for both industry and EPA. Equally important, the overall
intent of the reporting function would not be jeopardized by annual
reporting.
-------
3. March 8, 1979
Our second concern centers around EPA's proposed certification
statements in Sec. 250.22(h)(12) and Sec. 250.23(b)(9). (c) (9),
(d)(9),(g)(9) and (h)(9).
EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.22(h)(12)
"The following certification: 'This is to certify that the above-
named materials are properly classified, described, packaged,
marked Agency . ' "
Arapahoe's comments:
We recommend a certification statement following the example found
on the EPA/TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory Report forms; i.e.,
"I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
the above-named materials are properly classified, described,
packaged, marked Agency" to replace the proposed certification.
Sec. 250.23(b)(9).(c)(9),(d)(9),(g)(9), and (h)(9)
"The following certification: 'I have ..., and I hereby certify
under penalty of law that this information is true, accurate, and
complete. '"
Arapahoe's comments:
We recommend a certification statement following the example found
on the EPA/TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory Report forms; i.e.,
"The following certification 'I have..., and I hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that this information is true,
accurate, and complete.'"
-------
4. March 8, 1979
Our third concern centers around EPA's proposal in Sec. 25Q.25(a) (1 ) :
"Every generator shall place the hazardous waste to be shipped:
(1) In packages in accordance with the Department of Transportation
regulations on packaging under 49 CFR 173t 178, and 179. "
Arapahoe's comments;
It is uneconomical, inflationary and inefficient to require the
use of a new or reconditioned drum to transport a waste 45 miles,
only to have the drum punctured fa-s—^e^tt-fred— by— o-ur—present—landfi 11
operator) when it arrives at the disposal site, as is the actual
case with our present Colorado facility. A better use of resources
would be achieved if wastes designated to be landfilled within a -
short period of time (30 days) were allowed to be disposed of in
used drums^"**•** '*^*»**-i*
The cost for reconditioned and new drums is $10.00 and $35.00,
respectively. Since we anticipate using 6300 drums per year (our
1978 usage), this regulation could mean an additional cost of $63,000 -
$220,500 annually. The costs incurred by this regulation would be
punitive and burdensome. A valuable resource would be wasted without
any resulting benefit to human safety or the environment. This
additional, unnecessary cost which must be absorbed by our customers
through higher cost of goods will definitely be inflationary and
put a burden on our ability to be competitive.
-------
5. March 8, 1979
Our fourth major concern centers around the lack of confidentiality
provisions in EPA's proposal in Sec. 250.27(a):
"All information provided in connection with the manifest and reporting
sections established by this Subpart shall be available to any person
to the extent and in the manner authorized by Section S00?(b)
of the Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C. Section
552), and the EPA Regulations adopted in compliance with the FOIA
(40 CFR Part 2)."
Arapahoe's comments:
We are very concerned that satisfactory confidentiality provisions
are not yet in place. Our products are typically complex chemicals
and their manufacture can be complicated and expensive. Furthermore,
the manufacturing process represents the culmination of years of
very expensive research and development. Much of this R & D work
may not be protected by patent coverage and it is common for the
process chemistry and yield data to be very closely protected. At
Arapahoe Chemicals this confidentiality protection of our technology
constitutes the very essence of our competitive position. Without
it, the viability of our business may well be in jeopardy. In
some cases the very appearance of a specific chemical waste on the
manifest or generator report could give proprietary information.
If quantified disposal data were released, even inadvertently,
then a competitor could conceivably estimate yields and processes,
extremely confidential subjects.
-------
6. March 8, 1979
Another concern about the confidentiality of reporting is that many
companies such as Arapahoe Chemicals doing custom chemical manufacture
for other firms typically have signed contractual secrecy agreements.
Thus both the manufacturer and the customer have real needs to
protect their business interests.
The announced intention of EPA to share information with other
Federal agencies and with the public according to the provisions
of the Freedom of Information Act is obviously in serious conflict
with the very important confidentiality needs of the chemical
industry. We ask that EPA respond to these confidentiality concerns
in a manner similar to the actions provided for under TSCA; i.e.,
providing for confidentiality claims on the forms.
If the confidentiality of industry is protected in the way herein
requested, the intent of the Act would not be impeded.
-------
Suite 1120
1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 2C036
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCJAT1ON 202/372 3110
Testimony of Francine Bellet Kushner
Associate Director, Legislative & Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
on Hazardous Waste Regulation Under §3002 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Good afternoon, my name is Francine Bellet Kushner, Asso-
ciate Director for Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Chemical
Specialties Manufacturers Association. CSMA is a voluntary non-
profit organization consisting of more than 400 member companies
engaged in the manufacture, processing and distribution of chemical
specialty products. Production processes in the manufacture and
formulation of members'products generate substances that are
directly affected by the proposed regulations for identification
and listing of hazardous wastes as well as the proposed standards
for generators and owner/operators of treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities. Accordingly, CSMA offers the following comments
regarding the hazardous waste regulations proposed under §3002
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These points
and others will be further developed in our subsequent written
submission.
We welcome this opportunity to present our views to the
Environmental Protection Agency on issues raised by these hazard-
ous waste regulations which will have significant impact on our
industry. The vitality of the chemical specialties industry is
dependent upon the opportunities for constant innovation. We
-------
-2-
are concerned that the proposed hazardous waste regulations v/ill
have a negative impact on essential process and product innova-
tion and will impact disproportionately on small companies.
Section 3002 - Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste
Generator Exemption Levels Should be Based on Relative
Degree of Hazard
Section 250.29 provides for an exemption from the manifest,
reporting, container and labeling provisions for generators who
produce and dispose of no more than 100kg of hazardous waste in
any one month period. Any exemption granted from the hazardous
waste regulations should be based on relative degree of hazard.
The exemption contained within §250.29 fails to recognize
relative degrees of hazard and, instead,provides a blanket
exemption.
As CSMA stated in its earlier testimony on the §3001
regulations, the criteria for designation of hazardous waste
fail to recognize relative degrees of hazard. CSMA has recom-
mended that both the identification criteria for hazardous waste
and the exemption mechanism be based on degree of hazard rather
than an exemption applied across the board. Designation of
hazardous waste should take into account such factors as persis-
tence, degradation, bioaccumulation, exposure, toxicity and con-
centration. Both the statute and the legislative history indicate
that designation or identification of a hazardous waste should
consider the degree of hazard. For example, §1004(5) of RCRA
states that the term "hazardous waste" means "a solid waste,
or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,
-------
-3-
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics
may ...". Section 3004 of RCRA further recognizes the concept
of relative degree of hazard in requiring facilities to provide
assurances of financial responsibility and continuity of opera-
tion "consistent with the degree and duration of risks associated
with the treatment, storage, or disposal of specified hazardous
waste" and the legislative history indicates that any exemption
should be based on toxicity elements. While CSMA recognizes
that any exemption system based on relative degree of hazard
could complicate the regulatory program, administrative conven-
ience is not sufficient to support a regulatory program which
ignores the requirements of RCRA, unnecessarily increases the
burden of the program and fails to concentrate agency resources
on the regulation of truly hazardous wastes.
Shipping Manifest Should Better Coordinate with the DOT
Shipping Paper System
Section 250.22 creates a manifest system for tracking haz-
ardous waste shipments. This system should be modified to track
consistently with the DOT hazardous materials shipping paper
system. Any manifest or shipping paper system should be uniform
for all Federal regulatory purposes. Only one form of shipping
paper should be required for both DOT and EPA. CSMA recommends
that to accomodate both DOT and EPA requirements only one lengthene
DOT form be utilized. The economic impact analysis prepared in
conjunction with this proposed regulation, in its "option C",
calls for simplified manifest requirements limited to existing
shipping paper - bill of lading documentation fulfilling DOT
requirements. 49 CFR §172. 202 (a)'(4) of the DOT Hazardous Materials
-------
-4-
Regulations provides that "a shipping paper may contain addition-
al information concerning the material provided the information
is not inconsistent with the required description". This is
consistent with the CSMA recommendation that the DOT paper be
lengthened to accomodate the information desired by EPA. Both
§ 250.22 of these proposed regulations and 49 CPR §§172.200-204
require the following information to be included on the manifest
or shipping paper: description of the hazardous material, name
of the shipper, proper shipping name, hazard class, total quantity
of each hazardous material and certification and signature,
(the certification is identical with the exception that EPA adds
EPA regulations to the list of those regulations that must be
complied with). Accordingly, it would be very easy to adopt
the mechanism whereby a DOT shipping paper would form the basis *
for the manifest system with the RCRA-required information added.
This RCRA information would include the balance of the require-
ments under the manifest system of §250.22. This information
would include the manifest document number, the generator's
identification code, name, address and date of shipment, the
transporter's identification code, name and address, the facility's
identification code, name and address, spill handling directions
or 24 hour telephone number for emergency response, directions
and number for contact with the National Response Center of the
U.S. Coast Guard, special handling instructions when available,
and any additional comments.
It is also essential that the modified DOT/EPA shipping paper/ t
manifest be established as the form for use under all state
-------
_ c_
hazardous waste programs. If states are forced to alter the form,
the consistency and ease of compliance obtained by integrating
the DOT and EPA form will be lost as soon as the states assume
RCRA authority.
Presumption that a Generator Produces More Than 100kg of
Hazardous Waste
Section 250.27 provides that in all civil enforcement pro-
ceedings a presumption will arise that a generator of hazardous
waste produced and disposed of more than 100kg of hazardous waste
during the time period specified in the enforcement proceeding.
This presumption defeats the whole purpose of any exemption in
that it requires generators of less than 100kg to maintain
extensive records in order to be able to rebut the presumption.
The result of the presumption is that a person who is not a
generator under §250.29 must develop elaborate waste tracking and
waste monitoring programs. Such records would involve extensive
sampling, monitoring, and record-keeping of all production and
waste streams. These requirements impose unnecessary burdens
upon a person who would otherwise not be a generator, would
mandate action on the part of such persons that is clearly not
contemplated by the proposed regulations, and would not reduce
the administrative burden imposed by the regulation.
Summary
In summary, the proposed regulations under §3002 of RCPA
should be amended to reflect CSMA's major concerns, which are:
-------
-6-
1) Exemption levels for generators of hazardous ™
waste should be based on relative degree of hazard.
2) The RCRA manifest system should track the DOT
hazardous materials shipping paper system, and
only one DOT form, modified to accomodate RCRA
requirements, should be mandated.
3) The presumption that a generator produces more than
100kg of hazardous waste within the time period
specified in an enforcement proceeding defeats the
purpose of any exemption by requiring maintenance
or extensive records to rebut the presumption.
CSMA appreciates this opportunity to share our views and we M
offer our firm commitment to work with the Environmental Protection
Agency toward development of viable hazardous waste management
regulations.
-------
ROGERS' SALES, INC.
1935 Fawnwood Drive
Monument, CO 80132
1-303-481-3383
March 6» 1979
To: USEPA
From: '.Yilliam D. Rogers
ROGERS' SALES, INC.
SUBJECT: Position Paper for Denver Hearings on proposal RCRA
regulations, March 8, 1979
Ladies & Gentlemen,
ROGERS' SALES COMPANY IS THE MARKETING CONTRACTOR TO MARKET
COMANCHE FLYASH GENERATED AT:;THE COMANCHE POY/ER PLANT IN
PUEBLO, COLO. I HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY MARKETING COMANCHE ELYASH
FOR OVER THREE YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY TELL YOU OUR
STORY. STARTING IN JANUARY 1976 AFTER EXHAUSTIVE TESTS OF
THE DUALITY OF COMANCHE FLYASH, WE BEGAN TO SELL FIRST THE
CONCRETE MASONRY PRODUCERS AND FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY MOST OF
THE READY MIX CONCRETE PRODUCERS. WE TORE ABLE TO MARKET A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FLYASH TONNAGE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING
BECAUSE OF THE EXCELLENT QUALITY OF COMANCHE FLYASH. IT CAN
BE SAID THAT ',VE HAVE DEVELOPED THE USE OF THE CLASS C TYPE
FLYASH AND ARE THE LEADERS IN THE TECHNOLOGY Of ITS USE.
COMANCHE FLYASH IS USED FOR MAKING:
1. READY MIX CONCRETE
2. PACKAGED DRI -MIXES
1). CONCRETE MASONEY UNITS
if. STUCCO & PLASTER WALL SYSTEMS
5. PRE^CAST CONCRETE
6. MUD JACKING
-------
ROGERS' SALES, INC.
1935 Fawnwood Drive
Monument, CO 80132
1-303-481-3383
7. ASPHALT MINERAL FILLER
8. WATER PIPE RSLIN1NG
AND THE LIST OF PRODUCTS THAT CAN USE FLYASH IN THEM CONTINUES
TO GROW EACH YEAS.
IN THE YEAR 1977 ACCORDING TO STATISTICS FROM THE NATIONAL
ASH ASSOCIATION 6.3 MILLION TONS OF FLYASH WERE USED. A VERY
LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THAT FIGURE REPRESENTS FLYASH PRODUCED IN
THE EAST AND MID WESTSTATES. THE STATES IN THE AREA STARTING
APPROXIMATELY AT THE MISSISSIPPI REVER AND COMING WEST, ARE
SEEING ESCALATION OF COAL BURNING POWER PLANTS THAT ARE BURNING
THE SO CALLED 7/ESTEHN COALS. THESE 7/ESTERN COALS PRODUCE A
FLYASH THAT IS FAR SUPERIOR TO ANY FLYASH WE HAVE SEEN PREVIOUSLY,
CONSEQUENTLY AFTER MANY YEARS OF TESTING AND RESEARCH, ASTM C-
618-77 INCLUDES THE TYPE C FLYASH. WE FULLY EXPECT TO MARKET
85% TO 95% OF THE TOTAL FLYASH GENERATED BY THE COMANCHE POWER
PLANT.
OUR FUTURE CERTAINLY LOOKED TO BE THE BRIGHTEST STAR IN
THE HEAVENS UNTIL DEC. 18, 1978. THE PROPOSEDREGULATIONS BY
THE EPA, COULD PUT US AND EVERY FLYASH MARKETER IN THE UNITED
STATES OUT OF BUSINESS. I HAVE RESEARCHED ALL OF THE AVAILABLE
LITERATURE FOR REPORTS OF ADVERSE EFFORTS ON HUMANS OR THE
ENVIRAMENT, AND CAN NOT FIND ONE INCIDENT WHERE FLYASH, WHEN
USED IN THE LIST OF PRODUCTS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED HAS CAUSED
ANY PROBLEMS.
-------
ROGERS' SALES, INC.
1935 Fawnwood Drive
Monument, CO 80132
1-303-481-3383
FLYASH DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE IN THE ALL ENCOMPOSING SPA'S
SUBTITLE C REGULATION. I AM IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT THAT
FLYASH IS A WASTE MATERIAL. FLYASH IS A BY PRODUCT FROM THE
v
POWER PLANTS. IT SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN THE WASTECATEGORY
UNTIL IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN WASTED. WASTE IS SOMETHING THAT IS fi
USELESS OR WORTHLESS MATERIAL, AS DESCRIBED BY THE WORLD BOOK
ENCYCLOPEDIA. FLYASH IS A VERY VALUABLE MATERIAL AND HAS
BEEN DECLARED A NATURAL RESOURCE/RECOVERY MATERIAL BY THE
ENERGY DEPT. THE CONCRETE INDUSTRY IN THE STATES OF COLORADO,
KANSAS Sc NEW MEXICO USED 65 THOUSAND TONS OF COMANCHE FLYASH
IN 1978. HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE FLYASH AVAILABLE TO SUPPLEMENT
THE CEMENT SHORTAGE, THE WHOLE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WOULD HAVE
SUFFERED. TO TERMINATE THE MANY USES OF FLYASH IS CONTRARY TO
THE RCRA's LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WHICH INDICATES THAT CONGRESS
SPECIFICALLY VIEWED UTILITY BY-PRODUCT REUSES AS NON-HAZARDOUS
AND BENEFICIAL.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE TIME FRAME IN MICH THIS ACT HAS
BEEN REQUIRED TO BE IMPLEMENTED, DOES NOT ALLOW AN ORDERLY PROCESS
OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. THE POTENTIAL DANGERS OF ANY 7/ASTE
ARE ALWAYS REAL, IF YOU INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING BURIED
ALIVE IN IT. THEREFORE WE REQUEST THE AGENCY TO USE MAXIMUM EFFORTS
IN EXTENDING THE TIME REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE THAT WE MAY DEVELOP
THE NECESSAY TECHNOLORGY AND INFORMATION.
-------
ROGERS' SALES, INC.
1935 Fawn wood Drive
Monument, CO 80132
1-303-481-3383
V/S DO NOT NEED ANOTHER TVA FIASCO OB ANOTHER SNAIL DARTER
FIASCO. I AM SPEAKING TO YOU TODAY ABOUT THE JOBS OF THOUSANDS
OF PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE RELATED TO THE FLYASH,
COAL-BY PRODUCTS INDUSTRY. OUR NATION CAN NOT AFFORD TO WASTE
AN OUNCE OF ENERGY. CONSEQUENTLY WE URGENTLY REQUEST YOU TO
REFLECT ON THE DAMAGE THAT COULD BE CAUSED BY A HASTY IMPLEMENT
OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. BY DECLARING FLYASH AND COAL-BY
PRODUCTS HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE ADVANTAGES OF ENERGY CONSERVATION
THROUGH RECYCLING OF COAL-BY PRODUCTS IS DESTROYED.
IN SUMMARY, OUR ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO SELL & USE EVERY POUND
OF COAL BY-PRODUCTS MATERIAL AVAILABLE. WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT
THE FINAL SOLUTION IS UTILIZATION. REGULATIONS THAT WOULD HAMPER
OR TERMINATE REACHING THAT GOAL IVOULD DENY THE TOTAL CONCEPT OF
CONGRESS'S RCRA BILL. LET US THEN PROCEED TOGETHER, TO DEVELOP
THE NECESSARY QUIDE LINES NEEDED TO ENSURE A SAFE ENVIROMENT
AND ENJOY THE FRUITS OF A RECYCLED BY-PRODUCT. IT IS OUR SOLID
BELIEF, THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN HAPPEN 7/ITHOUE FIRST
DESTROYING A VALUABLE INDUSTRY.
MAY I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR COMMENTS.
-------
Inland Chemical
Corporation
Corporate Headquarters
Post Office Box 36
Fort Wayne, Indiana
46801
219/424-1940
Facilities
Dallas, Texas
Ft. Wayne, Indiana
Hollywood, Fla.
Manati, Puerto Rico
Newark, New Jersey
New Castle, Kentucky
Orange, California
Syracuse, New York
March 13, 1979
Mrs. Geraldine Wyer
Public Participation Officer
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
U.S.E.P.A.
401 M Street SW
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mrs. Wyer:
My name is John R. Berger. I am the Vice President for
Environmental Affairs for Inland Chemical Corporation.
Inland Chemical Corporation is a resource recovery company
which owns and operates three plants for recovering useful
organic chemicals from industrial wastes. We have our own
fleet of tank trucks for transporting these wastes from the
source companies to our recovery plants. Under the proposed
regulations found in 40 CFR 250, Inland Chemical Corporation
qualifies as both a generator of hazardous wastes, because
of the residual non-recoverables resulting from our processes,
and as a transporter in that we convey these residuaLs-^o ap-
proved disposal sites for ultimate disposal.
The need for controls on the transportation and disposal of
hazardous wastes is beyond question. There is ample evidence
of the need for such controls. The above-referenced pro-
posed regulations are intended to carry out the mandate of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that such con-
trols be applied. The principle thrust of these regulations
is to protect human health and welfare and the environment.
On Marchx*r, 1979, during the public hearings on the proposed
regulations, I entered a verbal statement into the record.
This letter is to provide the written portion of that testimony.
It becomes readily apparent, when listening to verbal testi-
mony given at a public hearing of this nature, that the par-
ticipants are evaluating, and commenting on the proposal as
it pertains to their particular needs or industries. The ad-
ministration of the proposed regulations will impact different
occupations differently. The difficulty of developing regu-
lations which will enable the agencies administering these
regulations to attain the objectives set forth in the Federal
Statute is understandable; the conscientiousness with which
the proposed regulations were drafted is apparent and appreciated.
-------
-2-
In spite of the effort expended in developing these proposed
regulations, there are some serious flaws in them as now
written. One of the shortcomings is found in the method
used to determine whether a waste is hazardous or not hazard-
ous. Three systems are used; the naming of sources of waste,
the naming of specific wastes and the application of a gen-
eral categorization based on ignitability, corrosivity, re-
activity and toxicity. The fact that three systems are used
indicates the inadequacy of the method, and results in a
cumbersome procedure which presents opportunity for misclass-
ification of waste. To cite an example, assume waste contains
some metallic sodium. Sodium is a metal which reacts violently
and exothermically with water to produce caustic soda and hy-
drogen. The caustic soda is corrosive to human tissue, causing
serious chemical burns. The hydrogen is explosively combusti-
ble when mixed with air. Sodium is uncontestably a hazardous
substance and waste containing sodium is properly classified
as a hazardous waste, to be regulated and controlled.
Water is a liquid which reacts violently and exothermically
with sodium to produce caustic soda and hydrogen. The caustic
soda is corrosive to human tissue, causing serious chemical
burns. The hydrogen is explosively combustible when mixed
with air. Water is uncontestably a hazardous substance and
waste containing water is properly classified as a hazardous
waste to be regulated and controlled.
A waste is either hazardous or it is not hazardous. If a waste
is hazardous, it is judged to be so on the basis of its chemi-
cal, physical and physiological properties. The viability
of this opinion is substantiated by the Toxic Substances Control
Act and the regulations stemming from this Act, the identifi-
cation of specific chemicals as being toxic and, therefore,
requiring control and regulation.
A more appropriate method for the classification of waste
into hazardous and non-hazardous categories is to determine
the classification of the waste on the basis of its specific
properties, as is done in the section of the regulation which
lists wastes by name. Admittedly, this is a more difficult
system in that the number of wastes to be categorized is ex-
tensive. Nevertheless, difficulty is not an excuse for sub-
stituting an ambiguous system for a meaningful and workable one.
A second shortcoming is the lack of a requirement to charact-
ize and quantify the components in hazardous wastes as they are
reported on the manifest. The primary intent of the Regulations
is to protect human health and welfare and the environment.
Either a waste is hazardous or it is not hazardous. How is
one to determine whether a particular waste is hazardous or
not if one does not know the composition of the waste? Each
-------
specific waste is not going to be disposed of in its own
private cemetary plot. Wastes are, and will continue to
be, combined during disposal. Combining waste plastic,
for example, with acid waste can produce different end
results. Polyethylene waste can be combined with hydro-
chloric acid waste without hazard resulting from the combi-
nation of the two, hydrochloric acid can be, and is stored
in polyethylene bottles. Nitric acid, on the other hand, is
an oxidizing acid and reacts with polyethylene. The reac-
tion is normally a slow one, but under the wrong conditions,
may create handling hazards in the disposal site. If poly-
ethylene is combined with perchloric acid, a violent re-
action may occur, with subsequent fire or possibly explosion.
The manifest report should require the the components and
at least the approximate concentration of the components be '
listed on the form.
A third shortcoming of the proposed regulations is the failure
to provide for degree of hazard involved. The importance of
separation into degree of hazard is well established. Actuary
tables for insurance, which are based on statistical data, set
different rates based on occupation, age, etc. Some people
are not insurable at all because they present too great a
hazard to the insuring companies. The Toxic Substances Con-
trol Regulations impose degree of hazard on the chemicals
listed, categorizing into five classes. The nation Fire Code
imposes degree of hazard on substances that burn, dividing
first into flammable and combustible categories, then into sub-
categories, based on initial flashpoints of the various sub-
stances classified.
The Environmental Protection Agency has already recognized the
need for categorization of waste by proposing three classes
of waste; hazardous, special and non-hazardous. There is a
definite shortage of disposal sites within the United States
which -• suitable for the containment of truly hazardous sub-
stances. Some hazardous substances should not be disposed of
in any way other than complete destruction. Other substances
constitute such a low order of hazard as to require minimum
containment. Many wastes decompose or degenerate into non-haz-
ardous or marginally hazardous substances.
The disposal method plays as important a part in handling haz-
ardous waste as does the composition of the waste itself, and
should be a part of the procedure in determining degree of
hazard. Certainly, one must agree that the problems presented
by the disposal of dioxin are several orders of magnitude greater
than the problems presented by the disposal of used motor oil.
-------
-4-
Hazardous wastes should be classified according to their chem-
ical, physical, and physiological properties, their persis-
tance, and their degree of toxicity. There should be as many
classes as there are practical methods for disposal; e.g., in-
cineration, chemical destruction, irradiation (both solar and
artificial), bacteriological and enzyme conversion to less
toxic or non-toxic composition, sealed landfill, covered land-
fill, etc. The classification should be done at the state
level, since the administration of these regulations is to be
done by the state agencies, using guidelines established in
the Federal Regulations. Every effort should be made to mini-
mize the quantities of wastes designated for disposal to the
limited number of truly secure landfill sites available in the
country.
We strongly urge the Federal Envirorar.ental Protection Agency
to examine carefully, and with favor, the classification
methods proposed by the Division of Solid Waste Management
of the Texas Department of Health and the Hazardous Waste
Section of the Department of Ecology of the State of Washington.
A fourth shortcoming of the regulations as proposed is the non-
uniformity of the manifest form and the procedures for handling
the manifests. Several members of the panel, during the hearings
on March 6-8, mentioned that EPA deliberately avoided specify-
ing a manifest form in the proposed regulations in order to
avoid having an additional document required for the transport-
ation of hazardous waste, the idea being that the shipping
document required by the Federal Department of Transportation
would be used with simple modification.
This is simply not going to happen. The Solid Waste Management
Program is going to be administered by the individual states.
Several states are already operating under a manifest system.
California, for example, has been operating under a manifest
system for more than four years. Texas and New Jersey have
had their programs going for some time. Each uses a different
manifest.
There is an ongoing effort, within at least some of the EPA
Regions, to develop regional manifests, in order to bring some
semblance of uniformity to the paperwork. The states in Region
V are experiencing difficulty in agreeing on a single manifest
form. At this stage, there appears to be a chance of uniformity
in Region IV, so far as the manifest form is concerned, but the
proposed methods of paperwork handling differ among some of
the states within Region IV.
-------
-5-
There are times when I am amazed by the apparent naivete of
our Federal Government. Congress passes a law which says
that the disposal of hazardous waste constitutes a national
problem, designates the Environmental Protection Agency as
the Federal organization which is to write the regulations
and the states as the governmental subdivisions which are to
administer the resulting program under their respective
state laws and resulting state regulations, with the provision
that the state laws and regulations be at least as stringent
as the Federal counterparts, but may be more stringent.
In an effort to reduce the paperwork, the EPA avoids specify-
ing a manifest form and specific handling procedure. A state
(New Jersey, for example), generates a state manifest form
and requires that the generator use that form for reporting
the waste load. The waste load originates in, say, Alabama,
where the present intention is to have the manifest printed
and distributed to the generator by the disposal sites lo-
cated in Alabama. New Jersey cannot dictate to a generator
in Alabama; Alabama cannot dictate to a processor or disposer
in New Jersey. At the present time, New Jersey prohibits any
waste from coming into their state unless accompanied by a New
Jersey manifest. Nothing in the proposed Federal regulations
prohibit Alabama from requiring that the load be picked up on
an Alabama manifest.
The waste, in moving from Alabama to New Jersey passes through
Kentucky, where the state agency is currently considering the
possible requirement for a manifest, or similar document cov-
ering waste transported through that state. Their position is
understandable, considering the extensive clandestine dumping
that has occurred in Kentucky. Tennessee is also concerned
about this problem, considering the quantity of chemicals that
have been secretly dumped in that state.
But, EPA instructs in the proposed regulations that a resource
recovery plant is not a treatment, detoxification or disposal
site and as such, is not subject to section 3004 of the pro-
posed regulations, and, furthermore, since the transported
wastes constitute the raw materials for operating the resource
recovery plant, the load need not be accompanied by a manifest.
The states disagree, and since they have the authority to inter-
pret the regulations this way, the individual state requirements
must be met.
We, as a company, do not object to the manifest concept. In
fact, we welcome it as a reasonable, sensible and workable
method for keeping track of the hazardous waste that moves
-------
-6-
around the country. However, a single manifest form should
be used, one which is suitable for recording and reporting
all of the necessary information to assure proper transport-
ation, recovery, treatment, detoxification and disposal of
the waste. We strongly recommend that the Federal EPA examine
the manifest form used by the State of California, which
contains all of the necessary information, including the ident-
ification and quantification of the components in the waste,
and accomodates it on a single side of an 8 1/2 by 11 inch
sheet of paper, so it can be filed in a standard filing
cabinet, thusly meeting the filing requirements of EPA also.
(The New Jersey manifest form is on an odd-sized sheet of paper.)
I had mentioned, in my verbal statement during the hearing in
Denver, that the proposed regulations placed an unreasonable
identification burden on the generator. The conflict between
this observation and the criticisms that the manifest did
not require characterization and quantification of the waste
and the failure to provide for degree of hazard was quickly
picked up by Mr. Lehman, who questioned me about it. I think
it appropriate, at this point, to acknowledge the attentiveness
of the panel during the entire three days of the proceedings.
The interest and concern of all members of the panel were clearly
apparent.
The key issue is, either the waste is hazardous, and must be
controlled, or it is not. This determination cannot be made
without knowing the character and composition of the waste.
The generator has been named, in the proposed regulations,
as the source of this information; he must thereby generate
the information also.
The need for the generator to serve in this capacity is recog-
nized in a recent addendum to the Rules and Regulations for
the Reporting of Chemical Substances Manufactured or Used in
Manufacturing, (Revision 2, 5 March, 1979), promulgated by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. This document is part of the Virginia
Regulations for the reporting of Toxic Substances. The user
is required to report all substances used in manufacturing,
including the constituents in mixtures. As a matter of interest,
there are three forms used for reporting substances known by
the user, two forms for substances the composition of which
are not known by the user, and each component in each mixture
must be reported on a separate form. So much for your attempt
to cut down on the paperwork burden of the person who must do
the actual work.
-------
-7-
Either a waste is hazardous or it is not hazardous. If it is
hazardous, its nature, and degree of hazard must be known
before a decision can be made as to the procedure with which
it is to be handled. The various regulations dealing with
chemicals in the United States, stemming from the Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act, Land Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, all regulated by EPA,
together with the various transportation regulations dealing
with chemicals, regulated by the Department of Transportation
and the Interstate Commerce Commission, contain all of the parts
of a single system, which should be specified in the proposed
regulations for hazardous waste management. The major problem
is that this single subject, chemicals in commerce and industry,
is so fragmented among the various sections of EPA and DOT
as to foster duplication, frustration and proliferation of
needless, non-productive work for the people who have to make
the country go. This fragmentation brings to mind a remark
made by Winston Churchill who, upon asking the name of a new
member of parliament, and being told it was Bossom, said,
"Bossom? Bossom? Why he's neither the one nor the other!".
fohn R. Berger {/
Vice President
Environmental Affairs
JRB/mw
-------
SHATTUCK
CHEMICAL
THE S. W SHATTUCK CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
1805 S. Bannock St., Denver, Colo. 80223/Phone (303) 722-2S49/ Telex 45-874/ Cable 'Shattuck Denver'
March 1,. 1979
John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20U60
Dear Mr. Lehman:
I would like to make as a matter of record and for your reviev, comments
on behalf of The S. W. Shattuck Chemical Co., Inc. regarding the proposed
guidelines and regulations and proposal on identification and listing of
hazardous wastes as published in the December 18, 1978, issue of the
Federal Register. My comments pertain to sections 3001, 3002 and 300U.
My first comment regards the concentration of the cantaminant from the
procedure specified in toxic waste definition, article 250.13, (d),
page 58956, column 2, paragraph 2. I object to the concentrations of
arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium to be considered as the limit for
declaring a solid waste hazardous because, as an analytical chemist with
considerable experience, I am certain these levels cannot always be de-
termined in all matrices by atomic absorption procedures with absolute
certainty. I would suggest that this portion of this act be amended to
allow the concentration of arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium to be
10 milligrams per liter in the extract before being considered hazardous
waste. The EPA should also permit the use of colorimetric or other
instrumental methods in the determination of the specified hazardous
materials in waste; this would allow a small business to comply with the
law without undergoing financial hardship.
My second comment regards the method of adjusting pH in the extraction
procedure as specified in article 250.13(d), page 58957» column 1,
paragraph (E). The procedure specifies using 0.5 N acetic acid to adjust
the pH to 5-0 +_ 0.2. My objection to the use of acetic acid is this is
not an acid found in nature. There are many compounds which are essen-
tially insoluble as found in nature which form quite soluble acetates.
For example, hydrocerussite, 2 FbCO-^.PbCOH^, would react with acetic
acid to form lead acetate. Hydrocerussite is insoluble in water but
lead acetate has a solubility of UU.3 grams per 100 ml of water at room
temperature. I suggest that the pH be adjusted with an acid found in
-------
John P. Lehman, Director
3-1-79
Page 2
nature such as carbonic acid; this would cause the extract contaminant
concentrations to be more nearly representative to what one would expect
to happen naturally.
My third comment concerns the tests for mutagenic activity as listed in
article 250.15j page 58960, column 1, paragraph (i). The tests listed
in this paragraph are too vague to be of any use. This test should be
removed until a universally accepted procedure for mutagenic activity
is devised.
My fourth comment regards ground water and leachate monitoring as des-
cribed in article 250.H3-8, page 59005, column 3, paragraph (5) This
paragraph specifies the determination of the total dissolved solids,
the concentration of the chloride ion, and the concentration of the
principal hazardous constituents found at each installation. Therefore,
it is superfluous to require at all installations the determination of
conductivity, dissolved organic carbon, and the concentrations of beryllium,
nickel, cyanide, phenolic compounds and organic constituents as determined
by a scanning by a gas chromatograph.
My fifth comment regards the standards for storage as described in UO CFR
Part 250 Subpart D, page 58988, column 2, paragraph 2. Ninety days is
not a reasonable period of time for a generator to reprocess hazardous
wastes before being considered a storage facility. A processor, such as
Shattuck Chemical, accumulates residues which are later reprocessed to
reduce metals not previously removed. It requires a period of time to
accumulate enough residues or to change process parameters to make the
reprocessing step economically feasible. With the emphasis of this Act
on conservation of resources, it would seem that the EPA would encourage
a reprocessing step. I suggest that the ninety day limit on storage be
changed to one year. We would like to arrange a separate and discrete
meeting with the EPA to review these possibilities.
My last and final comment regards the confidentiality of information as
referenced in article 250.27» page 58979, column 2, paragraph (a). Much
data as to processing capabilities, efficiencies and production volumes
could be gathered by competitive chemical processing companies. It is
absolutely essential for business reasons that some types of data supplied
to the EPA remain strictly confidential. I would suggest that a form
similar to "Form A" of the Toxic Substances Control Act Initial Inventory
be used; this would allow the reporting company the option to check-off
areas of desired confidentiality.
All of the comments made in this letter are made in the posture of working
with the EPA, but concomitantly, in the interest of S. W. Shattuck Chemical
Company remaining a small business.
Sincerely,
x d 0
GARY DOUNAY
Laboratory Supervisor
GD:kk
bcc: AWC, DG, B. Bernstein, Phibro, E. Fredricks, Engelhard, lab file
-------
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
450 SOUTH 4TH AVENUE
BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80601
303-659-2120
March 7, 1979
BOARD
O F
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
John G. Campbell
Pete M Mlrelez
Bob Briggs
CLERK OF THE BOARD
William Sokol
PRESENTATION AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
OF THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DENVER, COLORADO, MARCH 7-9, 1979
Chairperson, I am representing Adams County, Colorado. As you may
be aware, Adams County is located north and adjacent to the City and
County of Denver in one of the most industrialized areas of the State
of Colorado. Situated in the County are a regional sanitation facility
(Denver Metropolitan Sewage District), the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a
regional power generating plant, two major oil refineries, two large
chemical manufacturing plants, and a proposed sludge-drying and dis-
tribution center. For these reasons, Adams County is particularly-
concerned with EPA's proposed guidelines for hazardous waste and is
in accordance with their efforts to mandate cradle-to-grave management
of such waste.
Upon promulgation of the regulations, the County is somewhat wary
of the schedule as proposed for the interim status period. Since the
County does not currently provide specific regulations for the operation
nor the generation or transportation of hazardous waste, and consider-
ing the number of wastes to be defined as "hazardous" would increase
substantially as proposed in the guidelines, and the fact that in the
State of Colorado, no such facility for disposal of hazardous waste
exists, working within the proposed time-frame is extremely doubtful.
Serious consequences will result if a multitude of waste is defined as
"hazardous" without providing effective means for qualifying interim
disposal sites. The generators will be held accountable for the
enormous transportation costs that would be incurred at final disposal.
Undoubtedly, improper disposal methods and abuse of temporary storage
authority will occur thereby creating excessive enforcement problems
and eventual environmental damage.
Difficulties will be certain to occur with the industrial and
local government sectors of this community. Presently, industry has
little capacity to recover resources from hazardous waste. Educational
and planning efforts are mandatory in the business and public sectors
in the County. Available land for a site is at a premium, difficulty
in locating a sanitary landfill has met substantial opposition let
alone a hazardous waste disposal site. The proposed standards for
facility operators require significant capital investment for site
-------
preparation and multiple financial assurances providing for the result
of operating accidents and for post-closure site management, which
relatively few agencies or individuals could provide.
Therefore, the state and federal governments must accept the res-
ponsibility and provide authorized disposal sites that are available in
reasonable proximity to waste generators specifically during the interim
status period. Financial assistance for any site modifications and oper-
ating cost incurred in order to meet minimum standards for waste dis-
posal is critical to the successful adherence to the proposed regulations
-------
PUBLIC HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HOLIDAY INN - AIRPORT
DENVER, COLORADO
March 7, 8, 9, 1979
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
Sections 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004
STATEMENT
of the
HOUSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Evening Session - 7:00 P.M.
March 8, 1979
-------
I am . _
7*7 ~"• 7T
Houston Chamber of
Commerce, and I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentat-
ion on behalf of the Board of Directors and the membership of the
Houston Chamber of Commerce.
The Houston Chamber of Commerce is a voluntary organization
of approximately 6,300 business and professional establishments
working together for the betterment of our Houston area. One of
the Chamber's goals is to enhance the quality of the environment
without unduly hindering the continued economic development that
provides benefits and opportunities to all the residents of this
area.
Subpart A - Identification Listing of Hazardous Waste (Section 3001)
We appreciate the fact that defining what is a "hazardous
waste" and a non-hazardous waste, is extremely difficult. Similarly,
the creation of a laboratory procedure for distinguishing between
the nature of the wastes is equally difficult. Under Section 3001 of
the proposed rules, there are two major areas of concern about the
definition of hazardous wastes:
1) We feel that the definition of hazardous waste is
too broad, and
2) The type of testing is inappropriate.
The broad definition, as proposed in the rules, will cause
large quantities of relatively low-hazard, industrial waste to be
-------
- 2 -
regulated and handled in a manner similar to truly dangerous materials.
For example, under the hazardous waste definition, Coca Cola waste
would be treated in the same fashion as waste Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Each of these wastes will require special hazardous waste disposal
sites, increased disposal costs, specialized recordkeeping, and num-
erous other procedures, completely justifiable in the case of the
truly hazardous materials, such as PCB's. On the other hand, the
encompassing nature of the hazardous waste definition will not only
cause Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and other truly hazardous
materials to be handled in this manner, but will also include most
industrial waste, whichis relatively innocuous. This will create:
1) an unprecedented demand on the regulatory agencies,
2) an overloading of safe disposal sites,
3) an insatiable demand for additional, and safe disposal
sites,
4) special handling methods, and other procedures.
The only solution we see to reducing this problem, which
is provided for by Section 1004 of the Act, is to change the
definition of hazardous waste to encompass the various degrees of
hazard. We would propose that a three-classification system be
utilized, similar to that employed by the Texas Department of
Water Resources, in their Hazardous Waste Guidelines. In the develop-
ment of the RCRA regulations, many of the guidelines, provided by
the Texas Department of Water Resources, were used as a model for the
RCRA regulations. We suggest that the Texas Department of Water
Resources', three-class system of solid waste be studied in develop-
ing an alternative definition of hazardous waste.
-------
- 3 -
Testing plays an important role in the establishment of
whether or not a waste material is hazardous. The extraction pro-
cedure for determining if a material is hazardous is not inappropriate
for industrial waste. This procedure calls for the extraction of
materials using an organic acid solution, and analysis of those
materials dissolved in the solution. This procedure has been severly
criticized by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) and
other technical groups. We feel that an appropriate alternative to
the extraction procedure would be a procedure suggested by the ASTM,
using water in lieu of the organic acid solution. Water is the
medium by which most industrial waste possibly could be transported
from a site into the groundwater or aquifers of a region. Organic
acid, on the other hand, can be generated from municipal wastes, so
it may be appropriate to apply such a proposed extraction procedure
to municipal waste. We do not feel qualified to comment on its
suitability to industrial applications.
In addition, we feel that the definition of "other discard-
ed materials," which has been used by the EPA, to mean any material
which is reused, even if the reuse constitutes destruction or disposal,
such as the burning of a material in an incinerator, is inappropriate.
The classification of used lube oil, and other oils as hazardous
wastes exceeds the intent of the law, when these materials are applied
to utility boilers or incinerators. Such use fulfills the intent of
Congress for resource conservation and should be promoted and not
hindered by the proposed rules.
In addition to the above comments, we are concerned that
the Corrosivity Section (on Page 58951 of the Regulation) calls for
a pH of 12.0. This maximum limit would cause lime sludges from water
-------
- 4 -
treating operations to be included under the hazardous waste
definition. The pH should be raised to 12.5, since materials 12.5 pH,
are not harmful to the skin.
Finally, Section 3001 of the proposed rules indicates that
the EPA retains an independent authority to enforce the standards of
Section 3001. The law implies that the regulations, under the RCRA
Act, should be administered through the states. Consequently, we
trust that the states will be given complete authority to administer
the Federally-approved, State programs, without intervention of the
EPA, unless the State fails to do so. Direct enforcement by the
EPA of an industry generator or disposer would not be in keeping with
the RCRA law.
Sub part B - RCRA Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
(Section 3002)
The purpose of Section 3002 is to provide a means of track-
ing hazardous waste from the generator to the disposal facility to
insure proper disposal. Basically, this section provides that any
person who produces, disposes of or accumulates in excess of 100 kg/
month of a hazardous waste, is covered by this section of the proposed
rules. It calls for a manifest system, which will keep track of the
waste material from the time it is generated, to the time it is dis-
posed of in an approved disposal site. It also provides for proper
containerization and labelling of the waste material. All of these
provisions are necessary in the management of hazardous waste materials,
however, some improvements should be made to the proposed rules, under
Section 3002. There should be provisions for making the recordkeep-
ing requirements more reasonable. Allowances should be made for
reporting summaries, through the use of computer systems. Acceptable
-------
- 5 -
alternative forms and data processing procedures should be allowed.
In addition, the certification statement on the manifest and reports,
which are submitted to the EPA, should include a phrase showing that
the forms are filled out to the best of the knowledge of the reporter.
The notification and reporting on foreign shipments appears to be
needless, since Environmental Protection Agency has no jurisdiction,
once a shipment of waste material reaches a foreign country. The
tracking of waste material, while in the Continental United States,
is appropriate, but once it reaches international boundaries,
their jurisdiction should cease. We support the establishment of
a cut-off point of those affected by the quantities of waste material.
However, we feel that the cut-off level should be on an annual
average basis rather than a monthly basis.
Subpart C - Transportation of Hazardous Waste (Section 3003)
This section of the proposed rules requires transporters
to maintain records of hazardous waste carried from the sources to
the delivery point. It stipulates that the transporter can only
accept wastes for transportation, which are properly labelled and
accompanied by the signed manifest, and requires that the trans-
porters deliver those wastes only to a designated, hazardous waste
treatment storage and disposal facility, indicated on the manifest.
This may sould like a very straightforward and easy task to
accomplish. However, let us take a look at the real world situation,
through the eyes of the transporter. The manifest, required by the EPA,
is only one of several documents required by such regulatory agencies
as the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion, the Texas Railroad Commission, to name a few. These forms
-------
- 6 -
and recordkeeping requirements must be consistent. In Texas and
California, the three-part trip ticket, or manifest system has been
adopted. We recommend that the existing paperwork, either State or
Federal, be used as fulfilling the requirements of the manifest
regulations in the proposed rules. The incorporation of the EPA
procedures into the existing network, would provide for an effective
and smooth transition into the handling of these waste materials.
The impact of these regulations on the generators of waste
in a community will be tremendous. The classification system required
under Section 3001, will define many wastes as being hazardous.
Consequently, these facilities will resist the classification and
resent the additional financial burdens imposed on them. Finally,
and most importantly, they will be reluctant to acknowledge that
these wastes exceed the current 100 kg/month breakpoint in the
regulations. All of these factors leave the transporter in the
precarious position of not having the expertise or the manpower to
inspect every container, before it is placed in his equipment, to
be hauled to a disposal site. The question here is, what recourse
does the transporter have, if the mixed load ever contains hazardous
waste? What will happen to the load; and who is financially respons-
ible?
The consensus of the trucking community, serving this area,
is sufficient attention to practical application and enforcement of
these proposed regulations has not been addressed. Only through a
massive education program, followed by vigorous enforcement, will
these regulations truly become effective.
-------
- 7 -
Subpart D - Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
TSection 30041
There are four major concerns, which highlight the
issues that the Houston Chamber of Commerce wishes to be con-
sidered in this part of the proposed rules. These issues are:
1) General site selection criteria,
2) Surface impoundment requirements,
3) Groundwater and leachate monitoring criteria, and
4) Financial requirements.
The criteria for the general site selection of
solid waste disposal facilities, could virtually eliminate the
siting of any hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal
facilities in the greater Houston area, and along much of the Gulf
Coast of the United States. The 500-year flood plain requirement
alone, could preclude the use of many acceptable and safe sites
from being used to dispose of hazardous wastes. It is our under-
standing that maps will not be available for three to five years,
which will establish where the 500-year flood plain is located. While
the Agency assures us that the notes in the proposed rules have the
weight of law, we are concerned that these assurances may not be
adequate to allow alternative engineering specifications for some
of these facil ities.
The criteria for landfills and surface impoundments deal
with barrier requirements to protect the environment from these
facilities. In Texas, one requirement for a Class I hazardous
waste disposal site is a three-foot, compacted clay barrier, with a
permeability of 1 X 10 cm/sec. This barrier thickness is the"
-------
- 8 -
same as the EPA requirement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls disposal
sites, as published in the FEDERAL REGISTER. The EPA, during the
preliminary drafting of this regulation, proposed a 50-ft. barrier,
then changes it to 100-ft., and now proposes a 5-ft. barrier. The
reasoning behind these changes is hard to follow. For all practical
purposes, a barrier is primarily designed to insure the integrity
between the bottom of the landfill or a surface impoundment and the
top of the surrounding and possibly the surrounding groundwater.
It seems reasonable that if the barrier is made thick enough, the
probability of causing breaks by mechanical means, during construction
and operation, will be minimal. On the basis of this premise, Texas
has adopted a three-foot barrier, because that thickness was believed
to be ample to insure the integrity of the facility. Further, it
is believed that a Class I site, constructed in good faith, under the
Texas regulations for the disposal of hazardous wastes, should be
formally acknowledged by the EPA as satisfactory through some form
of regulatory recognition. In a more practical vane, there is no
need for a thickness of a barrier greater than that required for the
disposal of PCB's—deemed to be one of the very worst environmental
offenders.
We must insist that the performance standards required
under the rules, go well beyond what is necessary for the protect-
ion of groundwater and the Human Health and Environmental Standard.
The Human Health and Environmental Standard states that all facilities
shall be located, designed, constructed and operated in such a
manner as to prevent endangerment of an underground drinking water
source beyond the facility property boundary.
We submit that each situation must be assessed on its
individual merits. For example, a unique situation exists in the
-------
- 9 -
Gulf Coast Area, which is documented in the Texas Department of
Water Resources Technical Guidelines for Hazardous Waste Disposal.
The situation is one of low permeability, high water table typified
by the Beaumont clay formation. Fill placed below the water table
causes local contamination, but extremely slow movement of the
groundwater precludes wide spread distribution of the contaminants.
Typical groundwater flow-rates through the clay sediments, under
small hydraulic gradients are one-tenth to five-tenths of a foot per
year. Thus, in 50 years, the leachate would move only 5 to 25 feet
from the fill. Since a hazardous waste landfill must be sited at
500 feet from any functioning public or private water supply, we
are now talking about 100 to 500 years to reach this point, not
taking into account the biodegradation and the mixing zone dilution.
Furthermore, we do not believe that it is the intent of
the EPA to cause the landfill to be built in an area of low perme-
ability and high groundwater table. The hydraulic head, which would
build up, would cause a much higher rate of permeation into the liner.
Therefore we must maintain that direct contact of the landfill with
groundwater be allowed in certain situations, where because of unique
soil characteristics, there is minimal chance that contamination of
a usable aquifer could occur, and where the contamination will not
cause a violation of water quality standards.
The most practical approach to this entire matter would be
that of the delegation of the authority to the State regulatory agency,
to determine each case situation, and take corrective action where
imminent hazards exist.
-------
- 10 -
A somewhat similar concern to the site selection criteria
just discussed is about the typically slow flow-rates through clay
sediments in the Gulf Coast coupled with low hydraulic gradients
necessitates the handling on a case-by-case basis. Groundwater and
leachate monitoring as required by the proposed rules will not be
as effective in the Gulf Coast as other areas.
Under the proposed rules, it is stated that after background
levels are established, and analyses show that the quality of ground-
water or the water in the zone of aeration, significantly differs
from background quality, that the facility must discontinue its
operation until the Regional Administrator determines what actions
are to be taken. It is totally unreasonable to expect that a
facility could shut down within seven (7) days of analysis, if an
apparent deterioration in water quality should appear. As an example,
if this were done in the case of an NPDES permitted, bio-oxidation
facility, it would necessitate shutdown of the entire complex. This
sort of haste is entirely unnecessary, particularly in cases where a
surface impoundment or landfill is located in an impervious clay
formation, and there is not even a remote chance that human health
or the environment are being endangered. Once again we maintain that,
by disallowing any contamination of the groundwater, the EPA has gone
beyond the conclusions reached in its own published background
documents, for the protection of human health and the environment.
We maintain that at the time a permit is issued, the con-
sequences of excessive groundwater contamination should be determined
and written into the permit. Only in circumstances where a ground-
water source, which must be protected, due to potential use for
drinking water, should the Regional Administrator have the authority
to close the facility. We furthermore, support the position that
-------
- 11 -
once the State assumes the responsibility for the program,'there is
no reason to continue reporting to the Regional Administrator.
Finally, the financial requirements stipulated in the proposed rules
are significant. This section provides for financial responsibility
of owners/operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and dis-
posal facilities. However, as drafted, there is no provision whereby
small businesses, engaged in waste disposal, which, although they
are technically considered hazardous waste disposal facility operators,
do not create the degree of danger addressed by the overall Subtitle C
program. It is even more interesting to note that according to the
Act - Section 3004 (6), "no private entity shall be precluded by
reason of criteria established under Paragraph (6), from the ownership
or operation of facilities providing hazardous waste treatment, storage
or disposal services, where such entity can provide assurance of
financial responsibility, and continuity of operation consistent with
the degree and duration of risk associated with the treatment, storage
or disposal of specified hazardous wastes."
It is our interpretation that Congress intended for the
EPA to provide for a mechanism, in a case-by-case evaluation of parti-
cular hazardous waste facility operators, and which allows for relief
from the financial responsibility requirements, if the hazardous waste
facility operator can establish, by other means (or in some lesser
amount) that he is financially capable.
We suggest, as an alternative to the Federal proposed
financial responsibility requirements, that the states which provide
an alternative to these requirements be exempted from these provisions.
The State of Texas is currently working on a program, where a fund
would be established from revenues generated by amounts of wastes
-------
- 12 -
disposed of in Texas. We submit that if this program is a viable
alternative, it should be allowed as a substitute, for the proposed
financial requirements, under Section 3004 of the rules.
General Concerns
The authority from RCRA to regulate NPDES-permitted facilities
is questioned. Inclusion of waste treatment ponds already permitted,
adds another layer of regulation to an area already fully controlled.
Waste treatment facilities were built within the last few
years, using the best engineering practice available at the time,
and should not now have to be retrofitted, leachate collection and
monitoring system installed, etc. Advances in engineering technology
are going to provide yearly innovations in pond design. However,
the cost and fact that industry would have to bypass their NPDES treat-
ment facility while retrofitting, make this proposal totally impractical
Existing sites should be "grandfathered," as long as there
is no imminent hazard which would violate a principle source aquifer
according to Section 1424 of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
A similar concern exists where RCRA attempts to control
emission points, which were regulated under the Clean Air Act. Like-
wise, controls directed toward incineration design and contruction,
along with the control of fugitive emissions, is inappropriate, under
the RCRA regulations. The Clean Air Act adequately takes care of
air emissions, and there is no need for further regulation by RCRA.
In order to be effective in the implementation of hazardous
waste controls, we feel that it is essential that there be a spirit
of cooperation between the EPA and the State agencies. Presently,
the State of Texas has an NPDES permitting system, as does the EPA.
The implementation of a dual permitting enforcement program in the
-------
- 13 -
area of solid waste, is not acceptable, and should, at virtually all
cost, be eliminated.
Finally, and most significantly, the broad definition of
hazardous waste, as explained in our comments under Section 3001,
and the specific requirements, irrespective of location, regarding
the operation of disposal sites, and the details, labelling, handling
procedures for transporters of the waste, make the present program
unworkable. We submit that the proposed rules be revised in a
manner which is practical and will allow the coordination among
Federal agencies and consistent regulation by Federal agencies of
these hazardous waste materials. The definition of hazardous waste
should be narrowed to include only those compounds which indeed
present a hazard to the environment and existing regulation should
be used to cover areas unrelated to solid waste, and only new
regulations developed in areas where they are essential. Only through
an effective and realistic program of managing hazardous wastes, can
this program be reconciled. There is no need to attempt to cover
all bases in the initial promulgation of these regulations. It
would be much more practical to amend the rules in areas where amend-
ment is needed.
Thank you.
Attachments for panel chairman only:
1. TDWR - Guidelines
2. ASTM Solid Waste Treatment
-------
STATEMENT
OF
JOHN C. WINKLEY
MANAGER OF AIR & WATER QUALITY CONTROL
CF&I STEEL CORPORATION
PUEBLO, COLORADO
Good evening. My name is John C. Winkley and I am Manager
of Air & Water Quality Control for CF&I Steel Corporation
located in Pueblo, Colorado. I am appearing here this
evening to present to you some of the concerns we have
regarding the proposed hazardous waste regulations as pub-
lished in the Federal Register on December 18, 1978. In
addition to these verbal comments, written comments in more
detail are being provided.
CF&I Steel Corporation is relatively small as measured by
steel industry standards, and we represent about 1-1/4% of
the productive capacity of the American steel industry.
CF&I's corporate offices and integrated steel plant are
located in Pueblo, Colorado. We also operate iron ore mines
in Wyoming and Utah, together with limestone and dolomite
quarries and coal mines in Colorado. We produce approxi-
mately 1-1/2 million tons of steel per year and in the
production of this amount of steel, handle significantly
larger quantities of raw materials. Needless to say, waste
disposal is a continuing part of steel plant operations.
The steel industry historically has used the -prineipa-1 of
recycling and reuse of materials. Examples of this are the
large amounts of scrap metals which are utilized in the
-------
steel making processes to produce steel. Another commonly
practiced recovery is the collection of the roll scale which
results from the mechanical working of the steel at the
various rolling mills and recycling this material through a
sinter plant to form an agglomerated iron bearing constituent
as a used blast furnace feed material for the production of
iron. In spite of the amount of recycling which is employed,
waste materials are generated, many of which have come about
through the installation of air and water pollution control
facilities which can range in quantity from approximately
12 tons per year to 60,000 tons per year of material. Some
of these materials are stockpiled in the anticipation that
as technology is developed, a recovery of the Iron units or
other uses may be possible in the steelmaking process.
The Pueblo Plant has been in operation for over 100 years
pMff\J&Mff0
and the waste materials from the steelmaking ©pesetrojas of
this plant have been historically placed in various land-
fills on CF&I property. To my knowledge, this has not
created a significant health or environmental problem as of
this date. In our review of earlier drafts of the proposed
regulations, we believed that the steelmaking wastes handled
did not fall within the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Acts definitions of a hazardous waste. The December pro-
posed regulations appear much broader. *
It is this past history which makes one ask what the agency
is actually trying to control, and what is the degree of *
-2-
-------
control necessary to achieve the objectives contained in the
Act's definition of hazardous wastes. It is recognized that
there have been several incidents in some locations within
the United States which have received widespread publicity
associated with certain chemical constituents for which
claims have been made that they do cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness.
But the matter is one of degree. Is the objective at this
point in time to acheive a total zero risk situation with
regard to all materials handled, no matter what the degree
of risk? I am not aware of any situation that can be de-
veloped that results in zero risk. I would reference you to
a paper published by Merril Eisenbud entitled, "Environmental
Causes of Cancer" which was published in Environment Volume
20, No. 8, of October 1978. In that article on page 15
under "What about the future?", the author cautions, "....Many
questions remain to be answered. Is there a safe dose? How
safe is safe? How does one translate laboratory findings
into sensible regulations? These questions will require
both scientific wisdom and a sense of social perspective."
It is hoped that both scientific wisdom and a sense of
social perspective are applied before these proposed regu-
lations become finalized.
*
Our preliminary screening using the toxic extraction pro-
cedure forces us to question whether this procedure re-
cognizes the geographic differences throughout the country>
-3-
-------
In the Pueblo area, for example, one would be hard pressed
to find soils which are acidic or rainfall which is acidic,
both of which are basic premises upon which this toxic
extraction procedure was established. It is also difficult
to understand how a test procedure can be established
nationwide to simulate a leaching action, representative of
particular geo€graphical area. For example, the differences
in amount of rainfall and the pH of that rainfall will
certainly have an effect on the concentrations which one
would actually measure in leachate from any waste disposal
site. Our annual average rainfall in Pueblo of about 10" is
significantly different from other areas. 'Also, our pre-
liminary screening has indicated that we have been unable to
duplicate analytical results between laboratories, or within
the same laboratory. If a toxic extraction procedure is to
be used as a basis for determining a hazardous waste, it is
necessary that a reproducible sampling and analytical pro-
tocol be developed.
At this time I am not certain as to what the total cost
impact of these regulations could be; however, some of the
areas investigated at our plant and based upon preliminary
estimates yield the following:
1. The cost for insurance coverage for a hazardous
waste disposal facility would probably run about
$50,000 per year.
2. The record keeping and reporting requirements
could approximate $150,000 per year. 4
-4-
-------
3. The costs of monitoring leachate and background
wells for a particular site would probably be in
the order of magnitude of $36,000 per year for the
hazardous analysis and approximately $240,000 per
year for the background analysis. Going a step
further, to create a new hazardous waste disposal
facility for a quantity as small as 200 tons per
year and based upon a 20 year life capital cost
approaching $400,000 have been estimated.
These costs certainly add up quite rapidly. Added to these,
of course, would be the requirements for a fund to assure
closure, the amount of which is unknown. Thus, the costs
associated with the creation of a waste disposal site of
this size could involve capitol, monitoring, and reporting
costs of $876,000. When operating and closures costs are
added, the overall cost will likely approach or exceed
$1,000,000. With this order of magnitude of costs associated
with a single waste disposal facility, it is believed that a
good cost impact statement should be made as well as a cost
benefit analysis, particularly if the goal is to approach
zero risk.
In the evaluation of what is a hazardous waste, the degree
of risk should be recognized and priorities should be estah-
lished so that flexibility is built into the regulations to
permit either the EPA or the State, if the states would
assume the program, to issue permits based upon the degree*
of risk associated with the particular waste material and
-§-
-------
site in mind. Being a company which could have high volume
solid wastes that may eventually be determined to fit into
this "hazardous waste" category, we would certainly en-
courage the application of special waste standards to many
more wastes than are presently listed. There does not
appear to be any mechanism within this regulation to provide
an owner or operator an avenue and method for having its
wastes defined as special wastes. It is believed that many
steel making wastes would more appropriately be treated as
special wastes to meet the intent of the Act.
The agency in its certification requirements has failed to
recognize that the corporate officials required to report
under the terms of these regulations are not generally the
individuals who perform either the sampling or the analytical
work. Therefore, it is believed that any required certi-
fication should be that "to the best of my knowledge, the
information provided is accurate and complete". The in-
dividual filing the report must utilize the analysis,
weights, and/or other information which is provided by
others in preparing reports.
I appreciate the opportunity to present these concerns and I
hope these verbal comments, together with our written
comments, will receive consideration in establishing regu- *
lations which may result in a workable system economically
achievable for the control of hazardous wastes to achieve
the objectives of the Resource Conservation and Recovery *
Act.
-6-
March 8, 1979
-------
CF&I STEEL CORPORATION
A subsidiary of Crane Co.
' '", ;! P.O. Box 316
T E E il Pueblo, Colorado 81002
March 8, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Subject: Comments regarding
EPA Proposed Hazardous
Waste Regulations
as published at
43 FR 58946, Dec. 18, 1978
Dear Mr. Lehman:
In the December 18, 1978 Federal Register, the EPA
requested comments regarding their proposed hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Many of the questions raised together with some con-
cerns which we believe should be addressed are contained in
this review of these regulations in their present draft
form. Major areas of concern deal with the procedures for
establishing what constitutes a hazardous waste, together
with the degree of risk involved, the negative effect of
the regulations on resource recovery, and an apparent under-
statement of the financial cost that these regulations will
be imposing upon industry.
CF&I operates an integrated steel plant in Pueblo,
Colorado. As measured by steel industry standards, our
operation is relatively small and we represent about 1-1/4
percent of the productive capacity of the American steel
industry. However, to produce the approximately 1.5 million
tons per year of steel products shipped from our plant, we
operate iron ore mines in Wyoming and Utah together with
limestone and dolomite quarries in Colorado and coal mines
in Colorado. Needless to say, in handling large quantities
of these materials, waste disposal is an important con-
sideration in steel production.
*
Section 3001 - Identification and Listing
General
The intent of the hazardous waste regulations was to
control those wastes which, if mismanaged, present a signi&icant
adverse effect on human health or the environment. However,
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
in their proposed form, the regulations will cover many
materials which were not previously believed to fit into the
category of hazardous wastes.
In the preamble to the regulations, the agency has
pointed out that by their approach they will be controlling
the major quantities of hazardous wastes by controlling the
minimum number of industrial sources. CF&I's waste materials
represent thousands of tons per year of what we believe to
be relatively low risk wastes that have historically been
disposed of on our plant property through land fill. This
was confirmed by a rather extensive surface and ground water
study which was made of the drainage coming through our
plant property toward the Arkansas River prior to the time
that these regulations were developed. The results indicate
no appreciable degradation water quality through our present
waste storage practices, which include the stockpiling and
landfilling of large quantities of various waste materials
in near proximity to the testing sites.
The agency requested comments regarding the need to
balance the necessity of protecting human health and the en-
vironment from adverse impact of potential mismanagement of
hazardous wastes versus the economic burden of management of
these wastes to attain reasonable and practical limits. It
is not believed that these regulations do what is desired.
Controlling the maximum quantities of waste materials does
not necessarily control those materials which could present
the most significant health hazards. The cutoff at 100
kilograms per month of any waste designated as hazardous has
been stated as controlling 99.5% to 99.9% of potential
hazardous industrial wastes while excluding 60% of the
generators in the manufacturing industry. This claim does
not appear to be substantiated in the development documents.
The exceptions should address degree of risk, with the most
significant risks addressed first, and the quantities
exempted from control based on degree of risk, not total
pounds. The proposed cost saving features of the regulation
do not appear to address the degree of risk.
Section 250.13 - Characteristics
Ignitable Waste
The language of Section 250.13(a)(ii) is so broad that
it could include anything which "burns vigorously and per- *
sistently" including paper and most ordinary wastes.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3
Toxic Extraction Procedure
One significant area of concern is in the identifi-
cation and listing of hazardous wastes and procedures
established for doing this. Under the toxic extraction
procedure, the Administrator has failed to recognize the
geographical differences which exist within the continental
United States. The toxic extraction procedure as outlined
in this document was established based upon acidic waste,
acidic soil and/or acidic rainfall. In the steel industry,
the major wastes are strongly basic (small quantities of
acidic waste could be separately disposed of) and in many
areas of the country the soils are basic. In the area of
Pueblo, one would be hard pressed to find what could be
considered as an acidic soil. For example, soil samples
taken and run through the toxic extraction procedure had an
initial pH of 8.9-9.5. Similarly, natural rainfall is near
neutral in this area. The amount of rainfall will also
affect leaching action and this should receive consideration,
since it rains from 5" to 10" per year in arid and semi-arid
regions to as much as 60" per year in other areas.
In Section 3001, identification and listing of hazardous
waste, a statement appears that tests are well developed,
inexpensive, and recognized by the scientific community. In
the area of toxicity, the toxic extraction procedure has
been contested since its inception by the academic and
industrial community as not being representative of actual
leaching conditions. It is our experience in contacting at
least four area commercial laboratories that only one had
done any work utilizing the toxic extraction procedure as
proposed.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on quality
assurance for NPDES sampling and other sampling required by
the EPA. Yet the toxic extraction procedure does not appear
to have a good quality assurance direction. For example, in
our screening process, nine samples of various waste materials
were collected, dried, and crushed to pass through a 3/8"
standard sieve. The material was thoroughly mixed, then
divided into three separate portions for analysis by in-
dividual commercial laboratories. Wide variations were
experienced in the analytical data from the various commercial
laboratories. These included pH readings, the volumes added
for pH adjustments, as well as the concentrations of requested
analytical results. The analytical results obtained varied.
by factors of up to ten on arsenic, barium, cadmium and
lead, and by as much as a factor of 100 on the analysis for
chromium. Together with this wide range of values, there
was not always a consistency between the laboratories as to
which arrived at higher numerical values and which obtained
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 4
the lower numerical values. This situation does noc lend
one to readily make decisions regarding large capital
investments to create hazardous waste disposal sites if the
basic procedure itself is not repeatable.
Several problems noted in using the procedure are as
follows:
1. No directions are given as to the rate of shaking
or mixing of the sample during the extraction pro-
cedure .
2. Manual pH adjustment is extremely slow and time
consuming. This increases the length of times
that leaching takes place. It also will undoubtedly
add additional charges for the analytical pro-
cedure as more laboratories become familiar with
the time requirement of the procedure. It may be
better to have an automatic pH titrator available
to reduce the cost of the procedure. However,
costs of these types of equipment are expensive in
a range of $3-4,000, and most commercial analytical
laboratories would find this equipment to be
prohibitive unless a large volume of sampling was
available.
3. In the procedure there is no mention of adjust-
ments to the extraction solution or variation of
the extraction procedure should the pH of the
mixture fall below the prescribed range of 5.0 +_
.2 units.
4. The reproducibility of results has not been estab-
lished.
5. The procedure is not representative of differing
soil conditions.
6. Filtration of the extract is extremely slow with
several of the waste materials that were tested.
This results in another extension of the leaching
time (as much as 12 hours in some cases), and adds
more cost to the procedure.
7. Breakage of plastic containers was experienced by
the one laboratory utilizing that equipment to re-
duce glass breakage costs.
8. Some reference is needed as to how the filtered ex-
tract is to be handled during storage prior to analysis,
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 5
It is stated that it is a generator's responsibility to
determine if his waste is hazardous, and in Section 3001,
enforcement actions are to be taken against anyone who
declares their waste to be non-hazardous when it is then
determined to be hazardous. This forces testing of all
waste materials for heavy metals and pesticides as listed at
(250.13 (d), with the laboratory facilities that appear
unable to provide duplicative results. The obvious need to
attempt to obtain reliable and consistent results using the
toxic extraction procedure would require more than one set
of analysis from one laboratory, which increases the cost
associated with utilizing this procedure. Should additional
characteristics be added, such as radioactivity, infectiousness,
phytotoxicity, teratogenicity, and mutagenicity, costs would
increase tremendously. These costs, large as they may be,
do not compare with those costs and other consequences of
making a wrong decision - either way - on a particular
waste. Furthermore, given the present state of the art on
sampling and analysis plus the complex guidelines and regu-
lations, correct decisions will be very difficult and at
best, very subject to being "second guessed" by control
agencies.
The background document states that attempts are made
to maintain testing costs so that non-hazardous wastes will
not be forced into the hazardous net as a result of expen-
sive test procedures. It would appear that requirements
which result in testing all wastes for all parameters are
not compatible with this direction. It may indeed be the
result of the toxic extraction procedure that some non-
hazardous or very minimal risk materials will be forced into
the hazardous net as a result of the test procedure as
established.
Section 250.14 - Lists
Organics
The analytical procedures for organic compounds listed
under Appendix IV and V are not believed to be completely
developed. In the area of priority pollutants, the testing
protocols used for various parameters during sampling of
the iron and steel industry effluents for the presence of
priority pollutants found large analytical discrepancies in
the results of samples split between the EPA contractor and
the industry. In addition, the number of laboratories -
having the very expensive and sophisticated GC/MS equipment
is limited. The expertise to utilize such equipment to
obtain reproducible and accurate results for this type of
analysis would appear to be even more limited.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 6
Concentration
Section 3001 concerning the hazardous waste listing as
well as wastes that would be tested for hazardous materials
does not deal with concentrations. Many of the substances
involved are listed in Appendix III, IV, and V of the
Section and are listed as selected cancelled and RPAR
pesticides, selected DOT classification poison A, poison B,
and ORM-A substances, and selected priority pollutants. If
during the required testing of all wastes, the presence is
shown of any of the above substances in a waste material,
that material would immediately fall into the hazardous
waste category irrespective of concentrations. This occurs
despite the fact that the waste may, or may not, pose a
danger to human health.
Judicial Review
Under the preamble section labelled "enforcement", it
appears clear that the Agency is attempting to regulate out
the possibility of judicial review of any of the development
documents or the basis a material is classified as a hazardous
waste in the context of any enforcement proceeding. It is
clearly stated that the Agency intent is to enforce these
regulations on the basis that if a material is on the list,
it is hazardous, and the operator is in violation if he does
not abide by all the regulations governing hazardous materials,
This is certainly limiting an owner or operator's right to
question the basic premise of why the material is on the
list. At numerous places in the development documents and
in the various preambles and statements provided in this
proposed regulatory package, it is clearly stated that many
decisions have been made on very limited information. For
example in the development document BD-20, "...for this
reason, the EPA has attempted to establish (with very little
actuarial data and minimal experience with a regulated
hazardous waste industry) a degree of coverage that provides
protection of human health and the environment and is not
prohibitive in terms of cost". Judicial review of the basis
of the listings under Section 250.14 should be provided for
separately from these massive overall framework regulations,
or it would clearly be in violation of the owner or operators
rights.
Section 3002 - Generators
u—'•--•---•- ~" r-•'- -1 -' A
Resource Recovery
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was estab-
lished to do just what it says, that is, find ways to re-
cover and reuse waste materials in order to conserve our
natural resources. Quoting from one of the source documents,
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 7
it is said, "Two objectives of the RCRA are to protect human
health and the environment and to conserve valuable material
and energy resources. Resource recovery is desirable for
several reasons: it produces raw materials, while virgin
materials are becoming scarce; it can save energy, and it
reduces volume of waste that must be disposed." We have not
found anything in this regulation to encourage that goal,
other than the imposition of testing, monitoring and re-
porting on the disposal of waste, which continues to add to
the industrial burden, without improving the situation.
Under the storage of hazardous wastes, there is a
provision that these materials may only be stored on site
prior to shipment for less than 90 days; otherwise, the site
would be considered a disposal site. There are circum-
stances for which this requirement would appear counter-
productive, such as:
1. Any generator of large tonnages of solid wastes
which have a recycle or reuse potential, could be
affected by the 90 day limitation. If the material
is being stockpiled in a confined area, the normal
practice of storage would probably be last in-
first out and a strict interpretation of the 90
day storage limitation would require that the site
be turned over once in every 90 days. This again
could contribute to increased costs when it is
believed the intent is 90 days of storage capacity.
In the specific case of some steel plant iron-
containing wastes, they are being stored with the
anticipation of future recovery. These wastes may
fit in the "hazardous waste" category thru testing,
using the toxic extraction procedure, but what the
relative degree of risk is or what quantity re-
presents a problem, remains unknown.
2. Under "Generators of Waste Oil" on page FR 58950,
it has been previously stated that utilizing waste
oils as a dust suppression agent is totally un-
acceptable. This does not appear to be a logical
decision, applicable to all conditions. For
example, there certainly exists specific waste
oils which when applied to coal piles under con-
trolled circumstances, would (1) provide an ex-
cellent dust suppression method for controlling
fugitive emissions from that coal pile, and (2)
would permit the recovery of the BTU's contained
in the waste oil when this coal is either utilized
in a combustion process.or in a cokemaking process
without presenting an attendent environmental pro-
blem. It is believed that this type of resource
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 8
recovery is what was anticipated in the develop-
ment of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act
in that what had previously been a waste material
would serve two useful functions, namely dust
suppression and secondly, a recovery of the BTU's.
Section 250.22 - Manifests
The manifest recordkeeping and reporting requirements
specified in this section and Section 250.43-5 are addressed
in saying that much of the information required will be
generated by standard business practices and operating
procedures. What is not recognized is the additional costs
associated with this endeavor. It has been estimated, based
upon our preliminary review of the requirements, that the
additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements alone
would add approximately $150,000 per year to our costs.
Section 3004 - Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
General
The primary concerns with the provisions of Subpart D
center on the value and volume of the wastes identified as
hazardous under Section 3001 and the availability of sites
for disposal of super-toxics.
In Section 3004, many questions are raised to which the
EPA has requested comments. The standards being established
for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities include requirements for
site location, design, operating methods, contingency
plans, continuity of operation, personnel training, finan-
cial responsibility, recordkeeping, reporting, monitoring,
inspection and compliance with the manifest system. These
standards are stated as being key provisions in the cradle-
to-grave system mandated by RCRA for handling and tracking
hazardous wastes. The main question is; Was it the intent
to be as all encompassing as the procedures set up to define
hazardous waste would appear to be, pulling many materials
into this overall "umbrella", for which this degree of
detail may not be necessary? Would not different degrees of
control based on potential environmental risk be more
appropriate, i.e., different classes of potentially harmful
wastes.
*
It is further stated under Interim Status Standards in
Section 3004 that prospective permittees who will have
applied for a permit may have to wait in line several years
before permits are issued; however, in this interim, they
should begin to meet all of the manifest recordkeeping,
monitoring.and other less technical requirements of the *
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 9
Subpart D standards. Since the basic question surrounding
these regulations is what truly constitutes a "hazardous"
waste, this question should be resolved prior to the im-
position of the additional costs which will be associated
with these standards. At this time there should be a
sufficient chemical inventory and history established in the
records of the EPA so that certain substances which are
clearly hazardous to health can be defined as substances
that should require such a high degree of control. Only
these substances should be required to achieve the standards
of performance being outlined in these proposed regulations.
Under the applicability of standards to existing faci-
lities, it is at least recognized that waste materials have
and do exist. There should be some mechanism whereby a
review of existing facilities together with the materials
handled and the "degree of hazard" is recognized so that
appropriate standards are implemented for that specific
facility to achieve the objective of the Act at minimal
cost.
The Agency further states that they are not interested
in shutting down the present storage facilities. However,
we strongly anticipate that it could be difficult under
these regulations to establish a legal "hazardous wastes"
disposal facility. Under the PCB regulations which have
been previously established by EPA, we are still not aware
of any certified facility where liquid PCB's may be disposed
of. This presents a very interesting dilemma in that (1) it
is illegal to dispose of PCB's unless they are taken to an
approved disposal facility; (2) that the regulations pro-
hibit storage of liquid PCB's for any extended period of
time, and (3) someone has obviously overlooked one law of
nature, that being conservation of mass. These PCB's will
not just disappear, there must be an approved disposal site
for handling this material. Rather than try to implement the
Act through paper regulations covering all conceivable situ-
ations and an overly broad number of wastes, primary focus
should now be on the locating and establishment of proper
facilities for truly "hazardous" wastes, such as PCB's.
Throughout this regulation are detailed manifest re-
quirements, reporting requirements, identification codes,
labelling practices, which are very detailed and explicit
in nature, together with various certification require-
ments which appear to be unduly restrictive. In many cases*
the individual preparing the reports can in all fairness only
certify that "to the best of his knowledge" the information
is true, accurate, and complete, as he has not individually
performed each step of the work, only the data gathering.
Given the latent civil and criminal penalties of the regu-
lation, this unduly restrictive certification requirement *
can only lead to litigation in the case of inadvertent or
unknown inaccuracies.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 10
Section 250.43-1 - Sites
In General Facilities Standards, site selection is one
of the first items addressed and it is stated that if an
existing facility cannot be modified to conform to the
applicable standard, it will have to close. This would
appear to be in conflict with the policy stated earlier in
these regulations that it was not the intent to eliminate
existing facilities, but only to bring them into a method of
control, as it may not be necessary for the existing faci-
lity to meet all standards in order to be a suitably con-
trolled site. It is further stated that the proposed rules
required a minimum of 200 feet neutral area between the
active portion of a facility and its property boundary line.
This arbitrary selection of a distance should be evaluated
on a case by case basis with the facility design and the
materials to be handled, soil type, water table, etc.,
receiving consideration.
Section 250.43-7 - Closure
The proposed Closure and Postclosure Standards state
that professional certification is required. Time limits
are established for arriving at completion of closure
running from the time that actual use the facility stopped.
At this point in time, it is difficult to determine the
overall scope the professional certification would need to
address. Certainly, the period of time to complete closure
could vary considerably depending upon what is required, and
at least in the case of a pre-regulation landfill, the
certifier would likely have minimum first hand knowledge of
previous operational procedures. Such a situation would ob-
viously result in more investigations and extended time
requirement.
Section 250.43-8 - Leachate Monitoring
It is believed that some of the design standards pro-
posed are perhaps too restrictive and do not adequately
recognize site specific natural geological and climatic
conditions. Regulations associated with landfill operations
should clearly recognize geological and climatic conditions
and should further recognize the degree of hazard associated
with the wastes to be disposed of in that facility, thereby
assuring proper handling of the waste material for the
protection of health while minimizing the costs associated *
with attaining this degree of protection.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 11
In the standards applicable to owners or operators of
hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities,
the section covering ground water and leachate monitoring is
not consistent as far as analytical requirements with the
analysis that determines the waste to be hazardous. For
example, the toxic extraction procedure calls for anlaysis
of eight heavy metals and six pesticides to determine if a
waste is toxic. The background level analysis for ground
^ater and leachate monitoring includes the above plus all of
the parameters in Appendix II, "Interim Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Standards", plus phenol, cyanide, beryllium,
and nickel, even though the waste being disposed of may
contain none of these substances or substances capable of
generating such compounds.
The difference in annual cost between monitoring only
for those substances which make the waste hazardous and
those substances required under the groundwater and leaching
analysis is estimated at approximately $36.,000 for the
hazardous analysis versus $240,000 for the background level
analysis. These costs are based on the requirements of four
groundwater wells plus one leachate sampling station for a
single hazardous waste site. Of this cost, the specified
organics monitoring would constitute $240,000/year. It
would appear that the hazardous waste program is possibly
being utilized to obtain data on groundwater quality through-
out the country at someone else's expense. Surely, this
expensive organic monitoring should not be required, at
least in perpetuity, for inorganic waste disposal.
Section 240.43-9 - Financial Responsibility
The present approach does not appear conducive to the
construction of new facilities to handle what may be defined
as hazardous wastes in the manner desired. If the economic
requirements for establishing a facility become so far out
of line, there will be no facilities to receive these
materials.
The financial responsibility requirements fits into
this same category. With a minimum risk waste, the pro-
bability of any future serious problem is minimal by utilizing
simply good landfill techniques. As part of any reasonable
overall plan for establishing disposal sites, financial
responsibility requirements should be flexible enough to
encompass the various facility specific situations in order
to encourage development of adequate disposal facilities.
Insurance coverage is required by these regulations to
take care of any catastrophic situation which would result.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 12
Our preliminary estimate of insurance costs applicable to
the CF&I Pueblo Plant could be in the neighborhood of
$50,000 annually for each hazardous waste disposal site.
The regulations have a financial requirement of an up-
front cash deposit to cover the closure of a facility. Such
a requirement fails to recognize an obvious problem. A new
hazardous waste facility installed by an individual or
company requires funds to establish 'the facility, and the
cash up front deposit would probably involve borrowing
additional money and paying the interest on it while it sat
in that trust fund. A condition such as this will dis-
courage new facility construction. If financial committment
for closure is required in all situations, a more palatable
system to arrive at a closure fund would be funds deposited
concurrent with the deposit of materials in the hazardous
waste facility to assure that sufficient funds were avail-
able to close the facility after the materials have been
deposited.
Section 250.44 - Storage
Generators of small quantities of organic materials
that would be storing these wastes in a suitable tank should
certainly be allowed to store until such time as a complete
transport load is accumulated for shipment. All the 90 day
requirement would do in this situation is increase the
generators cost. Our investigation with a local transporter
indicated that their costs are determined by weight and
mileage. The minimum weight for their transports is 40,000
Ibs. Therefore, the transportation of any small volume
wastes would cost the same as transporting 40,000 Ibs.
Section 250.45-1 - Incineration
It would appear that in addressing "Incineration", the
agency recognizes that as more and more recovery of organic
compounds is implemented, the disposal or treatment of some
portion of the recovered materials as "end waste" will
probably be necessary. The agency further appears to re-
cognize-that incineration may be one method for disposing of
these final by-products. In the interest of keeping all
organics possible out of landfills, incineration regulations
should be developed which minimize the cost of operating
this type of facility to encourage destruction by this
means. *
Section 250.46 - Special Wastes
Special Waste Standards is an area that may be more
representative of much of the wastes generated in the steel
industry. Some of these wastes are the result of raw *
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 13
material beneficiation. Others are generated through our
air pollution control efforts, where large quantities of
dust are collected in the various steelmaking processes.
These wastes constitute a large volume and the hazard, if
any, imposed by the waste, is relatively low. These wastes
are similar to raw materials used, such as ores and scrap
metals. They are not of the nature that one would wish to
store in containers if he were planning on storing for
recycling of the iron units. It is asked that the agency
evaluate these particular steel industry wastes with regard
to whether (1) they are truly hazardous, or (2) whether they
should be considered as a special waste, and (3) evaluate
the degree of risk associated with their storage and/or dis-
posal.
Under Standards for Storage, Treatment and Disposal, it
is recognized that there are certain potentially recyclable
materials which could fit into the waste product category.
However, if these materials are being used, or anticipated
to be used, for a recycling process to recover the resources
contained therein, they should either be clearly exempted
from these standards, or only minimum requirements estab-
lished based upon the degree of risk present.
Through the installation of various air and water
quality control facilities, there has evolved the collection
of various waste materials such as dusts and sludges, which
can range in quantity in a typical steel plant such as CF&I
Pueblo Plant from approximately 12 tons per year to 60,000
tons per year of material. The exact cost to create a
hazardous waste disposal facility for each of these materials
has not been completely addressed, but for example, a type
of sludge which would end up being classified as a hazardous
waste material would require a facility costing approxi-
matley $400,000 to handle approximately 200 tons per year of
material. If facilities are required for all of the various
sludges and dusts collected, the costs would be many orders
of magnitude higher.
The agency is stating that they will provide operating
and design manuals and industry specific manuals and they
expect to have these manuals issued prior to the final
promulgation of these regulations. These manuals and the
degree of detailed information on waste management tech-
nologies that are being considered would certainly be most .
helpful in defining what it is that must be addressed with
regard to disposal facilities.
The steel industry in general has their own wastewater
treatment.plants which are covered by NPDES permits. We
believe that the application of these hazardous waste regulations
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 14
should not require any significant change in the present
NPDES permit rules in that industry-wide standards are in
process of being developed for steelmaking facilities which
basically cover the discharge of any materials which pre-
sently exist in the wastewaters.
In conclusion, we request that the Administrator more
clearly address the following issues:
(1) What is the agency actually trying to control and
what is the degree of control necessary to achieve
the objectives as defined in the Act.
(2) The development and implementation of a truly
representative sampling and analytical protocol
which recognizes the geographic differences
throughout the country.
(3) The issue of the degree of risk should be re-
cognized and priorities established.
(4) An accurate and timely cost impact statement with
a true cost benefit analysis performed.
(5) The agency should recognize that the individuals
reporting under the terms of these regulations are
not necessarily the individuals who have performed
either the sampling or the analytical work and
that any certification required under this act
should contain the statement that "to the best of
my knowledge" the information is accurate and
complete.
(6) Special waste standards should be made applicable
to more wastes than presently listed, and a
mechanism should be incorporated within the
regulation to provide an owner or operator an
avenue and method for having their wastes so
designated.
The opportunity to comment upon these regulations is
appreciated and it is hoped that our comments are taken in a
constructive vein and may contribute to the establishment of
a workable system for the control of hazardous wastes to
achieve the objectives under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. 4
Very truly yours,
John C. Winkley
Manager
Air & Water Quality Control
JCW/cah
-------
Independent petroleum association of mountain states
1214 DENVER CLUB BLDG
DENVER. COLORADO 80202
(303) 623-0987
:FICERS:
^onley P. Smith
president
%
=1 W Willingham
vice president
•
: Gregory Merrion
secre tary
•
csther Oriel
treasurer
•
^rank R. Lee
executive director
•
.' D Cranor
remediate past president
ATE
CE PRESIDENTS.
\ A. Hose
Arizona
"iobert C. Roehrs
Colorado
Javid Schaenen
Montana
Iced Gilmore
Nebraska
C "Tug"Wilson II
New Mexico
-------
Testimony of Frank R. Lee, Executive Director
Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States
(IPAMS)
Before the United States Environmental Protection
Agency Hearings on "Hazardous Waste Proposed Guidelines
and Regulations and Proposal on Identification and
Listing" (43 Fed. Reg. 58946 et seq., December 18,1978)
Airport Holiday Inn, March 8, 1979
My name is Frank R. Lee and I am the Executive Director of the
Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) head-
quartered here in Denver, Colorado. Our association is made up of
over one thousand members, most of whom are engaged in the explora-
tion for and production of Crude oil and natural gas. We are a
regional association whose geographic spread includes eleven states
from Canada to Mexico.
Although IPAMS is an autonomous association it does have common
interests with other such regional associations around the country,
many of whom we expect will have represented themselves at one or
more of these hazardous waste hearings in other cities. My comments
this evening will be brief inasmuch as more extensive testimony will
be given on our behalf by Mr. Francis Wilson, Chairman of the Environ-
ment and Safety Committee of the Independent Petroleum Association of
America, at the San Francis-co hearings next week.
On behalf of IPAMS I wish to take this opportunity to thank the
EPA for allowing us comment on the proposed regulations. It is our
considered opinion that the impact these regulations as presently
proposed on our industry, and particularly upon independent oil and
gas operators, would be devastating. Therefore, we fervently hope
the EPA Will seriously reconsider its course of action in this matter.
-------
- 2 -
While we fully realize that we are dealing with proposals as
opposed to final regulations, the onerous aspects of these proposals
is so great as to cause considerable alarm among our members. We
are particularly concerned over the possible ultimate inclusion of
drilling muds, brines and crude oil wastes in the definition of
hazardous wastes. This is difficult for us to understand in view of
the lack of evidence available to the EPA or anyone else confirming
that these substances are in fact hazardous. History alone would
tend to contradict such a conclusion.
The biodegradeable characteristics of crude oil wastes coupled
with the long record of experience within the industry of dealing with
muds and brines without significant negative environmental impacts
suggests as a minimum that more study is needed before these substances .
can be labled "hazardous" and subject to such regulation. To the
extent that excessive amounts of these substances might cause problems,
they are adequately controlled by existing state and federal regulations.
Therefore, in order that the public interest may be truly served
we strongly recommend that drilling muds, brines and crude oil wastes
be exempted from these regulations until the EPA is able to justify
their inclusion with empirical evidence. We understand the EPA is
considering an extensive study on this matter. It is our hope that
the decision-making bodies within the Agency will await conclusion
of that study before burdening the industry with regulations we
believe are unjustified and will eventually have to be lifted.
If drilling muds, brines and crude oil wastes are ultimately
included in the present regulations many operators, most of whom
-------
will be small independents, will simply be forced out of business.
The costs, delays and paperwork burdens of compliance will be so
great, those who remain in business will reduce their exploration
activities. Inasmuch as approximately 90 per cent of the wildcat
wells in the domestic United States are drilled by the independent
operator who will be hardest pressed to comply, the impact on new
oil and gas reserves discovered could be very significant.
At a time when America itself may be teetering on the brink of
disaster due to excessive and growing reliance on foreign oil imports
it is imprudent, to say the least, to be considering regulations
which will further hamper our domestic industry. (Parenthetically,
let me interject here that mistakes of this nature are very nearly
irreversible. The lead time, technical, expertise and capital require-
ments inherent in the exploration for crude oil and natural gas are
such that one cannot simply change the rules a few years hence and
expect a return to normal. It is in some ways analagous to the
space industry, wherein it must not be allowed to stand idle for
lack of projects if one expects it to retain its capabilities over
time. Those involved will take their technical expertise and capital
elsewhere and may not be available when needed later.)
We recognize that at the present time all facilities which
handle special wastes are exempt from the storage standards as well
as the treatment and disposal standards. However, such facilities
are not exempt from the general facility standards which are also
quite burdensome.
We also are aware of distinctions being drawn between "generators"
and "owner/operators". We feel, however, that many independents may
fit into either or both definitions, making such distinctions
-------
academic. For example, as we read the proposed regulations, the
"owner/operator" is subject to considerable regulation in the follow-
ing areas: detailed chemical and physical analysis of each so-called
hazardous waste; where he may locate his drill site; site security
requiring fences, gates and multilanguage signs; endless reporting
requirements; daily visual site inspection; site closure and post-
closure responsibilities with which no small operator can comply;
and others.
It is also our understanding that noncompliance with these
regulations can result in civil and criminal penalties of as much
as $25,000 a day for each day in violation and up to one year in
prison. Surely penalties of this magnitude do not fit the nature
or seriousness of the so-called "crime". The net effect of such
regulatory overkill will be to drive operators out of the business
rather than expose themselves, their families and their estates to
such unreasonable possibilities. This is particularly true where
there is no evidence that muds, brines and crude-oil wastes are
indeed hazardous.
In closing let me reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity
to testify on this important subject. Our members are as anxious
to protect the environment as much as the employees of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. After all, we live in this part of the
country and have no desire to see it desecrated. We want to work
cooperatively with the EPA in accomplishing this objective and hope
you will call upon us as the need arises.
-------
Finally/ let me request that most careful attention be given
to the upcoming San Francisco Hearing testimony of Mr. Francis Wilson,
who will be representing the IPAA, ourselves and a number of other
independent associations. His testimoney will be much more detailed
than ours today and we want you to know in advance that we whole-
heartedly endorse what he will be saying to you about these proposed
regulations.
Thank you.
-------
Testimony of Conley P. Smith, Immediate Past
President, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
States (IPAMS)
Before the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Hearings on "Hazardous Waste Proposed Guidelines and
Regulations and Proposal on Identification and Listing"
(43 Fed. Reg. 58946 et seq., December 18, 1978)
Airport Holiday Inn, March 8, 1979
-------
March 8, 1979
Gentlemen, my name is Conley P. Smith, Smi'th-
Fancher Petroleum. I am an independent oil and gas
producer engaged in the exploration for and the
production of crude oil and natural gas. I am a member
of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
States, and I am the Immediate Past President of that
fine outstanding organization.
For years there has been an increasing volume
of hazardous waste materials which could, and in
many cases have, polluted the air, water, and the earth.
It is.my understanding that in the wisdom of Congress,
the Environmental Protection Agency was designed to
monitor and, insofar as possible, to prevent degradation
of the environment.
Now, some ten years after the EPA was formed, we
finally see some proposed guidelines on disposal of
hazardous waste. But, when we see that hazardous wastes
include drilling mud, salt water brine, and crude oil
wastes, those regulations become incredible. Even though
your agency acknowledges that the potential risk to the
environment of these substances is minimal, even though
you propose a study to show whether a hazard exists,
even though you propose to defer applicability of some of
-1-
-------
of the treatment, storage and disposal standards for
these substances into a category called "special wastes",
the proposed regulations indicate that owners and operators
of facilities for storing and disposing of mud and brines
are confronted with mirad, complex, and onerous regulations.
Further, it is our understanding that non-compliance of
these regulations can result in civil and criminal penalties
of as much of $25,000 per day for each and every day of
violation, and up to a year in jail. Yet, you have no
study to even demonstrate that these wastes are demonstra-
tively hazardous.
Why are we so upset about these regulations? Because,
we independent oil operators are included under your
definition of "generator"... Any person whose act or
process produces hazardous waste and apparently, any person
who accumulates hazardous wastes, because, the process
of accumulation results in a hazardous waste' disposal
problem.
Ladies and gentlemen, drilling muds have been used
in the oil business since 1901. Salt brines have been
produced for a longer period than that. I have heard
in the old days of the great damage caused in some
portions of the country by a massive salt water flows
down the creeks and drainage systems, and have seen some
of the evidence of damage which remains to this day.
-2-
-------
However, salt water flows of this nature have not been
allowed for years and years Years and years
before the EPA was formed, or even dreamed up.
Why were these damages stopped since there were
no Environmental Protection Agency laws to tell us to
stop them? Because, we all realize the environment is
too valuable to be allowed to be damaged in this fashion.
Because, we in the industry are the true environmentalists
and we are determined to protect it. Because, the
existing damage laws in this country are so great that
one cannot afford to damage it.
We in the industry know that if some of the fluids
get loose and enter a water system, the clean up costs
and the expense of restoring a clean water system are so
prohibitive that it can scarcely be tolerated. We know
t ' v.
that if a cow should get into a reserve pit or even if a
cow dies of unknown causes in the area of a reserve pit,
she either becomes a prize winning cow, which either
just won the prize ribbon at the county fair, or would
have just won at the next county fair, if she hadn't died.
The point of all this is the legal protections
against damages of this sort are already in
place in terms of property protection throughout the
country. Yet, for the so called hazardous wastes of
drilling muds, salt water brines, and crude oil wastes,
-3-
-------
we read that you call for:
(1) Detailed chemical and physical analysis
of each so called hazardous waste.
(2) A permit from you as to where drillsites
may be located, permits which may be denied in
so called "wetlands",, i.e., The Gulf Coast of
the United States, in 500 year flood plain areas,
in the active fault zone, etc. ( a criteria,
which taken collectively, would effectively
prohibit exploration and development of some of
the most attractive oil and gas potentials in
the United States.
(3) Site security requiring fences, gates, and
multi-language signs. (Obviously, a precaution
aimed at perm0fn&nt large well staffed plants,
but which borders on the ridiculous when applied
'
to -temporary drilling pits.)
(4) Likewise, your requirements for daily visual
site inspections, endless reporting requirements
and site closure and post closure responsibilites
cannot be complied with by small independent operators ,
such as myself and virtually the rest of the members
of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
States.
We independent operators account for 90?0 of the
oil and gas exploration in the Rocky Mountain area. The
Environmental Protection Agency has not provided an economic
impact analysis of the effect of these regulations on the
-------
independent operations. Let me tell you that the
economic impact is monumental. Let me further tell you
that when you do get around to calculating the economic
impact of these particular reguations, the actual im-
pact will be greater than your calculations show because:
a) We cannot comply with the requirements for
temporary facilities,
b) We independent operators are tired of being
treated as a criminal element in this country.
We would rather sit on our hands than expose
ourselves and our families to the ridiculous
criminal penalties you impose on these regulations
These regulations are a classic example of regulatory
overkill.
It is similar to Don Quixote jousting with the
windmills. Except in this case, for all his rusty armor,
Don Quixote has a sharp sword, and the windmills are flesh
and blood.
Let me give you an example involving an operator in
Wyoming concerning disposal of salt water. This operator
produces a small amount of salt water (approximately 15,000
ppm, mostly chlorides) with crude oil production in an arid
ranching section of Wyoming with totally inadequate water
supplies. The rancher has requested this water to be mixed
-5-
-------
with other fresher water to water his cattle. The
Agriculture Department of the University of Wyoming
has provided a written report to the effect that it would
be beneficial to use this water to prevent water belly.
The surface of the ground is hundreds of feet above any
aquifers, which could be considered remotely potable, yet:
(1) The Federal Government required the operator
to fence the water pit and deny the rancher and
his cattle access to it,
(2) An impervious pit together with sensing
facilities to demonstrate that no leakage would
occur was required by the Federal Government.
(3) Some bright young scientist in the Environmental
Protection Agency calculated that tons of salts would ^
pollute the underground aquifer each month if the pit
were not made impervious.
(4) Yet, when the operator constructed the impervious
facility to meet the requirement of tha.-.Federal Government,
it was found that the original pit, which had been used
for years, was bone dry below a depth of three feet.
Further, that the impervious facility in use for more
than a year now has had no fill up of salts whatsoever.
Further, that facility was constructed at a cost of
$18,000 to the owners of that facility under a require-
ment of the USGS in anticipation of regulations of the
EPA which have never been implemented.
Such is a small portion of the irreversible costs of
proposed punitive regulations.
-6-
-------
This nation has an urgent need for the
'construction and proper disposal of hazardous waste
materials in this country. A friend of mine in the
city of Louisville, Kentucky, told me last week that
the city has been emptying its raw sewage in the Ohio
River for over a year because some party disposed of
his toxic wastes into that sewage system and destroyed
that sewage plant.
There is an urgent demand for competent super-
vision for the disposal of hazardous wastes. Yet, rather
than supervise the installation of such systems in a
protective manner, it appears to me that the EPA has
taken the punitive route of punishing those who are
already active in the development of the land and the
use of its resources. It appears to me the EPA is
J- ' ' U."
engaged in windmill jousting. If so, it is a shame.
-7-
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS AND
PROPOSAL ON IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
FEDERAL REGISTER, DECEMBER 18, 1978
GENERAL COMMENTS
40 CFR, Part 250 - Subpart D
By
Texas Department of Health
to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
Public Hearing
Denver, Colorado
March 9, 1979
-------
•
Introduction:
I am Wiley W. Osborne, Chief, Plans and Programs Branch, Division of
Solid Waste Management, Texas Department of Health.
-E-iT-gf^ I wish to have the record ref Lecti.. rhflt ~fn i s is a continuation of
my statements given March 7, 8, 1979.
My ^rimfflo^c prv Snhpnrt p i <~ -jn t-tFr. p^T-^-n^
Firs r-j, I wish to go into the standards that we recomment for the disposal
of special waste as we have defined it earlier. For the benefit of those
that may not have been here at the earlier meetings, the Texas Department
of Health is recommending that EPA define hazardous waste in a two tier system.
The more noxious waste be termed Primary Hazardous Waste and that hazardous
waste which represents lesser danger to the health and the environment would
be termed Special Waste. The term Special Waste as I use it has no direct
relationship to the high volume, low level hazardous waste as used in the
proposed regulations. In a sense, there is a relationship between the concepts,
for we propose that standards for the treatment, storage or disposal of special
waste, as we define it, be added to Suhpart D as Section 250.47. Briefly, it
establishes requirements for a Section 4004 solid waste disposal facility
to receive Special Wastes.
-------
(1) Special Waste may be accepted at a municipal solid waste disposal facility ^
if it is a permitted Section 4004 facility and is approved in writing by the
authorized State agency.
(2) Generator must provide certification of the physical, chemical and
biological characteristics of the waste.
(3) The owner/operator provides an operational plan.
(4) 250.43(f/7 (General Facility Standards - waste analysis)
250.43-1 (General site selection) with item d amended to require
that a facility shall not be located in a 100-year flood plain);
250.43-2 (Security); 0JL&. ?AftA- Uh3-d«fi C~-?&Lf ~^^tJU^ f
u
250.43-3 (Contingency plan and emergency procedures);
250.43-4 (Training)
250.43-5 (a), (b) (1) , (b)(2)(i), (iii), (v) , (vi), b(5), (b)(6), and (c)
Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting)
_^fl2Vv>Uy
250.43-6 (Visual inspections);
250.43-7 (k), (1), and (m) (Closure and Post-closure);
250.43-8 (a), and applicable requirements of (c) and (d) which
relate to groundwater monitoring, (grnundwat cr and leachate
monitoring for groundwater monitoring only); and
-------
250.43-9 (Financial Requirements).
jy
These are minimal standards for owners and operators of special waste
treatment and disposal facilities. Any other requirement of this Subpart
may be required by the Regional Administrator or the administering State
agency, in accordance with the quantity or concentration of the waste, as
necessary to protect human health or the environment.
The proposed guidelines and regulations require greater flexibility
to adequately deal with the waste-specific and site-specific problems.
Specific comments relating to Subpart D are included in our more detailed
statement being submitted later.
*-
/
-------
INTRODUCTION
MR, CHAIRMAN/ MEMBERS OF THE PANEL/ HEARING ATTENDEES/
I AM GLENN M EURICK/ AN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER WITH MINNESOTA
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HERE TODAY TO SHARE THE VIEWS OF MY COMPANY WITH YOU ON THESE
PROPOSED RULES UNDER SECTIONS 3001/ 3002 AND 3004 OF THE SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL ACT AS AMENDED BY THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION &
RECOVERY ACT OF 1976, (P,L, 94-580),
BACKGROUND OF MINNESOTA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO PRESENT SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON
MY COMPANY AND ITS ASSOCIATED OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS,
MINNESOTA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY is A MID-SIZED INVESTOR-OWNED
UTILITY WHICH GENERATES AND DISTRIBUTES ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO
105,000 CUSTOMERS, OUR SERVICE AREA COVERS APPROXIMATELY
26/000 SQUARE MILES IN NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA AND NORTHWESTERN
WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA POWER & LIGHT CURRENTLY GENERATES SOLELY
OR IN PARTNERSHIP 1200 MEGAWATTS OF COAL-FIRED CAPACITY, WE
FIRE MONTANA SUB-BITUMINOUS COAL WITH PRESENT CONSUMPTION AT
c
ROUGHLY 2 X 10° TONS/YEAR,
- 1 -
-------
MINNESOTA POWER & LIGHT HAS NUMEROUS COMMENTS WITH RESPECT
TO THE DECEMBER IB, 1978 PROPOSED RULES, WRITTEN COMMENTS
WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN
THE NEAR FUTURE ADDRESSING IN GREATER DETAIL THESE CONCERNS,
MY COMMENTS HERE TODAY ADDRESS ONLY SECTION 3004, SPECIFICALLY
THE DESIGNATION OF UTILITY WASTES AS HAZARDOUS UNDER "SPECIAL
WASTE STANDARDS,"
COMMENTS
IT WAS DESCRIBED ON PAGE 58991 OF THE DECEMBER 18, 1978 FEDERAL
REGISTER THAT THE "SPECIAL WASTE STANDARDS" WERE CONCEIVED BY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UPON THE REALIZATION THAT
"CERTAIN VERY LARGE VOLUME WASTES WILL BE HAZARDOUS" UNDER
SUBPART A 250,13 CRITERIA, THIS VERY DEFINITIVE STATEMENT DOES
NOT APPEAR TO BE SUPPORTED BY FURTHER EPA WORDING IN THE ENSUING
DESCRIPTION OF "SPECIAL WASTE STANDARDS," EPA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED
IT HAS "VERY LITTLE INFORMATION" ON UTILITY WASTE HAZARDS OR
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN SuBPART D STANDARDS
FOR THESE WASTES, EPA ALSO STATES THEY FEEL THE HAZARD TO BE
"RELATIVELY LOW" AND DO NOT YET KNOW "HOW MUCH OF THE TOTAL
QUANTITY OF UTILITY FLY ASH, BOTTOM ASH AND SCRUBBER SLUDGE IS,
IN FACT, HAZARDOUS,"
- 2 -
-------
THIS APPARENT ADMISSION BY EPA TO THE LACK OF SUPPORT DATA'
IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN SUBPART
D 250,A3 GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS FOR UTILITY WASTES,
MINNESOTA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY FEELS EPA, THROUGH THIS
"SPECIAL WASTE CLASSIFICATION" is PREMATURELY JUDGING UTILITY
WASTES AS HAZARDOUS UNDER ANY DEFINITION WITHOUT THE BENEFIT
OF SOUND ENGINEERING AND ANALYTICAL SUPPORT DATA,
CERTAIN GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS OF SUBPART D 250,43 TO BE
IMPOSED ON UTILITY WASTE STREAMS, NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN TO
BE HAZARDOUS/ REFLECT THE UNREASONABLE APPROACH TO REGULATION
OF THESE HIGH-VOLUME WASTES, FOR ILLUSTRATION/ THESE PROPOSED
STANDARDS INCLUDE:
259,43(F) - A DETAILED CHEMICAL ANALYSIS WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED, SlNCE THERE
ARE POTENTIALLY 20 UTILITY WASTE-PRODUCING
ACTIVITIES IMPACTED BY THESE RULES/ AND NUMEROUS
CYCLES WITHIN EACH ACTIVITY/ THE RESULTING
ANALYSES REQUIRED IS STAGGERING; ALL AT A COST
YET TO BE DETERMINED BUT FELT TO BE SIGNIFICANT,
250,43(H) - ALTHOUGH SOMEWHAT REDUCED FOR ON-SITE DISPOSAL/
THE REQUIREMENT FOR SAMPLING EACH WASTE WHEN
PRODUCED IS NON-APPLICABLE TO UTILITY WASTES
SUCH AS ASH AND SCRUBBER SLUDGE, THESE SYSTEMS
OPERATE ALMOST CONTINUOUSLY/ AND THE MECHANICS
- 3 -
-------
OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM AS PRESENTED ARE
INFEASIBLE, WE SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ANALYZE
THE SLURRY EVERY TIME WE PULL BOTTOM ASH OR DUMP
A LOAD OF FLY ASH INTO OUR DISPOSAL SITE, As
MENTIONED FOR 25Q,43(F) THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES
OBTAINED FOR ANALYSIS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED COSTS
WOULD BE GREAT, THE BENEFITS WHICH RESULT
QUESTIONABLE,
250,43-2 _ THE SECURITY PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHOULD
NOT BE BINDING UPON UTILITY WASTES UNTIL IT IS
PROVEN THAT ASH DISPOSAL SITES, ON A CASE-BY-CASE
BASIS, DO INDEED CONTAIN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL AS
DEFINED UNDER 250,13 CRITERIA, FORCING UTILITIES
TO INSTALL A 6-FOOT FENCE AROUND ASH DISPOSAL SITES
AT THIS TIME IS UNWARRANTED,
250,42-5(A), THE MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING
(B) (1), PROVISIONS SHOULD ALSO BE WAIVED AT THIS TIME,
(B) (2) (l), IF UTILITY WASTES ARE EVENTUALLY PROVEN TO BE
(B) (6-7) HAZARDOUS UNDER 250,13 CRITERIA, AN INDIVIDUAL
AND (c) SUBPART D 250,43-5 SHOULD BE WRITTEN, THE PROPOSED
SECTION SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO CONTINUOUS UTILITY
WASTE PRODUCTION STREAMS, WITHOUT CITING SPECIFICS,
IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION
REPRESENTS AN OVERKILL OF DATA NECESSARY TO
DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION,
- 4 -
-------
WRITTEN COMMENTS OF MORE SUBSTANCE AND DETAIL WILL BE SUBMITTED
ON THESE AND THE REMAINING GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS NOW BEING
PROPOSED FOR UTILITY HIGH VOLUME WASTES UNDER SuBPART D 250,46-2,
SUMMARY
THE INTENT OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
IS DESIRABLE FOR THE NATION, THE PROPER IDENTIFICATION/
HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IS NECESSARY,
HOWEVER/ CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED TO ENSURE SUCH DESIGNATIONS
ARE WARRANTED AND BASED UPON SOUND DATA, MINNESOTA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY WELCOMES THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST EPA IN THE
RESEARCH NECESSARY TO MORE ACCURATELY CATEGORIZE UTILITY WASTE,
FAILURE TO PROPERLY DESIGNATE UTILITY WASTES MAY RESULT IN
EVENTUAL ECONOMIC STRAINS UPON OUR INDUSTRY AND ITS CUSTOMERS,
IN ADDITION/ OTHER DESIRABLE GOALS OF THIS NATION/ SUCH AS
REDUCING OIL DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN SUPPLIERS AND INCREASED
DOMESTIC COAL PRODUCTION ON A REGIONALLY BALANCED SCALE/ MAY
BE JEOPARDIZED IF A HAZARDOUS DESIGNATION OF UTILITY WASTES/
ESPECIALLY ASH AND SCRUBBER SLUDGES/ IS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION,
- 5 -
-------
RECOMMENDATION
THEREFORE/ IT is THE POSITION OF MINNESOTA POWER 3 LIGHT COMPANY
THAT ALL GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR UTILITY
WASTES PER SUBPART D 250,46-2 AND THE LABELING OF SUCH WASTES AS
"SPECIAL WASTE" BE REMOVED AT THIS TIME PENDING FURTHER RESEARCH
FOR JUSTIFIABLE CLASSIFICATION,
THANK YOU,
- 6 -
-------
STATEMENT BY R. H. BISSINGER, UNION OIL COMPANY,
TO THE U.S. EPA
REGARDING PROPOSED RCRA REGULATIONS
MARCH 8-9, 1979
My name is Ron Bissinger. I am an Environmental
Engineer with the Union Oil Company of California.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to comment on the regulations proposed in the
April 28 and December 18, 1978 Federal Registers pursuant
to provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Union will submit detailed comments at the scheduled
hearings in San Francisco.
Today, however, I would like to highlight concerns with
the proposed regulations that may affect plans for the
development of oil shale resources. Union plans to construct
a 10,000 T/D experimental shale oil plant on its Parachute
Creek property in western Colorado providing all environmental
permits and suitable federal incentives can be obtained.
Union recognizes the need for environmentally sound
solid waste disposal practices but wishes to point out that
states such as Colorado and some local regulatory agencies
who share these same concerns have adopted strict requirements
-------
- 2 -
governing the disposal of wastes including retorted shale.
For example, Union must obtain permits from both Garfield
County and the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board in
order to construct a retorted shale disposal pile for its
planned shale oil plant. Under these current regulations,
the design of the waste piles must meet criteria aimed at
protecting surface and groundwaters, minimizing degradation
of air quality, and protecting and restoring wildlife
habitat.
We believe that disposal of retorted shale wastes are
already adequately regulated by Colorado. The state regula-
tions recognize that each mining operation is unique, and that
for any given operation, a unique set of practices is necessary
to ensure protection of water, wildlife, and other resources.
Flexibility has been built into the state requirements to
account for differences in size, potential toxicity of waste,
and environmental needs.
Since oil shale industry is in its infancy, no commercial
size oil shale facilities exist on which specific waste disposal
practices can be evaluated. It is, therefore, desirable for
new types of activities, such as oil shale, not to have rigid
waste disposal practices imposed which may be based on
experience with other types of mining operations. Disposal
-------
- 3 -
practices which are widely used elsewhere may be unfeasible
for shale oil.
EPA has already recognized that mining wastes, when
shown to be toxic, should be regulated differently than
other such wastes. We support the concept of a special
waste category such as Section 250.46-5 of the regulations
which would contain general disposal criteria, and not
specific practices, for hazardous mining wastes. Flexibility
in the specifics of mining waste disposal would then be left
to the states to implement the criteria in a manner which
reflects the differing needs of the states and the wide
variety of operations which exist. Such an approach would
maximize the use of existing state permitting systems for
mined land reclamation while reducing duplication of effort
on the federal level. It must be emphasized that any waste
disposal criteria promulgated by EPA should not conflict
with similar efforts by the Office of Surface Mining or
other federal agencies.
I would now like to address some specific concerns
with the promulgated regulations.
The Extraction Procedure defined in Section 250.13(d)(2)
has been designed to simulate, and I quote, "... the leaching
action of rain and goundwater in the acidic environment
-------
- 4 -
present in landfills or open dumps." In western Colorado
the groundwater is generally alkaline with a pH greater
than 7. Rainwater equilibrated with atmospheric carbon
dioxide would have a pH of S.5, and once it falls on the
alkaline soils typical of western states, would increase
past a pH of 7. The Extraction Procedure is obviously
not indicative of any leaching action which would occur
naturally in most mining waste piles. While Union cannot,
at this time, recommend an alternative method, a group
comprised of EPA and industry representatives should be
formed to define a suitable alternative.
As currently proposed, some provisions of the regulations
required by Section 250.46-5, titled, "Other Mining Waste"
are impractical for many mining and oil shale operations.
Section 250.43-2, Security, would not be appropriate for
many mine wastes disposal piles because of their large size
and because such fencing would interfere with wildlife use
of, and migration over, the reclaimed disposal site.
In summary, we believe regulations should stress objectives
or end results, with techniques to achieve them remaining
flexible and permitting varying disposal practices to meet
these desired objectives.
Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity, and I'll
try to respond to any questions you may have.
-------
n i ..IT A iVii_UJ. b» v>
Xt±b .LUVJL i.jJlJ-» JulitXi 0 /j-Ti
al raoxat_ori e..-,osuxe to tne puol^c iroiu raoxuu xn
overauruen rails into tae ca^a0ory ox lo-- aose and. lov;
a'ce e.^josure. Laurj-E^on S. 'ia^loi, xn !>''/!, uescribeci
our in.ov.'leu&e on tjue tuojeut, t^usij : Mjjes_;-L~Ge i.ianj oj.llj.ons
oi dollars vaxii ci e:^erj.L.en"Cai squares caxaiea out ^ne v.oila.
over, ejaa aebjj.te ;.;anj atteiri^'cs a"c "une cJL.no.cal level, no one
yet oeen aole "oo Sb'saol-LSii a uose-exxect iela"Cx,onslijLp
''
xn tue ran^e ^r. ia^'lor aescx-a-oes ^<1 xj,
xs stxll_ txue. 'x'nfcie xs consj-^sxaaxe evidence to suo_. oxt
^
an 3r_uuen.t xox no a.civexse exxeot at aoses ol' ^evexal rer;;s.s~"
oases xn -joxnt xncluae: ^iaiXoiianL, u^.oxs ar'j-sxiXo xrcia s.\.eit-
ta_L xacu-Uni cxia uesotnoxxuiu cuxaens ^tiiresnoici- 1200 raas; ;
leuicecu.a xnc^atnce aj.ion0 ato:.u.c bo^o suxv._voxs ^
lOo xaus ) • er-,oaxc.ct
.- xuuO x-_.c~£^ . xne levexs
xe j.ntiei-0.&ci to xnu^cate .-: opax'ciit ox-
atuex tnexi aosoxute t^xesu-olcib. Autolute "Gij.xes-
ds can nextuex oe _,roved nor uj.s^,xovea uut to lax'oS _ o _.u-
j.ou tiiat vjoula oe xev._ta.Xca xox statj.stj.caj. vcj.j-u.atx oil.
tne absence ox' a aexxn^te ciose - exxect xeiatxOiiSij_i.'o xor
' i^-'Vcx xauj-at_!_on, tnree ^ .oti^esto^ nave oe&n ^ut xo-tn.
-------
-ilc. _0£~C V.j.u.elj USc;u 01 Cliche ^.S oiie j __ ilc :.r, rLC-1— tjj.-l So
coiice:"u. xTi-i-S rej.a~Cj-oii£j.j— _., iia£ uean esT/aoj.j.Siieu. lor i
errects Q.ue to jiu^e raaj_ac,_oii uoses au^ui.iij-k'ucreu. _n ;:,
"U-ue jeiu_od. Aii e— "ti'c._. Cj.a'o.uon oi tiU.E curve _ii"cc "cue
.LS coi.sxu.ei su j_uuen"o; j."C ovii1 6S"Cj...icv"C&s
i'iect a~o lov/ u.oses. ^jut _s "CiiiS course ci ac
realty ^ruaem:, j_i, rn fact, a, s^ali r:-.aj.3/o_on 0.0 s« _LS rec
rue ss-oiio. "Ciieo-y j-s ~u.ua,~G "Cu.8 jocij1 it^u-trcs "trace a...ouii"Ct oi
rau^.Oc.cto.vj.tj jLii oraer ~co ^c-LiLta-ii j-ts iid'oural raeienbc£ a0£u.:n.k"t
lax'0er e... csures. I'jaoie j.s &u__,oi'"C , 'GOO icr ~c.^e _v~ea "Uj.j.a"c a
taresiioio. e— xsts ior eac^ raa^aiixoii ei-eox a^u "cua'u oeicv." 'u^ie
"tin bsj-tolu., no &iec~c Gcri'cij.^j.al. or u.tir-i-ncii'^aj. = — L&"U^.
Aii urL_ue£"C-oruiito rcl_uace, DJ rb^uia'ocij agencies, oil "Cxit
tu-resiiola conce t jiat. ciiiYeii ''ac^e .taJj-c" ractJ.c-."CJ.on I^a^ts
- (0(7>^!
lie ax a-iu- aeiov/ ba^jc0i'oUiiu valuet. O-L coui'se, aSoULu.Ho "tue
Ixnecx iela"CiOiiSii-L_, , "Ciiere j-- no "scae" level oi iauj.atj.ori
exposure. 'j.'iu.s lea^s "Co zu_s-^ es uj.uates, V.HJ.GJM "crenu. ever :.i
^ 10 nor rorj irs^ iactor v.^uxcn cainio'c oe
a bt 10. ^veu tiioucii u.o&t ox in.e j'eueraj. j.tau-.a"CJ.on
W O/tlCiMT i-£.iJ«.J fnoWTti
u ;DO^-"^&CL .1 12/'u ^Lu/' j -i- suanuaru. ox e.-^usurc ^oJ- u^ie
;> . _.j.e e-i.jostue J ____ ^rt; -or a iVicmoer o- ti^e 0ii-ersJ. _,o ui-s-
lu oi v ..jji^-' "^iile£c 0. ou l^ve ^rcna dUii^":^.oii
-------
GX ^lo__ua. me ^ui0coii u-e-iciai. ucCj.uea, soi - 01, u—at ~'Ci_e
j_i..ii.t ioi" \ji ;ncL .e ej.tnei u.p ui 2.9 ><^±.yi/-.
±01 i'lcij-ua, tne A.-A aj.videa tne jjUi0eon u-en^ial's nuni^ei jj
2 ail ex lounueo. c.ov, ii.
Jbas = o. oil tne ioifeoC-i-iio uu.leuL.a, j-t i^a,/ oe tj.iue "Co ^.o^-i.^^ "^n
lj-iitax' conce_,"C xor estj.iLatj.no "Cue tuects uue to lov, level
i'2xu.iiit-LOii. V( e ij—^aiit just^i—aoij ..scUi^e tnat "Cue eij-cut; o.s
less tiiLn li-.^ear c.t YL-J.UCS 01 ic-v_j.atj.on iieej.- natuipj. oa^. - .
Orotu^a values, ^-.iso, oa>-i>.0iouiia L!iioua.u oe tj_t,"C ioi' .:. ^.a-Vcn
locale 01 aita ic.^ncr "onaii a v.^oie wouii^i^' 01 tj_ic ..one..
i.'^o-.s , ia'onei tiiffai a bo.j.i0le let^ij-^t^ve vej.ue, '..e \.ouj.a iiave
a L.?ja0c oi vcJ.ues5 o .scu on n
iiave tuot>to"oea a ciox* ib£tsoi-aoj.e ufct^oc. oi'
(ifc)
. i'ne,y sno\v tnat tu.e ^itan. oi a
naturaj __ „- value oi rau_Latj.on _jiu£> one fctc'jiaai'a c,evj_a.'c_on
'ooiisj.aeieu as acceptauie. nov.'evei, aue to tu.e -L
. Qi..tne uata coiicfciiij.nto aatuial sunact vaJ.uts 0
j-n iu^nj-no ai-eas, au. j-ii-.tj.al eettj.n0 oi tne mean
Sj_te; plus t\,o stanaara uevj.at^.ons i^£,S'c;a on
* i N
aata 101 a niinj.no i^o^on; v
-------
ue to a-jo_i_rio ac~c_v.L u-.es _s £jj.cv;n -11 one at'-acnea ij.touu.-c. ^'
QJ- 1-op _.^^./0^ ox iou., V;_~OAI c, ..leen oi
j-ev_:vu-i.oii 01 1^. ^v^_/0.a. jii^-b .^a,/ oe o
jtc"o "Co .uou-i-Xj-jca'c^oii £.2 ..iOic aata iiai j-S oo'oa—:n.ea.
-------
3
~>
q
-)
3
H
od-
1
5 ao 4°
- j ; j i ^'. 1 i i i~. "i n.i J i—L-»ji ^-wi-^-
4
-------
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
/ ,
•
^^^
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
J 22
23
^ ?4
^^
25
— ' L$L
3EFO- THE
In The Master of: )
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND ) TRANSCRIPT OF
) PROCEEDINGS
Friday. March 9, -979
8-30 a.m.
Holiday Inn
iiQ40 Quebec Street
Denver, Colorado
a pq.
DOROTHY DARRAH, Chairperson, Office of General
Counsel, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C.
LISA FRIEDMAN, CfPICE of General Counsel, EPA,
Washington, D. C.
ALFRED LINDSEY, Chief, Implementation Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA.
Washington, D. C.
AMY SCHAFFER. Office of Enforcement. EPA, Washingto'
D.C.
HARPY TRASK, Program Manager, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, Office of Solid
Waste EPA. Washington, D. C.
TIMOTHY FIELDS, Program Manager. Section 200- ,
Hazardous Waste Manangement Divisic'
Q f f ,• ,-, Q r f Q Q "! •>' r* T'fa ^ ^ a -" ~ -
JON P. YEAGLEY . Chief. Solid Waste Section, EPA
Resion YIII . Denver, Colorado
i
1
i
-------
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•
INDEX
WITNESSES
ALFRED LINDSEY
ROYCE D. SPACE
S. NORMAN KESTEN
JIM V. ROUSE
JACK DAVIS
JOE TELLER
RAYMOND OUELLETTE
JIM COLLINS
ORVILLE STODDARD
JOHN B. RIGG
EARL R. WHITE
STEPHANIE BAKER
ROBERT S. HERRON
FRANCINE B. KUSHNER
WALTER C. STUDABAKER
KENT R. OLSON
DR. E. K. DEMOS
JOHN MARTYNY
PATRICIA BROOKS
JAMES SIEGFRIED
ROBERT SANDOVAL
PAUL REYMOLDS
J. D. MULLEN
PAGE NO .
485
496
506
521
530
531
541
545
549
557
566
584
593
601
609
616
617
629
635
640
647
651
654
1
J
|
-------
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
"R . ALFRED LIMIT SEY ' Good ncrning everyone, my
name is 7red Lindsev, I am Chiei , -mp ±smentat ion crar.cn
of the Hazardous *V/aste yanagement Division, Office of Solid
Waste in Washington. On behalf of the Office of Solid Waste
and EPA, I would like to welcome you to the public hearing
that is being held to discuss the proposed regulations.
We appreciate your taking the time to participate in the
development of these regulation which are being issued under
the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
RCRA.
For a brief overview of why we are here:
The Environmental Protection Agency on December IS,
1978 issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3C02, and
3Q04 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
?.L. 9^-580). These proposals respectively cover: (1)
criteria for identifying, and listing hazardous waste, identi-
fication methods, and a hazardous waste list: (2) standards
applicable to generators of such waste for record keeping,
labeling, using1 prooer containers, and using a transport
manifest: and (3) performance, design, and operating
standards for hazardous waste management facilities.
-------
aR.
1 rr'hps^ f'^ocosals "osrethe10 with
2 cursuant to Section 3003, 'April 25. I?7:), Section 300'6
4 Section 3010 (July 11. la"S) and that of the Department of
5 Transportation pursuant to the Hazardous Materials
6 Transportation Act (May 25 1973) along with Section 3005
7 regulations constitute the hazardous waste regulatory
8 program under Subtitle Z of the Act.
9 EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for facility
10 permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for State hazardous
11 waste program authorization pursuant to Section 3006 of the
12 Act with proposals under the National Pollutant Discharge
13 Elimination System required by Section ^02 of the Clean
14 Water Act and the Underground Injection Control Program of
15 the Safe Drinking Water Act. This integration of programs
16 will appear scon as proposed rules under MO CFR Parts 122,
17 123. and 12^.
18 This hearing is being held as part of our public
19 participation process in the development of this regulatory
20 program.
21 The panel members who share the rostrum with me, are:
22 Dorothy A. Darrah, Chairperson., Office of General Counsel,
23 EPA,Washington, Lisa Friedman, Office of General Counsel,
24 EPA, Washington, Airy Schaffer, Office of Enforcement, EPA,
25 Washington, Harry Trask. Program Manager. Section 3002
-------
• i
— »E i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
* '2
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
• 24
25
-r "
^^^^> ^D^\ *,'.^g;~-;^~+-.~v^ ^ -•' ^ ^ — '^ T T ^"-^"-^c; 3 ^"-1 Q ~ T-J *s f~ :,T £_ r^ p ~ ^ ' ~- -^ ^ n ' ' ,~ "~
3 C C d , EPA, Washington and Jon -. Ye as: ley. Chief. Sclid Waste
Section. EPA, Reeicn VIII, Denver.
fi"' V> -^ T^I Q^-f^/")l'~|O'"rt~ ili ^*~^T* v"" ,^1 ~K> CJ '"" K"1 — ---, to ^; ^ ,^ *~i ^ Q ,"> ~~ ~" Q "") T^J ^ i i ^ 0 ^- A*l
us on the panel. As noted in the Federal Register cur planned
agenda is tc cover comments on Section 30C^.
The comments received at this hearing, and the other
hearings as noted in the Federal Register, together with the
comment letters we receive, will be a part of rhe official
docket in this rule making process. The comment period closes
on "'-"-arch 16 for Sections 3CQ1-30CU. This docket may be seen
during normal working hours in Room 2111D, Waterside Mail, 401
M Street, S. S., Washington, D. C. In addition, we expect to
have transcripts of each hearing within about two weeks
of the close of the hearing. These transcripts will be availabl
for reading at any of the EPA libraries. A list of these
locations is available at the registration table outside.
With that as background, I would like tc lay the
groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing.
The focus of a public hearing is on the public's
response to a regulatory oroposai of an Agency, or in this
case. Agencies, since both EPA and the Department of
~"^an s no rt at ion a^e involved. The curcose of this nearirs as
announced in the Acrii 28. i;!ay 25, and December 13, 19'73 Federal
_^^i=i^>3i--'$J-o» — C) L/O oO-i-.i.C-i.'-' 'i^1— / rn.rn.6 ri T> o o i\ _>,j." o ±. ^/^>oss Q. — ^£"1^*. CL_/.I_O fi ^
A
(
(
1
-------
1 including any background ir.formaticr. us
2 "^ V^ -; c ,- 11 >• ~j j_ ->
3 -he public nor to defend a propose
4 obtain the public's response to these proposed regulations,
5 and thereafter revise them as nay seen appropriate. All major
6 substantive corr.r.ents rr.ade at the hearing will be addressed
7 during preparation of the final regulation.
8 This will not be a formal adjudicator;/ hearing with the
9 ri£rht to cross examine. The members of the public are to
10 oresent their views on the crocosed regulation to the panel, and
11 the oanel may ask questionsof the people presenting statements
12 to clarify any ambizuities in their presentations.
13 Since we are time limited, some questions by the
14 oanel may be forwarded in writing to the speaker. His response,
15 if received within a week of the close of this hearing, will
16 be included in the transcript. Otherwise, we will include it
17 in the docket.
18 Due to time limitations, the chairperson reserves the
19 right to limit lengthy questins, discussions, or statements.
20 We would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement
21 to make orally, to please limit your presentation to a maximum
22 of ten minutes, so we can set all statements in a reasonable
23 time. If you have a copy of your statement, please submit
24 it to tne court reporter.
25 Written statements will be accepted at the end of 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
e included in their entire
Persons wish-ins to make an oral statement who have not
made an advanced request by telephone or in writing should indi-
cate their interest on the registration card. If you have not
indicated your intent to give a statement and you decide to do
so, please return to the registration desk, fill out another card
and sive it to one of the staff.
As we call upon an individual to make a. statement, he or
she should come uo to the lectern after identifying himself or
herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or her statement
At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson will
inauire as to whether the speaker is willing to entertain questi
from the panel. The speaker is under no obligation to do so,
although within the spirit of this information sharing hearing,
it would be of great assistance to the Agency if questions were
Our day's activities, as we currently see them, appear
like this-
Vie will break for lunch at about 12:15 and reconvene at
1:15. Then, depending on our progress, we will either conclude
the day's session or creak for dinner at acout 5:00.
If vou wish to be added to our mailins list for future
-------
1
2 clease leave voui
4 The regulations under discussion at this nearing are
5 the core elements of a ma; or res-uiatory program to manage and
6 control the country's hazardous waste from generation to final
7 disposal. The Congress directed this action in the Resource
8 Conservation and Recovery Act of l?7c (RCRA), recognizing "hat
9 disposal of hazardous waste is a crucial environmental and healtr
10 croblem. which r.ust be controlled.
11 in our proposal, we have outlined requirements which
12 set minimum norms of conduct for those who generate,
13 transport, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste.
14 These requirerrents . we believe, will close the circle
15 of environmental control begun earlier with regulatory control
16 of emissions and discharges of contaminants to air, water,and
17 the oceans.
13 Ve do net underestimate the complexity and difficulty
19 of our proposed regulations. Rather, -hey reflect the large
20 amounts of hazardous waste generated and the complexity of
21 the movement of hazardous waste in our diverse society. These
22 regulations will affect a large number of Industries. Cther
23 non-industrial sources of hazardous waste, such as
24 laboratories and commercial pesticide applicators, as well as
25 transporters of hazardous waste will also ce included.
-------
ever"" day. the media carries a story zr- a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but o^e recent; enamels. n?A has inf c-rmat ion on over1 ^-
management. These cases include incidents cf surface and
groundwater contamination, direct contact poisoning, various
forms cf air pollution, and damage frcrn fires and explosions.
Xaticnwide, half cf all drlnkinp- water is supplied frcrr ground-
water resources and in seme areas contamination of groundwater
resources currently poses a threat to public health. EPA
studies of a number of generating industries in 1975 showed that
approximately 90 percent of the potentially hazardous waste
generated by those industries was managed by practices which
were not adeauate for protection of human health and the
environment.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1975 was
passed to address these problems. Subtitle C establishes a
comprehensive program to protect the public health and
environment from improper disposal of hazardous waste. Although
the program, recuirments are to be developed by the Federal
government, the Act provides that States-with adequate programs
can assume resocnsibilitv for regulation cf hazardous waste.
"~^^ ^ " ^ ~ c "^ dea >~' ** ^n '^T "' ^ i ^ '^ ~ s ~ ^at t'^e cub 11 c health and. the
environment will be protected if there is careful monitoring
-------
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
^ r~* -^ "
ne vfr ; ~,r,^<
Seven guidelines and resrulatl
either have been or will ce proposed (as noted earlier, under
Subtitle C of RC?A to im.pler.ent the Hazardous *.'.raste Management
Pro^'"am. Subtitle ^ creates a management control system which,
for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires a crade-tc-
grave cognizance, includins aocropriate monitoring, record
keeping and reporting throughout the system.
It is important to note that tne definition of solid
wastes in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse, eludes and other
discarded materials, including liquids, semisolids and
contained gases, with a few exceptions, from both municipal and
industrial sources.
Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid wastes
and which will be identified by
ions oroccsea unaer
Section 2001, are those which have particularly significant
imcacts on public health and the environment.
Section 3001 is the keystone of Subtitle C. Its purpose
is to crevice a means for determining wr.ether a waste is
hazardous for the purposes of the Act and. therefore, wr.ether
i~ must be managed according to the other Subtitle " regulation.
Section ' ~j0n (b^ orcvid.es two mechanisms for determining
-------
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
waste must be mar.ased according ~o the Sutt i^ it; •-- regulations
if it pithe1" exhibits ar." of the characteristics set out in
r-i-v^f^t^r^^i^^ '-^
cy Section 3COi(a) of the Act to develoo criteria for iaenoliying
the set of characteristics of hazardous waste and for determining
which wastes to list. In this proposed rule, EPA sets out those
criteria, identifies a set of characteristics of hazardous was^e,
andestablishes a list of particular hazardous wastes.
Also the orooosed regulation provides for demonstration
of non-inclusion in the regulatory program.
Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to generators
of hazardous waste. A generator is defined as any person whose
act or process produces a hazardous waste. Minimum amounts gene-
rated and disposed per month are established to further define a
generator. These standards will exclude household hazardous
waste.
The generator standards will establish requirements for:
record keeoing, labeling and marking of containers used for
storasre, transport, or disposal of hazardous waste; use of
aoorccriate containers, furnishing information on the general
chemical composition of a hazardous waste is designated to a
cermitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility: and
" n-; =:i--»qror . or an authorized
sucmittina reports
;he Adminis-
i
-------
*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
9 13
14
15
16
17
A /
18
19
20
21
22
23
£»w
24
A
25
- :< -
s-ate ager.cv, setting cut the quantity rer.erated and i,s
disposition.
Section 3:33 recuires tne -veiocment of standards
a~x.---~avoQ ^0 --,,Qr.^or,^^ ^ -na^v,,^,^ wa^-s -h^e —,-- = »-
standards address identification codes, record Veering,
accectance and transccrtation of hazardous wastes, compliance wit
the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous waste; spills of
hazardous waste and placarding and marking of vehicles. The
Agency has coordinated closely with proposed and current :J . S.
Department of Transportation regulations.
Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. These standards define the levels of human health
and environmental protection to be achieved by these facilities
and orovide the criteria against which EPA or state officials
will measure applications for permits. Facilities on a generator
oroT3er>i~v a g w° ~i 1 as off — s^te r"ai°"'"'it"iec: a10"^ covered bv tires^
regulations and do require permits: generators and transocrters
do not otherwise need permits.
Section 3005 regulations set cut the scooe and coverage
of the actual permit granting process for facility owners and
operators. Requirements for the permit application as well as
^or the issuance and r°vocat":cn c^ocess are d^^'ned bv "^c-u"1 p- - --
to be proposed under ^0 C?P. Parts 122, 123 and 12^. Section
3C05 (_e) provides for interim status during the time period
4
^
1
's
1
-------
2
3
4 Section 3006 reouires EPA to issue guidelines under v/hion
5 states may seek both full and interim authorization to carry out
6 the hazardous waste croeram in lieu of an EPA.-administerec.
7 program. States seeking authorization"in accordance with
8 Section 3006 ~uidelir.es need to demonstrate that their hazardous
9 waste management regulations are consistent with and equivalent
10 in effect to EPA regulations under Sections 30C1-5.
11 Section 3010 requires any person generating, transporting
12 or ownir.s or operating a facility for treatment, storage and
13 disposal of hazardous waste to notify EPA of this activity withir
14 90 days after promulgation or revision of regulations identifying
15 and listing a hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001. Mo
16 hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regulation may be legally
17 transported, treated, stored, or disposed after the 90 day
18 period unless this timely notification has been given to EPA or
19 an authorized state during the above 90 day period. Owners
20 S-1"1^ operators of inactive facilities are not required to notify.
21 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all
22 sections of Subtitle C by December 31- 1979- However, it is
23 Important for the regulated communities to understand that the
24 regulations under Section 3001 througn 3005 do not take effect
25 until six months after promulgation. That would be approximate ill
-------
1 ~ T • v- a r- & ^ 0 ° P
1 i, une Ox j_ -3:w L .
4 be increased. Turing this same cericd, notification;
5
6 apclications required under Section 3CC- will ce
7 for completion by applicants.
8 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the proposed
9 resulaticns to be considered at this hearing, I return this
10 meeting to the chairperson.
11 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. vfe
12 will be taking speakers in the order in which they are listed
13 on our printed schedule with a few insertions of people.wno
14 for one reason or another, did not get included on the schedule,
15 people who did not ore-register, and are not included on this
16 schedule, we will take at the end of the day. Cur first
17 speaker is R. D. Space from Agrico Chemical Company.
18 MR. ROYCE D. SPACE: Good morning, I am Rcyce
19 Space, Director of Environmental Management. Agrico Chemical
20 Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Today I share one thing in common
21 with the panel, Thank God it is Friday, but cheer up, :niy
22 San Francisco is left for you.
23 Agrico Chemical Company is a major fertiliser
24 manufacturer with production facilities located in Oklahoma,
25 Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida. The normal operations zi the 3.=
-------
t.
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
facilities produces byproducts ana waste tnat nas been or cc^_.
, Q^ -,„.- r,^OT_.,-,-, r-- - -• - = 1 --.= -
is, therefore, in the best interest of Agrico and the
American Consumer that these comments be made since increases
operating costs will result and will be in cart paid for by
consumers of agricultural products.
In addition to the following comments, Agrico fully
sucports and helped develop the comments sucmitted by the
"OT -i " -• gor- ~nstn'tute =nd testimony presented at the
February 20-22, 1979 public hearings held in Washington, D. C.
Aszrico' s comments are in addition to and to add emphasis to thos
of TF I .
having been here for two and one-naif days for almost
including last night. I want to try to cover section 3001 and
3QOU quite hurriedly, so I will ce talking rather fast, and
my comments have been covered in part by previous speakers, and
in that, case, please bear with me. I think it is necessary to
reiterate them and consider them if nothing els^ .
Before going to specific paragraphs and recommendations,
I would like to state that Agrico does not accept EPA's
determina^i0n that phosphate mining , overburden and other
related wastes as determined by EFA is hazardous. My comments
,r,ApJ*.ic ^-,.-a.^ns .- e ^af^ -„ i-v-^e ~at-<=r.--s-s = ^ ,}C
not indicate acceptance to their classification as hazardous.
250. 13 ( d *! , Toxic "'Jaste. The oroccsed classification
i
-------
1
2
3
4 crocedure used is a sha.-ce test, is overly stringent, and should
5 be used only as a screening test. A column test should ce tne
5 basis for tne final determination of a waste as toxic (hazardous^
7 Although more expensive, the column test is more valid and
^ the cost is small compared to the effects of the results. In
9 addition, the testing she-id be conducted on the test material
10 in its unaltered state and extracted with a solution
11 recresentative of that which the' waste could reasonably be
12 expected to contact. The use of acetic acid to maintain a pH
13 of 5 is overly harsh and may not be representative. EPA's
14 ''Background Document" indicates a pP- 5 acetic acid solution was
15 chosen to simulate acidic conditions found in most municipal
16 landfills. A.n example of an industry site where this is not
17 recresentative results from the treatment of cooling tower
18 slowdown, for chrcmate reduction and removal. In this treatment,
19 chromium is reduced from hexavalent to trivalent and precipated
20 in a holding: pond at pH 9-5. The clarified water is discharged
21 under an MFDES permit with the chromium precisitate remaining
22 in the pond. Low pH water is never expected to contact the
23 trecipitate ana final discoal will consist of dewatering the
24 oGT~^ ^cQ ^"* b ^ ^ "ddit"' oH of 1 ~' rr'^ and cove r"^ nsr wit h earth. An'/
25
-------
* 1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
9
25
i r Q
over seven and will remain essentially Insol-le.
2:'j.-3-l, General Site Selection.
T^O «•!<-- ,-T^-,^-;^^ K>e~n~ a*- -' ~vo ~ p^a 3 r>^ 1 •! r o > " ^ - --, *-;,=>-.• ^01-"
only. A new source should be defined in relation to an existing
source or major modification. In the case of 'gyp stacks' forme
will expand over the life of the facility. The establishment
of additional or expanded ''gyp stacks" to dispose of by-products
gy~sum from existing production should not be considered a new
source. It is more environmentally sound to expand a present
"eye stack'" and confine the related pollution problems such as
treatment of precipitation runoff to one location than to create
new ones. In addition, the millions of dollars in capital that
is required for production facilities can be recovered only by
operation of the existing location for gypsum disposal.
250.iJ3-2, Security.
Provision should be made to allow the permitting agency
to not require a security fence if no hazard exists from
unauthorized entry. For example, a chrcmate removal pond as
described in comments on 250. 13 (d). will represent no such
hazard even if the chromium sludge is determined to be a
hazardous waste. The water from the pond is lov; in cnrcmium
at a pH of 9-5 and is discharged to surface streams under an
NFDES oerm.it. An excessive amount of the water would have to
be consumed over a long period of time to present a proclem.
^
:es
i
{
{
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i o d. 3. n sr 3
I understand thai: is no*: ccssible
because the present procedure will be followed, except as
ight, yc^ received a stater.er." from Dr. Jo
Karris as to the c
hat fencing.
The security requirement is also unnecessary for the
phosphate related special waste in 250.H6-3 and should be
omitted. The EPA has determined such waste to be hazardous
due to the presence cf Radium 226 above "normal" soil background
levels. EPA's 'Background Document" expresses concern over the
inhalation of the gaseous decay produce Radon 222. Exposure to
Radon 222 levels found in structures constructed on land
containing greater than five picoCuries per gram cf Radium 226,
is estimated to result in an increase in lung cancer risk cf
greater than one percent if the structure is occupied 75
percent; of the time during a normal lifetime of seventy years.
Dees the occupancy cf a particular structure for 52 years
justify the security and inspections being required? Fences,
that has not been found n
a hazard.
s ever
-------
4
5
6
7 in Acrendix II. Analysis for parameters that could not possibly
9 from a site will first be observed by analysis for Known
10 carameters not for trace or nonexistent; ones. Example: a
11 coolins tower chrcmate sett ling" pond contains no Radium. Lindane
12 cr 2,--D among others. It is suggested that the following be
13 added to the note that follows paragraph (c):
14 The analysis of specific parameters may not be
15 required if it is determined by the permitting
16 agency as unnecessary based on the type of
17 waste to be disposed of.
18 250.^3-9(a) Financial Requirements.
19 The reauirement to establish a closure fund is reasonable
20 and necessary to crotect the environment. However, it is overl;
21 stringent and an excessive burden to require all of the closure
22 cost (~iir.es the present value factor) to be deposit*
23 receiving a permit. It would be more reasonable t
24
25 the cost closu10— "nonitovii>o3' and maintenance fund . This woul;
-------
1 accectable if the operating companv could show evidence of 4
I
O ~'-;v-!<2j^^i-;£j~' -o £1 c " O^ •
ul
3 the amount of c
^ *~ - rn ^ ^ ^ e r~'aci~Jt~r '^as b e ^ n i ^ o c e "^ a t "*' o ^ and w o u ,1 d ™ r c w as deccslt.:
5 are made.
6 Paragraph 'iii) states that the trust funds can be
7 relaeased only rUpcn determination that closure has been
8 satisfactorily accomplished.'' This indicates that the
9 closure operation must be completed and paid for by the operate:
10 and the money on deposit is not a closure fund but a closure
11 bond. This is unreasonable to require an industry to deposit
12 perhaps three million and then require them to fund an addition;
13 three million over say a two year closure period. Provisions
14 should be made at the tine the notice of intent to close is
15 given to release part of the funds at various stages as the
16 closure is completed. On site inspection and progress reports
17 could be used to verify progress. Such a system would speed
18 closure, allow for agency inspection, ana use the funds for the
19 purpose for which they were intended.
20 Agrico Chemical Company appreciates the consideration
21 extended by the EPA in consideration of the comments. Industry
22 accepts the need for regulation to control and provide forthe
23 safe didpcsal of hazardous waste. It is, indeed, a difficult
24 task to write such regulations and be considerate of the many
25 exceptions. Agricc's interest is in protection of tne
-------
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
FPZ?SCX-I
I v;ould :'ust like tc make sure I under s~ and what your
suggestion is as tc the extraction crcceudre. hov/ tha~ .-night
work. If I recall your brief statement, you said t;ha~ the
extraction procedure is something that should te used as a
screening mechanism, tut that a column test should ce used as
a final means of determining hov; hazardous the material is.
How would you work that more specifically. Hew v/culd you
suggest that be dene?
MR. SPACE: As any screen test would be done, I
would run that for a quick screening test to determine whether
the waste was hazardous or not, if it failed the screening, if
it cassed the screening test, which ever way you wanted to
look at it, would be determined to be non-hazardous and writts>
off at that ooint .
MR. LINDSEY : In other vvcrds . we would have some
-------
A 1
2
3
4
c
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
9 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
W 25
- " '
it was ter-ned to ce hazardous by tnat test, tnen you have the
aitern3tive to ?o ahead 3nd run the -cr rigorous ana extensive
column tests to verify tne conditions similar to wnicn woulo ce
that is not ^ r c c ^ "^ cons^'de^at^o^ ~ r some c ~* tur oases oe cause
if I fail the shake test, then I may have to be required to
^oend s^v^^a^1 n-' "" " " ^.^ do"1 n a^s to handle that materia1 t'^at is
hazardous . •
MP . LIXDSEY: So it should be an option for a
ccmcany whose waste failed to run a column test, which you
feel is more representative of the leaching environment?
MR. SPACE: Yes, at their option. A three thousand
dollar test is significant compared to the money that may be
spent otherwise.
MP . LINDSEY : Towards the end you went pretty
fast, and I think I missed the final point you talked about,
the closure fund. You are suggesting we should allow the
closure fund to be built up over a period of time, commencing
with how much it will cost to close it during the life cycle
of the facility?
MR. SPACE: Yes.
MF.. LINDSEY"' .And then you went or. beyond tnat
and talked about how the fund should be released, and I didn't
catch that.
I
^
4
1
-------
• 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4fc
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
„
25
,,-j j,,,,,^^ ~j*sr >-" a"1' u"d-i" t^e -ion" tor-' r.s
recuirement, you deposit that ever a period :f time on a
schedule set cut for that but the closing fund themselves
"^ave to be paid in advance en dav one, the wav I interpret it,
T.rV,^ -7OU >,,=,,•.<=,-• 7^ rh^ ^-^rr-;-0
\!p - --T-rjq-v . vo^
'
MP . SPACE: And EPA has ruled out surety cond
and ^ev^i"^ oths"0 '-'n-rio-s •vricp ~ think are reallv viable options
for several companies. One comment in the preamble said they
were ruled out because they felt very few companies would be
able to obtain such a bond.
iVR. LIMDSEY: One reason was, they have to be
redone every year. In other words, your surety bond has to
be paid every year, and if the bonding company decides they
are not going to do it next year, then there is nothing for
them. In other words, there is no closure fund, so there is
no protection.
MR . SPACE : Yes .
FIR . LIMDSEY: What was it you said relative to the
pad out?
MR. SPACE: On the pay out, the way I read the
regulation, it states that the post-closure fund will only be
returned upon final determination by the permitting agency tr.at
the facility has been totally closed and is in compliance.
'•'TR . LIMDSEY: xot the post-closure, the closure fur.c
-------
1
2
3
5 phosphate gyp sun slacks, mining overburden, whatever. I
6 understand they are presently excluded from mat, cut that is
7 only rreser.tly as it says in the preamble. Why should we deposit
8 sav three million dollars en day one to be used twenty years
9 later, and men twenty years later, vrill have to cut up another
10 two million dollars to actually go ahead and pay our subcontractc
11 ^"or the o 1 c s i^ ~ oce^^t ion before we can tac cac -^ ~* nt o the .fund
12 cT the origi nal three million for the intent for which it was
13 deposited in the first place.
14 MR. L1MDSEY: What was the suggestion?
15 MR. SPACE: I suggested that during the time
when you issue the letter of intent to close, then that money
17 should be released in stages as the closing operation progresses..
18 MR. LIMDSEY: Some sort of schedule and milestone?
19 MR SPACE: If you are 3C percent or ^C percent
20 done, or 100 percent done, at least a certain percent, to allow
21 the company to use that money for the intent for which it was
22 issued.
23 CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thar.rC you very much. The
24 next speaker is S. Morm.an Kesten of the American Mir.ing C
25 MR. s. -;ORMA>5 KESTEM • I am i'lcrman Kesten
-------
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'"ph = Arre^lcan- '-'inins" Ccnsress is a naticna^ Assccis.- i_c.~,
of Companies that produce most of the nation's supply of metals,
coal, and industrial and agricultural minerals
oroducing these essential materials the mem
necessarily venerate large quantities of mine waste roc.-:,
waste materials from milling and other forms of beneficiatlor,
often called tailings, plus furnace slags and ether similar
orccessine: wastes from later stages of total processing towarc
unseable products, as well as other wastes in
re
quantities. The American fining Congress is tr.us very interes'
and concerned about the economic impact upon the minerals
industry of any regulations promulgated for the purpose of
implementing previsions of this amendment to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. In addition, we want to try to ensure that duri:
the formulation of such regulations the Agency is fully aware
of the technological limitations that the very nature of its
waste places upon the industry and t.akes into account tne larg^
number of physical and chemical variables that tend to rnahe
each operation unique. In general, the industry has a serl~s
of scecial croblems in ccmplving with
<
-------
* ;
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
• 13
^1^
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•
~ L v
*~ v-j f~ fs i j p — -•' ,-^ v~ -' •- -> " i
-------
10 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
r - ;
*
. -i •
In soite of tne draft regulations and proposed
-
will be of solid waste disposal under the Act. If the terms
"ocen dumc '" and ''sar.titarv landfill' are strictlv acclied ( and
there will be a great deal of oressure upon the Agency to apply
them strictly) then very many piles of waste rock, tailings
accuru1 "t ~' o^ s and sla0" dumos s~""l 'c-n'v1~ used rr~'sh~ have to be
classified as open dumcs, to oe up graced or cj-cseci witnir. live
Replacement by new sanitary landfills would be so expensive as
to greatly impair if not destroy the economic viability of the
ooerations
If what is required of a disposal site for wastes not
designated as hazardous is that there be no reasonable
croc a*~ ^ ~i i t v o^ injury to '^uma50 '°p^"tr or th^3 e""r~' ""rn^^nt
another dimension of uncertainty is added. We would be dependent
upon someone's assessment of that probability and of what is
reasonable and of how much in.jury is permissible. The result
of such assessment could be just as expensive and just as
,, . gj_ , -, - ^ „ ^ -t • ^^ ~.— r~.. ^ ^ f* , ' ^ r^ ~
~ M l-'--t ^-_-_-1 J-— -^-/i _.— L- <~ J _ - i -- - .. ^ ^ ^ --. ^ - i >_*. ij ^. j. .j. t.^. ^.. ^ s_*.
-------
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very well be designated as hazardous even though tnose large
tonnage might be or.lv a fraction of the total tonnage
generated. The oroposed standards of oerformance applied to
these tonnages will "again lead to intolerable expense. In
fact, except for the paperwork involved for hazardous waste.
it nisht make no difference to us how these large tonnage
wastes are classified.
Of course, I am speaking of cumulative worst case situatic
One frustrating thing is that we do not know at this time, nor
will we know at the time the proposed regulations become final,
just what their effect upon our industries will be. Midst ail
of this we feel there is a reasonable probability that our
current methods of disposal do not damage human health or the
environment except in minor, easily recognizable instances.
In fact, we think that EPA should make the presumption. In
addition, we contend, and are on record to this effect, that the
legislative history of the Act states unequivocally that mining
wastes are at this time exempt from the provisions of solid
waste regulations. I refer you to tne comments of the American
Mining Congress on rules proposed under Section 40C4 of the Act.
Section 253.^6, page 39013, is concerned with Soecial
Wastes, a concept introduced into regulations under r.CRA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ o "-* '^ 1 s n o u 1 d
generates about 2^ trillion tons of slag annually.
Section 25C.46 lists the sections in this subpart that ar
apolicable to each of the listed special wastes. At least
for the three categories of interest to memcer companies of the
American Mining Congress -- that is, phosphate rock mining,
beneficiation and processing waste, uranium mining waste and ct'n
minins waste -- certain sections and subsections that are
listed as being applicable should be amended or deleted. These
are. at the very least, as follows:
Ca) 25Q.4302Ca). page 59001. The benefits of
a six foot fence surrounding whole sections (one section is
~-0 acres) of land occupied by tailings ponds, mine waste
rock or furnace slag do not appear to be sufficient to justify
the considerable expense not only of installing the fence, but
also of keecing it in repair. "Even if these materials turn cut-
to be toxic under the Subpart A regulations, their low toxicity
If physical safety is of concern, controls surely
d'^tated bv other statutes and other resruj_aticns.
-------
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
acverse i:
operator of a mine, mill or smelter does provide a security
how he operates them. Surely, this requirement and the preceding
one are applicable only to relatively small sites in which wastes
that are more than marginally hazardous are deposited.
(c) 253.U3-5. cage 59003. The requirement for
manifests is unnecessary and unduly burdensome with respect
to waste rock, tailings and slags that are added to large sites
on a daily basis by pipelines, fleets of trucks and similar
means. The requirement for keeping records,, if retained for
Special Wastes at all, should be limited to maintaining a map
of the waste rock or slag site and marking on it, at the end
of each quarter, the location and approximate tonnage of
material added during the quarter. For tailings ponds, it shcuic
be more than adecuate to maintain a tabulation of dry and wet
tonnase added to each poind during each quarter. Because
these are zen.era.lly hcmcsenous wastes, it shou_d not be
necessary to make analyses and keep records of them ar.less the
character of the waste changes significantly. Because of 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
extraction procedure is aevisec. tnat is apcrocriate to tr.ese
materials, most of our mining milling ar.d srneling cr other
orc>cesslr~ wastes will net f i ^ the criteria for hazardous wastes
Scecial Wastes . However, we 0.0 anticloate that certai" wastes
produced in relatively small quantities, will fit the criteria
and disposal will have to be in compliance with the previsions
of1 t^his succart . Ilcrrnailv our strg.te^"'" would te "co have such
v/astes transported ~o a hazardous waste disposal site ceing
operated commercially under a suitable permit. However, we and
" ll be a scarcit;
others greatly feat that for many years "here
of such si~es and that trasnsportation to them will be a
prohibitive cost in many instances. Cur only recourse might be
either to operate our own on site disposal facilities or ~c
store the waste on site until commercial sites become available
Our ability ~o ~ake either of these course will depend upon the
availability within cur own boundaries of land that does no-
run afoul of the many prohibitions listed in this su'cpart .
land is available we shall rave ~
relief. In any event, because of the possicle
-------
1
^ _ _ <
2 _L 3. c ~ L^.^i_5S; o ' > n T? ^r* '. .TJ 3. n t ^ c s ^ i c JT ^ c £ c i_ s. *.' s. s ^ ~E? 3 j i_ L i_ s
4
5
6
7 only good examples
9 word is defined at 25C.nl (3^); ^age K:S9V. '-r.e cone;
10 reached s^rcundwater is ignored. The words ' percnec
11 tone1' m.isrht be defined as follows:
12 -subsurface waters, net part or tne primary
13 saturated groundwater flow regine, which are
14 suspended above the zone of saturation (that
15 is, the water table) either by an impervious
16 . layer or because of capillary action
17 Seepage into a partly saturated and vertically
18 horizontally confined zone would not necessarily ccnstitut
19 potential contamination to an underground drinking water
20 source because of generally limited quantity and often low
21 duality. Perched waters also could be connate (fossil) waters
22 which have been entrapped at some time in geologic
23 cut off from a recharse source. All requirements o:
24 subpart that prohibit or limit discharge to groundwater
25 exemct from orohibiticns and limitations di,
-------
2 -:rr —
3
4
5
7 leachate monitoring systems for landfills and surface impound.-
8
9 mainly with sampling and analysis, it is proposed to establi;
10 background by sampling groundwater and leachate once a month
11 for three months orior to use of the facility for nazardous
12 waste. Further sampling is proposed once a month for a year
13 afterwards, scaling down to a lesser frequency after that
14 year. In subsection (c) (^), it is proposed to judge wheth;
15 not the quality of either the groundwater or the leach;
16 changes by the application of a dubious statistical procedure
17 based ucon what our statistician calls '' a conceptual
18 absurdity''. There is implied a definition that says that any
19 chanse in the concentration levels constitutes contamination.
20 On the other hand, it is incorrectly assume that mean background
21 levels remain constant. This is incorrect particularly when
22 establishment of those levels is based uccn so
i
24
25
4
-------
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
Regional .-.cl^.ir.isrrar or decides ;.vha~ actions
Apparent departures froir. apparent background levels cann
necessarily be equated vritr. sucr. narn ro
v/ater tna" a shutdown, or otner drastic measures, is justified.
If a shutdown is to - = .-:e place, it should be upon the order of
the Administrator, after -due process. This is still another
situation in which each si~e T.ust be considered on its specific
merit s .
In our written comments, which we hope ~o submit; by
March Icth, we have tried to promote ~he avoidance of
absolutes which are unattainable. We have also suggested
v/ays in which ambiguities, inconsistencies and unattainable
absolutes in the regulations might be eliminated, and ways in
which language and meaning might be clarified. Finally, we have
tried to introduce an appreciation of conditions in the real
world and the variables that affect them. We have made no
attemot to
as mandated bv the
— ^ i^ >-> ^ -f- iii ,-* ~ H1' m a y^ V-1pr!^1~'? £; ^ ^ ** -~" -
^ ^ wiOU^-^'j i 1 L*. * 11C.. . _-C->_«^L'il ^L,X.^< ^^.,
hazardous ;-.'as^es.
YOU have ar.v "Questions . _ will do what _ can wi'
-------
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LINDSEY- Which industry was that •, iron anc
MR. KESTEN-
MR. LINDSEY: '."'hat is dene with tr.at r.u.-;.-
menticned that some of the material is recovered and recycled
and reused in some fashion.
MR. LINDSEY: How much?
MR. KESTEN- I have no idea hcv; much.
not that familiar with the iron smelting business.
copper smelting business, we do sell some slag to people who, if
it is suitable for railroad beds, for construction fill and -his
sort of thing, cut the bulk of it is something oiled up and
accumulated.
MR. LINDSEY: Do you have any information cr any
estimation? Do you have any feel for whether that material from
the iron industry would fail the tests?
MR. KESTEN: I have nc ' " '
-------
1
2
3
4 !
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'.'i'e have always considere
-- you identified certain standards ough.
ieleted from this special waste category.
;hink one of
tnose you mentioned was manifest requirement. You felt .hose
would be extremely burdensome and should not be imposed. Cur
feeling in adopting those standards to your waste category
was that they would not come into play in rr.cst cases because
the waste being managed on site
13 "^ ^ t £"^Tl On S i "3 S i
MR.
of on site is toe
ect o
defir.iti;
'IZLDS- So you are saying that the defi
restrictive?
KESTZ?! : That's right. 1 said that on
v/ednesday .
MR. FIELDS: The other thing which you brou
into the background levels. You said the background Ie';
-------
A 1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
in
1 W
11
12
•
14
15
16
17
18
1 Q
iy
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
- 1 -.
of greindwater leaehate monitoring. You kr.cw, the way re
defire significant cased on tnis test would re cure tnat 11 tr.e
level exceeded a certain level on a particular day. -he
Pe.ional Administrator could snut tne facility icwn too.
n,"o "x~^r ^ ^ CM • ~ *- ~i ^ p c; v~ ' — c; ^ y ^ ^ at ne can sr'-_tt it O.CWT.
-r _• —10 ^ cv-/-)'-T-^v^ -r-Jl"1 -,V'-— 'f* ^^ T,-r-
_^ Sd.1/^ j.-d^ -'-I-. '^y ^.'-'WJ. .-_J Ci.'-t^ ^- ^tw..^.
MR. 7IE11S: Risht he reports it to the
pec-icnal Administrator, I theagnt you said the background levels
were cased en so few water samples'?
Y_ .^g,^.. P---V,:-_
?.TT3 •? •"" ^ T , "2 s : DC vcu feel a samrlins for a year
is toe few samples?
.MR. KESTEN : If you are going to use a statistical
orocedure such as described to determine whether those
cc^ amj ^at ions there is contamination or net, cut basically
the three monthly samples prior to taking the site into use
is certainly too small a sample.
MR. FIELDS: So you recommend we use this sort of
^^ocedur09 W^ -'nc^ea~e t'°^ numbe"^ of background samples?
MR. KESTEN- No. I certainly don't, v laughter;
because that way, we would have to start preparing cur site.
two three, four or five vears ahead of time, which we don't
intend to do. r.'rhat i am suggesting is, that rather than use
very subtle differences, such as the statistical method will
recuirem thatyeu simply regard obvious significant changes in
1
•
*
<
-------
1
2
' D .1 O
5 Mr. KnS^EM- 3pen to inspection and by
6 provided to EPA or tr.e state agency.
7 MR. FIELDS: Mow in line with that, you said the
8 Administrator could recommend to the facility that it be shut
9 down in the undue process. Could you amplify how that would
10 work? You are going to be taking these samples of grcundwater
12 MR. KESTEM: V;e reocrt cur monitoring results to
13 the Administrator and he then decides that we ought to be closed
14 down, and he closes us down., or goes to court and gets a closure
15 order, or issues a closure order which we can challenge in court
16 that kind of thing, or at a hearing of some kind. I don't thir.x
17 the machinery is in the act or in the regulations, but it could
18 be put in there.
19 MR. YEAGLEY• I would like to ask a question about
20 your point on perched water zones. Considering the comment
21 we have neard earlier in the terms of economic feasibility of
22 taking a general category of mining waste very far from the
23 site of the generation, can you speax to the abil
ti^ m 2. n j_ r. g i. n c. u s'- r o< /o preserve ,,.e — ^Ae^ — L.^^..^ .10.^
25 ^ e r ^ h ° d z c ^ ° tha^~ vou ^^e so^a'^lrtr o^1 because o ^ the ml
-------
1
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
:ablv
the tailings of a metal mine are piped from the mill down a
mountain side into a valley where they will be impounded behind
some di-:es. Immediately cer.eat that tailings area are ~wc or
three perched water zones, and the oermanent or stacle water tab
is 150 down, whereas these o e r c h e d areas are ^ 0 feet 60 feet
that sort of thing, and they do not supply drinking water.
MR, YEAGLEY • The conclusion I am drawing from what
you are saying is, then we will have to consider that on a
case-by-case basis?
MR. KESTEN: This is something that we have been
saying for the last three days. A lot of these things have to
be considered on a case-by-case basis within the framework of
general criteria.
CHAIRPER.SC7 FRIEDMAN; Thank you very much. The
next speaker is Jim 7. Rouse of Eviroicgic Systems, Inc.
MR JIM '/ . ROUSE- Good mcrning. I am Jim 7.
Route, General Manager of Enviroiogic Systems, Inc.
'.. would like to spea.-c with you this mcrning again, as
rr/.' crevious comments on the basis of one who is a former E?A
-------
2
3
4
5 area
6
7 injection control programs
8 was with EPA on several enforcement actions governing ground v/ate
9 pollution, severs
11 1 am in favor of ground water pollution control.
12 You indicated you were not going to count time for some
13 favorable comments, so don't start the clock yet.
14 I was quite pleased to read in the February 6, 197
15 proposed solid waste disposal criteria and some of the approach
16 taken in this. Of course, there were problems in the case,
17 "^ut t^e^0 " v>-*'•;; 9-"•" -i s r>i=^QC"ri'2g the variations in site conditions
18 and waste characteristics, and further made allowance f'
19 tremendous capacity of the vadose zone to absorb radionucli*
20 oassing through the vadose zone. They further gave
21 to the concect of groundwater restoration in those cases where
22 contamination of significance has occurred.. They happily aic
23 not reauire that everybody jack up the tailings pcind and
24
s
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I farther was oleassd when I locked at ~he various
)r or attenuation, encangernent
and underground, non-drinking water source, found in section
P ^ G . ~^ 1 w b '* c '^ ~* '^ d ~ c a *~ ^ s that s c p o n e w 11 h 1 n EPA w a 3 taking a
very good look at hydrogeciory. and at situations envisioning
an aporcach similar to the sanitary landfill criteria, and
the vadose as a saturation zone, and allowance for naturally
occurring contamination with provisions for excluding tnose
grcundwaters because of natural geologic conditions, the idea
being, the degree of control would be inconsistent with the
quality of that groundwater. Again, I was very pleased.
There was some heavy hydrcgeologic thinking went on there.
Now, you can start the clock unfortunately. (laughter)
After seeing all these definitions, ~ then get into the
fall back on a single aocroacn. inc
- - -
<
-------
s tr.ese
1
3
4
5
f _1 T ' i, -. _ —'1 *_ 1 f-,1 ^, — 4 ,-,,-,• ^,_~._-,,^ov-^.^_
7 zones, if a vadose zone exists, and the soluabiiity of the waste,
° the hvdrogeolosy of the site, the potential for leaching and it
9 is blanket across the way. It further incorporates some design
10 criteria which were copied from regulations such as the Texas
11 Railroad Commission and others, and they do not even reflect
12 demonstrated need or practicability of the measurements for
13 example, the one centimeters per second permeability very
14 closely accroaches the ability to measure permeability. That
15 is something approaching six inches per year percolation, and
16 then we find one of the artificial liners is suppose to have a
17 permeability of one times to the minus twelve, which no liner
18 manufacturer will address at all. In fact, we had trouble in
19 Mew Mexico getting anyone to say they would meet a six inch
20 p e rme ab i1i t y.
21 I am aware of one facility which involves some relatively
22 inert ferro cyanide complexes on a leach pad. The leach pad has
23 a permeability of aDorcximateiy two times to the minus six
24 centimeters oer second. This is not one times to the minus
25 ggya-o _
-------
-•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9 25
~~-
weils and todate r.a-e drilled some l,cCC foot and nave yet to
^^-i^'*^~-^iv-i CSV" ^.: f3 ~ c~ ^~'
~^ ",- ^ -^ -.0 ^ ,-i - — - — o ~ ~ ~- ^ ' " ~~ ^ — Q ~-"> <^ O ~ C ^ ,^ ~> Q ~ ^ ~' ^~ C* J --^ v- -^l o ^ ,^ '-- -•' •- ^
^ „ , , v, -• ,- ^ v- ^ c; - 0 ^, - - .^ a •" 5 , -> ~ t '^ "' r k w' t " some decree of c e r t a 1 n t v ,
— •• 2 r - — ^ - - *"-/ - ^a~ *" " ~ "^ '•/"' ^ "i •"s v^r be a^ '." cent am, ' n at ~ on mo veo.
And yet. the same kind of control existed here as some
of the love Canal facilities. These people do have a whale of
a vadose zone ground water monitoring system of some i,6CC
foot .
I further see some hazard to the EPA if an operator were
to build a system such as what you have designed with the
one times ten to the minus centimeters, and through some error,
this whole system fails. They could then come back to you and
when you start any enforcement action, and say, tough, Charlie
we did it the way you told us, and it is your problem now.
Father, 1 tnink, the approach that I. would take is to
consider that you have specified within the regulation that the
systems are to be operated such as to protect groundwater
resources, cot able ground water resources, and 1 submit to you
this is the kind of design criteria that you need. The
ocerator then should have the option of designing his particular-
system on the basis of the site characteristics, tne depth to
-op -,]?<--•* -qi-1^ -via 3 1" =; ~ ^-c t J cn cacacjtv c^ the v" close zone.
IT- ^^^ -~ _ j- v, „ ^ r> „ n _ _ ^ _ . .-r -• ,, v, _,„,_,„ -• ^ ,-, r~ ,-' v-i ~ -T £> — X fi ,- »- ^ -^ •z — 3 -"
,~j_j ^ uli^rbtr Oo*.~- -dO^o.o j1/.! — ^i. ^^niC: _._ d-^^^t. _*^~j- --- — ^ ^ — _ — ^w-
<
|
1
-------
- ^ -\
• I
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
•t
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
>__
25
, . -, . —
and toe person can come in and say ohat -nis ,;iod of conorcl was
trouble vou have of maintaining oualioy peooie in the Agency.
that they are working in, and then leaving to so out and start
consulting firms and whatever. 1 know that the ; ust if icao ion
of obese "o~e3 is extremelv difficult , and 1 would submit
to you tnat you have the kinds of control recuired in tnat you
say the system shall be designed and coeraoed such as to prevent
contamination of usea'cie ~rcundwater resources, and leave it
all at that .
I would suggest that you omit all these specific
design details, and let the operator design according to the
site specific conditions. After all, it is the results that
county and not whether you have six foot of one type fence.
Further, I would like to say amen to Mr. Kesten's
remarks relative to the crovisions specifically acolicable to
special waste. I fail to see the need for a six foot high
^9nc9 S-ZTCUHG 2. o i ]_9 of1 o Y6yc ujTcisn f jTcrr, 3, ur'S.nium miris Z^ is
0
^0,o>- V- cw -' -- -"o --'av,^^ --3 -0 U^eO --= -r.Ck -' - C" -^r-1^ n-if
4
1
4
4
-------
1
2 !
3
irrespective of time variat ior.s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of
w 1.
exar.oles are scir.s; to iaii even prior ro rr.an se"
I will be grlad ro address any questions.
CHAIRPERSCN DARF.AH: Thank you. Than> you fc:
ru ccmolir.entary renarks on 101 definitions.
M?. r.CL'SE: Those are the ones that address :
of study, the hydroseolos-y .
MR. FiELDS : I would like you to cemen
Regulation
MR. RCUSE
hink it is orobably worthwhile
note ~hat even if a minir.g waste does not, by scrr.
meets the already hazardous waste criteria, a tailing
still a sanitary landfill and sti
regulations.
MR. FIELDS: ~ take
you did not have any real problem wi
;o corns
unan heal
-------
1 j
1
2! i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ocerations
o -. ac
ir. 3. ols.ce r.\;risrs
~cac~--~s per
for that water.
XF. FIELDS: You also indicated you were going
to discuss the notes. We do have notes which would allow,
for example, no groundwater in certain situations, cut is it
your feeling --• I kind of set from your testimony that you
believe that in implementing this crograrn, that notes would ce
ignored-, is that your feeling?
?•!?.. HOUSE: From too many years experience with
the asrency, yes, that will
1 cmc e t e ^ c v t nat unfortunate iv
-------
A 1
2
•3
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
• iq
Id
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
vou are going to still have to nave a tremenaous crcgram, and
~ei:-ir~ --r_i3 ^o-x^-er.cv Involved on all cases is s-cir.r to ce .
~~ _ , _
tnat the ooerator has, designing around the site specific
-" s 4~='!"e acv»ntP~Q c 7" t^e rot-3 s-'tuation. Mow, vcu m~ ght want to
you have several routes you can taxe. I'cu can say oKay, _ give
up, I am going tc line the pond six Inches per year seepage
^ r> " - =; 3 wh~'cv "'s casicall1' one minutes ten to the seven. ?r
you can say, we are going to present these data to you so tnat
the attentuaticn in the vadose zone is going to prevent
contamination of grcur.dwater to harmful levels over and acove
the natural situation. Or you can say. okay, contamination has
~n n •, \ -^ f-> & r> ^ >~ Q -,,-p. a100 ~ o "' r ^ tc ^ ^ s t c r e that ccntam.lnated ccrtlcn
of the grcunawater upon closure as a portion of the closure
route. It gives the ocerator some flexibility to function, and
vcu ™^"i'^*"ir*>t co^side10 t^ose "^e^u'at^o^s ^s sav. ^'^ere ^ ~^ ^-
_0^^= ,^u_ ^:0^^,^ aro ^or^ ^^er,Q,_--.^, ar,^^oa^-^e^ ^_^^f.,^r,
in that .
_,_^OV3cc,f Di-c,-_,. - sr, __ ,u,_3 suv,0 -
u,d = r«ar.-. vc.r ar^.er.t atcu, ,,9 = = r.pe = sr.= v =, ,h, ?4,r.a,.,=
-------
1
2
3
4
I ' '
?!?.. PCU'SE: h'c. because ~c.e burden then is
r-n ~h^ ^r^^atcr and ne does not have
-*• -,
7 judgment of whether or not 1,600 foot of dry rock is equivalent
8 to having a one time pad of two times ten to the minus six,
9 plus 1,600 hundred foot of dry rock is that equivalent tc
10 foot of one times ten to
11 the operator ccm.es in and presents the plan
12 to review a situation like that then to come back and decide
13 whether you have the discretion built into the notes tc go with
14 -he system that are envisionsed, and basically, what ~ am
15 saying is, you don't need the design details that are here
16 siver., but rather, you have the goals set forth of preventing
17 significant ground water contamination for the ground water,
18 where the ground water is useable. Then he knows he has the
19 discretic-nery authoirty to come forth and present very
20 innovative designs using ground water hydrologic conditions at
21 the site. He is not faced with the problem, that when" he gets
22 tc the Agency with this innovative design, and somebody is
23 fresh out of school and sees it down here that thou shalt
24 have five foot of materials one times ten to tne minus seven,
25 and even thought the note is still down he~<=> =-•- n^rr' =
-------
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
cl,
is Jack Davis cf The Gulf Ccas7: v,:a3*:e Disrcsal Authority
think there are a couple of ccoies cf my remarks tna1- nave ceen
handed out to you and there are scrre types in there we will have
slightly expanded tc you.
T am Jack Davis. General Manager cf the Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority. The Authoirty is a three county regional
asency created by the State cf Texas to effect a waste
disposal crogram in the Houston-Galvestcn Area. We own and
operate several wastewater treatment plants in the area. Four
of these olants treat primarily industrial wastewater. The
the Texas Deoartm.ent of Water Resources and will initiate
rvo n'
, -• ~* -: ^ .-
7^-^if^T^^^-i,-' ^> d ~ i i | o *— r^T c: ^ p
lw _ W O O O ^T —i _ ^^—t-i-C-^^-^i-O ,, CZ.
*- ^ • i ^ '"^ ,o v '"~ zi c\ "• ' '^ n* ^ "*" ~^ ~ *~ ^ ~T — ^ T- r~f *" — p
^ ^ ^IC, uW'^t- d;.^U.. — O'j_j.^J_/'^ ^~- . >-*• >v-^
make some comments.
-------
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
landfills, land farms.
the water tatle (defined as the upper surface of the zone of
saturation in zrcundwaters...). The Texas Gulf Coast has many
ha vine: a perneacility o: less tnan one tines ten to tne minus
seven centimeters per second. These clays are normally
saturated with what is termed ' cerched'' water, which is water
held due to the impermeability of tne clay soil. This water
may leave by evaporation but not by percolation. The aquifers
beneath these clay soils are not completely saturated, while
the clays above them are saturated.
We do not believe you mean to forbid the location cf
subsurface landfills, surface impoundments or land farms in
the Gulf Coast clay soils. However, using the proceed
definitions for groundwater and water table together with the
proposed site requirements as they pertain to the location
above the water table, we do not believe it would be permissib
even takir.s1 into account the 'TT,otesl .
'.'.;e are also concerned bv the reculrement
2 5 0 . U 5 -o { 9 ) (~L 1) Landf arm.s
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
-_- was criminally I
ever six
cy e
Cation exchange value for our soil is 2
of soil which makes it a natural ion exchange me
• r->T>p
lire tha
il ce returned to i~s
of the oxidation of trace metals and the higher solubility c
those metal oxides. This is most: likely to occur with
inceneration of sludges, both waste treatment sludse and
water treatment sludge. Should such an incineration caused.
classification shift be likely, we submit that the entity
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or crotected frorr. inundation ty a ^30 year flee
cnarsrea wi'
C U.4.
y differentiate between a ;30
7 z> ,Q -^ - ~< •
CJ d. C: _ '„ J.i
"nils a ^C0 '.rsar"
v> d i~* 11 i ^ a rn £i
uiremer.*:. equally ir.pcrnan
is the ir.practicalltv
r^ - r- i
"t Hazardous Waste Seminar in California features
a speaker from the Envircr.~er.tal Protection Agency who stated
that the current thinking was to deny multiple use cf land fo:
waste disposal ourpcses. That is, the concept of landfarnins
over a c-osea _ar.a;i_l wcuic not ce accpetac^e. We suggest :
strongly that such a policy will escalate ever ""urthe10 the
Increasing cost of croper waste disposal cy recuirins: the tu:
o - rr. o r e _ a .n c t n a n is n e c e s s a r v '. [ e a r ^ u r a c i -~ ^ o u ^ c e ^ ^ t a ^ ^
-------
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
£ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A 25
t 3 •*
r»v -,-;- ^ -,. „ ~ J -^r ^ ^
control and facilit- retirements for a landfill are sucn that a
clcsea landfill is iieal ftr .se as a land far".
,_,_,_ ^f_,_ Q.,._ -_,.-- _
_ a_.^-v a,?. - -. _c-_ ,,rs lard avai-acle and not
deleterious to leachate control.
MR. 71ELLS: Some auestions about your land farm.
You said the soil would be better after tne land farming
f-M^^Toq^-nov'.c; v£* ~* ^^p-r>"lizii--ziQ T,''Ci€i''~* C 61 "^ 0 JTS VOUr* CT1^-^— n5.-^- .'<... 3."
haccens to the concentration of these heavy metals that- are
built up during the land farming operation.
MR. TELLER: We noted a concentration of metals
building uc during the land farming operation. V,"e nave one
under way now, and have one for three years now, and the native
ion exchange capacity of the soil, olus organic reduction
materails by soil bacteria., we do not see a build up of metals.
This is on the basis of experience in operation in place.
MR. FIELDS: You have done soil analysis after the
land cceraticns is comDieted?
Mp . mELLE?. : Yes,
vp r?Tirfpc;. ^ ~"j. "" Q. VCU 3end 11C; ~"<~ <=• ""•— S uf t 3 ?
MR. TELLER: We will send them.
MR. LINDSEY : If vcu are cutting metals into a
soil rhicn doesn't drain, where are they going: Yo. say there
<
4
<
-------
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
9 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
£ 25
is n: cuila up onrougn one lan.j.
-~ S~. - -__?---. . _ -=.0>- . - f- ,-- . ._ -- - ~ : . - •
oalning accut large areas of land for tne amount of sludge.
Me are land farming a 3"C: acre site, and we are staggering it
so ao no time is it more onan one-onird in preducoive
apclicaoion. and other ion cacacity is taking c_ace.
MR. LIMD2EY: Zo I guess the answer must ce, that
at least to this point, you haven't ceen atle to track the
ouild up?
MR. TELLER: I am net sure that' we knew the
answer, 'cut we cannot find any appreciable 'cuild ups.
MR. FIELDS: Do you know of any existing operation
where land farming has teen done after a land fill has 'ceen
closed?
MR. TELLER: Mo.
MR. FIELDS: This is .just a. concept?
MR. TELLER: That is correct.
MR. DAT.MTS : "/Je have two accountants and an
engineer and a lawyer working on it, and I think if the
lawyer hadn't ceen involved, we would have had them ready for
you today. I have seme sketches we could give you, and some
general tnoughts on it cut we are net ready for your direct
consideration .
The abdication of the proposed regulations to
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ r-i vi c~ ~ "
• -1 a — ->, c:
,~ Q c r1 s v 8 n
Similarly the clcsrue and pcst-ciosure reo_uirements :
not ce aocrccriate for a v:astev;ater treatmen*
:ar
w^ "^ c In '° a 3 an a t j_ 11.1 v
the decision to apply any or all the regulations to ary
v/astewater treatment facility with the Regional Administra1
would accomplish the goals of RCRA and at the same time
and no.ney.
The State of Texas is currently proposeding the creati
cf a perpetual Care Fund to ce utilized as a source of funds
for satisfying legitimate damage claims against hazardous >;as
cf an aeouate num.:
-------
5
6 !
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 !
24
25
.3 a:
/ ~c ° a t s o r ~ *"" I. n ci u 2 t r* i a 1 v.: a s o ? a ^
is a venerator a discoss.1 ~^ a c 1111 v or
ctive^v n av"" c. _L e c. and vi_eiec. a ^r^eaoe^1 rreasure n
nancial integrity 0.0 the Trust Fund, and •' 2 } the Regional
"^ i n i s t ^ a o c "^ should c ^ allowed one
oating fund coverag-e of portions
Addressing one trust fund, our calculations indicaoe
waen we
:un;
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e coucled with authority for the Regional Air.ir.istratcr
the 200 acres permitted, we will likely never have rr.cre than
twenty-five oercent of it in use at anyone tire with cells teinj
opened and closed on an as used basis. It would be unnetessary
to require the trust fund for the entire 2CC acres -- even
or. teh Present Value Factor formula.
A single trust func coula be supplied tnau wou_a
crovide the assurances of closure required cy EPA for the pcrtic
in our normal operations this would certainly give adequate
assurance of closure funds We would like tc submit additional
data to vcu in sucpcrt of these two proposals for your considera-
tion as vou evaluate the results of your public hearings.
;Jpp^d above . we have hazardous waste iis.
^rt.-i-?~-'-i--I-^c: '.; H "* ° n - — -si ^. ^ <*--•->£?. ,~* '^' '7 ~ r" ^ ' ^VGS ~* — <~"' ' ^ ~ ^ T~" * *
^i(J^j '_/^^T^« /Jli-i.^.ll —C - ^Z ~< -A. — ~t ^ J ^i-\~ »^-\ — o - ^ — **. — ^.--^-j
\ r ^ ^ c ^ d ^ o r t'" a t o o e r a 11 o n . _ r •
-------
•1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
A 13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A 25
,
r-r-.latirr.s are expected — ceccme effective, Paragraph ,,:.-:
'o- 2* '-iir 'a!., pa^es 533-5, cf the proposed r-rulaticn requir
each c-/rer ''operator receiving nazarious v.-aste to provide a casn
ieocsit e:,;al to the er.tire estimated closure cos- :f the
provisions snculd be made in this paragraph, or an appropriate
"note" addea. wnich -11 allcv tne Regional Administrator tne
discretion to accept a s.itacle cona or other arrangements,
acceptacle for closure during the period of interim status.
A crimary concern of the Authority is that unnecessary
oractices will be forced on local operators as a result of the
constraints olaced on the Environmental Protection ,-gency by
should provide the basic guidelines and address those
tb~:n~s so^c "' ^i cal 1 v ''T^sed bv these constraints, but that the
highest ocssible level of flexibility be given to Regional
Admin is t raters to "take into account local conditions and the
practical implication of the guidelines in issuing and
amendins cerm.its for operations and the conditions for long
term care. I think if you apply a national standard to these
^-V^-'^r-~ ^-V,->^ ~ ^>^ ^ -' -o -' — a ~ ^V-^.^ -r^i- "r~'~" ~ ^ ^~ ~ ^ — -^ -^T^-
~* T ~ \ " " "3 ^ TT" TV C* ^ ^ " ^ L IT Tl' r1 — T • 1~™> V-i O V^ f * * t~\ 1 - - - /^ V» - •• -T-l 1 ' "> i^- "."'' TO
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
factor in setting
hese
well it swings back and forth -- that two percent ever a Ion
oeried of tine has been a gocd average. I gather ycu think
na is see
•' s fa~'r"v Ions
we have a cerrr.it-ec. landfill in our estimated life
landfill is se';enteen years, and business
;atoor
' v
-------
1 !
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 "C S 3. >" 3 r 1. S ?- 5, V TTi C F. d
-' i^ "*" VJ O i —
RCRA
cllir.s who '.vill briefly reivew proble™ areas of ~he propose
s" ^ 1 a ~ i o n
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as failed to us
£ r"i p i^ yi o T~I "'f ?~ T_ (
..- 3
cton
-t-^-i ^y-i-r^vi.'-vp"-!^-^--'- v-^^.o^c;c:~1"Q'j~^|^'c* " - .r ^ Vs c; •*- •-"> p £; ^ " -^ r~^ /n j- v> r~i r^^i^^i^T-i^ic;
regarless of whether the measures are indeed ''necessary1' to
regulate the hazard oresented.
Vj'hile 1 tian to discuss the ramifications of this "v:crst
case" regulatory chilosophy using particular examples in the
cetroleurr. industry. I also acoear today to urge EPA to
consider adoption of a rr.ore flexi'ciie accroach in the regulatio;
*
:nent, storage, and disposal facilities — an approach
-.; >-> -i Q 'Q 10 o Q O CT ^ j_ 2 S
and h'7drolo£T. tne waste volume, and the potential for
"he d:
-------
2
3
4
5]
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I
-, ^ ^, w _-j y-, —
id 2 e*"* t^ 3. '* 51Lib S t ^ 'n ^ ^ 3.1. 't 'p"^^ ^ t "' "*" C PU.fT'^ r*> I1 S 3.^ 'C C
4
Another trou'
regulations is their coverage of all MPDES surface l.T.ccu
upon sound evidence of a "need"' for regulation, as noted cy
- v--. ^ q -^ • " ^ -r>
Pur.:her in order thar existing XPDES facilities she'.
r*ij_-'->r;>-g-^ ^^-1 c"1'"^.^'^ ~c d.e^c'^r'rri'^e "Z'^Q
~ studied)
re~u_a'
/ e x i
25
-------
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
- —, 11 ~ ~* id c* T1 ^ P- ^ ;^ i r" r"1 ^ "~ v'* f") J_ 3 . '•'' IL '^ n u n IL S IL r~i _ OITTT, 3. o 1 G n ;
' i •> ~ v> o "n-5 o r~
these
s.n er.vironr.entally acceptable trea^rnent and. disposal metr.cd
Vie auesolor. t'r.e r.ecessity of returning; soil to its original
condition ir. the absence of information rhat ~he soil is
causins environmental harrr.. API suggests ~'nat E?A consider
any reauireir.en.t3 which xould inhibit one use of technically
sound landfarming practices.
Fi^ailv. A.? I finds the expensive and inflexible fir a;
-------
•
2
2
4
7
8
Q
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
99
t-i.
23
24
•
r -r
_ - . - - . - .
retirements s~cu_u re:_eet tr.e aegree ana oration :: tr.e .tazar-.
-
— ^ ^-."Qv- •- ^ p — ^ :i ^ r- ~ ^ — — •- -7 - ^> ^ *- — ^ ^ — - ,— - . - ^ - - ^. ---> ^--^ ^^^-^r^~^
___ ___ .,___ _ .._.. _ /__,_
T-l, - ..-. ^~
.-• -"• ^ac--i-pi OOCOOH PO^> 3ur''~ ""'"^corta^" c^o^ects ^s er.er^v
In closins, Is- ™e reaffirrr. API's celie:1 ~r.ai ~r.ere are
ccst-^ *"^-ct n' ve ir^ars cv v;h"'ch these sucsi-r.t -' a" r.azards T:csed
tc r-unar, health and the er.vircnrr.ent can be identified ana
eliminated. API is working diligently to develcc these apprcach-
and assist EPA in preparing regulations v;hich acccnplish this
^ !** (^ 1 1 J ---i c^ ',r ~ 7 r^ "^ " -^ T* ' ' r ^ ~ c; r* --^ ~ *~ ^ c: -^ >" .0 ,^ "^ ~ " ^L
^^r^^~^iivr! -'^^i-.g — -xi-r p^»o c^^^ip^^ir3 "'"r*/ t^^S"1 '^'^•:rJ< ^"~"Q^^
'T.,(T _T7^. v,. __ ^ ._ ^.,,_ . _
-------
2 I
i
!
3 !
I
4 i
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
v c u 6 n t) 6 r1 L 8. i n cucsrions
as well?
resrardine vour cornr.ent
raci^ities.
:HAj.R?ERSON DARRAH: Have you done any -
"he waste contained in vour NPDES treatir.er/
u e c a c e
-------
-3
4
5
6 !
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
, j."r : : .c..
n -^ r— ^~ '
:HiIRFZRSOM DARRAH: Would YOU send us the
TTz.: ies triis ir.tcrniat
^ H TM 1
111 h ^
next v/eeK.
-------
1]
2i
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
estimation tr.
hese .
~\ f~. -^ p ,.
to operate, and even though you do have a note mechanism, i
cently, they adopted --
PI - o r^ T r ;s •*•» V*1 p — ~ n ~ •"] £31" ^ P -i ~""13* p '"M""; ri i^ f". ^ G "~ ~ -^ v^ o^
snou_oi say, t
the EPA croccsal that came out in December iSth as cart of
^""eir stat° "^esrulatlons verbatim and sent all the notes.
is what reallv
thcs notes, are not cart
and thsse
-------
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
the
- V- a ~
disposal is ccr.cerned. "ve
-•>-,- ^."
-------
1 i
2
3 i
6 i
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
iesisn resconsi'cilit
iesrrada'cle wastes.
-------
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
:s c2.3ea en r<= j_3- - ~cnsnip
fZi 5 "^ '
•^ ^ ^ "j. "*"* ^ cc rr.c -. z. 3..P c s v* —J
— V* ^ ,-»--o - — ^ --^ * a ^ -^ -^> ^_ ^ 2, Z 3."° C. C U. 3
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the escace of v/a.3~e or its ccnstitutents
frorr. the iiricour.drr.er.- of landfill."
•^initioH shouli be modified to allow the acceptance
.L'J
-------
1
2
3 i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 !
25
one r.ar.
ure
ea
Lection 250 .-3-3 ( a : ' 2 sy pa&e ;?C(
. h s T'.cn'Lz c^~Lr. ^, v.: e 11 c o n s ~ r u c ~ e o ?? ~
and perforated casing at levels to te sar.pled. Mus
ic a
-------
1 !
2\
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
;ert Y line. Landfills cannot be located, within 500 feet
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3|
4J
|
5 !
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fL , _
-------
1 !l
2
3
6 i
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
a r. - •"> •'
r- p f G c" ^>"" — v
61 T' C 6 *"> U ^ I. p^-^o^ ^ 3.1 n "
' >*> ^~ fi * ^~v 10 T->^^C!C^ C ~ "^ ~ <~* "~^
/_ v i . _ -_J i. wti^TC!:1* O L-CTO.
e operator. ;'us~ v:'r.c it should be, a combination of i~ . I
were possible to specif;/ ~he lar.d owner, I think it; would
11 ^ TD "/* T7 "> i^ J" " T/ • / -—, | i -ft -^> ^ f—i ^-> p^ *-^ ^i5^'~<^tk''"^y^ n*~ ••'^p"^" *~ ^ f^
-------
11
2i
II
3 II
i!
i
4 i
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 i
24
25
-------
i ;i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r _, ,, ^ „ -. p 0 -^ 5 S 6 -
• v-> Q <•-• ~ w-r '^ c: ^
' _ GL \-f '-^ .*-.!._-.-
"* " " "
, -i ^ " r" f^ r7 S ^ C C'T' c ^ t^ 0^ O1 S '13. —. 3 .
e
rcr.
n additional 1,
arres
ere
r> <-> ° O '
-------
1
2
3
6 !
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~v-^> state also recuires an ''Trdersrrourd Was"
<
. ~s to insure we cor
.
surface "rd rrcund water auality ar.d cuantit.v ircacts
he
us, prooer handl
all waste products, whether scli
and permits. s s a
also
r - - ^ =5
-------
l !
2
3
4 !
5
6 !
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
:f ~ ne :-rc~ ovpe -•!_
:vlev/ed the various draft; environmental irr.pac
rj_3orv "sr^1 which ^eview the Detailed Devslccrcerit Plar.s
•-;-^ ~ t~ —n •.• a^crcv^cx tv ~ b — ^"^sa CJ 1 S'fale S'j.osr'visor
Cccidental has reccsr.ized the value of ncre data on
'*" f-\ r-f* r\ p TO ^ r-.
shale develoc.T.ent , "hen we must learn v/hat techniques
-------
11
I
2
I
3 |
i
4 i
i
(
5 !
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 |
23
24
25
, j_ CL. . ^ >. - ^ -L
the -overnr.ent through legislation and resrulatic
uraccectacle risks are not take
ssure a
.earl-' indicated in Section ICCc of tne Act -- •
-------
i :
i
2 |
i
3!
I
i
4 !
I
K i
- i
6 I
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 -t p ' ^
; j_ s c r s. n c
Mined Land -eclamation Beard vhich were mentioned earli
The storage of of all Susnt shale, particularly fro p. ir.
e t n 1° t s "' ,?
— a c> ^ a
-------
2
3 j
5 !
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eing ne
'^ov'ds for ca'Tr"6nt o""1 fires winicin ™.3.v nsvsr a
ed tc earlier nave secarate tondlnr reouire~ents which in
*Z S 3.r"9
'"' — — "1 "^ '">"! "^ f^( ^5 f" is ^ Q v ^ J~To^.^~i-~;^svn'i;"i ,-^'
r.ar
-------
1
1
3 |
4 i
5J
5!
7
8 °nv-, •>, -ri^s -* ^ v-,^'----.-• .- ~ -' = -c~ = ~r ' " ": v;3
9
11 wasrs suc-'eet " - r.'-e r^^rv-'sic
12
•JO OT^O ci'^-'c;"-*'--^' r"Q^>-i"1^<--'^c -,--*i-^-*^ *-n^,^. w^C'-|"~cr* O "^ ^
Wcrc:^^^ --^rv, Lat:l"f.
f
15
16
17 as cne scecj. =L_ -r.-\ s^^^_-6
18 low hazard wastes are completed. _r ~r.is is no
19 accec-tatle, at the very least they should or.iy ce
; ] i h - c. r> r " -5
)'^^-tj—^ ^ ^^
21 r-pnr. .^
22
23
24
25
-------
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
: ^ ^ ^ t* c;
:ut assent iallv all t r.e
L _ ^ ^ t ^
-------
1II
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r i-.^ _ _/ .
, '— - - —
-------
2 !
I
i
i
3 i
i
i
4 I
, !
1
< i
5 !|
:|
6
7
8
9
10
11
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 i
20
21
sr.a__
I -i__ ^:r
^L _i "^ ^ c^ -_ ~ '^L
' o t p -^ q ! -:
23
-------
1 I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cces Er'A 1-cnow r.cv; r.ar.y ovrners/'ocera^ors will ce
•", r> r> .-> ^ ia
-------
1
3!
4J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 |
23
24
i
~ 3 SUC
r. c - i
25
-------
1
^^ l
2
n
1
4
51
1
7
8
9
i n
12
A 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
on
01
22
23
• «
25
-
-,
_ .,
' 7 N "•-'.' i 3 -•• - -i -,-;;=;-••- ~ -i - ^ " Q r = - -^ c - ^ ' ' - ~ - C "
. - z. :• -& =...-t .,. ^ n _ . . i .-_ _ - ^ ^ — : .-._ ^-^^_.^_r
readi-g-s re ensure r.cr-al cceraoions and
readings :
— 0 -' • ~ 0 ~ ~ * / \ "~ ,' '•
(5) Fences or carriers surro^ndins the facilif
f , -„ r. ^ _ „ ,- >- - Q ,-;„„.;,_,,
(^; Vese-a-icr. on or around the facilitv for
possi'cie damage' and
(7) The active ooroion of one facilioy for
fus-ioive air emissions.
;c) The observations r:ade in each visual inscecoion snal
>,p ^^-,-^^-rl - ^ -•„,=, --p ^-' -i - --, ' - ,--, „,•-... -,„„,. :•
11 -^ o iicr^^""''^"" o a ^ ^-^— ^ ,•-• j^ ^ |i p — ^ -r -^^o^-cr^"-^^!/^ -*,-> c:,'~'~'-^iiiC:c:^L^
-
1
|
i
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 i
21
22
23
24
25
; Q - n ji •
i -' -
n c t
S 0
> I— • i^ >1
ir.a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
<
cass disposed of in
availatle landfill scace than if -he pacer
-------
i !
2
3
4 !
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
* £i ~*~> £t —' V> t
-------
1
4 |
1 I
I j
5 jj
.1
i
6 I
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 i
24
since ac ue ous wastes
25
-------
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
e " p, C" , ^ c; i O ;" o
9 V 3.0 C "^ 3. T^ C "° S . S S V 6 r* S. 1 "/ 5 r1'/
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9 I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
^
-------
2
3
4
5
6 \
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 !
23 :
24
25
a?e an
;icr.
-------
1 i
j
II
2 i!
il
, II
J ,
o ,i
7
8
9
10
11 !
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 !
21
22
23
24 !
25
-------
11
2 i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 i
1
22 I
i
23 |
24!
25
-i _ - -.
ar.dils
reens cur was
-------
2 i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ T £ g c.dc."i.'b~:oc2.1. 'cu^c.0:
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. S -- ^ ""
24
25
-------
2
3 !
4 S
^ 1
0 !
5!
i
7 !
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'ears , ana v:e are in 'c 32v
-------
1
2 ;
3 !
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t —, »^ — j-
-------
1
2
3 j
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
)US
-------
1
2
3 i
6 i!
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2 H „,.,,.._„,„ ••_„.,_ _•__„ „,.„.-, __ -•„-•--. „„.„-,, -.-^^-^ _.; i
9 i
10
11 !
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 1 a r. articular crc~occ
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1 I
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q ^ „ - - ,-
cr
. -• -1-
-------
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19 j
20
21
22
23
24
i|
25 !
e-
f
-------
1 i
I
2 |
3!
41
6 -
i
7 ---
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
23
24
25 i
-------
1 I
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I
24
25
-------
i!
2
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 !
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
9 i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 1
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
7 i
i
8 !
i
9 i
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17 I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3
4
>^
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 |
21 |
22 !
I
23 \
24 |
25 i
-------
.
2 !
6
H
i
Q i
!
9J
10
i
12 !
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23 '
24 i
25 !
-------
.
5 la
5 !|
I
7J
8 i
i
9l
12
13
14
15 :
15
17
i
18 I
19
20
21 i!
j|
22 ;i
ij
23 !
i
]
24 !|
-------
0
5
7
8
9
10 |
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
is I
10 I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I 5--'
-------
l !
2 i
3 i
i
4 !
5 :
6
10
11 i
j
i
12
13
14
15 I
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2 >
0 i
I
7
i
8 |
i,
9 |
si
10 I
HI
I
12 !;
II
13 ''
14
15
15
17
18 !
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
9
10
11
13
15
16
17 1
I
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3 i
a
9
10
11 !
i
12 |i
13 |
14
171
13
19:
i
i
20 i
21 |
22 i
i
23 |
j
24 !
'>i
25 !
-------
2 '
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
8
9
1Q
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 I
i
21 I
I
22 i
23 i!
24
25
-------
1 :
|
2 !
S l|
10 ||
• I
l
11 :
i? ',
•~ ji
I
13
14 j
i
15
16 I
17 i
i
II
18 i
19 i
11
20 11
1 I
21 |i
22 !
ii
h
9-3 !l
H
24 !
25 !|
-------
o ;>
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
j
17
18
19
20
21
[
22 |
24 I
i!
25!
-------
2
4 'I
9 it
10
11
13
14
15
15
!
17
IS
19
I
20 1
I
21
i
22 i
23 ;
25
-------
2
3
4
5
7
3
9 i
10
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 !
22 !
i
23 j'
i
24 I
25 i
-------
2 ''I
10
13
15
15
17 i
18 | a—ea-
19 ! :s^:
20
21
22
23
24
25 i
-------
10 |
!
11
12 i
13
14
15
16
I
17 i
18 |
19 !
20
21
22 ji
23 i
24 |
i
25!
-------
7 ;
i
8 i
I
9 ;i
11
12
13
14
15
16 j
17 i
18 l!
19 j
I
20 i
21!
22 |j
23 |
24 <
25 '!
-------
10
11
12 i! -
13
14 [|
15
16 jl
4
17
18 i1
!
i
IS |
20 i
21 M
ij
M
22 i
:i
i
23 i
-------
10
11
Ij
13 ji
14
15 I
15 I
17!
19
20 !
21
22
23
25 ;
-------
1
2 :|
j
•* '!
ii
4 ii
10
j i
12
13
14 i:
\ i
,i
15!!
is i;
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•-:- .
-------
to
7
S I ...
10
11
12
13
14
15
il
16 !
17!
18 li r.-:-:-
19
24
25 i
-------
1 .I
I;
i •
9 ii
i i
II
10 j:
13
14 ||
15 I
ii
15 !i
il
17 |
is ;j
11
19 |
ii
2
24 ;
25 il
-------
s
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
-------
O '! i~
7
3
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
15
17
IS
19
20
O *
£. o.
22
23
24
25
-------
t ;j
, i
2 ,!
7
3
9
10 j r_
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f ,— v--- -
-------
1 9
IS !l
i
19 j
ii
20'!
21
23
24 i|
25
-------
1 !
2 !
0 >;
9 "
10 i!
11
13 j
14
15 !|
i
16 ||
17 i
18 '
19
20 Ij
21 l!
23
24
-------
1 ' I
2 •!
5 ,|
! I
li!
9
10
II
12 I1,
14
15 ii
i!
16 i;
17 !;
20
-------
1
2
7
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i ___•,,_
-------
2
3 :
4
i
i i
15
15
17
13
19
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
10
11
12 |i
13
U
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
13
19:
-------
9
12 j
13 i
14
17 |
13 i|
19 :|
i !
-------
3 i!
n
14
17 j|
I '
|
is ii
wij
I I
20 :!
01 i
•i j. , i
-------
•i i
3 |
9 !
• n
II i
14
17 '
i
IS i
19 i
I
l
20 !
24
-------
3 :i
9 :,
13 i,
13
19
20 I! - .—.
-------
5 !
i
7 i
8
9
10
11
M
il
12 ii
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 i
25
cl"C C ^ c. JT1
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 !
i
25
-------
1
2
5
6
7
8 resoor.si'cle for such emer?encv clean up, tha*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 cuestions from the oar.el?
16
17
18 John. Relative to the siting crcblem, I think we have talkec
19
20
21 '-'hat you at the local level and possibly we at the federal level
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5 |
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
24
25
. cp.
" P ~i 1 n'
Natural Service Comoanv.
^
Brocks. 1 am employed by the American Natural Service
Company, a subsidiary of American Natural Resource;
cf Detroit, Michigan, American Natural Resources Company i;
diversified er.ersv comoany involved crlmarll" ~" ^ the ~~'~'cdu^"
and sale of natii"ioal ~ a s and ^o^ ^. ^ne ^^ oi1^ ^i;pc:~^-^v^^o;'
"cal
;n .-aKOta.
<
-------
636
1
2 energy supplies. Two exanole projects currently underway are
3 low BTU gas from coal for captive industrial markets and
4 fluidized bed combustion of lignite for steam generation.
5 Today, 1 wish to present testimony related ~o the hazardous
6 waste regulations proposed by EPA and their effect on the high
7 BTU coal gassification project.
8 Although my comments today will focus on our high BTU
9 gassification project, I would like to stress that the argument
10 presented are also applicable to low 3T^" gassif ication faciliti
11 except that the magnitude of the waste in t r.e low BTU projects
12 is much smaller.
13 American Natural first proposed the construction of the
14 Morth Dakota gassification Project in 1973- Since that time,
15 considerable engineering has been completed and the major
15 environmental permits reauired for construction have been
17 obtained. The project has been thoroughly reviewed by the
18 various state agencies in North Dakota, including the North
19 Dakota State Health Department. A Final Environmental Impact
20 Statement has been issued by the Department of Interior. Pending
21 a final ruling from the Eederal Energy Regulatory Commission,
22 expected within several months3 construction will begin in
23 early 1980. The project has the support of the host state as
24 well as the Department of Energy.
25 The proposed coal gassification plant will be located
-------
1 -o^"*—'-^.v^-"1'":!? '"* ^ Q
2
3
6
7 3TU coal gassif icaticr. oroject
8
9
10
11 excect that the magnitude of the waste in the lov; STU croje
12
13 American Natural first oroccsed the construction of the
14 North Dakota gassification Project in 1973• Since that time,
15 considerable engineering has been completed and the major
15 environmental oerir.it s reauired for construction have been
17 obtained. The project has been thoroughly reviewed cy the
18 various state agsr.ciss in North Dakota, including the North
19 Dakota State Health Department. A Final Environmental
20 Statement has been issued by the Department of Interior. Pendir.e
21 a final ruling from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
e xo e c t e d w~' t hi n several months c 0'^ s t ~^u c 11 on ~'~ "*' 11 c e ^ ~ '^ ~ ^
23 e3*r^y ^.^-j, _he croject nas ^ne succort o_ ^ne iios^ state as
i
24 v/ell as the Department of En.ersv
25
-------
1
2
3 by a Morth Dakota electric cooperative.
4 the ccal for both facilities at an ultimate rate of approxima
5
:aciiities -
the mine, a practice common in the 3reat Plains coal region
8 to increase energy efficiency and decrease operating; costs.
9 The hazardous waste regulations proposed cy EPA concern
10 us for two primary reasons•
11 1. They fail to consider site specific data when
12 determining whether a waste is to be considered
13 hazardous. and
14 2. They restrict ''utility wastes'' to bottom ash,
15 fly ash and scrubber sludge from steam coal plants.
16 Please allow me to develop these points further.
17 First, let me state that the g-assif ication process
18 generates a volume of ash similar to a large steam electric
19 plant. Our full plant will process approximately 27.CCO tons
20 of lignite per day and generate approximately 1,7CO tons of ash
21 oer day. This ash will be combined with the ash from, the power
22 olant for common disposal.
23 State of the art in ash disposal for mine mouth plants
24 in this region is burial in the mine as an ongoing part of the
25 m.inin? and reclamation plan. The ash, which can be cr.aracteriz-
-------
W 1
2
3
4
5
o ^-^^ ~,qv-,t,
types of coal ash other than tne steam coal ash which constitute;
-------
1
2
3
4 hs3.tin£" ourcoses. V'e believe that 3.11 ''coal asi wastes'"
5 be ir.clud.6d in the special waste category.
6 would result in extremely costly restraints . . . . .
7 jeopardize the economics of an emerging industry which we feel
8 is an essential segment of this country's future energy supplies.
9 1 acpreciate the opportunity to make this presentation,
10 and we would like to reserve the right to provide additional
11 written testimony on the proposed regulations, the Draft
12 Environmental Impact Statement and the draft Economic
13 Impact analysis. Thank you.
H CHAIRPERSON DARRAY: Thank you. Certainly all
15 comment;s are welcome up to March loth. V/oulti you answer
16 Questions if there are any?
17 MS. BROOKS- If I can.
18 MR. FIELDS: ?/T.s. Brooks, in your submission, are
19 you going to be sending us some data regarding this ash from
20 coal gassification that is, Quantities, characteristics of the
21 waste. You said it is .c_uite similar to coal ash?
22 MS BROCKS• Y°s there are several reccrts we can
23 submit. One of them was done by MESA in Summersville from the
24 University of North Dakota, and his conclusions are very similar.
25 MR. YEAG1EY: Do you have any data that this material
-------
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
MR. YEAGLEY: Your conclusion as _ understand it
if you are determined to be a hazardous waste, you crefer to
be a special waste?
MS. BPOOKS: Definitely.
Let me say there are certain problems with being
classified a special waste hazard, however, they are not as
they don't present us with insurmountable problems as being
classified just hazardous waste.
CHAIRMAN DARRAK: Okay, thank you very much.
Cur next speaker is James Siegfried of Johns Manviile.
MR. JAMES SIEGFRIED: My name is Jim Siegfried.
live here in Denver, Colorado.
I am employed by Johns Manviile Sales Corporation. I
had not originally been scheduled to make a statement, bur I
find that sitting back three days without saying anything,
that is harder than I can take.
At any rate, what I would like to do is, if I can, is
try to get back to the basics., somewhat in line with the
methane ?as statement and John's inquiry. I follow -his
-------
I UJ_
1
2
3
5 tv.e wcr]_j d0 these wastes go.
6 and permitted to dispose of hazardous waste.
7 I recall at one point the notion was put forth that
8 cerhaos the Agency., the EPA might have to arrange for at
9 least one approved hazardous waste disposal site in each state.
10 Even j_f that meant using federal lands, public lands, to
11 make the space available. I haven't heard anything in recent
12 months in connection with that suggestion, so I .j'ust presume
13 it is a dead duck.
14 CHAIRPERSON" DARRAH- Let me just clarify, we don't
15 have the authority to use federal lands.
16 MR, SIEGFRIED: I know. It came up in some of the
17 earlier work shops discussions and so on.
18 CHAIRPERSON" DARRAK: That was 'just to clarify.
19 MR. SIEGFRIED: That was just a notion.
20 CHAIRPERSON DARP.AH : We don't have the autho?ity
21 to do that .
22 MR. SIEGFRIED- Mow, in the discussions of these
23 last three days, it becomes obvious that the primary
24 concern, both inside government as well as outside government,
25 still remains where in the world do these wastes go and how
-------
1 does the land set arproved to develop these sites.
2 I would sussrest tnat tr.e problem may be greater
4
5 misht exrect a judicial decision in litigation proceedings
6 brought about by the well established challenged, groups,
7 could sweep whole new volumes of waste into the hazardous categc
8 And that coupled with the prerogative of the states to add
9 hazardous materials to the list, means that we might be
10 talking about a dimension that is far in excess then seems to
11 be taken into account that these regulations have been devised.
12 T never in my wildest dreams thought I would get around to
13 a suggestion to a Viashington based agency to go out and spend
14 money (lauehter) but that is precisely what I am going to do.
15 Let SPA pick a location of the country, urbanized,
16 industrialized, where there is a conglomeration of hazardous
17 waste that must be disposed of. and then with assistance from
18 your sister agencies. U. S. Geologic Survey, the hydrology
19 ceoole and so on, find a site in that area that would be an
20 ideal hazardous waste disposal site. At that point, award
21 them a demonstration grant contract to some qualified
22 contractor, and the assignment would be to get approval for
23 that site. And the only condition would be that he would
24 crooeed -- the contractor would proceed without using
25 influences unicue to government that would not be available on I
-------
1 the OUT;side to crivate individuals, and "hen this >;r.ole prcgrarr
2 would ce verv carefully monitored by EPA's repeats and cloou^e
3 surveillance.
4 Now, if the contractor is successful and gets approval
5 for this site, 1 think all of us will kind of stand back in
6 awe and admiration. The approved site then could be even
7 donated to the local jurisdiction or leased to a qualified
8 operator.
9 If the contractor fails on the other hand, it; seems to
10 me that then there is a firsthand experience that can be
11 metered in shaping the regulation that are involved here.
12 Also, if the contract is still muddling along two or three
13 years hence without approval for the site, it seems to me
14 that then you have a gen quality that you could take to
15 Capitol Kill and say, hey, my contractor is in trouble, the
16 Agency is in trouble, industry is in trouble, the country is
17 in trouble, the economy is in trouble, we can't get approval
18 and ask Congress to try to unravel the situation.
19 So, I guess I just want to get back to the basics in
20 how in the world this thing is going to work. I guess we
21 look to the agency, and I know how much time and effort has
22 gone into these regulations. We look to you to define and to
23 frame problems, and then to develop the prohibitions to assure
24 that the correct things are being done. Hut I think society
25 looks for something even more imocrtant. I think we look to
-------
1 the agencv for that leadership.that guidance, the answers, the
2 insights, the solutions or at least the direction towards
3 the solutions in trying to solve these problems and I think we
4 are talking about an awful lot of wastes, an awful small
5 number of approved locations where these wastes can be ultimatel
6 disposed of. I get a little bit of uneasy feeling. 1
7 recognize that the deadlins for promulgation of regulations hav=
8 passed and I get the feeling that we are saying okay, let's
9 get the regulation promulgated. Let's get them on the books,
10 and then let's hope everything works out alright.
11 When I begin to look at that kind of strategy, I keep
12 thinking of Murphy's Law. and I think we almost know ahead of
13 time the kinds of situations that will evolve.
14 -So, that is all I wanted to do is bring in this whole
15 matter of whatever the Agency can do in the way of shedding
16 light on to how you gain approval and how the space is going
17 to be made available with this mass of hazardous waste, which
18 is as I said in the early part of my remarks, going to grow
19 beyond the dimensions that I am. sure the Agency even visualizes
2Q as they proceed with the regulations.
21 These are the only comments I had. Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON DARPAH: Thank you. Will you answer
23 questions?
25 MR. FIELDS: Mr. Siegfried, what you Just described m
-------
1 there is auite similar to what v/e have gone through in
2 Minnesota. V/e were in the crocess of funding a demonstration
3 oroject with EPA sponsorship. 2'-" million dollars over a
4 five year period, federal sponsorship, state caching and so
5 forth, and we ran into all sorts of public opposition problems,
6 even though the federal government backed it, it was going to
7 be designed and operated in accordance with your duideline and
8 so forth. I am happy to see you reporting our experience on
9 a two or three year period, and trying to do exactly what you
10 are saying.
11 MP. SIEGFRIED: That is what has been coming throug
12 loud and clear from the very beginning. The paramount question
13 it seems to me inside government and out, is how do you set
14 anything approved for these kinds of disposal sites. And
15 hopefully EPA is not going to solve the problem for us if tlrere
16 are natural problems, but hopefully some light somewhere.
17 MR, YEAGLEY: I was recently in a meeting at
lg San Diego,and heard a presentation of an individual from
ig Michigan and he mentioned that one solution that they were
20 using or were planning to use, I believe, was that the state
2i would site, and I believe they were on a regional basis, and
22 I don't recall how many there were throughout the state of
23 Michigan, but in order to accomplish the siting, they had
24 the authority somehow or another, and this was on a ccndsmnatic
25 basis or otherwise to site these facilities without a local
-------
1
2 MR. LINDSIY: I might; also coir." out, we still ha
3 that authority in ilirnescca and 7reren't able to overcome the
4 political ram.ifications. I should point out for your
edification, you and the rest of the audience, we are doing th
same work now. There have ceen some sites sited privated i,n
the last few years. What we are trying to do is to try to
determine if there is any common thread to the way in which
public education or discussion or involvement in the siting
of those facilities went forward. We are also going to take a
11 look at some of the ones that weren't successful. We had our
12 own individual experience in Minnesota, but have been a lot
13 of other ones that weren't successful and tried to see what
14 happened there that caused those facilities to be unsuccessful.
15 Now, we are going to be looking at what is a technically
16 good facility, and hopefully that will shed some of the light
17 you are talking about. If not, and I think it is very fair to
18 say, that without the facility, this Act cannot be implemented.
19 There is just no way, as you pointed out, and as other people
20 have pointed out in these hearings, and if that is the case,
21 and we are unable to do it, and in the next few years, the sit
22 facility through private enterprise or with the encouragement
23 of government or whatever, then it will take a Congressional
24 fix. I don't know what the congressional fix is going to be
25 useful or satisfactory either. So. it is a very serious probler
-------
647
1 and we recognize that, and all I can say is, that we are trying
2 to do what we can to try to uncover what the practical approach
3 maybe short of some congressional action, but I don't know
4 whether we will be successful or not. We are working on it
5 and any suggestions you may have, and you have suggested one,
6 we would certainly like to hear from you.
7 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Okay, thank you very much. Our
8 next speaker is Robert C. Sandoval, Executive Director,
9 Colorado Concrete Masonry Association.
10 MR. ROBERT SANDOVAL: Thank you very much for the
11 opportunity to talk to you a few minutes today. I have already
12 mentioned that I am Robert Sandoval, Executive Director of the
13 Colorado Masonry Institute.
14 The Concrete Masonry Institute of Colorado, whose'
15 number total 11 concrete masonry producers are very concerned
16 that the EPA proposed regulations will cause them a severe
17 escalation of production costs if available flyash is
18 declared a-hazardous waste. Further, coupled with a severe
19 cement shortage, their total production for any given year would
20 be reduced, therefore affecting the ability to stay in business
21 or meet product demands.
22 In the year!977 these producers used 10,912 tons of
23 flyash. In the year 197S those producers used 10,728 tons of
24 flyash. The concrete masonry producers can, and have been re-
25 olacing their cement 'content of their masonry units by 40 percent^
-------
6*8
1 with comanche flyash. This means that forty percent of the
2 cement that would ordinarily be needed to produce a quality
3 product can be substituted by a good flyash.
4 What are the benefits derived from this huge use cf
5 flyash.
6 I. Excellent quality of units produced.
7 2. Increased production.
8 3- Cost reduction.
9 4. Energy saving.
10 Let us look at one of the very important benefits that
11 everyone in this room should be interested in — Energy. The
12 fact that the concrete masonry industry replaces its cement
13 requirements by forty percent can be interpreted as a very
14 substantial energy saving because, the cement industry is
15 number six on the list of high energy users. Flyash is
16 produced by only the energy that is required to collect it from
17 the- power plant stack. It is estimated that for every ton
18 of flyash used to replace cement, an energy savings of
19 2,500,000 BTU's are saved. In the past two years, 22,000 tons
20 of flyash were used in the concrete masonry industry, having
21 the total effect of 55,000.000 BTU's of energy saved.
22 These producers also see a real benefit to the general
23 public and environment by the utilization of the flyash.
24 Rather than having the power plant dispose cf it as /:aste
25 causing further environment problems, the rationale cf
-------
1 utilization cf coat by products by RCP.A'is heartily endorsed.
2 These producers have invested a ccnsideracle amount of
3 money and time to perfect the product produced with the use of
4 flyash. As well as the supplier/marketer of the flyash. The
5 producers do not have any information in respect to adverse
6 conditions or any evidence that flyash used in their products
7 has or is causing any environmental problems. The flyash is
N8 delivered to them in sealed bulk pneumatic trailers, unleaded
9 by air conveyance, and stored in an enclosed silo with approved
10 air filter equipment. No employee is exposed to excessive dust
11 or an environment that would cause concern for the safety of
12 his well beins.
13 The Colorado Concrete Masonry producers consider flyash
14 as a byproduct of the coal burning utilities, a useful product
15 of considerable value. They do not consider it a waste
16 material. If the EPA were to determine flyash a hazardous
17 waste, its use in concrete masonry units would have to cease
18 and as previously stated cause them considerable loss of
19 production and revenue,
20 In summary, flyash has become a considerable part of the
21 economics in our industry. To remove this product from the
22 production of the masonry concrete units would surely have far
23 reaching effects in the whole construction industry. Vie ask
24 that the EPA give considerable thought to the total rair.ificatio
25 cf the proposed regulations. Thank you.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you answer
questions from the panel?
MR. SANDOVAL: Yes.
MR. FIELDS: Mr. Sandoval, what concept are you
alluding to in our preamble in these proposed rules? Is it
the concept of commercial products standards? Would it benefit
you if EPA, for example, wrote a standard specifying levels
of cement/flyash that culd be utilized in making cement
products?
MR. SANDOVAL: Yes, it would be helpful providing
we were involved in the input.
MR. FIELDS: Well, in that regard, any data you
might have regarding how we can write a standard regarding
how flyash may be utilized in making of concrete products.
We wrestled with the concept to the proposed rules, and if you
have any data in that regard as to how to write the standard,
so as to resolve the flyash problem and replace virgin
materials to make them into concrete products, it would be
appreciated.
MR. SANDOVAL: Alright.
MR. FIELDS: We are receptive to receiving that kinc
of data.
MR. SANDOVAL: Who would I send that information tc
MR. FIELDS- To John P. Lehman.
CHAIRMAN DARRAH: I misht add. we have heard from
1
-------
j 651
1 from other speakers WHO spoke about Comanche flvash, its
2 peculiar characteristics. We were led to understand earlier
3 that would affect its use in your product. That information
4 vrould also be useful.
5 MR. SANDCVA1- Yes.
6 CHAIRPERSON DARRAK: Thank you. I will next call
7 on Mr. Robert Erickson, Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
8 MR. PAUL REYNOLDS: Let me introduce myself.
9 I am Not Robert Erickson, I am Paul Reynolds. I am an
10 Environmental Engineer employed by Basin Electric, which is a
11 regional generation and transmission cooperative headquartered
12 at Bismarck, North Dakota. We serve rural electric distribution
13 cooperatives in the State of Colorado, Iowa. Minnesota,
14 Montana, Nebraska,, North and South Dakota and Wyoming,
15 We have existing coal fired generation facilities in
16 operation in North Dakota and also have an 880 megawatt
17 facility under construction in the State of North Dakota and
18 with a projected 1,500 megawatt facility in Wyoming.
19 I would like to preface my remarks by saying that
20 Basin Electric concurs with many of the comments that were
21 offered here today, specifically those regarding the
22 regulation of special wastes, and in that regard, in particular
23 the diposal of utility wastes into the depleted areas of the
24 strip mine. We will offer detailed comments on our concerns
25 in prepared comments we will submit by the March 16th deadline.
-------
1 If utility wastes are ultimately deemed hazardous under
2 identifying procedures described in section 3001, many reuses
3 of utility wastes currently in practice today would require
4 regulation. The previous speaker has given you a good example.
5 The result of this regulation would effectively preclude the
6 reuse of utility waste, most of which are well established and
7 none have been known to impair human health or the environment.
8 It is our understanding, that under the proposed
9 regulations, the utility wastes, if indeed they are considered
10 hazardous, could be subjected to resource recovery only at
11 Section SCO'1 permitted facility. Since many of the present
12 reuses of utility wastes are economically marginal at best,
13 additional regulatory imposed expenses will end most of these
14 reuses. This is inconsistent with the national policies of
15 energy and resource conservation, and is contrary to Congress'
16 intent in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
17 The utility industry along with numerous other industries
18 has been mandated by the Clean Water Act to strive to achieve
19 a zero discharge status at its facilities. This mandate is
20 carried out by concept of designing power plants, consumptive
21 water processes, to upset the water of cascading lower water
22 quality and to segregate and recycle higher quality water
23 to the greatest extent possible. This is achieved by a
24 complicated water balance by well monitoring, and is controlled
25 by the plant process computer. It also recuires that ccntainmer
-------
1 faciliteis specifically surface v/ater impoundments ce
2 constructed. These will be constructed using sound engineering
3 practices, incorporating site specific data, which nas previous
4 been identified by speakers here today.
5 It is cur understanding that these facilities which would
6 not be permitted under the JIPTSS discharge program would then
7 come under the auspices of RCRA. As such, if this process
8 water is deemed hazardous by the identification process in
Section 3001, the water containment facility would come under
10 the regulations of Section 3004. As such, some of the
requirements imposed, appear to be questionable and there would
12 be undue burdens placed on the utility industry.
13 I would just like to cite one example, and that would be
14 the manifest and record keeping requirements associated with th=
15 relatively continuous flow. It shouldn't be difficult to
implement manifest type documentation procedures and also
I feel the result would have questionable value. In
18 conclusion, I would just like to state that Basin Electric is
19 concerned that the management of hazardous wastes must be
20 resolved in the timely manner, and that Congress may have
21 inadvertently placed some over-restrictive time constraints
22 on the EFA. Hazardous waste is an extremely complex area to
res-ulate which is further complicated, because it must
interface with earlier environmental regulations governing
the air and v/ater. Since ?CRA seems to be the closing- link
4
-------
1 in environmental legislative circles; it is prudent to allow
2 sufficient time for the promulgation of well written and
3 enforceable legislation which recognizes cost effectiveness
4 measures to crotect the environment. Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAK: Thank you. Will you answer
6 Questions?
7 MR, REYNOLDS: Yes.
8 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH- I guess there are none. Thank
9 you.
10 I will next call on Mr, J. D. Mullen. Rocky Mountain Paint
11 and Coating Association.
12 MR. J. D. MULLEN: Good afternoon. ¥y name is
13 Dick Mullen and I am President cf the J. D. Mullen Company,
14 Secretary of the Rocky Mountain Paint and Coating Association.
15 I am speaking on behalf of the 16 manufacturers cf paint and
16 related products who are in this region and for the Waste Water
17 Quality and Management Task Force of the National Paint
18 and Coating Association.
19 The NPCA is a voluntary, non-profit industry association
20 composed of more than 900 companies which manufacture consumer
21 paint products and industrial coatings, and also manufacturer
22 the raw materials that are used in those products. The NPCA
23 membership collectively produces about ninety percent of the
24 total dollar volume of consumer paint and industrial coatings.
25 The Task Force is composed of arcroxinately IS
-------
1 representatives of association members and two staff employees
2 with the nunter one objective 1:0 work with governmental
3 authorities at all levels ana with our member firms in
endeavoring to protect and improve our environment in a
reasonable manner with reference to water arid land quality
in our environment, and to educate our members regarding
reauirements and methods to meet all water and waste disposal
standards.
9 The NPCA and its membership agree with the fundamental
10 objectives of Resource Conservation Recovery Act of 1976. Vie
11 recognize that the handling and disposal of hazardous waste
12 should be accomplished in a manner which protects public
13 health and safety and preserves the environment.
14 It is our chief concern that when the EPA promulgates
15 final regulations for RCP.A. it does so with real world
16 constraints in mind. In other words, the regulations should
17 reflect differences among industries, recognize the various
18 degrees ofpotential harm among wastes and be designed to be
19 both workable and economically justifiable.
20 The paint industry perceives many specific technical
21 and procedual problems associate with the proposed rules and
22 regulations. Along with other concerned industries, we intend
23 to submit detailed comments addressing these problems on or
24 before March 16,1979.
25 Today, though, I will limit my remarks to a few policy
-------
1 points which concern the framework of EPA's program and one
2 crovision specificallv affects the paint industry.
3 It seems obvious that to achieve the goals of HCPA,
4 there must soon exist a netv/crk of convenient and cost effective
5 hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities throughout
6 the United, States. EPA's own estimates tell us that ^0 to 6C
7 additional site disposal, commercial use will be needed when
8 RCRA is implemented. Facilities lack sufficient capacity
9 to handle the waste already being generated.
10 Ohio, a state where 103 of the coatings industry
11 companies operate, representing a seed example of the severity
12 of the facility crunch in that state, nearly 90 percent of
13 the hazardous waste is being disposed of cut of the state
14 rather in permitted sites within the state. Only three dispcsa:
15 sites in Ohio have even a possibility of qualifying under
15 RCRA, and one has a remaining capacity of less than nine months,
17 As a recent GAO study points out, community objection
18 to having its area become so called dump ground for other
19 people's wastes or even their own wastes is a major obstacle
20 to siting the necessary number of waste disposals facilities.
21 Public opposition, is expected to increase as the new
22 requirement for public participation in the permit process
23 are implemented.
24 In fact, in California, where the industry has 196 plant;
25 California state officials report that if RCRA requires public
-------
1 hearings in permitting: of existing sites, the adverse attention j
2 ma close eiht of the state's ten existing facilities.
3
some states which have passed legislation more stringent then
RCRA or have enacted procedures which render the permitting
facility more cumbersome. For example. Connecticut, which
has ten paint plants, has passed a bill allowing local
governments to prohibit through zoning land use for hazardous
9 waste disposal. It provides the local body with unfettered
10 veto power over location of a site. Federal law needs to
encourage area~ responsbility for providing disposal of waste
12 materials created in that area.
13 The NFCA has, and EPA has obligations to examine
14 avenues which can expedite the location of the cradle-tc-grave
15 approach to solid waste disposal.
16 We endorse the GAO view that a more active federal and
17 state role is required if facilities are to be available to
18 handle the quantities of waste generated. This may necessita
19 the siting of facilities on public lands or leasing by a
20 state of sites to private operators. Controlling hazardous
21 waste is clearly in the national interest to serve that
22 interest preemption of local government authority may be
23 warranted.
24 in addition to assisting directly in the siting of new
25 apcroved facilities, we recognize and recommend " that Z?A
-------
1 adept a system to classify hazardous waste according to the
2 desree of its potential harm. A systemati
3 manageable, not to mention mere realistic to
4 overly inclusive listing of hazardous waste by standard industri
5 classification by virtue of its special handling procedures
6 for groups of special waste which pose only a low potential
7 hazard. EPA has already recognized the advantage of ciassifi-
8 cation. This is only a starting point. We propose that all
9 waste should be classified as to potential hazard to the
10 environment and public health.
11 Certain wastes, like pesticides and explosives, which
12 are known to present a severe and imminent danger to the
13 environment, and public health, if improperly disposed of, wouic
14 be classified like hazardous waste, they could possibly pose
15 a danger to the environment and public health, and would
16 pose a problem if they were indiscriminately disposed of.
17 If it would be classified as hazardous waste for which
lg data proves potential hazard as relatively low, would be
19 rated marginal hazardous by classifying hazardous waste, EPA
20 could phase in a coverage to cover the most hazardous waste
21 first and the advantage of using this type of regulatory
22 system are many, and include the following:
23 1. Assure that the most hazardous waste will be
24 disposed of in only approved facilities, and maximum
25 use of a limited number of acprcved facilities. ~L~
-------
1 would, allow for additional time in which new sites
2 can be developed and old sloes upgraded. It would.
3 allow for additional tine to develop data on the
4 rnareinally hazardous waste and develop more realistic
5 alternatives for disposing of this type of waste.
6 I would now like to comment on a provision which singles
7 out the paint and coatings industry culprit per se. Where
8 hazardous waste is concerned. Section 250.1-4 deems all paint
9 waste such as used rags, slops of latex sludge, spent solvent
10 and so forth as hazardous, unless it can be demonstrated that
11 they are neither toxic nor ignitable or contain toxic organic
12 substances.
13 The NPCA strongly believes, presuming all paint wastes J
14 as hazardous presents an unfair and overly broad categorization
15 We certainly admit that certain types of our wastes are
16 hazardous.
17 Spent solvent, for example, may be flammable or
18 combustible, but other examplesof waste listed in 250.14 are
19 not necessarily hazardous. A substantial percentage of our
20 rags are laundered and reused while the term slops is used as
21 an example of paint waste. We are a little unsure as to the
22 meaning of that word as related to our industry.
23 A.n independent certified lab found that with exception
24 of slightly elevated mercury levels, a few samples of emulsion
25 paint waste water treatment sludges from seven rnanfacturing
-------
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
locations, fell below iPA's maximum extract ^.eveis for heavy
ien and excer.se of test ins: anuallv ail our
ardous
g removes tne
wastes, even thouse we
EPA's arbitrary and over inclusive li
incentive to separate regular solid wastes from hazardous
materials and may result in wastes being shipped to hazardous
landfills unnecessarilly. This can add to already overcrowded
situations and lead to short and needless life of hazardous
wastes facility which inflates the costs, which inflates the
product price we must charge our customers.
EPA. is asking the paint industry to carry the burden of
proof that its wastes are not toxic organic waste, without
providing an established orcedure to follow.
In the preamble to the regulation, you stated, today,
EPA proposes to rely on consideration of the first four
characteristics because those are the only ones for which the
Agency confidently believes tests proposals are available.
Yet, 250.15, EPA spells out that these untried and
unproven proposals are the ones to be used by a generator to
prove that his waste is not toxic organic.
We recognize that all listings are based solely on
characteristics of the bioaccumulation of toxic organic
substances, and ask they be delayed pending further review.
Cur final general comment concerns exemption under the
Act for any come any which generates less than one hundred
-------
1 kilograms per no nth. EPA. has as^ed industry to indicate
2 whether it feels this exer.pt ion should be raised to one
3 thousand kilograms per north. '.TPCA believes it should be
4 raised to one thousand kilograms oer month in order to remove
5 the owner's turd-en on small paint manufacturers, including
6 applicators, even small paint contractors generate more than
7 one hundred kilograms, and this cost of compliance will
8 certainly have to be passed on ~o the consumer. Further the
9 one thousand kilogram level would provide an incentive to
10 industry to reduce waste, where there is no area or possibility
11 for reducing below the one hundred kilogram level.
12 To summarize, N?cA strongly recommends that initially
13 EPA provide for 50 to 60 additional cost-effective hazardous
14 waste disposal sites. To turn the public prejudice to public
15 responsibility for locating sites, remembering that household
16 wastes also contains many of the same hazardous wastes that
17 industrial wastes contains. Classify hazardous by the degree
18 of potential harm and prioritirize management accordingly.
19 and relieve the burden and expense of testing, and when
20 necessary, specify proven test protocols,
21 MPCA supports the suggested exceptions of one thousand
22 kilograms per month. Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRPERSON DARPAE: Thank you. Will you take
24 questions?
25 MR. MULLEN: Yes.
-------
1 MR. FiELDS: I know some of your comments are
2 directed towards national scope and some were specifically
3 to your 16 companies in this area, I guess . tut, where do your
4 lc companies' waste 2:0 now that are being generated?
5 MR. MULLEN: The only one 1 know is available is
6 Lowry Bombing Range.
7 MR. FIELDS: So most of the 16 companies send
8 their waste there now?
9 MR. MULLEN: There is about 11 companies in the
10 Denver area, and I really can't tell you where those plants
11 who are outside the Denver area send their's.
12 MR. FIELDS: So you see as a result of these
13 regulations being implemented a capacity probelm in the future
14 at that facility?
15 MR. MULLEN: Yes, we do. We are having problems
16 there now as a matter of fact.
17 MR. YEAG-LEY- I would like to ask a question
18 involving the annual testing procedures. I am not very
19 familiar with your particular industry, but is the feed
20 material that goes into your process uniform over time, such
21 that the wastes anticipated from that process would also be
22 uniform over time?
23 MR. MULLEN: Are you speaking from the standpoint
24 of degradation?
25 MR. YEAGLEY: Do you feel it is necessary to test
-------
663
1 the wastes every year or are you just going to find out the
2 same thing year after year?
3 I'~P . MULLED: I would repeat, I see your question
4 now. We use generally the same raw materials. We may
5 combine them in different ways to make different products,
6 but the latex we tuy this year ana the latex we buy next
7 year is minimal, as is the difference between the various
8 fillers and various additives that we will use. So we test
9 them once, we will be repeating every time we run the test.
10 It will be repeating the same answer that we had before.
11 CHAIRPERSON DARP.AH: You were saying you think a
12 substantial percentage of your waste is not hazardous.
13 JVP. YULLEN: Yes,
14 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I guess the implication was
15 the way we have your industry categorized under 3001. all of
16 the categorized hazardous waste. Can you give any more
17 specific examples to us? You mentioned the rags that are
18 laundered and the fact that you don't understand what we mean
19 by slops. Can you tell me what percentage the volume of the
20 waste you generate you think would be not hazardous and also
21 tell me what sort of definition you are using for hazardous?
22 fP. • -MULLEN1 Hazardous material is one that can
23 create harm to the environment or those people that run into
24 it by touching it or by converting on long term storage to seme
25 substance that is ootentially dangerous, either to the
-------
1 enviror.inent or to people, nighty-five of all the paint that
2 is manufactured in the United States is latex paint. The
3 remaining amount, and this is for trade sales paint, 1 arr.
4 excluding the industrial, because in cur area, the industrials
5 account for very snail percentage of the total product. The
6 kind of shops that you would run into with the kind of waste
7 that you would generate other than just rags, or clean up
8 materials within the plant would be generally that paint which
9 you find unsaleable for some reason or another. That paint
10 would be in water base. The only solid in that would be
11 inert materials like calcium carbonate, aluminum silicate, the
12 resins that are used, the polyvinyl acetate, acrylic resins are
13 comparable to Elmers Glue. It is that type of material. Of
14 those materials that are potentially dangerous, we would
15 include the solvents, waste solvents that we admit,we dent admit
16 we agree with you, are hazardous and dangerous to handle. The
17 resins that are included with those are tended to be a little
18 more flammable, because generally speaking, there is less
19 inert material in them, and the purity of the material contribut
20 to its flammability.
21 The danger that we would foresee in storing that would
22 be one of combustibility or flammability. It would not be
23 toxic.
24 The heavy metals present even in the solvents based
25 paints are there as dryers — dryer catalyst, and are there
-------
^
1 generally in a ratio of two-cre-nundredth of a per
2
3
4 orocedures? Have you used the extraction procedure on any
5 of your products?
6 MR. MULLEN: Cn hea^-y metals, yes, it has been done.
7 That was done by report on the analysis from Trace Elements
8 incorporated of Park Ridge, Illinois, and that will be
9 included with the written comments that the NPCA will submit.
10 MR. YEAGLEY: 1 have just one additional comment
11 here involving your comments in terms of siting. It seems like
12 that begins to be the thread of the afternoon here. You
13 suggested, as I recall, that EPA should take some steps to
14 insure siting or at least make it a little easier to
15 accomplish. I guess my point is. that I would like to see
16 that be a'cooperative effort. What we are really talking
17 about here is citizen opposition. We are all citizens, maybe
18 outside the context of this room at least, and I think we need
19 to cooperatively deal with that issue. Obviously, it is beyond
20 the technical question of good sites,and as such, is certainly
21 not as convenient or as easy to deal with, but I would
22 suggest that you and all of you of the industry not sit back
23 and wait on EPA to site sites, because I don't think EPA is
24 going: to get into that sort of thing. I am just suggesting
25 that it has to be a cooperative effort for us to realiv meet
4
-------
OC G
1 this reouiremer.t that we are all scirg tc be facing:.
2 MR- MULLEN- We a^ree.of course, that we are faced
3 with the public problem -hat dcesr.'t want anything in his own
4 neighborhood.
5 MR. YEAGLEY: T're have to remember we are these same
6 people. "
7 MR. MULLEN: Yes. but given the opportunity to
8 voice one's opinion, I will say I rather have it in ycur
9 backyard then mine, so why don't you cooperate?
10 MR. YEAGLEY • Vie may be neighbors though. (Laughter)
11 MR. MULLEN: There goes the neighborhood, right.
12 No, we agree with you, and it is a major problem and we want
13 to participate in this resolution.
14 CHAIRPERSON DARPAH: Thank you very much.
15 is there-anyone else that wants to offer comment on
16 the Subtitle C regulations? Okay. I want to thank everyone
17 for your attention and your comments. We will close this
18 hearing and hope if you have written statements, to get them to
19 us by March l6th, and we can give them full consideration.
20 (Hearing concluded.)
21 --ooQOoo--
22
23
24
25
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A T
I, Koliran E. ["ills. Certified Shorthand P.eoorter, dulv
authorized to report said croceedings, do hereby certifv
that the foregoing typewritten manuscript is a true and correct
transcription of my original shorthand notes taken at said tirr.e
and place.
Dated this 19th day of March. 1979.
KOLFAN E. MILLS, CSR
-------
fj * £.
MjjjJQI)&Jj
March 9. 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565-)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
Ref: Comments on Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations 40 CA 250
Dear Mr. Lehman:
The following comments are submitted by Agrico Chemical Company in
response to EPA's request for comments on the above-referenced regula-
tions. They were proposed by EPA on December 18, 1978, to implement
Sections 3001 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976.
Agrico Chemical Company is a major fertilizer manufacturer with pro-
duction facilities located in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida.
The normal operations of these facilities produces byproducts and waste
that has been or could be determined hazardous under the proposed EPA
guidelines. Ic is, therefore, in the best interest of Agrico and the
American consumer that these comments be made since increased operating
cost will result and will be in part paid for by consumers of agricultural
products.
In addition to the following comments, Agrico fully supports and helped
develop the comments submitted by The Fertilizer Institute and testimony
presented at the February 20-22, 1979, public hearings held in Washington,
D.C. Agrico's comments are in addition to and to add emphasis to chose of
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 9, 1979
Page 2
§ 250.13(d) Toxic Waste
The proposed classification of a waste as toxic is based on a simu-
lated leachate from the "Extraction Procedures" containing contaminants
in excess of ten (10) times the Primary Drinking Water Standards. The
extraction procedure used is a shake test, is overly -stringent, and
should be used only as a screening test. A column test should be the
basis for the final determination of a waste as toxic (hazardous).
Although more expensive, the column test is more valid and the cost is
small compared to the effects of the results. In addition, the testing
should be conducted on the test material in its unaltered state and
extracted with a solution representative of that which the waste could
reasonably be expected to contact. The use of acetic acid to maintain
a pH 5 is overly harsh and may not be representative. EPA's"Background
Document" indicates a pH 5 acetic acid solution was chosen to simulate
acidic conditions found in most municipal landfills. An example of an
industry site where this is not representative results from the treatment
of cooling tower blowdown for chromate reduction and removal. In this
treatment, chromium is reduced from hexavalent to trivalent and precipi-
tated in a holding pond at pH 9.5. The clarified water is discharged
under an NPDES permit with the chromium precipitate remaining in the
pond. Low pH water is never expected to contact the precipitate and
final disposal will consist of dewatering the pond, possible addition of
C. o^T/8/Ttly fiS/lTfr")
lime, and covering with earth. Any water contacted by the cafitaintur waste
will have a pH of over 7 and will remain essentially insoluble.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 9', 1979
Page 3
§ 250.43-1 General Site Selection
The site selection regulations are applicable to new sources only. A
new source should be defined in relation to an existing source or major
modification. In the case of "gyp stacks'" formed during the production
of phosphate fertilizer, the area used will expand over the life of the
facility. The establishment of additional or expanded "gyp stacks" to
dispose of by-product gypsum from existing production should not be
considered a new source. It is more environmentally sound to expand a
present "gyp stack'1' and confine the related pollution problems such as
treatment of precipitation runoff to one location than to create new
ones. In addition, the millions of dollars in capital that is required
for production facilities can be recovered only by operation of the
existing location for gypsum disposal.
§ 250.43-2 Security
Provision should be made to allow the permitting agency to not require
a security fence if no hazard exists from unauthorized entry. For example,
a chromate removal pond as described in comments on I 250.13(d) will repre-
sent no such hazard even if the chromium sludge is determined to be a
hazardous waste. The water from the pond is low in chromium at a pH of 9.5
and is discharged to surface streams under an NPDES permit. An excessive
amount of the water would have to be consumed over a long period of time to
present a problem. Domestic livestock can be kept out with less than a
six-foot fence and no danger exists for wild life. The note following
paragraph (a) should have the following sentence added:
or as otherwise determined not to be necessary by the permitting agency.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 9, 1979
Page 4 _
The security requirement is also unnecessary for the phosphate related
special waste in I 250.46-3 and should be omitted. The EPA has determined
such waste to be hazardous due to the presence of Radium-226 above "normal"
soil background levels. EPA's ''Background Document" expresses concern
over the inhalation of the gaseous decay product Radon-222. Exposure to
Radon-222 levels found in structures constructed on land containing greater
than 5 pCi/g of Radium-226, is estimated to result in an increase in lung
cancer risk of greater than 1 percent if the structure is occupied 75 per-
cent of the time during a normal lifetime of 70 years. Does the occupancy
of a particular structure for 52 years justify the security and inspections
being required? Fences, signs and inspections are for short-term open air
exposure that has not been found to be a hazard. Agrico has over 25,000
acres that would be affected by this unnecessary requirement.
§ 250. 43-8 (c) Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring
"^ The comprehensive analysis specified in paracraph (c) (6) is excessive
and not justified for many operations. A site that will dispose of only
a limited number of different materials should not be required to monitor
for all the parameters listed in Appendix II. Analysis for parameters that
could not possibly be in the waste is a waste of both time and money.
Pollution from a site will first be observed by analysis for known para-
meters not for trace or nonexistent ones. Example: a cooling tower chrom-
ate settling pond contains no Radium, Lindane, or 2,4-D among others. It
is suggested that the following be added to the note that follows
paragraph (c) :
-------
/ Mr. John P. Lehman
March 9, 1979
Page 5
The analysis of specific parameters may not be required if it is
determined fay the permitting agency as unnecessary based on the
type of waste to be disposed of.
§ 250.43-9(a) Financial Requirements
The requirement to establish a closure fund is reasonable and neces-
sary to protect the environment. However, it is overly stringent and
an excessive burden to require all of the closure cost (times the
present value factor) to be deposited prior to receiving a permit. It
would be more reasonable to allow the fund to be built over the life of
the facility as is done for the post-closure monitoring and maintenance
fund. This would be acceptable if the operating company could show
evidence of financial responsibility for the remaining amount. In many
.»
cases, the amount of closure required and cost is directly related to the
time the facility has been in operation and would grow as deposits are
made.
Paragraph (iii) states that the trust funds can be released only "Upon
determination that closure has been satisfactorily accomplished." This
indicates that the actual closure operation must be completed and paid for
by the operator and the money on deposit is not a closure fund but a closure
bond. This is unreasonable to require an industry to deposit perhaps
$3 million and then require them to fund an additonal $3 million over say
a two-year closure period. Provisions should be made at the time the notice
of intent to close is given to release part of the funds at various stages
as the closure is completed. On site inspection and progress reports could
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 9, 1979
Page 6
be used to verify progress. Such a system would speed closure, allow
for agency inspection, and use the funds for the purpose for which
they were intended.
Agrico Chemical Company appreciates the consideration extended by the
EPA in consideration of the comments. Industry accepts the need for regu-
lation to control and provide for the safe disposal of hazardous waste. It
is, indeed, a difficult task to write such regulations and be considerate
of the many exceptions. Agrico's interest is in protection of the environ-
ment and human health to the extent necessary and reasonable. If you have
any questions concerning waste from the fertilizer industry, do not hesitate
to contact us.
Yours very truly,
AGRICCyTHEMICAL.- COMPANY
R. D. Space, Director
Environmental/Energy Affairs
RDS:jdc
-------
STATEMENT OF S. NORMAN KESTEN
ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, ASARCO, INC.
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS WATER QUALITY CONTROL SUBCOMMITTM
CONCERNING REGULATIONS 40 CFR PART 250, SUBPART D
PROPOSED ON DECEMBER 18, 1978, UNDER AUTHORITY
SECTION 3004 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, IN DENVER, MARCH 9, 1979
-------
•
Ladies and Gentlemen/of the Panel:
My name is S. Norman Kesten, of ASARCO, Incorporated, where
I am the Assistant to the Vice President for Environmental Affairs.
I am also Chairman of the Solid Waste Task Force of the Water
Quality Control Subcommittee of the American Mining Congress and I
appear here today on behalf of that group.
The American Mining Congress is a national association of
companies that produce most of the nation's supply of metals, coal,
and industrial and agricultural minerals. While producing these
essential materials the member companies necessarily generate^ large
quantities of mine waste rock, waste materials from milling and
other forms of beneficiation often called tailings, plus furnace
slags and other similar processing wastes from later stages of total j
processing toward useable products, as well as other wastes in
relatively minor quantities. The American Mining Congress is thus
very interested and concerned about the economic impact upon the
minerals industry of any regulations promulgated for the purpose of
implementing provisions of this amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. In addition, we want to try to ensure that during the formula-
tion of such regulations the Agency is fully aware of the technological
limitations that the very nature of its wastes places upon the
industry and takes into account the large number of physical and
chemical variables that tend to make each operation unique. In
general, the industry has a series of special problems in complying
with proposed regulations because of the sheer volume of the wastes
that are generated and the areas of land that those v/astes must fl
occupy.
Using copper and copper ores as examples, new mine production,
-------
including beneficiation, smelting and refining, in this country
is of a magnitude that there is also produced annually about 600
million tons of mine waste rock, 3*50 million dry tons of mill tail-
ings and perhaps 5 million tons of furnace slag.
If that mine waste was distributed in two new waste dumps
each of which covers one section of land, the dumps would be built
up to an average height of 30 feet by the end of .the year. If tail-
ings were deposited in one new tailings disposal site occupying one
section of land, the tailings would be built up to a height of
about 25 feet in .a year. The height of the pile of slag covering
a section of land would be somewhat less in a year, something like
6 or 8 feet. Obviously, each type of waste from one year's opera-
tions is not accumulated in one or two piles at individual sites
but is distributed among and added to many existing piles. The
cumulative volumes are similar to those described depending upon
the length of time a particular site has been operated and the rate
of production of wastes. For this reason, the criteria for dis-
tinguishing between hazardous wastes and other wastes is crucial to
the continued viability of the operations in which they are
engaged.
I have used copper as an example. Obviously underlying
principles are applicable also to operations involving most other
non-fuel minerals, including mining and beneficiation of phosphate
rock and mining of uranium ore.
In spite of the draft regulations and proposed regulations
*
that EPA has made available, member companies of the American Mining
Congress still have no idea what the cost will be of solid waste
disposal under the Act. If the terms "open dump" and "sanitary
-------
landfill" are strictly applied (and
-------
their effect upon our industries will be. Amidst all of this we feel M
there is a reasonable probability that our current methods of dis-
posal do not damage human health or the environment except in minor,
easily recognizable instances. In fact, we think that EPA should
make the presumption. In addition, we contend, and are on record
to this effect, that the legislative history of the Act states
unequivocally that mining wastes are at this time exempt from the
provisions of solid waste regulations. I refer you to the comments
of the American Mining Congress on rules proposed under Section 4004
of the Act.
Section 250.46, page 59015, is concerned with Special Wastes,
a concept introduced into regulations under RCRA here for the first
time. We agree that the wastes listed on page 58991 should be
accorded special regulatory treatment for the reasons given at the "
bottom of the right hand column of that page and the top of the
next page. For precisely the same reasons, furnace slags should be
added to the list, to the extent that they are hazardous and to
the extent that they are wastes. I might point out that the smelting
of iron ore alone generates about 24 millions tons of slag annually.
Section 250.46 lists the sections in this subpart that are
applicable to each of the listed special wastes. At least for the
three categories of interest to member companies of the American
Mining Congress — that is, phosphate rock mining, beneficiation and
processing waste, uranium mining waste and other mining waste —
certain sections and subsections that are listed as being applicable
should be amended or deleted. These are, at the very least, as
follows:
(a) 250.43-2(a), page 59001. The benefits of a six-foot
-4-
-------
fence surrounding whole sections (one sectioii is 640 acres) I
/ "
of land occupied by tailings ponds, mine waste rock or furnace
slag do not appear to be sufficient to justify the considerable
expense not only of installing the fence but also of keeping
it. in repair. Even if these materials turn out to be toxic
under the Subpart A regulations, their low toxicity level is
unlikely to offer immediate danger to man or animal. If
physical safety is of concern, controls surely are dictated by
other statutes and other regulations. This requirement, if
retained for Special Wastes, should be applicable only to sites
having characteristics that pose a threat of an adverse impact
upon human health and the environment.
(b) 250.43-2(b), also page 59001. If, for his own reasons or J
because of the requirements of this section, the operator of a
mine, mill or smelter does provide a security fence, it should
be his choice whether or not he has gates and how he operates
them. Surely, this requirement and the preceding one are
applicable only to relatively small sites in which wastes that
are more than marginally hazardous are deposited.
(c) 250.43-5, page 59003. The requirement for manifests is
unnecessary and unduly burdensome with respect to waste rock,
tailings and slags that are added to large sites on a daily
basis by pipelines, fleets of trucks and similar means. The
requirement for keeping records, if retained for Special
Wastes at all, should be limited to maintaining a map of the M
waste rock or slag site and marking on it, at the end of each
quarter, the location and approximate tonnage of material added
-5-
-------
during the quarter. For tailings ponds, it should be more
than adequate to maintain a tabulation of dry and wet tonnage
added to each pond during each quarter. Because these are
generally homogenous wastes, it should not be necessary to
make analyses and keep records of them unless the character of
"the waste changes significantly. Because of the low level of
toxicity of these materials, there should be no requirement
for reporting the long list of details shown in 250.43-5(c).
In spite of an apparent preoccupation in the preceding para-
graphs with Special Wastes, we anticipate that if an extraction
procedure is devised that is appropriate to these materials, most of
our mining, milling and smelting or other processing wastes will
not fit the criteria for hazardous wastes and therefore will not
come under the special provisions for Special Wastes. However, we
do anticipate that certain wastes, produced in relatively small
quantities, will fit the criteria and disposal will have to be in
compliance with the provisions of this subpart. Normally our
strategy would be to have such wastes transported to a hazardous
waste disposal site being operated commercially under a suitable
permit. However, we and others greatly fear that for many years
there will be a scarcity of such sites and that transportation to
them will be at a prohibitive cost in many instances. Our only
recourse might be either to operate our own on-site disposal
facilities or to store the waste on-site until commercial sites
become available. Our ability to take either of these courses will
depend upon the availability within our own boundaries of land that
does not run afoul the many prohibitions listed in this subpart.
If no such land is available we shall have to appeal to the Agency
-6-
-------
for relief. In any event, because of the possible necessity to ,v"
x
operate, reluctantly, either storage or disposal facilities, other
than those for Special Wastes, it is necessary also to comment on
a number of provisions in this subpart that may be inequitable or
impossible to meet, or may be based upon misconceptions. These
will be itemized in our written submission; here, I will touch on
two which are only good examples.
There is a great deal said about groundwater, and the word is
even defined at 250.41(38), page 58997. The concept of perched
groundwater is ignored. The words "perched groundwater zone" might
be defined as follows:
-subsurface waters, not part of the primary
saturated groundwater flow regime, which are
suspended above the zone of saturation (that
is* the water table) either by an impervious
layer or because of capillary action.
Seepage into a partly saturated and vertically and/or horizontally
confined zone would not necessarily constitute potential contamina-
tion to an underground drinking water source because of generally
limited quantity and often low quality. Perched waters also could
be connate (fossil) waters which have been entrapped at some time
in geologic history and cut off from a recharge source. All require-
ments of this sufapart that prohibit or limit discharge to ground-
water should exempt from prohibitions and limitations discharge
to perched groundwater zones. As for so much else in regulations
proposed under authority of Subtitle C and D of the Act, the
application of rules to a particular site must take into account
departures from preconceptions of typicality and depend upon site-
-7-
-------
specific environmental factors.
250,43-8, page 59005 proposes groundwater and leachate monitor-
ing systems for landfills and surface impoundment facilities. In
subsections (c) (1) to (c) (3), dealing mainly with sampling and
analysis, it is proposed to establish background by sampling ground-
water and leachate Once a month for three months prior to use of
the facility for hazardous waste. Further sampling is proposed once
a month for a year afterwards, scaling down to a lesser frequency
after that year. In subsection (c) (4), it is proposed to judge
whether or not the quality of either the groundwater or the leachate
changes by the application of a dubious statistical procedure based
upon what our statistician calls "a conceptual absurdity". There is
implied a definition that says that any change in the concentration
levels constitutes contamination. On the other hand, it is in-
correctly assumed that mean background levels remain constant. This
is incorrect particularly when establishment of those levels is
based upon so few water samples. It is also incorrectly assumed
that a few additional water samples are enough to determine that
a change is taking place. In fact, in the absence of either a much
larger number of water samples than is likely to be available or
evidence of a large and obvious change, the application of a
statistical procedure cannot produce defensible evidence of con-
tamination. And yet, it is proposed that on such flimsy grounds a
facility, upon which industrial operations are dependent, be
closed down until the Regional Administrator decides what actions
are to -be taken. Apparent departures from apparent background
levels cannot necessarily be equated with such harm to the under-
ground water that a shutdown, or other drastic measures, is
-8-
-------
justified. If a shutdown is to take place,^.Ut should be upon the
order of the Administrator, after due process. This is still
another situation in which each site must be considered on its
specific merits.
In-our written comments, which we hope to submit by March 16,
we have tried to promote the avoidance of absolutes which are
unattainable. We have also suggested ways in which ambiguities, in-
consistencies and unattainable absolutes in the regulations might
be eliminated, and ways in which language and meaning might be
clarified. Finally, we have tried to introduce an appreciation of
conditions in the real world and the variables that affect them.
We have made no attempt to dilute EPA's effort, as mandated by the
statute, to protect human health and the environment from any
harmful effects of the management of hazardous wastes.
-9-
-------
-------
GOLF COAST WASTE DISPOSAL
HOUSTON, TEXAS
ENFUCNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HEARING ON PROPOSED HOLES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
.DENVER, COLORADO
MARCH 9, 1979
The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority is a three county authority created by
the State of Texas to effect a waste disposal program in the Houston-Galveston area.
We own and operate several wastewater treatment plants in the area. Four of these
plants treat primarily industrial wastewater. The Authority also holds a Hazardous
Waste Tanri-F-m permit from the Texas Department of Water Resources and will initiate
operation of that facility in Mid-1979. Our review of the proposed regulations has I
raised questions of considerable concern to us, both administrative and technical.
The application of the proposed regulations to industrial wastewater treat-
ment facilities owned by the Authority seen to be overlapping with the NPDES permit
requirements. It would appear to be a more efficient and less burdensome procedure
to allow the Regional Administrator to have the discretion to apply the hazardous
waste regulations to NPDES permitted facilities on a case by case basis as he deter-
mines necessary. For example, the monitoring requirements of §250.43-8 may be de-
termined to be unnecessary where the permittee can show that the facility was
i
constructed in such a manner as to prevent the possibility of groundwater leaching.
Similarly the closure and post-closure requirements of Subpart D would not be
appropriate for a wastewater treatment facility which has an ability to treat waste
for in inestimable period of time, unlike a landfill with a finite disposal capacity.
-------
- 2 -
Placing the decision to apply any or all the regulations to any wastewater treat-
ment facility with the Regional Administrator would accomplish the goals of RCRA, and
at the same time prevent unnecessary expenditures of time duplication of effort and
money.
The State of Texas is currently proposing the creation of a Perpetual Care Fund
to be utilized as a source of funds for satisfying legitimate damage claims against
hazardous waste disposal facilities. In order to facilitate the provision of an
adequate number of disposal facilities, the Regional Administrator should have the
discretion to recognize this fund as oonplete, or partial satisfaction of the
§250.43-8 (b) requirements for permitted disposal facilities in the State. This
would allow those facilities to be better able to meet the §250.43-9 (c) financial
requirements for post-closure monitoring and maintenance.
Another question is the application of these regulations to publicly owned
treatment works which treat primarily industrial wastes. While it seems reasonable
to assume that the regulations would exempt any of those publicly owned facilities
which treat primarily domestic waste, this distinction is not clear in the regula-
tions as they now appear. Another point needing clarification is whether a publicly
owned facility which treats only industrial waste and disposes of the sludge is a
generator, a disposal facility, or both.
We suggest some modifications to §250.43-9 financial requiranents. We support
the concept of a closure fund and long-term care but believe that: 1) the closure
requirement could be more effectively handled and yield a greater measure of fin-
ancial integrity to the Trust Fund, and 2) the Regional Administrator should be
allowed the flexibility to authorize a* floating fund coverage of portions of a
landfill area.
-------
-3-
Addressing the trust fund, cur calculations indicate that the Present Value
Factor will probably not be adequate to provide coverage for closure when we take
into account the probable inflation factors. We recannend that closure cost esti-
mate be used directly instead of using the Present Value Factor to establish the
Trust Fund. This would enable the investment frcm the Trust Fund to more nearly
keep pace with the inflation factor. '
Recognizing that the recommended change would require more money"up-front"
from the operator, we suggest that this be coupled with authority for the Regional
~fe
Achrinistrator/be allowed the flexibility to use a trust fund as floating coverage.
For example, the Authority holds a Class I, Hazardous Wastes landfill permit from
the Texas Department of Water Resources. Of the 200 acres permitted, we will
likely never have more than 25% of it in use at any one time with cells being opened
0*> AS
and closed on^pused basis. It would be unnecessary to require the trust fund for
the entire 200 acres - even on the Present Value Factor formula.
A single trust fund could be supplied that would provide the assurance of
closure required by EPA for the portion not yet closed. Since we will be following
closing procedures in our normal operations this would certainly give adequate
assurance of closure funds. We would like to submit additional data to you in
support of these two proposals for your consideration as you evaluate the results
of your public hearings.
As mentioned above, wefaas hazardous waste disposal facility, which is required
by the Texas Regulatory Agency to post a $40,000 closure bond for that operation.
The facility will have been in operation less than a year when these regulations are m
/• • " \ ™
(yifij
expected to become effective. Paragraph 250. 40 (c) UJTWHI) (A) , pp. 55895, of the
proposed regulation requires each owner/operator receiving hazardous waste to
-------
-4-
provide a cash deposit equal to the entire estimated closure cost of the facility on
the effective date of these regulations. We.believe provisions should be made in
this paragraph, or an appropriate "Note" added, which will allow the Regional
Administrator the discretion to accept a suitable bond or other arrangement, • accept-
able for closure during the period of interim status.
A primary concern of the Authority is that jjoequifeabieSaractices will be forced
on local operators as a result of the constraints placed on the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency by Statute and Court Decisions. We believe that the Regulations
should provide the basic guidelines and address those things specifically imposed
by these constraints, but that the highest possible level of flexibility be given to
Regional Administrators to take into account local conditions and the practical
implication of the guidelines in issuing and amending permits for operations and ™
the conditions for long term care.
-------
My name is Joe Teller, Deputy General Manager of the Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority. Our comments concerning Section 3004 are as follows:
A principal is with the provisions concerning site selection (Paragraph
250.45-2) for landfills, land farms, and surface impoundments, and their
locations in relationship to the water table (defined as the upper surface
of the zone of saturation in groundwaters...). The Texas Gulf Coast has
many areas where the surface soil is a thick (over 100 feet) clay having a
-7
permeability of less than 1 x 10 cm/sec. These clays are normally saturated
with what is termed "pershed" water, which is water held due to the imper-
meability of the clay soil. This water may leave by evaporation but not by
percolation. The aquifers beneath these clay soils are not completely sat-
urated, while the clays above them are saturated.
We do not believe you mean to forbid the location of subsurface landfills, surface
impoundments or land farms in the Gulf Coast clay soils. However, using the
proposed definitions for groundwater and water table together with the proposed
site requirements as they pertain to the location above the water table, we do not
believe it would ssot be permissible, even taking into account the "Notes".
We are also concerned by the requirement in Paragraph 250.45-5(9) (ii)
Landfarms Closure that a landfill be returned to its original condition. The
clay soils of the Gulf Coast do not drain. Organic matter, sand and gypsum
are added in order to grow gardens and crops. Past experience indicates that
the soil will be better after landfarming than it was originally. It would be+
counterproductive to remove all the good top soil which would be made during
-------
-2-
the landfarming1 process and leave a condition which would allow only salt
grass to grow. The proposed regulations make no provision for beneficial
components which will be added to the soil.
Also, the permit requires that we not exceed fifty percent of the cation exchange C/^
of the soil and that we test the cation exchange capacity every six months. Cation
exchange value for our soil is 26 millequivalents/100 g of soil which makes it a
natural ion exchange medium. We therefore urge you not require that the soil
be returned to its preexisting condition.
There exists preliminary indications that incineration may cause a non-hazardous
material to become hazardous by virtue of the oxidation of trace metals and the M
higher solubility of those metal oxides. This is most likely to occur with incener-
ation of sludges, both waste treatment sludge and water treatment sludge. Should
such an incineration caused classification shift be likely, we submit that the entity
will chose not to incinerate, thereby avoiding the materially higher hazardous waste
disposal cost. Again, examination of individual situations by the administrator
would seem more appropriate than to have incineration excluded from use in some
situations because of overly rigorous regulations.
Paragraph 250.43-1 (d) cites executive order 11988 entitled Tloodplain Management"
as authorization for requiring that a waste disposal facility not be located in a 500
year floodplain, or protected from inundation by a 500 year flood. To our knowledge,
I
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fs the agency charged with definition of tloodplains.
At least one Corps office is unable to statistically differentiate between a 500 year
-------
-3-
and a 100 year flood. Regardless of the note relative to this proposed regulation, "
the owner/operator will be required to attest to a situation which cannot be properly
quantified. While a 500 year requirement does seem to be an excessive requirement,
equally important is the impracticality of definition.
A recent Hazardous Waste Seminar in California featured a speaker from the
Environmental Protection Agency who stated that the current thinking was to deny
multiple use of land for waste disposal purposes. That is, the concept of land-
farming over a closed landfill would not be acceptable. We suggest most strongly
that such a policy will escalate ever further the increasing cost of proper waste
disposal by requiring the purchase of more land than is necessary. We are unable
to understand the basis for such a policy, and suggest that multiple use of land be I
encouraged rather than discouraged. The soil, operational control and facility
requirements for a landfill are such that a closed landfill is ideal for use as a land
farm.
We believe that a closer analysis of this problem would indicate that a policy allowing
landfarming after landfill can be economically useful in making more land available
and not deleterious to leachate control.
-------
TESTIMONY OF MR. RAYMOND OUELLETTE ON
BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
ON PROPOSED SECTION 3004
REGULATIONS OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
DENVER, COLORADO? MARCH 9, 1979
My name is Raymond Ouellette, Senior Engineer with Shell Oil
Co. and Chairman of the American Petroleum Institute's Legisla-
tive and Regulatory Task Force for the Solid Waste Management
Committee. As a part of this task force, I have been reviewing
and providing comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
on the draft regulations implementing Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for the last year and a half.
I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to
appear at the hearing today to discuss specifically the proposed
regulations implementing Section 3004 of RCRA. I am joined by
Mr. Jin Collins who will briefly review problem areas of the pro-
posed regulations on the exploration and production activities in
the petroleum industry and Mr. Steve Williams and Mr. Jeff Jones
who will assist in responding to any questions you may wish to
direct to me.
In the preamble to the proposed regulations, EPA states its
belief "that most waste classified as hazardous requires similar
management techniques". [43 Fed. Reg. 58949] The rigidity of
approach suggested by this basic assumption lies at the heart of
the API comments on the proposed Subtitle C program. In imple-
menting its responsibilities under Subtitle C of RCRA, EPA has
failed to use the Section 3001 classification authority in a
manner which differentiates among wastes according to the degree
-------
RAYMOND OUELLETTE TESTIMONY
DENVER, COLORADO;March 9, 1979 Page 2
of hazard they pose to human health and the environment. Instead,
in accordance with broadly-defined criteria, any waste exhibiting
a single characteristic defined as "hazardous", is presumed to
pose a "substantial threat" to human health and the environment
necessitating "worst-case" control measures, regardless of whether
the measures are indeed "necessary" to regulate the hazard pre-
sented.
While I plan to discuss the ramifications of this "worst-
case" regulatory philosophy using particular examples in the pet-
roleum industry, I also appear today to urge EPA to.consider
adoption of a more flexible approach in the regulation of
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities — an approach which
recognizes that additional factors, such as site geology and hy-
drology, the waste volume, and the potential for human exposure
are integral elements of the degree of hazard involved, and the
means by which a hazard is controlled. It is API's view that the
best manner in which EPA can insure achievement of the dual goals
of environmental protection and cost-effective regulation is to
adopt a regulatory scheme which uses the permitting process to
evaluate the hazard to human health and the environment, and to
prescribe performance standards which address these particular
hazards.
As I indicated, the proposed regulations will substantially
affect existing and new operations in the petroleum industry. For
example, the proposed site selection standards may rule out many
i
existing treatment and disposal facilities located in coastal high
hazard areas, the 500-year floodplain, and wetlands. It is API's
-------
v-' RAYMOND OUELLETTE TESTIMONY
DENVER, COLORADO: March 9, 1979 Page 3 {
jl
'I view that these existing facilities should be allowed to continue
l{ operating unless it is shown that they present a "substantial
I] threat" to human health and the environment.
Another troubling aspect of the proposed Section 3004 regu-
i
t
>
I lations is their coverage of all NPDES surface impoundments. The
inclusion of these facilities does not appear to be based upon
sound evidence of a "need" for regulation, as noted by EPA in
earlier drafts of this section which contained a recommendation
that existing NPDES facilities should be studied further in order
to determine the extent of the environmental problem. EPA now
states in the preamble to the proposed regulations that "a pos-
sibility exists for subsurface discharges" [43 Fed. Reg. 58993
(emphasis supplied)]. API questions whether regulation of all
NPDES facilities on the basis of a "possibility" for the discharge
of materials whose hazard is undetermined, represents a cost-
effective approach to health and environmental protection. Based
upon a preliminary survey conducted by API of 29 refineries with
a wide-range of sizes, the minimum cost to provide liners was es-
timated to range between 1-3 billion dollars. API strongly rec-
ommends that before NPDES facilities are included within the cov-
erage of RCRA, EPA should conduct an in-depth study to determine
the number of affected facilities, the environmental risk assoc-
iated with the facilities, and the costs and benefits of various
degrees of controls. With this information, EPA will more prop-
erly be able to determine the extent of the regulatory program
necessary in this area.
-------
RAYMOND OUELLETTE TESTIMONY
DENVER, COLORADO; March 9, 1979 Page 4
API is also concerned that specific requirements in these
regulations may discourage the continued use of landfarms as an
environmentally acceptable treatment and disposal method. We
question the necessity of returning soil to its original condition
in the absence of information that the soil is causing environ-
mental harm. API suggests that EPA reconsider any requirements
which would inhibit the use of technically sound' landfarming
practices.
Finally, API finds the extensive and inflexible financial
responsibility requirements advanced in the proposed regulations
inappropriate for operations in the petroleum industry. Section
3004 of RCRA indicates that the financial responsibility require-
ments should reflect the degree and duration of the hazard to
human health and the environment. However, the proposed regu-
lations do not utilize these factors in order to determine dif-
ferent levels of financial responsibility. API suggests that
there are options such as self-insurance for closure and post-
closure operations, which avoid the unnecessary freezing of
capital needed for such important projects as energy develop-
ment. The counterproductive aspects of the proposed requirements
necessitates their re-evaluation by EPA.
In closing, let me reaffirm API's belief that there are cost-effective
means by which those substantial hazards posed to human health and the
-------
RAYMOND OUELLETTE TESTIMONY
DENVER, COLORADO; March 9, 1979 Page 5
environment can be identified and eliminated. API is working dil-
igently to develop these approaches and assist EPA in preparing
regulations which accomplish this task.
In this regard, API has initiated a study to analyze the impact of these
proposed regulations on the exploration, production, refining and marketing
segments of the petroleum industry. It is anticipated that this study will be
completed by mid-April and when finished, will be made available to the Agency.
Now, Mr. Collins will briefly describe some of the areas in which
exploration and production activities of the petroleum industry are affected
by these regulations.
-------
COMMKNTS OF
T1IK C01.0RAIH) DKI'AKTMF.;-,'!' <>K IIFAf.TIi
CONCF.KNINC; iwuiLvnoNS w IMKI-AKT 210
SIW PART I), PKOPOSF.D ON DKCKMUKK IK, 197H
S
AS AimiOKUKU IN SKCT10N JOO't OF Till-?'
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1978
1 . P.-u;o 589S9 - i \Mu-ral Facility SU»idarci_s f)e:;iffli jj
: The ri>quiroment for the double liner of a soil
(impiirmoablc) of 3' on top of synthetic membrane of <20 mils -
can this in practice really be installed wichout me.mbrane puncture-
by heavy equipment?
Recommendations : A more tenable practice would be a subsurface
impermeable soil barrier (placed with monitoring beneath if
desired) covered with a synthetic liner (with an intervening moni-
toring system if desired) covered in turn by a slurried protective
cover.
The design options should be "objectively stated" placing design
responsibility on the consultant.
Page 58990 Concerning the ' landf arming ' envi ronmen tally de-
jjraddble wastes.
CiCTTien t : A biodegradation Assay is mentioned in Subpart A,
Appendix XI p. 58966. The subject Assay wa.s neitlier defined nor
specified.
Recommendations : It is recommended the landfarming alternative be
evaluated on a site and wnste specific basis, subject to the
-------
approval of tin: Regional Administrator
Comment: 'Ihe definition oi aquifer mrntion.s "u.seahle quantity
of ground water". Colorado is considering defining a useabie
--aquifer as any water bearing or transporting stratum that is cap-
able of yielding water with TDS <](),()()() nig/1.
Recommendat i on.; Should he based on relationship of quantity,
quality, proposed or potential uses, potential degradation and
changing technology.
4. 250.43-7(c) page 59004
Common t; Ilia estimated time for closure may change significantly
leading to a situation where closure and post closure trust funds are
not established or adequate at actual clo.surc. "
Recommendation: It is recommended there be a requirement for a
semi-annual update of estimated closure time and comparisons of estimates
to actual use.
5. Section 250.40(c)(Viii) page 58995-58996.
fun) Financial Requirements In Heu
t,f ? 250 -43-9 as follows:
i A) On the effective date of thcr,e
rvi'ulacims. Onrh O'.i'iu'r/operator of a
lac'.hty receiving hazardous wrx-ite
'hall pru'. u'.i- a cash deposit erjunl to
•lie entire amount of the estimated
.•leisure o>sts of the facility In a trust
fi.-r.d detonated "In trust for closure
'>f (facility name)". Upon uraiHinf? of a
;, section, any exccis {units
i.'iall tic reimbursed to the owner/op-
ernior upon u-rittrn conrjirrcnee bj-
the Hcirior.al Administrator.
(B) On the effective date of thes«
s. rach owner/op- rator of a
facility receiving hxzarcfotis
wnstc .shall estimntc the ro;;t of com-
plylnc with the. post-closure monitor-
ing rvnd rnalntc-nnticc rrqulremcntg
under § 250.43-7. and -shall establish a.
fund In nreordnnct% with thl.1 estlmnte
In the snnie manner M is pres'-rihed in
S 250.43-l»a)(2)(ll). Upon tfrantlng or a
permit under Subpart K. this fund will
be Inoorrornte.d Into the fund required-
under § 250.43- 9{a)(2Xll) nttd the pay-
ment rates thereon shall r><- adjusted
as may be appropriate. Should closure
occur prior to permitting under Sub-
part K, reimbursement of post-closure
costs shall be l/i accordance with
§ 250.43-9(aX2Xfll)
(D) If the olJT.er/operaEo?~ca!r"c
onstrnte that full compliance with
closure and post-clo:,ure financial
sponsiblllty retirements' 'of' p
craphs (A) and (B1 above would ra-
the facility oa-ner/o[>erator tnaolv
the ReiflonaJ AdrnlnUtrator'may c
sldcr the financial status o( the fa<
ty to be a mltfcating factor, and r
enter Into a written agreement'' n
the owner/operator for partial oons
anee with the financial respona/bi.
requirements of this section.
-------
(\>i:u:ii'nt: Tin' I i iKMH'ial re<|uf ivmrnl :;rr 1 i i MI:; :;pri-ffy tril.'Jl Cimd.1:
di-.si j'.nated 1'or closure ami a runs [il<-r;i!>li> (.nitial investment: Co
ensure compliance wlili (ill <>l I lie rr ( I i-r i.-i for a hax.i rdou.-i wa.'tte:;
.treatment, .storage and disposal facflity. JJf1
The linanoial requirements and risks involved are consCrnints that
lii.iy prohibit li'cal. ^.overnniL-nLs .uul/ur private: firm:; from locating
U'.ul operating hazardous waste trc-atniiMtt , and disposal sites
and facilities.
R e c onime nd at i on : Other financing alternatives such us a Federally
mandated but industry sponsored and controlled group insurance and
liability funds and/or emergency action funds or organization .
6. 250.41(61) pase 58993
Coniniont ; Definition of owner/operator by including and/or, makes
it difficult to U>11 if the land owner, the facility owner or the
facility operator or all together are responsible for carrying out
Che provision of Subpart D.
Recommendation : Specify one or all, preferably tiie land owner.
7. "Liner" pase 53993-8 reads (S2)'»Llm-r" mi-ana .jXa^r of cm-
placed mfttcrt.ils hrnp
-------
•'50 43(b) Diversion of surface- Diversion structures to divert Ml
— • *—L Mil-fan1 watrr run off from th/f active
IKdtlon.f tit a. facility for lhj/2'Minnr.'
runoff tor a 2-'i hour - 23 year storm 25 ><-iir storm shall be
|)t(>i>t-tly maintained and operated.
ni.iv not In- avlemiate depemllii}-. "P'1" N<1" <"»M.-r.i/.,,».,,t..rs/(i,» n,,t ,,,-.i („
' ror'lmcl iiirh dlvrr.ilon /structures If they
Che estimated "life" of tin.- sitii
(at
l-.-.i
Int
. (it lh/ tlrix- a pcnnll !•»
r-il unili-r Siihpnit t/. tdat jurfnn- water
nff will nn^tnter {lie fnclllty and curm-
> mill net wlfclt the l^n/an
dous
.'and facility.
Recommendation: As stated, in the cover letter, the note should
be made a part of the regulation. The note provide.-; for vio-
lation of the requirement.
10. Section 250.43-(d) page 5900
ftlJ In accordance/with Executive
Comment: Information on 500 year Order 11988, "Floodplaln Manage-
ment", a facility sMalt riot bo located
. . . . jiii In a 500-year/loodplaln.
Hood plains is not available nor /
Noir.-A facility iilny be lonitcd In a S0(>-
yr:ir floodplnln If It,ran be dcmonslrali-ii. at
determinable in mucli of Colorado. The t'»e time « permit i.jbwied pursuant to Sub-
unit K, tlmt the ffiwlllty Is deiipned. con-
Unit-ted, operated./and maintained so that
"note" enables for noneompliance with it win not i>« ummiated by » 6oo-ycar flood.
a requirement.
Keeo-.nmendat ion: It is reeommended th(> mandatory 500 year flood
plain requirement be deleted except in areas where satisfactory
data exist. A minimum 100 year flood plain or maximum of 200
year requirement is suggested where sufficient information is
available.
11. 250.43-2(a) PaBe 59001 ^^ ^
r , . . (a) A fadlltyXhall have a 2 meter (6
Comment: The requirement for a 6 perimeter foot) rpncp/om{j|.-t.-ly .suirounding.
the active portion of the facility capa~
fence is specific. The note enables deviation blc of prevnhtlrKj th- unknowns and/,
or unauthorized entry of persons and
domestic livestock.
from the requirement. NOTK.-A fficiiity do^ not have to hav.» z
mrt?r -fKc portion of
the fnrlllty l.i >urroimdp'l by a natural or ar-
tlflrial fennlerynpahlf of pruventln^ the un-
tcnowlnsr and/or urmtitlnTi/fd fntry o/ per-
sons arid domestic llvi-.|rx x.
-------
!\fconii!u'iid.i t i on: A;; in other par I:; of tin- rt'j-ulnt i on;; the "note-"
•hoiild be .1 p.n I of tin- ri-j'.ii l.if ion .
Comment: The monitoring wel1, constructed Jfr <2> All niorillorsnK wells sjxuf t
V C'tsetl, ;ihd the firuiul.'ir .spru'e/Sn«ln C
' Icu-k filled with rui Iniji'-irncrfWe mat(
a:; Josrr i bed , will probably not provide nnl in urder to [jrevrnt .smf.-icc
reptvsentative wafer samples, if any.
Keivminoiulai ion: The well installation .should
fiorn entering the well tyjrv and inter
aquifer water e
include "gravel pack" and perforated caning
at
tt«rr - A (Jroiiiid'.y'l'T Monltorlni
.Sysli-tn ;.h(ill riot be r/ued under
.'iiibpnrt K. that tliCyferolOBlr and hydrologlc
con'llilons tmclprtyniK llf facility Indicate
no potiTtfnl for dferlmr'.-o to groundwatcr.
Wells m;iy !)<• sunk to draw sainules at a
to hi' sampled. >fUSt be Constructed sliikl<> depth I/ l»r.vt tw Ui-inon.itraie.MI, especially in well;; with minimal water depth. 'Jo avoid
variations duo to solids content if i r. rrcoiaMic-ndod analyse:; be
performed on filtered samples.
14. 350.45-2(a)(l)(2)
Comment: Tlie term "prevent direct contact between the landfill
and navigable water". This provision should include any surface
-------
or
iVj;.iril les;: <>l iiavly.aln' lit
l±li;l;i!i'Jii: •^•(fv'e part:; of (he lie.il-
. "lent ;;ti)r;ii;e .-iinl i(|;;pi>ly ur HVI-III«K wilrr
i, i . ..... Mipiiiy will or> ur:,;mil
l\ei'Ollli:!i'ni.lat 1 OH ; I lie dl.st.'lliee .spefilied HID A criumlWRf-'r monlt^rln^ ivilcm u<
rr'intinl by } !sn/43 II hai ')• 'n lintrillfd and
for the "buffer ;:i>ne." .^lunild he con- ' '"
«i:«ti:nc witli the di.stanee lu l!,e MIMI .-:;(: wc-li as the sice
has no control over tiie location of hi.-; ne/fjihorn' well. 'J
be site spoeiiio. Notes should IK- part of renulat jon.s.
(.1) A liuiilflll .shall I).? (il I.-IL^T 110
iiiffr;j (!iO« ti'i-ll from iiny
Rj or pr|vat« WUUT i\\\>\>/j or live-
> water supply.
NiTin.- A IntiilOH rimy \vA>--\ tlmii 1.50
fm-liTi <.V>0 f'-i-t) from «»iy functlonlr.sr
••i.HIT J»[it'ly. pruvlilft! U<«' «*i'rr/otiiTiH"r
»4ii ill innfr.lintr t'i t!i»v K* K!(i'i;il /Vlitilnl-s-
lialur at llii- rlnif u pr/inlt li Ir.itn'l |;ur.m-
.iiit (o.SiihpArt K llmt:/
'I) No rill r-1 ci'Mlii/'t will ix-i ur rjctwr'rt
Hi? Intirtflll iiml Tiny/ f'lnrtlonli.^ jMiiillo or
1'ilvntr »fatfr lupi/iy or Hvi-vt/ick v-Her
iiipply;
(III No mlxdiif of th" lantlflll Irurh- «te
'Int hitting (roiifKNinliT ur »nrf,ve wntjr
I »ltl( Ic.irliati') wllli (In1
4
I!:o looacion.s and minimum number:; of Wt.|J..; r<-fjti(rccf ;;lio(I!d !,(.•
alL,-r a ground wntcr study !,a« been mnde to determine
«roi.nd water flow pattern:;. U is rc-c-onvm^dcd that m.,;c/„.,,,, c!i:;cance
!vf..von inonitorinji wells bo 200' .,nd the minfiiRun df;ir.i,>t(;r of t!.e
u-i111 casinj; he 3" .
17• 46-4(b)(2) page 59015 reads ,,, uiria rccl;ufnc(l oy m^ ,,
wn.vtc IdctiU/lcd In parai;rapn (a) sii
The Radon 222 level of .03 Working Level Unita ^ bc Uscd f°r residcntla^developmi
,vj «wi.^j.,ib ^uvu units ex- only where provisions tdvve been ma
to prevent alpha radf.itIon expost
coeds Che WL units of .01 specified in the franr) from RluJ°" 222 inmalai-lon from <
ccedlng background levels by 0.
Working lycvcl ytnLt. and gamma ra
Junction Remedial Action Criteria of the Atomic atlon from /exceeding backgrou,
levrls by 5 mfcro Roentgens per hcf\
P. ,_ . o . , Thu pos.sibl« need for special consta
EnerS> Commission. tion mclhods for structures on J
Rgcomr-endation; The proposed level of .03 he re- rfduimod/laiui shall he identified'
~ " any future land o'.vncrr.s) by recordli
i .stipulation In tlif deed of the r
e.x.-ii:iii!cd £or consistency with tlie attached remedial claimed hnd.
(3) Dullclln? products manufacturf
action docum,-nt. fro'" WM^C kk-^lfi«| - Paraph (
shall not !>o ir.rd ,i t>;e yroducLS cau:
-------
\RULES and RGQULA7JOMS O TITLu 10 - ATOMIC SKERGY
PART
12
GRAND JUNCTION REMEDIAL ACTION CRITERIA
Sec.
12.1 Purpose.
12.2 Scope.
12.3 DetUUtlons.
12.4 Interpretntlons.
12.S Communications.
12.8 General mdlatlon exposure level
criteria for remedial action.
12.7 Criteria for determination of possible
need for remedial action.
12.8 Determination of possible need for
remedial action where criteria have
not been met.
12.9 Factors to be considered la determina-
tion of order of priority for remedial
action.
13.10 Selection of appropriate remedial
action.
§ 12.1 Purpose. • ^/
(a) The regulations in this part estab-
lish the criteria for determination by
the Commission of the need for, priority
of and selection of appropriate remedial
action to limit the exposure of indi-
viduals in the area of Grand Junction,
Colo., to radiation emanating from
uranium mill tailings which have been
used as a construction-related material.
(b) The regulations in this part are
Issued pursuant to Public Law 92-314 (86
Stat. 222) of June 16. 1972.
§ 12.2 Scope.
The regulations in this part apply to
all structures in the area of Grand Junc-
tion, Colo., under or adjacent to which
uranium mill tailings have been used as
a construction-related material between
January 1. 1951, and June 16, 1972, in-
clusive.
§ 12.3 Definition/i.
As used in this part:
(a) "Area of Grand Junction, Colo.,"
means Mesa County, Colo.
(b) "Background" means radiation
arising from cosmic rays and radioactive
material other than uranium mill tail-
ings.
(c) "Commission" means the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission or any duly;
authorized representative thereof.
(d) "Construction-related material"
means any material used in the construc-
tion of a structure.
(e) "External gamma radiation level"
means the average gamma radiation ex-
posure rate for the habitable area of a
structure as measured near floor level.
(f) '"Indoor radon daughter concen-
tration level" means that concentration
of radon daughters determined by: (1)
Averaging the results of 6 air samples
each of at least 100 hours duration, and
taken at a minimum of 4-week intervals
throughout the year in a habitable area
of a structure, or (2) utilizing some other
procedure approved by the Commission.
(g) "Milliroentgen (mR) means a
unit equal to one-thousandth (1/1000)
of a roentgen which roentgcn is defined
as an exposure dose of X or gamma
radiation such that the associated
corpuscular emission per 0.001293 grams
of air produces, in air, ions carrying one
electrostatic unit of quantity of electric-
ity of either sign.
Ui) "Radiation" means the electro-
magnetic energy (gamma) and the par-
ticulate radiation (alpha and beta)
which emanate from the radioactive
decay of radium and its daughter
products.
(i) "Radon daughters" means the con-
secutive decay products of radon-222.
Generally, these include Radium A
(polonium-218), Radium B (lead-218).
Radium C (bismuth-214), and Radium
C' (polonium-214).
(j) "Remedial action" means any ac-
tion taken with a reasonable expectation
of reducing the radiation exposure re-
sulting from uranium mill tailings which
have been used as construction-related
material in and around structures in the
area of Grand Junction, Colo.
(k) "Surgeon. General's guidelines"
means radiation guidelines related to
uranium mill tailings prepared and re-
leased by the Office of the U.S. Surgeon
General, Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare on July 27, 1970.
(1) "Uranium mill tailings" means
tailings from a uranium milling opera-
tion involved in the Federal uranium
procurement program.
(m) "Working Level" (WL) means
any combination of short-lived radon
daughter products in 1 liter of air that
will result in the ultimate emission of
1.3x10' MeV of potential alpha energy.
§ 12.1 Interpretations.
Except as specifically authorized by
the Commission in writing, no inter-
pretation of the meaning of the regula-
tions in this part by an officer or em-
ployee of the Commission other than a
written interpretation by the General
Counsel will be recognized to be binding
upon the Commission.
§ 12.5 Communication*.
Except where otherwise specified in
this part, all communications concerning
the regulations in this part should be ad-
dressed to the Director, Division of
Operational Safety. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Washington, D.C., 20545.
§ 12.6 General rmlintion exposure level
criteria for remedial action.
The basis for undertaking remedial
action shall be the applicable guidelines
published by the Surgeon General of
United States. These guidelines reco
£ mend the following graded action levels
S for remedial action in terms of .external
« gamma radiation level (EGR) "and in-
^ door radon daughter concentration level
« (RDC) above background found within
dwellings constructed on or with
uranium mill tailings:
EGR
RDC
Reconvneadattoa
, Orentir than O.I Qrmtfr tlvaa
mB.tir. 0.03 WU
From 0 04 to 0.1 From O.Ot to
mK/hr. 0.04 WL.
Less than 0.05
mR/Sr.
Lew than 0.01
WL.
Rrnmltal action
indicated.
Remedial octioa
may be sug-
gested.
No remedial ac-
• uon Indicated.
§ 12.7 Criteriti for determination of pos*
fililc need for remedial notion.
Once it is determined that a possible
need for remedial action exists the record
owner of a structure shall be notified of
that structure's eligibility for an engi-
neering assessment to confirm the need
for remedial action and to ascertain the
most appropriate remedial measure, if
any. A determination of possible
will be made if as a result of the
of uranium mill tailings under or adja-
cent to the structure, one of the following
criteria is met:
(a) Where Commission approved data
on indoor radon daughter concentration
levels are available:
-------
12 -
uun(-i.JLV.'i«
< s
„
(1) For dwollinps nnd schoolrooms: An
udoor rnrion dauRhter concentration
el of 0.01 WL or greater above back-
ground.
t2) For other structures: An indoor
radon daughter concentration level of
0.03 WL or greater above background.
(b) Where Commission approved data
on indoor radon daughter concentration
levels are not available:
(1) For dwellings and schoolrooms:
(1) An external gamma radiation level
of 0.05 mR/hr. or greater above back-
ground.
> (ii) An indoor radon daughter con-
centration level of 0.01 WL or greater
above background (presumed).
— (a) It may be presumed that if the
external gamma radiation level is equal
to or exceeds 0.02 mR/hr. above back-
ground, the indoor radon daughter con-
centration level equals or exceeds 0.01
WL above background.
(6) It should be presumed that if the
external gamma radiation level is less
than 0.001 mR/hr. above backeround. the
indoor radon daughter concentration
level is less than 0.01 WL above back-
ground, and no possible need for reme-
dial action exists.
(c) If the external gamma radiation
level is equal to or greater than 0.001
mR/hr. above background but is less
than 0.02 mR/hr. above background,
measurements will be required to ascer-
tain the Indoor radon daughter concen-
tration level.
(2) For other structures:
(i) An external gamma radiation level
f 0.15 mR/hr. above background aver-
aged on a room-by-room basis.
(il) No presumptions shall be made on
the external gamma radiation level/In-
door radon daughter concentration level
relationship. Decisions will be made In
Individual cases based upon the results
of actual measurements.
§ 12.*> lrii«'lor«> to lie roi««if orilor uf priority for
remedial action.
In determining the order of priority
for execution of remedial action, con-
sideration shall be given, but not * ""
necessarily i limited to. the following
factors:
(a) Classification of structure. Dwell-
ings and schools shall be considered first.
(b) Availability of data. Those struc-
tures for which data on indoor radon
daughter concentration levels and/or ex-
ternal gamma radiation levels are avail-
able when the program starts and which
meet the criteria in § 12.7 will be con-
sidered first.
(c) Order of application. Insofar as
feasible remedial action will be taken
in the order in which the application is
received.
(d) Magnitude of radiation level. In
general, those structures with the high-
est radiation levels will be given primary
consideration.
(e) Geographical location o/ struc-
tures. A group of structures located in
the same immediate geographical vlcin-
5 ity may be given priority consideration
g particularly where they involve similar'
^ remedial efforts.
"• (f) Availability of structures. An at-
5 tempt will be made to schedule remedial
action during those periods when re-
medial action can be taken with mini-
mum interference.
(g) Climatic conditions. Climatic con-
ditions or other seasonal considerations
may affect the scheduling of certain
remedial measures.
§ 12.10 Selection of appropriate reme-
dial action.
(a) Tailings will be removed from
those structures where the appropriately
averaged external gamma radiation level
is equal to or greater than 0.05 mR/hr.
above background in the case of dwell-
ings and schools and 0.15 mf^/hr. above
background in the case of other struc-
tures.
(b) Where the criterion in paragraph
(a) of this section is not met. other
remedial action techniques, including
but not limited to sealants, ventila-
tion, and shielding may be considered
in addition to tiiat of tailings removal.
The Commission shall select the reme-
dial action technique, or combination of
techniques, which it determines to be the
most appropriate under the circum-
stances.
§ 12.8 Dctrrminntion of possible nerd
for remedial action where criteria
- have not been mot.
The possible need for remedial action
may be determined where the criteria
in 5 12.7 have not been met if various
other factors are present. Such factors
include, but are not necessarily limited
, size of the affected area, distribution
of radiation levels in the affected area,
amount of tailings, age of individuals
occupying affected area, occupancy time.
and use of the affected area.
*Corrected
37 FR 26734
-------
COMMENTS BY JOHN B. RIGG
OCCIDENTAL OIL SHALE, INC.
AT THE ENVRIONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARINGS OM PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
DENVER, COLORADO
MARCH 9, 1979
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the
Proposed Guidelines and Regulations of Hazardous Waste, published in the
December 18, 1978 Federal Register, in relation to oil shale development
in which we are engaged. As a matter of perspective, Occidental has two
oil shale prospects currently under way in Western Colorado:
1. At Logan Wash, near DeBeque, Colorado, Occidental has been
developing its oil shale process since 1972. Under a 28
month old cooperative agreement, Occidental and the Department m
of Energy are now burning a sixth underground retort and producing ^
shale oil, which is being sold to the Department of Energy.
Earlier, the parties processed Retort #5.
2. Our second effort is at our Federal Lease Tract C-b in the
Piceance Basin, Rijcr Blanco County, Colorado.
In 1973, following extensive environmental study efforts, a final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing
Program was issued by the Department of the Interior, just prior
to the Arab Oil Embargo. Spurred by the continually deteriorating
domestic oil situation, by mid-1974, Interior leased Colorado tracts
C-a and C-b for high bids of $210 and $118 million, respectively,
plus $76 and $45 million for Utah tracts U-a and U-b. In late 1975,
Occidental first obtained a fifty percent interest in Tract C-b
partially in exchange for the use of Occidental's modified in-situ
process in developing the tract. Effective last month, Occidental
became sole lessee of the C-b Tract when our partner withdrew and
we are continuing development work. One of th-:; reasons cited by
our partner for withdrawing was the uncertain regulatory atmosphere
surrounding oil shale development.
The information concerning our rather extensive oil shale operations is
presented in order to show that we are part of a cooperative prototype pro-
gram, now ten years old, that was established to get the answers on both
economics and environmental questions concerning oil shale and to allow
environmentally acceptable commercial development of oil shale.
-------
9 c
In the oil shale deposits of Western Colorado, Eastern Utah, and
Southern Wyoming there are some 600 billion barrels of oil equivalent
contained in rock assaying more than 25 gallons per ton. There are an
additional 1,400 billion barrels in rock-assaying more than 15 gallons to
the ton. Utilization of this resource could supply the United States'
liquid fuel needs for generations to come. Events of the past few months
emphasize the need for America to not hamper the investigation of utiliz-
ing this resource.
A critical review of the proposed regulations should be made because
of a clearly apparent need to utilize this tremendous national treasure
of safe, secure oil. It is incongruous to restrict its use unnecessarily.
What are some current local, state and federal guidelines which already
control our oil shale operations?
The Colorado State Health Department issues permits covering both air
and water emissions, under guidelines established by Congress and implemented
by the Environmental Protection Agency. The stata also requires an "Under-
ground Waste Disposal Permit" prior to igniting retorts which specifically
addresses ground water contamination and contains detailed monitoring require-
ments. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency issues PSD permits
to insure we comply with all regulations regarding deterioration of air
quality. The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act covers both the surface
and ground water quality and quantity impacts of the mining operations.
Thus, proper handling of all waste products, whether solid, liquid or
gaseous are already subject to numerous federal and state controls and
permits. This is all in addition to the situation at the C-b tract which
is also subject to the requirements of 43 C.F.R.i 23. These regulations
require reclamation following extraction of leasable minerals on public lands,
which is supervised by the Department of Interior. Additionally, the Area
Oil Shale Supervisor enforces environmental controls and stipulations in the
prototype lease that the Secretary of Interior has characterized as the "most
detailed and comprehensive ever included in a mineral lease of the Department
of Interior".
All of the licenses, permits, plans and approvals mentioned above have
been issued only after public hearings or opportunity for public comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency has been represented for all the
years of the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program on study groups who reviewed
the various draft environmental impact statements, the final environmental
impact statement, lease stipulations and as participants on the Oil Shale
Environmental Advisory Panel which review the Detailed Development Plans
ultimately approved by the Area Oil Shale Supervisor.
Occidental has recognized the value of more data on the environmental
impact of oil shale operations. In order to reconcile the requirements of
environmental protection with those of oil shale development, then we must
learn what techniques will minimize such impacts and the cost-benefit rela-
tionship of such minimization. This indeed is one of the major goals of
-------
-3-
the prototype leasing program. The purpose of the Prototype Oil Shale
Leasing Program and other environmental studies currently underway is.to
determine the need and to provide a framework upon which the regulations
can be based. The alternative is regulation by guesswork, and vie have
far too much of that already. Special studies to provide information of
this type v/ere recognized as necessary by Congress as indicated by Section
8002 of R.C.R.A. where both mining wastes and waste from industrial opera-
tions such as extraction of oil from shale are the subject matter of
specific stud.ies. In addition to this and other E.P.A. investigations, both
the State of Colorado and the Environmental Branch of the Department of
Energy are conducting investigations. To adopt regulation's before the .
results of these special studies are known cannot produce effective regula-
tions. Although we recognize that it is appropriate for the government
through legislation and regulation to assure that unacceptable risks are
not taken with respect to the disposal of highly toxic and hazardous wastes,
we question if the regulations, as proposed, meet another Federal policy as
clearly indicated in Section 1006 of the Act — that of doing away with
needless and duplicative regulations which only increase the bureaucratic
burden and costs. We have previously indicated all aspects of the proposed
regulations are already subject to regulation as they apply to oil shale,
and the subject matter is not one that is being overlooked.
The proposed regulations under Subtitle C of the Act, as well as the
Act itself, do not contemplate in situ oil shale operations. The proposed
regulations can be interpreted, hov/ever, to classify spent shale from such
operations under the special waste standards of Section 250.46. We do not
believe that raw shale, specially segregated and stored on the surface for
possible use in a surface retort constitutes "solid waste" within the
meaning of Section 1004(27) of the Act. Further, it does not differ
significantly from the talis slopes, cliffs and other outcroppings of raw
oil shale which occur in abundance throughout the tri-state oil shale
country. Besides, such coverage would be duplicative in many respects to
the treatment of -uch piles contained in both the oil shale Detailed Develop-
ment Plans approved by the Area Oil Shale Supervisor and the Mined Land
Reclamation Plan approved by Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board which
were mentioned earlier. The storage of all spent shale, particularly from
in situ retorts in accordance with the requirements of proposed Section 250.44
would simply "regulate" the oil shale industry out of business before it even
gets started.
The requirement of proposed Section 250.43-2 to place a two meter fence
around the entire oil shale disposal area also seems on its face to be un-
reasonable. The Bureau of Land Management does not want us to fence Tract
C-b except where the shafts and surface facilities are located. These areas,
less than eighty acres, are now fenced. To install additional fence would
only be an inflationary expense not necessary to control such disposal even
should it be classified as solid waste.
Reporting on analysis of waste generated in deep underground chambers
with no reasonable access is difficult, extremely expensive, and inaccurate
at best under the proposed analysis required by 250.43(h). A retort may
be inaccessible for over a year after a burn is completed. Coring of spent
-------
-4-
retorts requires major equipment and manpower, the costs of just taking
a single sample would well exceed $50,000.
The Financial Requirements established by proposed Section 250.43-9
seem to be unnecessarily harsh even to the point of being oppressive. It
should be noted that capital in high risk industries is sufficiently difficult
to attract without significant portions of it being held in trust to provide
for payment of fines which may never accrue or to secure performance which
in most likelihood will be performed voluntarily. We also wish to point out
that many of the licenses and permits alluded to earlier have separate bond-
ing requirements which in many respects are to cover compliance similar to
that required by the proposed regulations. Duplicative requirements should •
be eliminated, and traditional concepts of bonds or sinking funds reconsidered.
The proposed procedure may be welcomed whole heartedly by the banking industry,
but such disincentives to investment and capital formation require a much
stronger showing of universal need before they are universally applied.
In view of the urgency of removal of impediments to oil shale develop-
ment and extensive existing environmental controls already in place,
Occidental Oil Shale, Inc. urges the E.P.A. to do the following:
1. Specifically recognize that spent shale from in-situ processes
should be treated as overburden returned to the mine at least
until studies regarding actual effects can be completed.
2. Recognize that surface storage of raw shale intended for surface
retorting is not a solid waste.
3. Classify spent shale from surface retorting and raw shale not
intended to be retorted as special v/aste subject to the provisions
of Section 250.45, and recognize that the Federal prototype lease
tracts are existing facilities within the meaning of the proposed
regulations.
4. Exempting the wastes covered by Section 250.46 from the requirements
of Section 250.43-9 until such time as the special E.P.A. studies
regarding these high volume, low hazard wastes are completed. If
this is not acceptable, at the very least they should only be sub-
ject to non-duplicative performance bond requirements.
-------
March 9, 1979
STATEMENT OF ARAPAHOE CHEMICALS, INC.
In Re: HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976 - DENVER, COLORADO
My name is Earl R. White, I am the Health and Regulatory Affairs
Chemist for Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc. located in Boulder, Colorado.
In the comments to follow we have identified and responded to certain
technical, legal and economic issues contained in the proposed |
regulations of Section 3004 which we believe will have a profound
impact on our business. These include:
(1 ) EPA's proposal - Sec. 25Q.4Q(c)(2)(vli1)(A):
"On the effective date of these regulations^ each owner/
operator of a facility receiving hazardous waste shall
provide a cash deposit equal to the entire amount of
estimated closure costs of the facility in a trust fund
designated 'in trust for closure of (facility name). '"
Arapahoe's comment:
We believe that reasonable flexibility should be provided
which allows alternatives such as a surety bond or
guarantees .
-------
/ ' v
V jy ,^M
/•x ^v fl
2. March 9, 1979 ^
(2) EPA's proposal - Sec. 25Q.43(f) f g.)(h):
Re: The requirement for a detailed chemical and physical
analysis of each hazardous waste.
Arapahoe's comment;
This provision, if promulgated, would increase annual
financial costs to our company's Boulder site alone by
$134,000. This figure was derived from the examples set
forth in pages 80 and 81 of the Draft Economic Impact
Analysis as prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
I
More importantly, however, will be the time constraints
imposed upon our facility by this requirement. The result^
ing regulatory bottleneck will periodically interrupt the
smooth transport of wastes from our production sites to
off-site landfills. That interruption, in turn, would
necessitate that we either stop production or add additiona
expensive waste-storage capacity to our facilities.
-------
3. March 9, 1979 ^
(3) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.43(1): .
"Owners/'operators shall close, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 250.43-7, all portions of a facility
which does not comply with the applicable requirements
of this Subpart."
Arapahoe's comments:
There is no language in this section which is suggestive
of a compliance schedule. A necessary prerequisite to
these costly and complex regulations should be a reasonable
schedule for compliance. M
Does EPA know how many owners/operators will be unable
to comply with the so-called "minimum requirements"
without a reasonable compliance schedule? If not, we
submit that it is irresponsible of EPA to proceed without
knowledge of the impact on the industry. A more responsible
way would be for EPA to establish a reasonable timetable
for compliance.
-------
/ 4o March 9S 1979 \
(4) EPA's proposal -~ Sec. 250.43-2(b);
"Ingress through each gate or other access on to the active
portion of the facility shall be controlled by an attendant
or a mechanical or an electromechanical device* whenever
the facility is in operation (e.g.* security personnel*
key cards* or television monitors)."
Arapahoe's comments:
The costs of implementing and operating this requirement
at either of our two plant sites would far outweigh any
possible benefit derived from the program. This proposal
should be limited in its operation to large off-site
disposal facilities which would not have the security
already in place at most manufacturing sites.
-------
5. March 9, 1979
(5) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250 .43-5(c) (1 );
"(c) Reporting. (1) An owner/operator of a facility shall
comply with' the requirements under Sea. 250,43-3(c)(1)
in reporting incidents such as fires3 explosions, and
discharges or releases of hazardous materials into the
environment which have the potential for damaging human
health or the environment."
\
Arapahoe's comments:
Any substantial risk to human health or the environment
is already covered by reporting requirements under a
number of other Acts; e.g., Section 8(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act. Duplicate reporting requirements
^ are burdensome and costly to both industry and government.
-------
March 9, 1979
(6) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.43-6(a) through (b):
"(a) An owner/operator of a facility, at least once each
days shall visually inspect the following:
(1) Storage areas for rust, corrosion, cracks in
storage devices, missing or improper labels*
and spills;
(2) Dikes for possible damage or structural weaken-
ing and drainage systems for possible stoppage;
(3) Operating and monitoring equipment and readings
to ensure normal operations and readings;
(4) Emergency response equipment to ensure that it
meets the requirements specified in Sec.
250.43-4(1)(4):
(5) Fences or barriers surrounding the facility
for possible damage; .
(S) Vegetation on or around the facility for possible
damage; and
(?) The active portion of the facility for fugitive
air emissions.
(b) The observations made in each visual inspection shall
be recorded in the facility's daily log,"
(Continued on page 7)
-------
(6) (Continued) 7. March 9, 1979
Arapahoe's comments:
The Agency has not adequately recognized or addressed
the gross differences between an isolated waste-handling
facility and a facility operating on the site of a
commercial industrial operation. For example, where a
chemical manufacturer is using Good Manufacturing Practices
as specified by FDA and is obviously covered by OSHA's safe
employment regulations, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air
Act, as well as State and local regulations the inspections
required in items 1 through 7 would be redundant. Section
250.43(b) for our particular manufacturing site could only
be considered as unwarranted and unnecessarily burdensome.
-------
8. / March 9, 1979
(7) EPA'S proposal - Sec. 250.43-7(c):
"The owner/operator of a facility shall submit a closure
plan to the Regional Administrator prior to beginning
treatment^ -storage and/or disposal operations or at the
time of and as part of the application for a permit .....
Arapahoe's comments:
The Agency has not yet adequately addressed the compliance
problems of existing facilities. Without knowing what the
Agency's groundrules (compliance schedules, variances
and/or exemptions) for such facilities might actually be, M
submittal of a realistic closure plan by an operator of an
existing facility will not be feasible.
-------
9. March 9, 1979
(8) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.43-8:
"An owner/operator of a landfill or surface -impoundment
facility shall install^ maintain and operate a Groundwater
Monitoring System and a Leaahate Monitoring System as
specified in this Section and shall co.mply with the Samplin
and Analysis* and the Recordkeeping and Reporting require-
ments of this Section. "
Arapahoe's comments:
It would be extremely expensive, if not impossible, to
install a Leachate Monitoring System under an existing ^
surface impoundment. It is therefore recommended that this
section exempt existing facilities and apply only to new
surface impoundments.
-------
10. March 9, 1979
(9) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.43-9;
Refer to the entire section re: financial responsibility.
Arapahoe's comments:
Utilizing the examples found in Arthur. D. Little's Draft
Economic Impact Analysis, we have calculated the estimated
annual financial requirements of our Boulder site only.
Not including the proposed $5 - million financial
responsibility standard, this single-site cost estimate
turns out to be $600,000. Compounding this outstanding
estimated single-site financial burden is the proposed
financial responsibility for sudden and accidental
occurrences in the amount of $5 million per occurrence
for claims arising out of injury to persons or property
from the release or escape of hazardous waste into the
environment from each of our facilities.
Such a requirement would be particularly burdensome for our
company and it is doubtful that we could afford
insurance of this magnitude. We concur with MCA's
assessment of this requirement and we encourage EPA
to reconsider the proposed financial responsibility standard
as it is in direct conflict with Section 3004 which states,
"No private entity shall be precluded by reason of criteria^
established under paragraph (6) from the ownership or
operation of facilities providing ... or disposal of
-------
11. March 9, 1979
(10) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.44-2(q);
"Paper bags contaminated with hazardous waste shall be
stored in closed secondary containers. "
Arapahoe's comments:
Having to put paper bags into a secondary container prior
to burial is burdensome, unnecessary, rigid, inflationary,
and a prime example of overreaction because:
1. Good common business sense to prevent material
loss assures that the amount of material
adhering'to paper bags is small.
2. More material per month could conceivably be
put into a landfill by a non-regulated small
producer under Proposed Reg. Sec. 250.29 than
from paper bags disposed of in trash by a medium
to large sized generator.
3. Using a secondary container will take up more
available landfill space than ff the paper bags
were compacted with plant trash.
4. Supplying secondary containers for paper bags
will be very expensive.
We recommend that this section be either stricken from the
regulations or be amended to allow the paper bags to be
compacted with plant trash.
-------
12. March 9, L979
(11) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.45-l(c);
"Monitoring. The owner/operator shall monitor and record
the following in each trial burn and each operational
burn: (1) Combustion temperature; (2) Carbon monoxide
and oxygen concentrations in the exhaust gas on a continuous
basis, and (3) The rate of hazardous waste, fuel, and
excess air fed to the combustion system at regular
intervals of no longer than 15 minutes. "
Arapahoe's comments:
The instrumentation mandated by this section would be
expensive in both capital and operating costs. These
costs would not be worth the benefits derived when
incinerators are used only for organics not containing
the primary pollutant elements nitrogen, sulfur or
halogens. We recommend that incinerators which burn
organic solvents containing no sulfur, nitrogen, or halogen
be exempted from this proposed regulation.
-------
13. March 9, 1979 I
(12) EPA's proposal.- Sec. 250.45-1(d)(1):
"The incinerator shall operate at greater than 1000 °C
combustion temperature, greater than 2 seconds retention
time, and greater than 2 percent excess oxygen during
incineration of hazardous waste, "
Arapahoe's comments:
The 1000°C temperature, if implemented, would be unnecessa
and arbitrary. Our incinerator now efficiently burns
/ waste methanol . If we were required to operate at
1000°C, we would waste fuel and would shorten the useful
life of the incinerator for no conceivable benefit.
It is an oversimplification to regulate incineration
based on temperature alone. The successful destruction
of organic solvents, particularly those without sulfur,
nitrogen, halogen or other polluting elements, is the
desired result - not the attainment of a certain tempera-
ture. This regulation appears to infringe upon the goals
and objectives of the Clean Air Act. RCRA and its
legislative history do not support the proposed extension
of RCRA's coverage to include incineration.
-------
14. March 9, 1979
(13) EPA's proposal - Sec. 250.45-2(b) (6) (1v);
"(6) The following wastes shall not be disposed in a
landfill: ...dv) Bulk liquids^ semi-solids., and sludges."
Arapahoe's comments:
Because of the broad implications of this proposal there
are technical, legal and economic issues which need to
be addressed. For one reason or another it may be
difficult, if not impossible, for our company to comply
with this proposal. We have been, and are continuing to
look into various aspects of waste reduction, recycling,
treatment and disposal. For example, since aqueous wastes
are considered to be our most challenging waste disposal
problem, our investigations have included the following
five different major technologies:
(1) Data from actual trials involving a commercial
(Crane) reverse osmosis process and samples
from four representative aqueous waste streams
were not encouraging.
(Continued on page 15)
-------
15. March 9, 1979
(13) (Continued)
(2) A multimillion-dollar energy-intensive PACT
(packed activated carbon treatment) facility
would be effective for treating only a relatively
small portion of our aqueous waste. Dissolved
inorganic salts, for example, are not removed
by such treatment. Furthermore, a sludge is a
necessary by-product of such an operation, and
is itself restricted by this proposal.
4
(3) Several techniques related to evaporation have
been considered; including (a) evaporation ponds,
(b) single stage evaporators, and (c) multi-
step evaporators. Several very conservative
assumptions were made to allow us to determine
the probable technical, economic and legal
impact of each of these techniques. Those
assumptions include generation of (an average)
25,000 gal/day of waste, 350 days of operation/
year, fuel oil averaging 18,500 BTU's/lb
.and weighing 7.5 Ibs/gal and costing 46
-------
16. March 9S 1979 |
(13) (Continued)
Technically, evaporation ponds are not practical
during much of the year at either of our plant
locations. Logistically, the land area
required by such a technique is not available
at either plant location. And legally, the
probability of being in conflict with establishe<
Clean Air Standards [Regulation 2, Sec.
66-31-8(2)(e)] of the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Act of 1970 is certain.
A single-stage evaporator could be used to
dewater our liquid wastes and would require
a relatively small capital outlay; however,
the energy consumption and resulting costs of
maintenance and operation would be extremely
high. From standard engineering and reference
works (1978 editions) the capital cost and
energy requirements were estimated at $85,000
and 36,000,000 BTU's per hour, respectively.
(Continued on page 17)
-------
17. March 9, 1979
(13) (Continued)
This results in annual Bill's and fuel- oil
requirements of 302,400,000,000 BTU's and
2,179,460 gallons respectively.
At our current February, 1979 price for fuel
oil the energy required for this alternative
is valued at over $1,000,000 annually.
The triple-stage evaporator could also be used
to dewater our liquid wastes prior to landfillin
but it would require' a capital investment in
excess of 14 times that of the single-stage
evaporator. The advantage of the triple-stage
over the single-stage evaporator is that it
would require about one-third the energy input.
At our current February, 1979 price for fuel
oil, the energy required for this alternative
is valued at approximately $334,000 annually.
(Continued on page 18)
-------
18. March 9, 1979
(13) (Continued)
The single and triple-stage evaporators are
technologically feasible, but they would
require a significant increase in our energy
consumption. The increase would be 1130%
of the total annual energy consumption for our
entire complex for the single-stage and 376% for
the triple-stage evaporator. This projected
overwhelming increase in energy consumption
is in direct conflict with the energy use and
conservation policy of the new National Energy
Act.
To increase our energy usage by this amount
would be costly, non-productive, probably illega
and certainly susceptible to the changing
whims of Federal fuel-use policy. In addition,
any interruption in the fuel oil supply could
shut down our facility.
(Continued on page 19.)
-------
19. March 9, 1979
(13) (Continued)
(4) Waste stabilization is also a possible means
of preparing our waste for disposal in a
landfill. In the February 7, 1979 issue of
Chemical Week. Stablex Corporation President
John T. Schofield estimated the cost of
stabilization at between $5.00 and $500.00 per
ton. Since our waste is high in water content
and contains mostly monoanodic valences, it
is anticipated that the cost for stabilization
would approach the upper end of the range. At
$450 per ton, our annual stabilization cost
would be $16,340,000, while if it were only
$150 per ton, our annual stabilization cost
would be $5,447,000. These figures must be
added to the costs for hauling and dumping the
wastes .
It is obvious that this method of disposal would
be too costly for a large generator to consider.
(5) Deep well injection is considered to be a good
method of disposal in some parts of the country.
Unfortunately, experience in our geographical
area at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal has shown a
history of earthquakes to be the result of this
-------
20. March 9, 1979
(13) (Continued)
In conclusion, none of the above methods are considered
acceptable. For this reason, we recommend that this
proposed section 250.45-2(b)(6)(1v) either be stricken
from the regulations or its promulgation be delayed
until an energy-efficient and economically feasible
alternative is available.
-------
AMERICAN
MINING
CONGRESS
FOUNDED 1897
RING BUILDING
DVC20Q36T°N STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE BAKER
?02 3318900 RADIATION HEALTH PHYSICIST
TWX 710-822-0126 WESTERN NUCLEAR CORPORATION
lALLENOVEKTOHIR
PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS
URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCOMMITTEE •
CONCERNING REGULATIONS PROPOSED BY EPA ON DECEMBER 18, 1978,
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 3001 AND 3004 OF THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN DENVER,
MARCH 9, 1979
My name is Stephanie Baker; I am a Radiation Health Physicist
for Western Nuclear Corporation. Today I am appearing on behalf of
the American Mining Congress Uranium Environmental Subcommittee. The
American Mining Congress is an industry association that encompasses
(1) producers of most of America's metals, coal, industrial and
agricultural minerals; (2) manufacturers of mining and mineral processing
machinery, equipment and supplies; and (3) engineering and consulting
firms and financial institutions that serve the mining industry.
Included in the AMC membership are companies that mine and mill most of
the uranium in the United States. My comments today relate to the
regulations proposed December 18, 1978, by EPA pursuant to Sections
3001 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. I would
ask that these comments be included in the administrative dockets for
both Section 3001 and Section 3004.
There would appear to be no rational basis for listing waste
rock and overburden from uranium mining activities as hazardous waste
nor for designating 5 pCi/gm as a delisting"criteria for this material.
Prior to attempting to regulate these kinds of materials, EPA needs to
complete an in-depth analysis of the nature of the hazard, if anv,
posed by waste rock and overburden from uranium mining activities.
Such a study should consider all of the related work which has been
done by other federal agencies and the scientific community and should
take into account the effects of returning these materials to the mine
and of reclamation prior to abandonment of the mine site.
Subsection 3001(a) of the Resourse Conservation and Recovery
Act requires the Administrator to "develop and promulgate criteria for
identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste, and for listing
hazardous waste, ...." Subsection 3001(b) requires the Administrator
to "ororr/ulaate reculations identifvina the characteristics of hazardous
-------
-2-
waste, and listing particular hazardous wastes...." It further ^
requires that'the "regulations shall be based on the criteria
promulgated under Subsection (a)...."
EPA has proposed separate criteria for identifying characteristic
of hazardous waste and for listing hazardous waste. (40 CFR 250.12,
43 Fed. Reg. 58955). The criteria specified for listing hazardous waste
are that the waste either (1) possess any of the characteristics defined
in 40 CFR 250.13, 43 Fed. Reg. 58955 or (2) meet the definition of
hazardous waste found in 1004(5) of the Act. Neither provides a
rational basis for the listing of a hazardous waste on the basis of
radioactivity.
With respect to the first requirement for listing, i.e. that
waste rock and overburden possess one of the waste characteristics
defined in 40 CFR 250.13, it will be noted that these characteristics
do not include radioactivity. Instead, they are limited to ignitability
corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity. EPA specifically considered the
idea of including radioactivity as a characteristic, but rejected it,
stating that EPA does not confidently believe an appropriate test
protocol to be available (43 Fed. Reg. 58950). The lack of a sound
basis for including radioactivity as a characteristic is further
emphasized by the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking EPA published
along with the proposed regulations. The ANPR solicits data, informatio
case studies, and operating experience which could lead to the addition^
of further characteristics for identification of hazardous waste and "
would, if promulgated, expand the characteristics to include radio-
activity (43 Fed. Reg. 59022)
W^M^MB «M^mMj%^V
The second requirement, that the waste meet the definition of
hazardous waste found in 1004(5) of the Act,"is completely circuitous.
Congress required EPA to promulgate criteria for listing hazardous
waste (3001(a)) and EPA, in turn, is proposing to promulgate "hazardous
waste" as one of its criteria. Congress apparently recognized the
difficulty of relying only on the definition of Hazardous waste and
required EPA to provide more specificity by utilizing the Agency's
technical expertise to promulgate criteria, "taking into account
toxicity, persistence, and degradability in nature, potential for
accumulation in tissue, and other related factors such as flammability,
corrosiveness, and other hazardous characteristics" (3001 (a)). While
EPA admits it is obligated to flesh out the criteria (43 Fed,. Reg,
58950), in this case the Agency has not done so. It is difficult to
see how EPA can urge this as one of its criterion when EPA itself
acknowledges the shortcomings of the definition of hazardous waste,
stating" "Obviously, this definition cannot by itself provide clear
guidance to waste producers as to whether their waste is hazardous".
(43 Fed. Reg. 58950)
In conjunction with the listing of waste rock and overburden
from uranium mining as hazardous waste, EPA suggests use of a test
protocol for demonstrating that such materials are not hazardous. M
(40 CFR 250.15 (a) (5)) The suggestion of any test protocol appears ™
arbitrary in view of EPA's statement that it cannot designate a test
protocol for radioactivity in which it would have confidence. The Agenc
continued...
-------
i
doubts about a particular protocol are in conflict with the concurrent
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting data, information,
case studies and operating experience to support its promulgation.
The preamble to the proposed' rulemaking lacks any support what-
soever for the 5 pCi/gm cutoff level (43 Fed. Reg. 58953) and, therefo:
must rely on data and information contained in the draft Background
Document BD-6 (43 Fed. Reg. 58954). The draft Background Document
discusses an array of radioactive materials and associated health
impacts and finally concentrates on radium as being most important.
Notably lacking in the draft Background Document is any data on potent:
hazards posed by waste rock and overburden from uranium mining. The
only data on uranium mining "wastes are for" uranium ore mill tailings,
which are excluded from coverage under Section 1004(27) of the Act.
The section discussing the rationale for the 5pCi/gm Ra-226
cutoff states that this level is based primarily on consideration of
the radium-radon exposure pathway. Selection of this level is based
on the underlying assumption that buildings will be constructed on
unreclaimed mine wastes and that they will be occupied 75 percent of
the time, i.e. residences. In view of the fact that most uranium mine*
are located in remote areas that are sparsely populated, employing this
assumption as the basis for the development of a national standard is
unwarranted. Moreover, if the concern is the level of radon decay ^
product concentrations in residential structures, then the appropriat^
way to mitigate it is by setting proper reclamation standards. This,
however, is not the purpose of RCRA. Reclamation is required in many
states in which uranium is mined, and the possible need for federal
reclamation standards is being reviewed at this time by the Council
on Environmental Quality in accordance with Section 709 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
EPA, in setting the 5 pCi/gm cutoff indicates it is relying on
a 1977 presentation by Ellett1 for the proposition that exposure to
indoor radon decay product levels in excess of .01^ WL will result in
an increased lung cancer risk of greater than 1 percent over the
normal risk. EPA also relied on data for twenty-two structures in
Florida for the proposition that soil concentrations of Ra-226 in
excess of 5 pCi/gm will result in radon decay product levels in
structures in excess of .01 WL. Consideration should be given to the
differences in physical and environmental conditions throughout
different regions of the United States. To our knowledge neither the
Ellett paper nor the Florida data have been published. To promulgate
standards based on unpublished information is inappropriate.3
There have been a number of other publications addressing
related issues, but the draft Background Document makes no attempt to
distinguish their conclusions from those proposed by EPA. In Borrowmar
and Brooks4 (1975) a Ra-226 level of 20 pCi/gm was found to be acceptat
for building materials. O'Riordan^ (1972) determined that the use ofU
construction material having an average Ra-226 content of 25 pCi/gm
would result in an annual exposure of 0.4 WLM, about 1/10 of the
annual limit for exposure to the general public recommended by the IRCI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a May 24, 1978 staff technic
-------
-4-
position paper (Interim Land Cleanup Criteria for Decommissioning
Uranium Mill Sites) , indicated radon levels inside structures on land
averaging 5.0 pCi/gm Ra-226 would range anywhere from .0024 to .04 WL
units. Inexplicable differences appear even in the. proposed rule-
making. See, for example, 40 CFR 250.46-4 (b) (2) where EPA requires
that Rn-222 concentrations in residences on land reclaimed with
uranium waste rock or overburden must not exceed background levels by
.03 WL units. However, other portions of these regulations do not
recognize background levels.
EPA has acknowledged that it has very little information on the
degree of hazard posed by special wastes or on the effectiveness of
waste management technologies. (43 Fed. Reg. 58991) As a result, EPA
has undertaken to carry out an extensive mine waste study which it is
anticipated will require on the order of three years to complete. It
would appear appropriate for EPA to either expand the study to include
analysis of potential hazards posed by waste rock and overburden from
uranium mines or to initiate a separate study of this subject matter
concurrent with the present study.
If, after completion of current studies and any future studies
which may result from these and other comments, it develops that waste
rock and overburden from uranium mining should be regulated under RCRA,
then we suggest the following: ^
1. That any radioactive material limits for uranium overburden
waste rock recognize and take into account background levels which run
as much as 200 pCi/gm Ra-226, and
2. The current analysis techniques for Ra-226 are long and
time-consuming and, thus, any regulation must recognize this fact and
be written so that practical implementation is possible.
On behalf of the American Mining Congress Uranium
Environmental Subcommittee, I would like to express our appreciation
for the opportunity to present this testimony.
-------
FOOTNOTES
W.H. "Exposures to Radon Daughters and the Incidence
of Lung Cancer." Presented at American Nuclear Society meeting,
December 1, 1977, San Francisco, California, USEPA Office of Radiation
Programs.
Measurements in the size magnitude of .01 working levels are
not very accurate because for most instruments .01 working level is
the minimum sensitivity.
For example, since the Florida study is unpublished, the basis
for the data, which EPA itself terms preliminary, cannot be examined.
That examination is warranted seems clear from the following quotation
from page 24 of the draft Background Document "It is recognized that
measurement error (+25% for TLD air sampling) and the relatively small
sample size are qualifying factors in drawing firm conclusions on a
defined correlation between soil radium and radon progeny concentratio.
in structures. However, the relationship is sufficiently defined to .
permit broad projections for radium concentrations in excess of \
5 pCi/g."
^Borrowman, S.R. and P. T. Brooks. "Radium Removal from
Uranium Ores and Mill Tailings." Report of Investigations 8099, U.S.
Bureau of Mines, 1975.
^O'Riordan, M.C., M. J. Duggan, W. B. Rose, and G. F. Bradford.
"The Radiological Implications of Using By-Product Gypsum as a Buildim
Material." National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB-R7, Harwell,
Didcot, Berks, London, 1972.
-------
A
\
3-7-7?
THE EPA STATES IN 40 CFE PART 250 SUBPART D OF THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS THAT "THE AGENCY HAS VERY LITTLE INFORMATION ON THE
COMPOSITION, CHARACTERISTICS, AND DEGREE OF HAZARD POSED BY THESE
WASTES, NOR DOES THE AGENCY YET HAVE DATA ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
CURRENT OR POTENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES OR THE TECHNICAL
OR ECONOMIC PRACTICABILITY OF IMPOSING THE SUBPART D STANDARDS ON
FACILITIES MANAGING SUCH WASTE," THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY AGREES
WITH THIS STATEMENT AND SUBMITS THAT ANY "RULE OF REASON" WOULD
REQUIRE THAT THIS INFORMATION BE COMPILED AND EVALUATED BY THE
EPA BEFORE STANDARDS ARE PROPOSED EVEN UNDER A LIMITED "SPECIAL
WASTE" DESIGNATION,
THE EPA STATES IN A FINAL DRAFT DOCUMENT ENTITLED "IDENTIFICATION
AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS RADIOACTIVE WASTE PURSUANT TO THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) OF 1976" (DECEMBER, 1978),
THAT:
"DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE UNEQUIVOCABLY
A LINEAR, NON-THRESHOLD DOSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP AT
DOSES AS LOW AS THOSE USUALLY FOUND IN THE ENVIRON-
MENT, HOWEVER, THE DATA FROM THE MINER STUDIES ARE
CONSISTENT WITH A LINEAR NON-THRESHOLD HYPOTHESIS
DOWN TO THE HIGHER LEVELS MEASURED IN SOME STRUCTURES
IN GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO, AND IN CENTRAL FLORIDA,
IT IS THEREFORE PRUDENT TO ASSUME THAT ON THE BASIS
OF THIS AS WELL AS MORE GENERAL EXPERIENCE WITH
RADIATION EXPOSURE, THAT INDIVIDUALS OCCUPYING STRUC-
TURES CONTAINING ELEVATED LEVELS OF RADON ARE SUBJECT
TO A POTENTIAL HAZARD FROM LUNG CANCER INDUCTION IN
PROPORTION TO THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED EXPOSURE,"
THIS COMMENT POINTS OUT SEVERAL FACTS WHICH THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
c^c! 5 £oc r
-------
-2-
NONE OF THE MATERIALS GENERATED DURING THE MINING OF
PHOSPHATE ORES PRESENT ANY SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE
ENVIRONMENT OR TO PUBLIC HEALTH SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN
CONFINED ON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, THE WORD "SIGNIFICANT"
IN THIS CASE IMPLIES ANY RISK THAT WOULD EXCEED THE
VARIABILITY OF THE NATURAL RADIATION BACKGROUND, ASSUMING
THAT ANY RADIATION EXPOSURE REPRESENTS SOME RISK, THE
ASSIGNMENT OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE LABEL TO MINING WASTE
BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION WRITTEN INTO RCRA HAS A
PUNITIVE EFFECT ON INDUSTRY FAR GREATER THAN IS WARRANTED,
THE WORD "HAZARDOUS" CONNOTES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC SOME-
THING THAT IS IMMEDIATELY DANGEROUS TO LIFE OR HEALTH.,
WHEREAS LOW LEVELS OF RADIOACTIVITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
IN TERMS OF REMOTE CHANCES OF DETRIMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS,
THE EPA's PROPOSED APPLICATION OF SECTION 250,43-2
SECURITY PROVISIONS TO MINING WASTES ILLUSTRATE THE EASE
WITH WHICH INDIVIDUALS LOSE SIGHT OF THE RELATIVE RISKS
INVOLVED,
THE EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND
THE CALCULATION OF EXTRAPOLATED HEALTH RISKS ARE BOTH
SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF "QUALIFYING FACTORS" AND
ASSUMPTIONS, THEIR ASSIGNED SIGNIFICANCE DEPENDS TO
A LARGE DEGREE ON THE INDIVIDUAL DOING THE STUDY,
A BY-PRODUCT OF THE NATURAL RADIATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
BEING CONDUCTED ON THE PHOSPHATE AREA BY THE UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA is A GRADUATE DISSERTATION BY DARRELL REED
FISHER ENTITLED "RISK EVALUATION AND DOSIMETRY FOR
INDOOR RADON PROGENY ON RECLAIMED FLORIDA PHOSPHATE
LANDS," MR, FISHER PRESENTS A DETAILED DISCUSSION ON
THE DATA ON URANIUM MINERS AND OTHER RADON DAUGHTER
RELATED CANCER RESEARCH WITH THE CONCLUSION:
-------
<
-3-
"THE STRONG EVIDENCE OF THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF
URANIUM DUST, OTHER CARCINOGENS IN URANIUM
MINES, AND SMOKING ON THE INCIDENCE OF LUNG
CANCER AMONG URANIUM MINERS REFUTES THE CLAIM
THAT THE ADDITIONAL LUNG CANCER MORTALITY
RESULTED FROM THE INHALATION OF RADON DAUGHTERS
ALONE, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT WHICH MUST
BE REMEMBERED WHEN APPLYING URANIUM MINER RISK
DATA TO NON-MINING POPULATIONS EXPOSED TO RADON
PROGENY, FOR EXTENSION TO THE GENERAL POPULA-
TION. A RISK COEFFICIENT DETERMINED FROM URANIUM
MINER DATA PROBABLY ESTIMATES A CAUTIOUS OVER-
ESTIMATE RATHER THAN A NEAREST APPROXIMATION OF |
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE INHALED RADIOACTIVITY."
ALSO CERTAIN HEALTH RISK "FACTORS" WERE IGNORED BY THE EPA
IN THEIR CALCULATIONS, FOR INSTANCE, HEALTH STATISTICS
FOR URANIUM MINERS TO BE RELATED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
SHOULD ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THEIR EXPOSURE INCLUDED
"HEAVY WORK" RESPIRATION RATES AND MINE ATMOSPHERE PARTI-
CULATE LOADINGS, WORKING RESPIRATION RATES CALCULATED TO
BE APPROXIMATELY THREE TIMES NORMAL WERE APPLIED ON A
TWENTY-FOUR HOUR BASIS IN THE EPA RISK EVALUATION, THIS
ALREADY CONSERVATIVE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA IS THEN SUBJECTED
TO ADDITIONAL EXAGGERATED CALCULATIONS BY THE EPA TO SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED LIMITATIONS, FOR INSTANCE, INSTEAD OF CAL-
CULATING EXCESS CANCERS AND YEARS OF LIFE LOST ON THE BASIS
vtf«ftMV««? t«oC(,
OF 100,000 PEOPLE EXPOSED TO 0,03^?!^FOR A LIFETIME, IT
WOULD BE MUCH MORE REALISTIC TO CALCULATE THE HEALTH
DETRIMENT TO A POPULATION OF 100,000 IN WHICH THE MAXIMUM
yt*t.*'»"t tAvei*
EXPOSURE MIGHT BE 0,03 ifc? BUT THE AVERAGE MIGHT BE ONE-
TENTH OF THAT,
-------
l'/E DISAGREE THAT THE DATA FROM MINER STUDIES ARE
CONSISTENT WITH A LINEAR NON-THRESHOLD HYPOTHESIS,
IN THE LUNDIN STUDY OF AMERICAN URANIUM MINERS, NO
INCREASE IN LUNG CANCER MORTALITY WAS FOUND IN THE
GROUP WITH A CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE OF LESS THAN 120
WLM, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A THRESHOLD DOSE WAS
SUGGESTED, WE RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF
SOME RISK AT LOWER EXPOSURE LEVELS AND THAT WORK
PUBLISHED SINCE THE LUNDIN STUDY HAS INDICATED LOWER
THRESHOLDS, THE POINT IS THAT EXISTING EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
DATA ON URANIUM MINERS AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT AS BLACK AND WHITE AS THE EPA
SEEMS TO INDICATE AT TIMES, ONE MUST REALIZE THAT
AT LEVELS THIS CLOSE TO BACKGROUND, THE HEALTH EFFECTS
ARE STOCHASTIC, I,E,, THE KIND OF HEALTH EFFECTS IN
WHICH A PROBABILITY OF THE EFFECT OCCURRING MAY BE
CALCULABLE, BUT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO WAY OF DETERMINING
WHEN OR WHERE THE EFFECT WILL OCCUR, V/E ARE TALKING
IN TERMS OF STATISTICAL ADDITIONS OR SUBTRACTIONS FROM
STATISTICAL LIVES OR HEALTH, NOT FROM THE HEALTH OR
WELL-BEING OF ANY IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS. THIS IS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT, AFTER NINETY YEARS OF
PHOSPHATE MINING IN POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE COUNTY
RANKS 31ST (41,3/100,000) AMONG THE 67 FLORIDA COUNTIES
WITH RESPECT TO THE AVERAGE ANNUAL AGE-ADJUSTED MORTALITY
RATES DUE TO MALIGNANT NEOPLASM OF THE TRACHEA, BRONCHUS
AND LUNGS (IC.D 162 & 163) FOR THE YEARS 1950-1969 AS
REPORTED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH. THE
PROJECTED HEALTH EFFECTS HAVE THUS NOT BEEN SUPPORTED
BY EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE POPULATION AT LARGE
EVEN THOUGH THOUSANDS OF THE PEOPLE IN POLK COUNTY HAVE
BEEN EXPOSED AS EMPLOYEES IN THE INDUSTRY IN ADDITION
TO LIVING IN THE AREA SINCE THE LATE 1800'S.
-------
«/
N.
/
-5-
PERHAPS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POINT WHICH MUST NOT BE LOST IN THE
PAGES OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN DEVELOPING
REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 3004, IS THAT THE EXPOSURE ROUTE UNDER
CONSIDERATION IS LONG TERM RADON PROGENY INHALATION IN RESIDENTIAL
OR OTHER STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ON RADIUM BEARING SOIL (PRIMARILY
RECLAIMED LAND) OR THE USE OF RADIUM BEARING BY-PRODUCTS IN HOME
CONSTRUCTION, THE KEY WORDS HERE ARE STRUCTURE AND LONG TERM.
THE ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH SECONDARY STANDARDS (l.E,, EXTERNAL GAMMA
EXPOSURE RATES OR RADIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN MATERIALS) IN ORDER TO
CONTROL EXPOSURES TO AIRBORN RADON PROGENY LEADS TO A REGULATION
THAT IS BOTH UNFAIR AND UNSCIENTIFIC, RECOGNIZING THAT INDOOR
RADON PROGENY CONCENTRATIONS ARE DETERMINED BY A LARGE NUMBER OF
VARIABLES, THE EPA INSISTS ON OVERSIMPLIFYING TO A POINT THAT MAKES
THE STANDARD ALMOST MEANINGLESS, ADDING TO THIS THE FACT THAT THE
PROPOSED CRITERIA LEVELS ARE ONLY SLIGHTLY ABOVE NATURAL BACKGROUND,
THE APPLICATION OF PROPOSED LEVELS ON A SITE OR MATERIAL SPECIFIC
BASIS IS UNDEFINED AND THE LIMITS ARE BEING APPLIED PRIOR TO LAND
RECLAMATION AND POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INDUSTRY MUST
CONCLUDE THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE UNWARRENTED AMD ESSENTIALLY UN-
SUPPORTED BY EXISTING DATA, THE EPA DRAFT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
STATES:
"IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT MEASUREMENT ERROR (±25% FOR
TLD AIR SAMPLING) AND THE RELATIVELY SMALL SAMPLE
SIZE ARE QUALIFYING FACTORS IN DRAWING FIRM CON-
CLUSIONS AS TO A DEFINED CORRELATION BETWEEN SOIL
RADIUM AND RADON PROGENY CONCENTRATIONS IN STRUCTURES,
HOWEVER, THE RELATIONSHIP is SUFFICIENTLY DEFINED TO
PERMIT BROAD PROJECTIONS FOR RADIUM CONCENTRATIONS
IN EXCESS OF 5 PCl/G,"
"SUFFICIENTLY DEFINED" is A SUBJECTIVE OPINION WHICH THE INDUSTRY
DOES NOT SHARE WITH THE AUTHOR,
-------
-6-
SlMILAR CORRELATION WORK DONE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ON
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SURFACE SOIL RADIUM-226 AND INDOOR
RADON PROGENY LEVELS SHOWED CONSIDERABLE DATA SCATTER (DEGREE OF
FIT R^ = 0,64 ) AND A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT LINE SLOPE, THE
QUESTION IS SHOULD A RELATIONSHIP "SUFFICIENTLY.DEFINED TO PERMIT
BROAD PROJECTIONS" BE UTILIZED TO SET STANDARDS SLIGHTLY ABOVE
BACKGROUND TO MEET HEALTH RISK PROJECTIONS BASED ON MANY "QUALIFYING
FACTORS" AT COST OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THE INDUSTRY?
WE THINK NOT,
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT A SMALL NUMBER OF HOUSES ON HIGH ACTIVITY
OVERBURDEN OR DEBRIS RECLAIMED LAND ACCOUNTED FOR 33% OF THE TOTAL
POPULATION EXPOSURE IDENTIFIED IN THE POLK COUNTY STUDY, THE TERM
"DEBRIS" IDENTIFIES THE TYPE OF COARSE WASTE PRODUCT GENERATED BY
THE INDUSTRY PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF FROTH FLOTATION IN THE LATE
1940's. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN METALLURGICAL RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
1N./RECENT YEARS HAVE RESULTED IN HIGHER AND HIGHER PLANT RECOVERIES
LEAVING LESS AND LESS RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (COMPLEXED WITH THE PHOS-
PHATES) IN PLANT WASTE STREAMS, LAND RECLAIMED WITH THESE MATERIALS
SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXHIBIT LOWER SOIL RADIUM CONTENT AND ANY EFFECT
ON PRESENT AND FUTURE MINING IS OF A CONSIDERABLY LOWER MAGNITUDE
THAN WOULD BE INFERRED BY MERELY REVIEWING SURVEY DATA FROM EXISTING
CENTRAL FLORIDA STRUCTURES,
250,43-1 GENERAL SITE SELECTION - NEW SOURCES
THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY WOULD FEEL SAFE IN SAYING THAT VIRTUALLY NO
OTHER INDUSTRIAL CONCERN RECEIVES ANY MORE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE
THAN A MEW PHOSPHATE MINE IN FLORIDA, FLOODPLAIN CONCERNS, WETLANDS,
ENDANGERED SPECIES, RECHARGE ZONES, PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS, RECLAMA
TION, DAM CONSTRUCTION AND MANY OTHER AREAS ARE COVERED IN DETAIL
BOTH IN THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DOCUMENT, RECENT NEW SOURCE MINES
AVERAGED CLOSE TO COUP YEARS TIME AND SPENT IN EXCESS OF THREE
-------
-7-
MILLION DOLLARS EACH JUST TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS AND
OBTAIN THE NECESSARY PERMITS, WE FEEL STRONGLY THAT ANOTHER LAYER
OF PERMITTING AND REPORTING UNDER RCRA IS REDUNDANT, UNNECESSARY,
INFLATIONARY, AND IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE STATED POLICY OF THE
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION,
250,43-2 SECURITY
ON THE BASIS THAT THE ONLY HAZARD TENTATIVELY DEFINED FOR MINING
WASTE INVOLVES LONG TERM OCCUPANCY OF STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ON
RECLAIMED LAND, IT IS LUDICROUS TO REQUIRE SECURITY MEASURES
AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY ABOVE THE NORMAL POSTING PROCEDURES
EMPLOYED, |
250,43-5 MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
THE RECLAMATION OF ALL LANDS MINED BY THE INDUSTRY HAVE BEEN MANDATOR'
SINCE 1975, THE SAND TAILINGS GENERATED IN THE PROCESS ARE RETURNED
ON A CONTINUAL BASIS TO THE MINE SITES TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, QjV
WASTES ARE PUMPED TO SETTLING AREAS WHICH ARE RECLAIMED ON A LONGER
TIMETABLE USING ONE OF SEVERAL TECHNIQUES, ALL RECLAMATION IS CONTROl
AND SUPERVISED AS TO THE LOCATION AND TYPE BY THE COUNTY AND FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DETAILED MAPS ARE SUBMITTED ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS AND SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE INITI/
TION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS,
WE FEEL THIS IS SUFFICIENT TO DOCUMENT RECLAMATION SUCH THAT NO ADDI-
TIONAL REPORTING OR RECORDKEEPING IS REQUIRED,
250,43-6 VISUAL INSPECTION 1
VISUAL INSPECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED ON ALL CLAY SETTLING AREAS ON A
MINIMUM OF ONCE PER WEEK BY TRAINED PERSONNEL. ACTIVE AREAS RECEIVE
ALMOST CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE 3V VARIOUS PERSONNEL DURING THE REGULAR
-------
-8-
COURSE OF VARIOUS DUTIES, I.E., RECYCLE WATER CONTROL, NORMAL
MINE TRAFFIC, DETAILED INSPECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED ONCE A YEAR BY
A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEER WITH APPROPRIATE RECORDS AND
REPORTING OF EACH PHASE, ALL OF THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING
STATE REGULATIONS, SPECIFIC STATE REQUIREMENTS;MUST ALSO BE MET
FOR ABANDONMENT OR RECLAMATION OF THE OLDER SETTLING AREAS,
250,43-7 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
STATE AND COUNTY RECLAMATION REGULATIONS ARE VERY SPECIFIC AND
STRINGENT ENOUGH TO COVER ANY CLOSURE OR POST-CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS
OF THE PROPOSED APPLICABLE SUBSECTIONS,
250,43-8 GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE MONITORING
VERY LITTLE FACTUAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING EXISTS WHEN
THE RADIUM-226 CONTENT OF MINING RECYCLE WATER INCLUDING THAT IN
THE SETTLING AREAS IS WITHIN THE EPA DRINKING V/ATER STANDARD, NONE
OF THE RECENT STUDIES ON RADIATION HAS PROVIDED A RATIONALE FOR THIS
REQUIREMENT, IT SHOULD BE DELETED,
250,46-3(c)(l) REFERENCE MAPS
REFERENCE MAPS OF RECLAIMED AREAS ARE CURRENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE
STATE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED,
250,46-3(c)(2) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
THE INDUSTRY FEELS THAT THE 0,03 WORKING LEVEL UNIT ABOVE BACKGROUND
RESTRICTION IS REASONABLE AS A LIMIT FOR HOMES ON RECLAIMED LAND |
AND SUPPORTED BY WORK BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATIVE
SERVICES, THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE NOT CLEAR, HOWEVER, AS TO
WHETHER THE 0,03 WL IS INTENDED TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL DOSE LIMIT AND
TT rQijLD BF PDETDTCTED WTJH <\NY DE^RFE OF CERTMNTY EEC0°F
-------
-9-
CONSTRUCTION, MONITORED OR ENFORCED IN MOST SITUATIONS, AN
EXPOSURE TO 0,03 WL FOR 60 YEARS AT 25 WLM PER WL-YR = 45 WLM
AS THE LIFETIME EXPOSURE, ACCEPTING THE RELATIVE RISK OF 3%
PER WLM APPLIED TO LIFETIME ACCUMULATED EXPOSURE, THIS MAXIMUM
EXPOSURE WOULD INDICATE AN INCREASE OF 135% IN LUNG CANCER RISK
AFTER 60 YEARS, IN OTHER WORDS, AT THIS PROPOSED UPPER LIMIT FOR
CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE, THE RISK OF LUNG CANCER DEATH WOULD APPROXI-
MATELY DOUBLE, HOWEVER, THE RISK OF LUNG CANCER PRIOR TO AGE 60
WOULD BE RATHER SMALL BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED INDUCTION-LATENT
PERIOD THAT APPEARS TO BE RELATED TO LOW CONCENTRATION EXPOSURES,
BEYOND AGE 60, THE RISK OF DEATH FROM ALL CAUSES INCREASES RATHER
RAPIDLY SO THAT THE INCREASE IN RISK OF LUNG CANCER IS NOT SUCH A
LARGE FRACTION OF THE TOTAL RISK, CONSIDERING TODAY'S MOBILE
SOCIETY, IT IS ALSO HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD SPEND
60 YEARS IN THE SAME RESIDENCE,
K'E HAVE NOT REVIEWED ANY INFORMATION OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN BACKGROUND
OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO JUSTIFY THE 5 uR/HOUR GAMMA RESTRICTIONS
OTHER THAN THE EPA'S GOAL OF EXPOSURE AS LOW AS REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE
(ALARA), THE CORRELATION BETWEEN GAMMA LEVELS AND INDOOR RADON
PROGENY IS EVEN POORER THAN THE SOIL RADIUM CORRELATION,1 NO DEFINITE
IS GIVEN FOR MEASUREMENT LOCATION (INDOOR OR OUTDOOR) OR METHODOLOGY
AND GAMMA EXPOSURE IS ONLY MENTIONED BRIEFLY IN GENERAL TERMS IN THE
EPA BACKGROUND DOCUMENT,
AN ADDITION OF 5 uR/HOUR REPRESENTS AN APPROXIMATE DOUBLING OF THE
CENTRAL FLORIDA BACKGROUND, SPECIFICATION OF THIS LIMIT WITH RESPECT
TO AN INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRY IS DISCRIMINATORY IN THAT THERE ARE LIKELY
TO BE INSTANCES OF BUILDING AND FILL MATERIALS FROM NON-PHOSPHATE
SOURCES THAT RESULT IN INDOOR LEVELS EXCEEDING THIS VALUE INCLUDING
A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE BEACH SAND IN THE STATE. AN EXPOSURE LEVEL
OF 5 wR/HOUR IS, IN EFFECT. AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE MORE RESTRICTIVE
-------
-10-
THAN THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS
(NCRP) RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM DOSE ABOVE BACKGROUND FOR INDIVUALS OF
THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
^
-------
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
founded 1914
Suite 1120 "
1001 Connecticut Avenue. NV
Washington, DC 20036
202/372-3110
Testimony of Francine Bellet Kushner
Associate Director, Legislative & Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
on Hazardous Waste Regulation Under §3004 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Good afternoon/ my name is Francine Bellet Kushner, Asso-
ciate Director for Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Chemical
Specialties Manufacturers Association. CSMA is a voluntary non-
profit organization consisting of more than 400 member companies
engaged in the manufacture, processing and distribution of chemical
specialty products. Production processes in the manufacture and
formulation of members' products generate substances that are
directly affected by the proposed regulations for identification
and listing of hazardous wastes as well as the proposed standards
for generators and owner/operators of treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities. Accordingly, CSMA offers the following comments
regarding the hazardous waste regulations proposed under §3004
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These points
and others will be further developed in our subsequent written
submission.
We welcome this opportunity to present our views to the
Environmental Protection Agency on issues raised by these hazard-
ous waste regulations which will have significant impact on our
industry. The vitality of the chemical specialties industry is
-------
-2-
dependent upon the opportunities for constant innovation. We
are concerned that the proposed hazardous waste regulations will
have a negative impact on essential process and product innova-
tion and will impact disproportionately on small companies.
Section 3004 - Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
The Regulation Establishes Design Standards Not Authorized
by RCRA
Sections 250.43 to §250.45-6 establish design and operating
standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. The preamble to the proposed
RCRA §3004 regulation states "the Agency is relying primarily
on the second type-design and operating standards" (43 Fed. Reg.
at 58982). The proposed regulation establishes design standards
in violation of the statutory preference and authorization for
performance based standards. Section 3004 of RCRA provides that
"the Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing
such performance standards, applicable to owners and operators
of facilities for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
waste identified or listed under this subtitle as may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment". The legislative
history of RCRA §3004 likewise indicates that performance, not
design standards were contemplated under this section of RCRA.
The House report states "the Administrator is also required to
promulgate performance standards applicable to those facilities
operated for the treatment, storage, or disposal of waste
identified as hazardous. These performance standards must reason-
ably protect human health and the environment...monitoring or
-------
4
/
inspection will be conducted to enforce compliance with per-
formance standards promulgated by the Administrator to ensure the
reasonable protection of human health and the environment"
(H. Kept. No. 94-1491, Part 1 at 27-28). Accordingly, it is wholly
inappropriate for the Agency to propose the design standards
contained within this proposal. RCRA and its .legislative history
clearly contemplate only performance standards.
Variance From Performance Standards
The proposed regulations fail to permit any variances from
the design and operating standards except for standards for which
EPA proposes a "Note" and only then to permit a variance of a
particular design and operating standard to the extent an alter- ™
native design satisfies the "Note" requirements (43 Fed. Reg. 58983)
Variances should not be limited to those standards followed by
"Notes". Because rigid design criteria do not necessarily bear
any relation to a specific hazard or a given waste, all require-
ments should be adaptable to fit the hazard. Accordingly, EPA
in its hazardous waste regulations should provide for a variance
scheme so that a facility will not be required to meet a par-
ticular design or operating standard if it can shov? either that
it will achieve performance substantially equivalent to that
achieved by EPA's prescribed design or operating standard or that
it will meet health and environmental standards. For example,
standards under §250.46-3 for phosphate rock mining, where the M
only identified potential hazard involves exposure in a confined,
unventilated space, should recognize that a six-foot fence
around an open air disposal site will not address the potential
-------
-4-
4
hazard. Accordingly requirements of this nature should be sub-
ject to a variance mechanism.
If EPA continues to require design rather than performance
standards a general variance provision is essential, to ensure
permit writers the needed flexibility to address individual
problems at individual sites subject to permitting under §3004.
Applicability of Hazardous Waste Regulation to NPDES Facilities
Not Contemplated by RCRA
Sections 250.45-3/4, and 6 seek to establish design and
operating standards for surface impoundments, basins, and chemical,
physical, and biological treatment facilities for hazardous waste.
While §250.40(e)(3) would exempt industrial point source dis-
charges, it would still reach NPDES treatment facilities that
have been designed and constructed for compliance with the 1977
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Regulation
of NPDES treatment facilities of this nature is not contemplated
by RCRA. Nor does RCRA contemplate special treatment for exist-
ing publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). The hazardous
waste regulations are proposed for application to existing
industrial NPDES facilities, but not to existing POTWs (43 Fed. Reg.
58993). The distinction between industrial NPDES facilities and
POTWs is arbitrary and not contemplated by RCRA. Accordingly,
inclusion of existing NPDES treatment facilities under the same
RCRA standards as other facilities violates RCRA. Therefore,
NPDES treatment facilities should be specifically exempted from 4
the hazardous waste regulations under §3004 through an exemption
contained within §250.40(e)(3).
-------
-5-
i
Definition of Storage Facility
Section 250.41(b)(83) defines an owner/operator of a
"storage facility" to include generators who store their own
waste pn-site for 90 days or more prior to subsequent transport
off-site. The 90 day restriction on on-site storage, for a
generators own waste is too restrictive. Such a provision
would preclude an individual plant that generates a small amount
of waste from collecting waste until it is economical to ship
it off-site for treatment, storage or disposal. Because aggre-
gation for economical shipment would normally be for total
quantities greater than 100kg at any one time, e.g. at least
one 55 gallon drum, such a plant seeking to aggregate and tern-
porarily store hazardous waste on-site prior to shipment off-site
would be subject to §3004 requirements. Most of the facilities
that would need to aggregate hazardous waste for economically
feasible shipment off-site are clearly not in the business of
storing hazardous waste. Nevertheless the facilities would be
transformed into a storage facility subject to permit requirements
under §3004 of RCRA and under these regulations solely because they
needed to aggregate their waste for shipment off-site for a
period longer than 90 days in order to make such shipment eco-
nomical. It is precisely these smaller companies which do not
1
generate significant amounts of hazardous wastes that face the
disproportionate burden imposed by the hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal requirements. Accordingly, the overly re-
strictive 90 day storage limitation should be extended or in the
alternative should provide for accumulation based on small quantities
-------
-6-
rather than on a time limit. In this way the true intent of
the storage exemption can be realized and insignificant waste
generators relieved from the enormous cost of compliance with
§3004 requirements.
Financial Responsibility
Section 250.43-9 establishes requirements for financial
responsibility for facility owner/operators. This section
requires an owner/operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal
facility to establish trusts to ensure sufficient funds for
facility closure, post-closure monitoring and maintenance.
Section 250.43-9(b) further requires liability insurance, self-
insurance or other evidence of financial responsibility during
site operation in the amount of $5 million per sudden and acci-
dental occurrence for claims arising out of injury from release
or escape of hazardous waste into the environment from each
facility and $5 million per non-sudden and accidental occurrence
and $10 million annual aggregate for claims arising out of
injury from gradual or steady release or escape of hazardous
waste into the environment. These financial responsibility
requirements are overly burdensome and impact disproportionately
on small companies. Not only is such insurance at a reasonable
premium difficult to obtain, but self-insurance is not a viable
option where annual sales of a small chemical specialty company
treating, storing, or disposing of its own hazardous wastes are
less than $10 million.
-------
-7-
S uitima ry
In summary, the proposed regulations under §3004 of RCRA
should be amended to reflect CSMA's major concerns, which are;
1. The design and operating standards for treatment,
storage and disposal facilities established by
the proposed regulation violate statutory pre-
ference for performance-based standards'.
2. A variance scheme from the design and operating
standards for treatment, storage and disposal
facilities should be established where the facility
can demonstrate it will achieve performance
substantially equivalent to that achieved by the
prescribed design or operating standard or it
will meet health and environmental standards.
Variance should not be limited to standards
accompanied by "Notes".
3. RCRA does not contemplate or authorize applicability
of hazardous waste regulations to NPDES facilities,
or distinguish between NPDES facilities and publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs).
4. The 90 day limit on on-site storage would preclude
small generators from aggregating waste for eco-
nomical shipment off-site for storage, treatment,
or disposal and would require permitting of
small generators as storage facilities under
§3004 of RCRA.
-------
-8-
5. Financial responsibility requirements are
overly burdensome and impact disproportionately
on small companies treating, storing, or dis-
posing of their own hazardous wastes.
CSMA appreciates this opportunity to share our views and
we offer our firm commitment to work with the Environmental
Protection Agency toward development of viable hazardous waste
management regulations .
-------
DOCUMENT 1102A/25
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
REMARKS PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION AT
THE JOINT EPA/DOT PUBLIC HEARING
HELD IN DENVER, COLORADO
ON MARCH 9, 1979
PRESENTED BY W. C. STUDABAKER '
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is a voluntary,
unincorporated, non-profit organization composed of member railroad companies
which operate 92 percent of the line-haul trackage, employ 94 percent of the
railroad employees, and produce 97 percent of the freight revenues of all
railroads in the United States. Operation of the AAR^ member railroads
extends into all of the 48 contiguous states. As common carriers of property
by railroad, the AAR member companies transport many or most of the substances
designated as hazardous wastes in addition to operating fixed facilities which
may generate EPA defined hazardous wastes.
The question of waste oil is a serious matter to the railroad industry as
mentioned in my testimony on February 23 at the EPA/DOT hearings in
Washington. At that hearing I stated that the AAR believes that the
definition of waste oil is unclear. We have interpreted the term "other
discarded material" as provided in 250.10(b) to allow oil, including reclaimed
#2 diesel fuel, used lubricating oil, used hydraulic oil or used transmission
oil, to be collected and sold to a re-refiner for reuse and, thereby, would
not be subject to the requirements of the proposed hazardous waste
regulations. However, the list of hazardous wastes which appear in 250.14(a)
includes waste lubricating oil and waste hydraulic or cutting oil, and thus
-------
there is ^«e*question in the industry's mind whether the EPA is seeking to
include oil and fuel which is not in fact "waste".
This apparent discrepancy occurs again when one compares the definition of
"other discarded material" as it appears on Page 58950 in the preamble to
Section 3001 in the December 18, 1978 Federal Register, with the definition I
just mentioned in 250.10(b). That is, the preamble's definition states that
"other discarded material" is: ... "(3) a waste oil (excluding animal or
vegetable oil) incinerated or burned as a fuel". Three . terms have not been
stated: (1) waste oil; (2) waste lubricating oil, waste hydraulic or cutting
oil; and (3) used lubricating, hydraulictransformer, transmission or cutting
oil. ~T^<2,'5<2. 4&.r**S rx&A -fe> l&z 0=>flStsf
-------
fixed steel tanks for periods ranging from one (1) week to one (1) year or
until such time as sufficient quantity is generated to warrant the railroad
v°
releasing an empty tank car to move the facility and retrieve the reclaimed
diesel oil. The reclaimed oil is then transported to a major shop for use as
a boiler make-up fuel or is forwarded to a re-refiner and sold in tank car
lots.
Surely it is not the intent of EPA to take the nearly 34,000,000 gallons
of reusable oil out of the open market each year and subject that oil to the
requirements of regulationsMZma-fc are intended to control the ultimate disposal
4Ua*
of hazardous wastes whicb are no longer of use in the business community.
The railroad industry suggests that the EPA reconsider its use of the
terms "waste oil" and "other discarded material" and remove all shadows of
UilrticK
doubt on wtta-e oily wastes will be controlled and why they should be
•4va, t=PA'r
controlled. If your concern is final disposal of oils contaminated with a
certain concentration of a material like PCS, then it should be so stated in
the regulations.
Not only would this approach clarify the railroads' concern about
reclaimed diesel oil, it would also clarify the issue of reclaimed lubricating
•
oil. At locomotive maintenance and repair shops, commonly known as diesel
shops, railroads drain a large volume of used lubricating oil from their
diesel locomotive fleets each day. In 1977-^ the industry's total diesel
electric fleet numbered 27,473. Our questionnaire results suggest that an
"average-sized" diesel shop might generate 275 gallons of used lubricating oil
each day. This oil is definitely not discarded as most railroads operate a
separate, closed loop reclamation system within their diesel shops to capture
the used oil directly from the locomotive and retain it in fixed storage tanks
larzr-
forvshipment to a re-refiner. This on-site storage varies widely and may wel~b
range from one week to five months. The point is, railroads are already
-------
practicing responsible, reliable resource conservation and should not be
subject to the broad coverage of a regulation simply because the regulation
does not explicitly state its intended coverage.
As information, several of our member roads are analyzing their used lube
oils and other waste streams for toxicity, including the toxic organic
analysis. That work is being performed with contract laboratories as well as
with in-house labs, but due to the shortened time period allowed for comments,
most of the results will not be available for inclusion in our written
comments by the March 16 deadline. For this reason, we hereby request the EPA
approval to submit appropriate data as it becomes available into the record
for your consideration prior to issuance of final rulemaking.
-&«
Related tovproblem of developing valid analytical data, the Association of
American Railroads does not agree with the EPA's blanket inclusion of API
separator sludge as a "process generating hazardous wastes" as stated in the
process description table found in 250.14(b)(2). The term "API separator"
merely defines a piece of equipment, namely a clarifier, which exhibits the
geometric configuration specified in the American Petroleum Institute's
Msrmad on I>>s,f>as.aJ af-j&bmno Wkefes, fJrrf EtJrfiQ^ /^9, /o/ume. on £*?*<
-------
Another area of equal concern to the AAR is that of surface impoundments
as proposed in 250.45-3. One member road, which represents approximately 4
percent of the industry's vaverage of total revenues and miles of road
operated, has studied the facilities it owns and operates which would be
considered » surface impoundments and has estimated that $9,000,000 would be
required to retrofit their facilities to conform to the exact requirements of
the proposed hazardous wastes regulations. It is important to note that the
facilities reported are already regulated by NPDES statutes and should not be
burdened by another regulation within the same Federal agency.
In any event, there is further substantial question in the industry's mind
whether Congress really intended for the EPA to regulate under RCRA surface
impoundments and other treatment processes related to NPDES regulated waste
water treatment facilities. At the most, Congress intended regulation over
the ultimate disposal of sludges generated by such activities. This issue
will be further expounded upon in our final, written comments.
Finally, the Association of Americn Railroads reiterates its request for
an extension of time ~ until April 16, 1979 -- for final comments on all the
regulations being proposed under RCRA. The AAR and its member railroads have
substantially relied upon the EPA'-s representation made in its proposed
rulemaking on Section 3003 — Transporters, 43 Federal Register 18505 -*•—Tl
(April 28, 1978), to the el'L'ect that all parties would be entitled to submit
final comment on all phases of the various industry's under RCRA within 60
days after the proposal of the last proposed rulemaking^. -fefag-tiby alluwiug"alt
partiea fee—filo—togctheg. This additional time period was especially
important due to pegcoivod issuance ofvvarious rulemakings under the Act.
While we appreciate the EPA's need for expedited action due to the teurren-e
lawsuit against it, fairness and due process dictate at least a one-month
extension on final comments on all rulemakings. Therefore, the AAR asks the
EPA to grant the one-month extension requested.
-------
LAW DEPARTMENT
March 7,'1979
172O So. 8«llair« St.
O«nv«r. Colorado 9O222
Mr. John P. 'Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Lehman:
In 43 Fed. Reg. 58946 - 59022 (Dec. 18, 1978), the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) caused to be published certain proposed regulations under
II 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),1 which was passed
by Congress on October 21, 1976. Submission of written comments on these pro-
posed regulations has been invited by EPA and are due on or before March 16,
1979.
In response to this invitation, Gulf Mineral Resources Co., a division
of Gulf Oil Corporation (GMRC), would like to take this opportunity to submit
our written comments thereon for EPA's consideration. In addition, by letter
under date of February 23, 1979 to Mrs. Geraldine Wyer of EPA, GMRC has requested2
an opportunity to make an oral presentation on these proposed regulations at the
Denver hearing scheduled March 7-9, 1979. A copy of this letter will be sub-
mitted as a part of that hearing record. Either Mr. William L. Rogers or his
delegate, Mr. Philip W. Morton, will make GMRC's oral presentation.
Before addressing GMRC's specific concerns, perhaps some background
information on how our written comments are organized would be helpful. We have
elected to treat at the outset certain fundamental legal questions which we believe
affect all three of these proposed regulations. For this reason, these legal
comments do not "identify the regulatory docket or notice number" as requested
in EPA's invitation to comment, but they should be understood to apply to II 3001
[6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] collectively. Thereafter, we will present
our specific comments, whenever practical, in the order in which these proposed
regulations appear in the Federal Register and in the chronological order in
4
"
1 Throughout these comments, the section number within the brackets following the
section number of RCRA refers to the corresponding section reference in Title
42 U.S.C.
2 This request was orally granted on March 2, 1979 by Mrs. Wyer.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Two
which they appear within each such proposed regulation. Where, for example, a
comment on some feature of the proposed regulation under I 3001 [6921] would also
pertain to a concern of ours on an aspect of the proposed regulation under I 3002
[6922] and/or I 3004 [6924], we will attempt to coordinate those comments and
cross-reference the appropriate subsections in a manner so as to avoid any con-
fusion or repetition.
FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL COMMENTS
1. It is premature to presently include "mining waste" within the
coverage of §§ 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] of RCRA and within any
regulations promulgated thereunder. The definition of "solid waste'Mn § 1004(27)
[6903(27)] of RCRA could be read as suggesting (erroneously) that, because dis-
carded material from "mining . . . operations" is "solid waste," such waste may
^e presently regulated under these three sections of RCRA. However, the legis-
lative history of RCRA^ refutes that suggestion and makes it clear that Congress A
intended that any such regulatory effort must be preceded by the study, reporting "
and consultation procedures in § 8002(f) [6982(f)J.
"Further, there are other aspects of the discarded
materials problem, namely mining wastes and sludge,
that could pose significant threats to human life and
the environment. Because of a lack or [sic] informa-
tion, the Committee is unable to determine the hazards
associated with the improper management of these wastes.
The Committee has therefore directed the Environmental
Protection Agency to study the sources and composition
of these wastes; the existing methods of disposal; and
the potential dangers to human health and the environ-
ment caused by the improper management of these wastes.
[Emphases supplied.]
3 Although "mining waste" is undefined in RCRA and in these proposed regulations,
the traditional mining industry usage of this term, recognized even in the
proposed regulations themselves, reveal that "mining waste" also includes
that waste for mining-related activities, such as, for example, the processing
of ores and minerals. See "other mining waste" subcategory under the category
"special waste standards," I 250.46-5. (
4 The atypical procedural history, including the hectic final days, of this legis-
lation is vividly described in KOVACS & KLUCSIK, The New Federal Role in Solid
Waste Management: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1975, 3 COLUM.
J. ENVIR. L. 205, 216-20 (1977).
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Three
"Three areas in particular are of such a nature as to
require either a special study or a special program.
These three areas are: mining waste, sludge, and dis-
carded automobile tires.
"A thorough study of mining waste is essential because
mining wastes represent 1.8 billion tons of waste a
year. (The second largest waste generator by volume is
agriculture at 687 million tons, industrial at 200 million
tons, followed by municipal waste at 135 million tons.)
The traditional theory regarding mining waste has been
that it is generally inert. However, a few recent
studies indicate that some mining wastes can be harmful;
some particularly so when mixed with water. Other mine
tailings, particularly those containing heavy metals
may be inert but nonetheless toxic even in their elemental
form: Committee information on the potential danger posed
by mining waste is not sufficient to form the basis for
legislative action at this time.For this reason, the~
Committee has mandated a study of mining wastes.
"EPA will undertake a study of mining waste, its sources
and volumes, present disposal practices and will evaluate
the potential danger to human health and environmental
vitality. EPA will study surface runoff or leachate
from mining wastes and air pollution by dust, as well
as alternatives to current disposal methods and the costs
of such alternatives. . . . "° [Emphases supplied.]
"The intent is for EPA to look at all mining waste
disposal practices, past and present, identify the
adverse effects of such wastes on the environment, in-
cluding people and property located beyond the boundary
of the mine, evaluate the adequacy of thoapractices from
a technical standpoint, including the adequacy of govern-
mental regulations governing such disposal, and make
recommendations for additional R&D, for improvement of
such practices and, where appropriate, for the develop-
ment and utilization of alternative means or methods of
disposal that are safe and environmentally sound. . . .
[Emphases supplied.]
6 Id. at 15. Cf. Cong. Rec., June 30, 1976, S11092, 93.
7 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 97.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Four
Until these § 8002(f) [6982(f)] procedures are met, thereby giving
to EPA the. information Congress found lacking8 to reasonably and non-arbitrarily
regulate that "mining waste" which is "hazardous," "mining waste" cannot be so
regulated as though it were "hazardous;" In considering H.R. 14496, whose pro-
visions in this regard were essentially those of RCRA as finally passed, the
staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce of the House Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee (which was the subcommittee that reviewed this
bill) requested and received from EPA copies of all damage reports, totalling some
400 reports, for the express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from
what kinds of activities and facilities should be covered in RCRA's definition
of "solid waste." Not one of these reports involved "mining waste," nor could
EPA then (as it probably could not now if requested under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act) produce any information on "mining waste" for that exhaustive sub-
committee staff effort. It was precisely for this lack-of-information reason
that Congress mandated EPA to conduct the 3 8002(f) [6982(f)l study on "mining
wastes."
This is not to say that EPA is precluded from finding now that specific *
mine wastes from a specific site are "hazardous,"9 but rather that any finding
that certain mining wastes generally, such as "uranium waste rock," are "hazar-
dous" can-occur only "at some time in the future,"1Qafter the § 8002(f) [6982(f)J
procedures are met. By this method, Congress sought to give EPA the latitude
8 EPA apparently has found this information lacking, too. In the preamble to
its proposed Subpart D regulations under I 3004 [6924] of RCRA, EPA admits
that it
"has very little information on the composition, charac-
teristics, and the degree of hazard posed by these wastes,
nor does the Agency yet have data on the effectiveness
of current or potential waste management technologies
or the technical or economic practicability of imposing
the Subpart D standards on facilities managing such waste.
"The limited information the Agency does have indicates
that such waste occurs in very large volumes, that the
potential hazards posed by the waste are relatively low,
and that the waste generally is not amendable [sic] to
the control techniques developed in Subpart D."
43 Fed. Reg. 58991-92 (Dec. 18, 1978).
9 It is this authority of the EPA Administrator to currently list specific mine
wastes from specific mine sites, based on valid and thorough data, that the
following first full sentence on page 3 of H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491 refers: "This
however does not preclude any finding by the Administrator that specific mine
[not mining] wastes are hazardous wastes within the scope of this legislation"
[emphas is supplied].
10 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 3.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman *>
March 7, 1979
Page Five
to formulate the scientific basis and data by which "hazardous" "mining wastes"
thereafter could be so regulated by EPA without the necessity of EPA's having to
return to Congress to obtain the requisite regulatory authority; once EPA has met
these § 8002(f) [6982(f)] procedures, it then can promulgate regulations under
IS 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] for such "mining wastes" without
any further legislation.
2. EPA's proposal to regulate certain mining overburden*1 has no basis
either in RCRA12 or in the legislative history*3 thereof. The term "solid waste"
is defined in RCRA to mean only certain kinds of "discarded material."14 There-
fore, unless a material is "discarded," it never is a "solid waste" under RCRA,
nor can it ever be a "hazardous waste"'under RCRA, because the term "hazardous
waste" is defined in RCRA15 to mean only certain kinds of "solid waste." Nor
can EPA's proposal to expansively redefine both the RCRA term "hazardous waste"
(by defining this term to mean not only what RCRA says it means but also "as
further defined and identified in [this Subpart by EPA]"16) and the language
"other discarded material" in the RCRA term "solid waste" (by incorporating a
"reuse" concept"1') circumvent this basic statutory definition. Normally, such
overburden is stockpiled and protected for eventual return to the mine or other
use. It is not "discarded." Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that mining over-
Furden in certain isolated instances were "discarded," such discarded overburden
would have to meet the § 1004(5) [6903(5)1 "hazardous" test in RCRA before it would
come within §§ 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] or 3004[6924] of RCRA or any regulations
promulgated thereunder.
3. The data collection and reporting procedures proposed to be made ap-
plicable to "uranium mining waste"1'* and "other mining waste"1^ are at variance
11 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58951; § 250.10(d)(2)(H) j § 250.14(b)(2); § 250.46-3(a)(l);
T75Q.46-4(a).
12 See I 1004(27) [6903(27)].
13 See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 2-3.
14 Supra note 12. Cf. § 8002(f)(l) and (6) [6982(f)(l) and (6)].
15 See § 1004(5) [6903(5)]. .
16 See II 250.11(b)(3), 250.21(b)(10), and 250.41(b)(39).
17 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58950 (Dec. 18, 1978); I 250.10(b). In this connection, your
attention is invited to note 14, supra.
18 See I 250.46-4(a).
19 See § 250.46-5.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Six
with the § 8002(f) [6982(f)] study procedures. Those procedures require the
EPA Administrator to "conduct" this study, "in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior," and, upon completion thereof, to "publish a report of such study
and . . . include appropriate findings and recommendations for Federal and non-
Federal actions . . . . " There is no requirement in RCRA that a generator or
transporter of "hazardous waste," or the owner/operator of a facility for the
treatment, storage or disposal of "hazardous waste," prepare or participate in
that study or that report, or collect any raw data therefor, either at the sole
cost of EPA or, as EPA proposes, at the generator's, etc. sole cost. In effect,
EPA proposes to force a generator, etc. to work for EPA in the preparation of
this study free of charge to EPA. The cost of such forced labor to the generator,
etc. will inflate the cost of mineral development.
4. EPA has failed to follow the requirement in § 3001(b) [6921(b)]of
RCRA that any regulations "listing particular hazardous wastes" and "identifying
the characteristics of hazardous waste" be "based on the criteria promulgated
under subsection (a) of this section."20 The legislative history clearly dis- \
closes that Congress had three specific reasons why this bifurcation, in kind
and chronology, of the development of criteria, on the one hand, and the identi-
fication and listing of "hazardous wastes," on the other hand, was adopted.21
For example, EPA has 1isted "waste rock and overburden from uranium mining" as
a "hazardous waste," based on "the criterion of I 250.12(b)(2) because the waste
contains redioactive [sicKsubstances." Also, EPA has identified the characteris-
tics of "hazardous waste"-cind made them applicable to "mining waste." Yet, no
criteria have been promulgated upon which such listing and identification are
supposed to be based.
It would appear that EPA already has decided on such lists and charac-
teristics and then, after the fact, will prepare first the proposed, and then the
final, criteria required by § 3001(b) [6921(b)] of RCRA.22 More specifically,
looking at the category of "Uranium Mining" in the "Special Waste" Table in 43
Fed. Reg. 58992 as illustrative, EPA has concluded (listed?) that 150 million
metric tons per year is "hazardous," and thus proposed to regulate such "special
20 See_ § 250.12.
21 See_H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note5 at 25. See also KOVACS & KLUCSIK,
supra note 4 at 224.
22 In the case of certain listed "hazardous" "mining waste" based on a radioactivity
characteristic, such as that for waste rock and overburden from uranium mining,
EPA's proposed criteria for that characteristic first appears simultaneously (
with its proposal to list this "mining waste" as "hazardous." See 43 Fed. Reg.
59023 (Dec. 18, 1978).
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Seven
waste" under certain portions of the Subpart D Regulations. Yet, in view of the
questions raised by EPA itself and the complete lack of any data or information
referenced in the proposed regulatory package, how was this conclusion arrived at?
5. GMRC is concerned that these proposed regulations, if promulgated as
presently written, could inadvertently create a federal cause of action in tort
between a "generator," etc. and third-parties, and, if so, that a violation of
the standard could be negligence per se and/or the liability therefor could be
absolute.23 Present state case law and statutes adequately cover such a cause
of action, and the creation of such a federal cause of action could overwhelm
an already overburdened federal judiciary. Nothing in the legislative history of
RCRA even suggests this was Congress' intent. EPA's final regulations should
make this crystal-clear.
6. EPA's use of "notes" throughout these proposed regulations is, at worst,
legally confusing and, at best, cumbersome. It is GMRC's understanding that these
"notes" would be a part of the final regulations and therefore on an equal legal
footing with the other portions of these regulations. To avoid the potential
unintended result that a court might rule otherwise, and to clean up this awkward
syntactical approach, EPA should incorporate each "note" into the body of the
regulation to which it pertains through the use of "unless" language or something
similar, and delete the introductory-language portion of the "note."
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Without waiving, abandoning or diluting any of the fundamental legal
comments hereinbefore, GMRC would like to show its desire to be helpful with
respect to EPA's invitation to comment by now addressing certain specific aspects
of the proposed Subpart A, B and D Regulations.
Proposed Subpart A Regulations ( § 3001 [6921] of RCRA):
1. § 250.14(b) — The "sources/process" distinction for listed "hazardous
waste" is confusing. Why is such a distinction made? Isn't the bottom line
whether a particular "solid waste" is or is not "hazardous," regardless of whether
it comes from a "source" or a "process"?
2. § 250.14(b)(2) — All "processes" listed because of radioactivity should
be eliminated. In the preamble, EPA states that only the first four of eight
23 Cf. 43 Fed. Reg. 58973, col. 2, lines 55-65 (Dec. 18, 1978); § 250.43-7(i).
-------
/• Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Eight
listed characteristics will be relied on because,
"those are the only ones for which the Agency confidently
believes test protocols are available . . .-.
"The characteristics that EPA plans to use immediately
are relatively straightforward, the tests are well de-
veloped, inexpensive, and recognized by the scientific
community, and they cover a large proportion of the total
amount of hazardous waste EPA believes should be controlled.
Generators will not be required to test for characteris-
tics of waste outside these characteristics for purposes.
of determining if the waste is hazardous. However, it
was also decided to list specific hazardous wastes using
all of the candidate characteristics."24
If the test protocol for radioactivity is not reliable enough to be included, it
is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for EPA to determine any specific waste
is hazardous based on this test at this time.
3., § 250.15(a)(5)(i) and (ii) — Similarly, although EPA implies that the
radioactivity test protocol is unreliable and thus the "radioactivity" charac-
teristic should not be used by a "generator" to test for "hazardous waste," EPA
compounds the original error of listing "waste rock and overburden from uranium
mining" as "hazardous" by requiring that anyone wishing to "unlist" such a listed
waste show that such waste is "non-hazardous" based on specific levels of con-
centration for specific radium isotopes which, in turn, are based on this very
same unreliable test protocol. What is further perplexing in this regard is EPA's
use of these same radium isotope levels in an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-
making"25 the very same day as these proposed regulations were published. This
proposed regulatory effort is still further perplexing in view of the absence
of any instance, after more than 20 years of large-scale uranium mining, to the
best of GMRC's knowledge, of uranium mining wastes' having caused or significantly
contributed to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible,
or incapacitating reversible, illness or having posed a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment, and given EPA's admission
that these are "low risk"^6 wastes.
24 43 Fed. Reg. 58950 (Dec. 18, 1978).
25 Id. at 59023.
26 Id. at 58991-92.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Nine
4. Appendix VIII 27 _. por the reasons mentioned in items 2 and 3 immediately
hereinbefore, this appendix should be deleted.
Proposed Subpart B Regulations ( § 3002 [6922 ] of RCRA):
In general, GMRC finds these proposed regulations well-written and
balanced, and we would like to compliment EPA on a fine job. Our specific comments
are as follow:
1. Reference is made on page 58972, column 1, to the obligation of the
"generator" to report to EPA if it fails to receive a copy of the manifest "within
30 days." Presumably, this relates to the requirement in § 250.43-5(a)(2), page
59003. But how does a "generator" know what this 30-day period is and when it
expires?
2. § 250.20(c)(l) — Similarly, how is a "generator" to know if a "per-
mitted hazardous waste management facility" really is permitted? By asking that
facility?
3. A "generator's" obligation to principally shoulder the operation of
this manifest system should not be expanded into the area of enforcement by EPA's
adopting the four options under consideration which are described on page 58973,
column 3, especially those in the fourth option, quoted immediately hereinafter:
"(4) Requiring that a generator who has not received
the original manifest from the facility designated on
the manifest within 35 days after the date of shipment,
or who determines that the returned manifest is incon-
sistent with the original manifest, must:
"(a) Take all actions necessary to determine the cause
of non-receipt or inconsistency;
"(b) Assure that all steps are being taken to locate
and receive the manifest and to assure that the waste
is properly disposed of;
"(c) If he has been unable to accomplish his require-
ments under (a) and (b) above, within 30 days, the gene-
rator must prepare and submit a report to the Regional
Administrator. This report must be submitted within 65
27 Id. at 58964.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman I
March 7, 1979
Page Ten
days after the date of shipment, and must contain the
information required in § 250.23(c) except (2). In
addition, this report must include:
111. The name, address and identification code of
the designated facility;
"2. The actions which have been or will be taken by
the. generator to determine the reason the original mani-
fest was not returned;
"3. The results of the generator's investigation,
including any and all information involving the shipment
and cause of non-receipt; and
"4. The identity of all parties who may be respon-
sible for the non-receipt of the manifest."
It is one matter for a "generator" to be required to reasonably keep records and
report to EPA, and quite another matter for a "generator" to be compelled to work
for free as a policeman for EPA. In this connection, please see also the last
sentence in § 250.43-5(a)(4).
4. § 250.2Q(c)(2) — Storage of a "hazardous waste" by a "generator" for
more than 90 days should not necessarily mean that that "generator" is an "owner/
operator of a facility for the storage of hazardous waste" under §§ 3004 [6924]
and 3005 [6925] of RCRA and thus subject to all of the Subpart D and E Regulations.
In this connection, please see also I 250.41(b)(83). Some flexibility should be
injected into this absolute "90-day standard," especially in view of the far-reachir
implications of one's being subjected to the sweeping Subpart B, 0 and E Regu-
lations if this "90-day standard" is absolute, instead of only the Subpart 8
Regulations.
Proposed Subpart D Regulations ( I 3004 [6924] of RCRA):
1. The following four comments pertain to the § 250.41(b) definitions:
(a) "contamination" (19) ~ To define this term solely as a "degradation"
is vague, overly broad and simplistic.
(b) "fugutive dust" (36) -- For consistency, this term should be de-
fined identically to the definition thereof in EPA's PSD Regulations and in EPA's
"Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling."
(c) "hazardous waste facility personnel" (40) — This term is defined,
in part, as those persons "whose actions or failure to act may result in damage
to human health or the environment" [emphasis supplied]. This "damage" standard |
is vague, overly broad, and ignores the definition of "hazardous waste" in RCRA,
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman "
March 7, 1979
Page Eleven
which uses the qualifying language, inter alia, "significantly," "serious" and
"substantial."
(d) It would be helpful if I 250.41(b) included a definition of "land-
fill" (cf. definition of "surface impoundment" (85)").
2. § 250.43(f) — GMRC fails to see any reason for determining in detail
what the chemical or physical properties of any waste rock might be, because
the only change in the waste rock from its natural state is its location.
3- § 250.43-1 — With respect to this "general site selection" require-
ment,^ it should be recognized that, unlike most sited facilities, a mineral
developer does not have much, if any, flexibility in "selecting" a site. It is
difficult enough to find a commercial ore body; the "selection" of the site follows
the "find," not vice-versa. These standards should reflect this reality. Also,
the term "new sources" should be very carefully defined and should exclude all
mining activities currently in existence and any expansion of such existing ac-
tivities.
4. § 250.43-2(a) — The requirement herein29 for a "2 meter (6 foot) fence
completely surrounding the active portion of the facility capable of preventing
the unknowing and/or unauthorized entry of persons and domestic livestock" or
"a natural or artificial barrier" equivalent thereto is unrealistic. According
to EPA's Draft Background Documents, the supposed hazard in the case of uranium
mining wastes exists only for those individuals who spend 75-80% of their time
in an enclosed structure either built on or built out of such wastes. Flexibility
should be provided for those mining sites which are remote and isolated, which
is usually the case. Is it EPA's intent that this fence be constructed to "float,"
j..e_., to move with the "active portion of the facility" as mining progresses?
If so, this will greatly inflate mining costs.
5. § 25Q.43-6(a) — GMRC fails to see the need for a detailed daily inspec-
tion of a dirt and rock pile which EPA lists or requires to be characterized as
"mining wastes."30 Most mines are in operation seven days a week, 24 hours per
day, so the "facility" is in use. "Mining wastes" are not subject to anything
other than limited erosion, with any drainage system consisting primarily of
possible diversion ditches to control rainwater runoff. In the semi-arid regions
of the West, frequent inspections during the rainier months might prove to be
28 This requirement is made applicable to "uranium mining waste" by § 250.46-4(a)
and to "other mining waste" by § 250.46-5.
29 _Id.
30 Id.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Twelve
desirable, but, in most cases, monthly visual inspections would be satisfactory.
For uranium milling wastes, it should be noted that they are excluded from RCRA
coverage.21 Therefore, the reference to dykes would not be applicable to such
wastes, including uranium tailings ponds.
6. § 250.43-7(b) — An "operator" is without any legal right to insert
such a covenant In an "owner's" deed.32
7. § 25Q.43-8(a) Note — This proposed regulation properly recognizes
that there may be times when the rigorous requirements of § 250.43-8(a) are un-
necessary to ensure groundwater is being properly protected. However, the Note
provides relief only where there is no potential for a discharge to groundwater.
If there is not such potential, no monitoring is necessary. The provision for
a lesser degree of monitoring should apply when there is a low potential for
contamination. GMRC suggests the addition of the words "little or" after the
word "indicate" at the end of line 7 of the Note.
8. § 250.43-8(c) — This requirement would entail much unnecessary work (
and expense.aSection 250.43 (f) requires a detailed analysis of the waste
to be treated, stored or disposed of. It seems unreasonable to require such com-
prehensive constituent data on groundwater background when the possible pollutants
may be only one or two items. It would appear to be more useful to require a
background determination only on those constituents that have caused the wastes
in question to be classified"hazardous." Certainly the determination of the long
laundry-list of interim primary and proposed secondary drinking water standards
for dirt and rock that is merely being relocated will generate a lot of data that
will be of little or no value. Assuming, arguendo, EPA's listing of "uranium
mining wastes" as "hazardous" solely because of an alleged Ralium-226 content
is valid, it would make more sense to determine only Radium, Gross Alpha and
Gross Beta, as shown in Appendix II,34 in any background or routine sampling.
9. § 250.43-8(c)(4) — GMRC would recommend that a different identification
of "a statistically significant amount" be utilized.35 The student's T single-
tailed test at the 95% confidence level is too restrictive. Very minute fluc-
tuations in baseline levels not attributable to the facility would be encompassed
by this level of significance. One consideration which makes the T-test inappropria
31 See § 1004(27) 6903(27} . The Atomic Energy Act's definition of "by-product
material" in 42 (J.S.C. 9 2014(e) was amended by § 201 of the Uranium Mill Tailing:
Radiation Control Act of 1978 (enacted Nov. 8, 1978) to include in that definition also
"the tailings or waste produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium |
or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content." "
32 This requirement is made applicable to "uranium mining waste" by § 250.46-4(a)
and to "other mining waste" by I 250.46-5.
33 Id.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Thirteen
here is that to use a T-test it has to be assumed that the mean background level
is constant over time so that all of the variation in sampling for the background
level comes from special variation, because otherwise there would not be inde-
pendent sampling. This is particularly severe because the proposed rules require
three monthly samples to establish the background levels. .This is much too short
a time period to determine sampling error where there are seasonal variations,
no matter how the data is analyzed. Another problem with the method here is
that the confidence level of 95% is too low. Even assuming there were indepen-
dent samples and that there was no change from the background levels after the
facility went into operation, Type I error would occur 5% of the time. In other
words, because there are six measurements to be made quarterly and an additional
six to be made annually, it would be expected that about once or twice a year
there would be a significant result and the provisions of this subsection would
go into effect, including the requirement in (c)(4)(iii) that the "facility"
discontinue operation until the EPA Regional Administrator determines what actions
are to be taken.
10. § 25Q.43-8(c)(4)(iii) — The "owner/operator" should not be required "
to indefinitely ("until the Regional Administrator determines what actions are
to be taken") shut down the "facility" without due process, e_.£., a hearing,
unless an emergency situation exists.36
11. Although the "trust fund" financial security concept for closure and
post-closure of a "facility" in § 250.43-9 is not proposed to be made applicable
to "uranium mining waste" by § 250.46(aj or to~nother mining waste" by I 250.46-5,
GMRC would respectfully offer the following comments on this "trust fund" concept
in case EPA finds them helpful:
(a) An "owner/operator" should be given the option of posting a surety
bond. EPA's fear that no one would qualify for such a bond37 is unfounded. If
an "owner/operator" can qualify therefor, the proof is in the pudding; if not,
then the "trust fund" concept should kick in. EPA's further fear that surety
bonds are subject to year-to-year renewal and therefore are insecure38 can be
overcome by requiring that such a surety bond provide for no cancellation without
30 days' prior written notice to EPA. Following receipt of any such cancellation
notice by EPA, the "owner/operator" would have to comply with the "trust fund"
concept.
36 See_ Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n Inc. v. Andrus, Civil Action
No. 78-0244-B (W.D.Va., Feb. 14, 1979). This requirement may be made applicable
to "uranium mining waste" by § 250.46-4(a) and to "other mining waste" by
I 250.46-5.
37 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58986 (Dec. 18, 1978).
38 Id.
-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Fourteen
(b) Re post-closure security, no funds should be released to EPA upon
notice of a violation, as provided in I 25Q.43-9(a)(2)(ii); due process, e_. £.,
a hearing, first must be afforded the "owner/operator."39
(c) Provision for a 2% annual inflation factor in calculating the amount
of both the closure and post-closure "trust funds" in unrealistic. It is note-
worthy that EPA, relative to re-evaluating the adequacy of the amount in these
"trust funds" would require a bi-annual evaluation.40 The annual inflation factor
should be tied to an escalator, realistic at the outset and adjusted bi-annually,
based on the actual inflation rate.
12. § 250.46-4(b)(l) — If this subsection is duplicative of I 250.43-7(1),
which it seems to be, it should be deleted.
13. § 250.46-4(b)(5) — GMRC is not aware of "processing reagents'" being
used in uranium mining. If this refers to in situ leaching, it should be noted
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the various agreement states regulate
this process under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is therefore
excluded from RCRA coverage. In this connection, please see note 31, supra, and
also the comments in item 8 hereinbefore.
14. § 250.46-4(b)(6) — If this subsection is necessary, GMRC suggests that
it be changed to require reclamation only in accordance with the applicable state
requirements. In many cases, the prevention of wind erosion dictates that some-
thing other than indigenous plant life be selected as the reclamation choice of
revegetation.
GMRC appreciates this opportunity to submit these written comments to
EPA, and we hope that EPA will give them its most serious consideration.
Very truly yours,
Kent R. Olson
KROrgr
39 In this connection, please see the case cited in note 36, supra.
40 See 43 Fed. Reg. 58988 (Dec. 18, 1978).
-------
STATEMENT MADE AT E.P.A. PUBLIC HEARING FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 3-9-79
Chairperson , I am Dr. E. K. (Ed) Demos,
Environmental Officer, Department of Public Works, City and County of Denver.
Meetings and discussions with several city agencies were held in the past few
weeks to come to terms with the proposed guidelines for the management of
hazardous wastes in the Denver area. We intend to submit written comments
prior to 16 March 1979 for your consideration.
Let me, first, say that we appreciate the monumental task facing E.P.A. staff
and administrators in attempting to be reasonable yet protective of our
delicate ecosystems. Therefore, in a spirit of positive critique, I should
like to present questions and comments brought forth by interested Denver city
agencies and the city administration. In advance, I should express my regrets ™
for any redundancies in my statements. It appears that we share many of the
same concerns with other people who have spoken previously.
Our primary area of concern is Subpart D of the regulations referring to
owner/operator of disposal facilities. However, we do feel a sense of
responsibility to address issues in Subparts A & B as they affect generators
and transporters who do business in the City of Denver.
In general, we agree that the state should have strong input into implementation
of the Act. However, we feel that the state and local entities should have a
strong hand in defining what constitutes a hazardous waste given local
environmental conditions such as topography, subsoil geology, soil type,
climatic regime and surface and subsurface water supplies.
-------
Further, with regard to the identification of hazardous wastes, we feel
that there may be some inequities as to the specific disposal requirements
of solid wastes. For instance, the minimum requirement of 100 Kg/mo, can be
misleading. 100 Kg/mo, of cyanide in our estimation may be infinitely more
dangerous than lOOKg/mo. of salt brine. In that same sense, the regulations,
as written, appear to present a "shotgun" approach in that many wastes
defined as hazardous are hazardous by that virtue only.. We suggest that
some wastes are more hazardous than others both intrinsically and given
disposal site variability in the previously listed abiotic environmental
parameters. Thus, we request a closer analysis of the classification system
which would allow for more flexibility in the permitting process and thus the
requirements placed on TSD facility requirements. We, also, recommend that
the state have greater input into the categorization process than is
currently allowed by the proposed regulations.
We fear a general hardship not only on large corporations but particularly
also on small companies with regard to the "burden of guilt" which is placed
on the generator. We are particularly concerned that the smaller company,
rather than facing the potentially large cost of chemical analysis, will
simply give up and assume that their wastes are hazardous, thus incurring
even greater costs in manifest administration, storage and containerization.
Conversely, we do not suggest added staff at E.P.A. or the state level to
conduct such analyses. Let us take a simple example. In the Denver area,
as in other parts of the country, tires are disposed of at regular intervals.
At an average weight of roughly 12 Ibs./tire, 19 tires per month would
-------
exceed the TOO Kg limit in any one month. You might caution that tires
are not considered hazardous wastes yet they might qualify since when
"ignited they burn so vigorously and persistently" that they might "create
a hazard during their management." It is highly unlikely that the small
generators of such tire wastes can begin to comply with these regulations.
There must be incorporated into the regulations some flexibility so that
the permitting agency can deal with such situations. We suggest some type
of mechanism be included in the regulations which would allow some
intercourse between small generators and E.P.A. or the state which allows
for a rapid decision based on available data.
With regard to those aspects which apply to hospitals and laboratories, we.
would like to indicate that until hazardous wastes are more clearly defined,
an exceptional burden is placed on our hospitals here in the City of Denver
to comply with the regulations. The costs appear to become insurmountable
in attempting to meet those regulations. In light of President Carter's
recent statements to hold down hospital costs, compliance with these
regulations would substantially violate his policy on that matter.
With specific regard to Subpart D regulations concerning owners and operators
of disposal facilities, we generally support the need for permitted facilities
We have great difficulty, however, in supporting certain sections of the
proposed regulations. We especially feel that, as written, the regulations
provide strong disincentives for proper hazardous waste disposal practices.
The city cannot agree or support the notion of providing the up-front dollars
for closure 30 to 40 years in the future. Quite frankly, there isn't much
-------
money to be had by the city. We suggest, perhaps, language which provides
for regular deposits which will be adequate for closure at the appropriate
time. We suggest investigating a national post closure operation and
maintenance fund.
Further, we strongly object to the proposed requirements for a closure trust
fund concept on the basis that the Regional Administrator has control over
city funds. This control is further solidified since the proposed regulations
do not allow for due process should a conflict arise between the city
(currently an owner/operator of a solid waste disposal facility) and the
Federal Government. We also suggest the E.P.A. staff reassess a mechanism
comparable to a surety bond or some type of self insurance. The City of
Denver feels that it is quite capable of demonstrating financial responsibily
in these matters.
Finally, we have been advised by counsel that there may be legal constraints
, placed on the city especially where the city abrogates its control of revenue
entrusted to it by its citizens.
We are, perhaps, most concerned with the economic impacts to which the city
would be subject. For instance, there are no provisions for financial
support for up-front costs to handle hazardous wastes, training or equipment
which would be required to prepare for hazardous waste disposal.
Construction costs alone (as presented in a recent study by Camp, Dresser
and McKee, Inc. for the city) are estimated to be nearly three million
-------
dollars. These figures are for equipment, facility, ground water
monitoring, appurtenances, evaporation ponds, barrel burial sites and
sorption landfill costs. The figures do not include testing facilities,
training, and operations costs in the future as suggested by the
proposed regulations. We can make portions of the study available
to you for your perusal.
It is obvious that the only incentives for becoming a hazardous waste
disposer are negative — especially from a fiscal viewpoint.
Our understanding is that, as yet, no one in the State of Colorado is
particularly interested in becoming a permittee under the proposed
regulations. The city feels it has a reasonable obligation to assume
such a responsibility but not under the current set of disincentives.
We currently have 2660 acres of land with which to work and we calculate
a minimum of 25 years until closure. The acreage and site life shrink
dramatically when considering that we might have to accept hazardous
wastes not only from the metropolitan area but on an interstate basis
as well if other facilities are not made available via more positive
incentives.
I would like to conclude my statements by addressing certain areas within
the proposed regulations in the hopes of clarifying matters of text.
We note that the E.P.A. in the preparation of the proposed regulations
has used "notes" liberally in attempting to clarify the program. We
-------
are not sure as to the impact of using the note concept since it appears
that the notes are to be weighted less than the regulations themselves.
In most cases, the notes are used to point out exceptions to the
regulations ands if so, they ought to be given the same weight as other
parts of the documents and, therefore, the liberal use of notes should
be discouraged.
Section 3004 categorically states that certain items cannot be disposed
of and yet an exception (or note) in an earlier section allows for disposal
of those very same items. We suggest that these exceptions be placed in
close proximity to each other within the text of the regulations so as to
allow for easier comprehension.
A statement is made in Section 250.43-7(d)(2) regarding the notification
of completion of closure 90 days before closure. We submit that the
wording should be improved to reflect the "intent" involved.
Landfill is not defined at any point in the regulations and since it is
such a crucial part of Section 3004, we feel that it should be clearly
defined in the regulations. The Act, itself, states that E.P.A. should
define what criteria to apply to determine what shall be sanitary landfill.
It appears that that mandate has not been met.
Regarding security, the regulations are vague in that "active area" is not
adequately defined. Does this mean that if an area is currently fenced, it
complies with the regulations or must there be a fence within a fence? We
submit that unreasonable costs will be incurred if extensive fencing is
required.
-------
With regard to certification statements, we submit that the requirement,
that the individual certifying has personal and first-hand knowledge that
the information is accurate, is untenable. We agree that prosecution is
proper but we question the ability of any individual to have full and
complete knowledge of all activities which occur prior to his certifying.
Some mechanism should be worked out or wording worked out which allows
more flexibility in the certification process. We suggest using the
words "to the best of my knowledge, the information is correct and true."
Thank you.
-7-
-------
ft ft INTERGOVERNMENTAL METHANE TASK FORCE
ROOM 400
450 SOUTH 4TH AVENUE
« » BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80601
March 6, 1979
PRESENTATION AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
OF THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY '
DENVER, COLORADO; MARCH 7-9, 1979
Chairperson , I am John Martyny representing the Inter-
governmental Methane Task Force. Our organization was formed to
conduct research and develop control programs following recognition
of problems associated with methane gas generation from decomposition
of organic materials in landfills. The membership consists of rep-
resentatives from federal, state and local governmental units and
concerned private organizations. Our area of concern is similar to
tnat which stimulated the preparation of the proposed hazardous waste 4
management regulations; that is, since improper waste disposal practices"
can have secondary, long-lasting hazardous effects on the environment
efficient disposal systems should be prescribed in the first place.
We have discovered that restrospective attempts to deal with the
methane problem are cumbersome and expensive. For these reasons the
Task Force applauds the intent of the Agency to mandate cradle-ta-grave
management of hazardous wastes. ^
We have noted the very tight schedule under which the regulations are
proposed_to be promulgated and become effective. Our concern is that
the public, the business community and local governments are not
adequately informed as yet concerning the impact of the regulations on
existing disposal practices and their costs. As a consequence, actions
wnich should be underway now to provide disposal alternatives have
not been initiated. Thus, while other speakers at these hearings will
address the technical details of the proposed regulations, our comments
will be limited to two features and the interactions between them:
First, the great increase in the number of substances to be
controlled as hazardous wastes, including many industrial
wastes not currently so classified. And
Second, the limited number of disposal facilities in the
nation which are permitted to receive hazardous wastes,
including none in the state of Colorado. ^
We are most familiar with disposal practices in the Denver Metropolitan
Area. Typically industrial wastes are collected by a small number of
transport firms for deposit at solid waste disposal sites. In 1978
at least 75,000 tons of industrial wastes from front range counties and
communities were disposed of at the Lowry landfill operated by Denver.
-------
Page 2
Most of these wastes will be declared hazardous under the proposed
regulations, yet neither the Lowry site nor any other solid waste
disposal site in the state is authorized to receive hazardous wastes.
Expensive modifications are required to qualify such sites against
the standards proposed for facility operators.
Today, if a waste is a controlled substance, generators must pay the
transportation charges for movement to permitted disposal facilities
out of the state. Conscientious or tightly controlled business firms
do so. There can be no doubt that less responsible firms avoid these
costs by dumping wastes on the ground or into domestic or storm sewers,
or mis-identify the wastes when taken to solid waste disposal facilities.
The lack of an adequate identification and manifest system exacerbates
the situation, if it does not in fact encourage it.
Adoption of the proposed regulations will create a management system
which will capture information concerning hazardous wastes at the time
of their production, identify the firms and processes generating the
wastes, and designate the transporters authorized to move them from
place to place. The volume of hazardous wastes is bound to increase
enormously as the bulk of industrial wastes are so identified. Prob-
ably thousands of additional small and large businesses will be re- I
quired to satisfy the standards for generators. However, no incentives
are provided for qualifying existing disposal sites to receive the
increased volume of wastes in the short term or to establish new sites
in the long term. Indeed, many of the standards for facility operators
can be regarded as negative incentives.
Thus, local government planners and the business community are facing
a serious problem:
First, industrial capacity to recover reusable resources from
hazardous wastes and thereby reduce the volume requiring dis-
posal will require some time to create. It is not likely to
be a significant factor in the short term; that is, over the
next few years.
Second, the urbanization of our population and the accompanying
geographical sprawl of our communities make it increasingly dif-
ficult to find nearby land areas suitable for hazardous waste
disposal operations and pose knotty land use and zoning policy
questions.
Third, the list of materials considered so hazardous to human
health and safety as to require disposal in specially designated
locations under controlled conditions grows ever longer. Increased
public awareness results in still greater resistance to proposed
disposal site projects. And (
Fourth, the proposed standards for facility operators require
significant capital investment for site preparation and multiple
financial assurances to provide for the results of operating
-------
Page 3
accidents and for post-closure site management.
It appears highly unlikely that new hazardous waste disposal sites will
be established in the near timeframe. Yet industrial wastes newly
classified as hazardous must be excluded from customary disposal sites
very soon. We view the following as inevitable consequences:
First, an enormous economic burden on responsible generators,
small and large, in the form of transportation costs to move
wastes to the limited number of existing permitted sites.
Second, use of improper disposal methods and abuse of temporary
storage authority by less responsible generators. And
Third, excessive enforcement problems and increased damage to
the environment in the short term.
We conclude that the federal and state governments must assume the
responsibility for ensuring that authorized disposal sites are avail-
able in reasonable proximity to waste generators. The most feasible
and timely solution is qualification of at least some existing solid
waste disposal sites on an interim basis. At a minimum the Lowry
landfill site should be qualified in Colorado. The front end costs
for site modification to meet minimum criteria for industrial waste
disposal should be financed by grants or loans. The higher site
operating costs could then be recouped through appropriately scaled
user fees. Time and opportunity would be secured through this pro-
cedure to devise longer term solutions to the problems of establishing
new disposal sites and resource recovery capacities.
Nothing in these remarks should be construed to indicate we are advo-
cating the disposal of highly toxic, reactive or radioactive materials
in sites approved for such disposal. Our sole concern is qualification
of sites on an interim basis to continue to accept wastes they are now
receiving. These limited categories of wastes would be specified to the
permitting authority.
-------
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA L. BRQOKS
REPRESENTING AMERICAN NATURAL SERVICE COMPANY
My name is Patricia L. Brooks. I am employed by
American Natural Service Company, a subsidiary of American Natural
Resources Company of Detroit, Michigan. American Natural Resources
Company is a diversified energy company involved primarily in the
production and sale of natural gas and coal. One of our subsidi-
aries, ANG Coal Gasification Company, is proposing the construction
y
of this country's first commercial-scale coal gasification plant
to be located in North Dakota. Our Synthetic Fuels Department,
with which I am associated, is also involved in a number of projects^
designed to efficiently utilize this country's indigenous coal
reserves and reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies.
Two example projects currently underway are low-BTU gas from coal
for captive industrial markets and fluidized-bed combustion of
lignite for steam generation. Today, I wish to present testimony
related to the hazardous waste regulations proposed by EPA and
their effect on the high-BTU coal gasification project.
Although my comments today will focus on our high-BTU
gasification project, I would like to stress that the arguments
presented are also applicable to low-BTU gasification facilities
except that the magnitude of the waste in the low-BTU project." is
much smaller.
-------
•2-
American Natural first proposed the construction of the
North Dakota gasification Project' in 1973. Since that time,
considerable engineering has been completed and the major environ-
mental permits required for construction have been obtained. The
project has been thoroughly reviewed by the various state agencies
in North Dakota, including the North Dakota State Health Department
A Final Environmental Impact Statement has been issued by the
Department of Interior. Pending a final ruling from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, expected within several months,
construction will begin in early 1980. The project has the
support of host state as well as the Department of Energy.
The proposed coal gasification plant will be located in f
Mercer County, North Dakota and will be located adjacent to an
880 megawatt lignite-fired power plant owned and operated by a
North Dakota electric cooperative. One mine will provide the coal
for both facilities at an ultimate rate of approximately 14 million
tons per year. The projects will be mine-mouth facilities; that is,
they will be located directly adjacent to the mine, a practice
common in the Great Plains coal region to increase energy efficiency
and decrease operating costs.
The hazardous waste regulations proposed by EPA concern
us for two primary reasons :
1. They fail to consider site-specific data when
determining whether a waste is to be considered
hazardous , and (
-------
-3-
2. They restrict "utility wastes" to bottom ash, fly
ash and scrubber sludge from steam coal plants.
Please alloxv me to develop these points further.
First, let me state that the gasification process
generates a volume of ash similar to a large steam electric plant.
Our full plant will process approximately 27,000 tons of lignite
per day and generate approximately 1,700 tons of ash per day.
This ash will be combined with the ash from the power plant for
common disposal.
State-of-the-art in ash disposal for mine-mouth plants
in this region is burial in the mine as an ongoing part of the
CH>rV V3<—
mining and reclamation plan. The ash, which^characterized as a
very low risk waste, is buried beneath the mining overburden,
well below the root zone of any plant species, and is covered
with highly impermeable (less than 10 cm/sec) clay which is
common to the area. Several studies conducted within the State
of North Dakota have shown that this disposal procedure is safe
and proivdes a reliable degree of environmental protection.
The leachate from clay soils in this region are alkaline,
exhibiting a natural pH in the range of 8.5 to 9.5. Unlike many
coals in the east, North Dakota lignite produces an ash that is
also alkaline in nature. The acid leaching test proposed in the
regulations has no relationship to actual conditions in North
Dakota. Nowhere do the regulations take into account the higher pH
and the low permeability of the soils encountered at the site.
-------
-4-
We feel that many wastes which are in the very low risk category
will be determined "hazardous" if the proposed test is adopted
as presently written.
We believe the procedure to designate and control
hazardous waste should be developed and administered by state
agencies who are familiar with the site specific considerations
in their state.
The second point I mentioned earlier is that the proposed
regulations apparently overlook the fact that there are many
types of coal ash other than the steam coal ash which constitutes
the Utility Waste category. The ash from high BTU coal gasification
is essentially the same as steam coal ash, as is the ash generated f
when coal is direct fired for industrial heating nr iprrrn T^nfM=*r
purposes. We believe that all "coal ash wastes" should be included
in the special waste category. Failure to do so would result in
extremely costly restraints that would seriously jeopardize the
economics of an emerging industry which we feel is an essential
segment of this country's future energy supplies.
I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation,
and we would like to reserve the right to provide additional
written testimony on the proposed regulations, the draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement and the draft Economic Impact analysis.
-------
^v
COLORADO CONCRETE MASONRY ASSOCIATION
Name: Robert C. Sandoval, Executive Director
Organization: Colorado Masonry Institute
Purpose - who representing: Colorado Concrete Masonry Association
The concrete masonry association of Colorado who's number total 11
concrete masonry producers are very concerned that the EPA proposed
regulations will cause them' a severe escalation of production costs
if available flyash is declared a hazardous waste. Further, coupled
with a severe cement shortage, their total production for any given
year would be reduced, therefore affecting the ability to stf.y in j
business or meet product demands.
In the year 1977 these producers used 10,912 tons of flyash. In the
year 1978 those producers used 10,728 tons of flyash. The concrete
masonry producers can, and have been replacing, their cement content
of their masonry units by 4070 with comanche flyash. This means that
40% of the cement that would ordinarily be needed to produce a quality
product can be substituted by a good flyash.
What are the benefits derived from this huge use of flyash.
1. Excellent quality of units produced
2. Increased production
3. Cost reduction "
4. Energy saving
Let us look at one of the very important benefits that everyone in
SUITE 301. 3003 EAST THIRD AVENUE AT v"L>v£"'-- = - -r-> -- - ~
-------
Page 2
%,this room should be interested in. Energy. The fact that the
•
concrete masonry industry replaces its cement requirements by 407,
can be interpreted as a very substantial energy saving because, the
cement industry is number 6 on the list of high energy users. Flyash
is produced by only the energy that is required to collect it from
the power plant stack. It is estimated that for every ton of flyash
used to replace cement, an energy savings of 2,500,000 BTU's are
saved. In the past two years 22,000 tons of flyash were used in the
concrete.masonry industry, having the total effect of 55,000,000 BTU's
of energy saved.
These producers also see a real benefit to the general public and
environment by the utilization of the flyash. Rather than having
the power plant dispose of it as a waste causing further environment ™
problems, the rationale of utilization of coat by-products by RCRA
is heartily endorsed.
X
These producers have invested a considerable amount of money and
time to perfect the product produced with the use of flyash. As well
as the supplier/marketer of the flyash. The producers do not have any
information in respect to adverse conditions or any evidence that
flyash used in their products has or is causing any environmental
problems. The flyash is delivered to them in sealed bulk pneumatic
trailers, unloaded by air conveyence, and stored in an enclosed silo
with approved air filter equipment. No employee is exposed to ex-
cessive dust or an environment that would cause concern for the ,
safety of his well being.
-------
Page 3
The Colorado Concrete Masonry producers consider flyash as a by- '
product of the coal burning utilities, a useful product of consider-
able value. They do not consider-it a waste material. If the EPA
were to determine flyash a hazardous waste, its use in concreta
masonry units would have to cease, and as previously stated cause
them considerable loss of production and revenue.
In summary, flyash has become a considerble part of the economics
in our industry. To remove this product from the production of the
masonry concrete units would surely have far reaching effects in the
whole construction industry. We ask that the EPA give considerable
thought to the total ramifications of the proposed regulations.
I
-------
-------
Attendees—Public Hearing
on Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 8, 9, 1979
Marcus A. Aguilar
Waste Processing Engineer
Rockwell International
P.O. Box 464
Golden, Colorado 80401
Steve Allen, President
Southern Stone Co., Inc.
P.O. Box C200
Birmingham, AL 35283
Richard Andrews
Environmental Coordinator
Rocky Mountain Energy Co.
4704 Harlan St.
Denver, Colorado 80212
E. D. Arnold
Vice President
Delta Drilling Co.
P.O. Box 2012
Tyler, Texas 75710
John D. Austin, Jr., Counsel
American Mining Congress
1200 18th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Jack Babb
Mechanical Facilities Group
Engineer
Martin Marietta
P.O. Box 179
Denver, Colorado 80201
Stephanie J. Baker
Radiation Health Physicist
Western Nuclear, Inc.
134 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Micki Barnes
Program Administrator,
Environmental Health
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. llth St.
Denver, Colorado 80220
Robert L. Baughman
Environmental Coordinator
Phelps 'Dodge Refinining Corp.
300 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Luann Baylor
Colorado State University
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80571
Charles Beckner
Administrative Assistant
Nicor Exploration Co.
1658 Cole Blvd.
Golden, Colorado 80401
Jon Bednerik
Director of Government Affairs
IADC
P.O. Box 4287
Houston, Texas 77210
Nancy Bedont
Natural Resources Advisor
State of New York
Governor's Office
2320 Capitol Avenue
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Darrel J. Behrendsen
Hazardous Material Coordinator
Denver Police Department
1331 Cherokee Street
Denver, Colorado 80204
John R. Berger
Vice President, Environmental
Affairs
Inland Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 36
Ft. Wayne, IN 46801
-------
Jeff Blegen
Jr. Design Engineer
Coors Porcelain Co.
600 9th Street
Golden, Colorado 80401
Ronald H. Bissiner
Environmental Engineer
Union Oil Co. of California
461 S. Boylston St.
Los Angeles, California 90017
Bob Boegio
Environmental Engineer
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 1900
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Kathryn T. Bohannon
Environmental Scientist
Eastman Kodak Company
Kodak Colorado Division
Windsor, Colorado 80551
James H. Boyd
Environmental Affairs Manager
Bunker Hill Co.
Box 29
Kellogg, Idaho 83837
Dr. Harry M. Brennan
Director, Air & Water
Conservation
Amoco Chemicals Corporation
200 East Randolph Dirve, MC 4403
Chicago, IL 60601
Ronald W. Brenton
Director Environmental Affairs
Great Western Sugar
P.O. Box 5308
Denver, Colorado 80217
Leyon 0. Brestel
Chemistry & Environmental
Supervisor
P.O. Box 1149
Montrose, Colorado 81401
Patricia Brooks
Senior Environmental Engineer
American Natural Gas Service
Company
1 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 40226
Bill Buikema
Corp. Secretary
U.S. Disposal Systems
511 Orchard
Golden, Colorado 80401
F. Gene Burch
Director of Engineering
Wolverine World Wide
123 N. Main Street
Rockford, Michigan 49351
Dennis Burchett
Manager, Technical Services
Balcom Chemical
P.O. Box 1286
Greely, Colorado 80632
K. L. Byerly
Contract Representative
Delta Drilling Co.
P.O. Box 2012
Tyler, Texas 75710
J. L. Calder
Environmental Coordinator
ARCO Oil & Gas Corp.
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Dale Carlson
Principal Project Engineer
Coors Container Co.
17755 W. 32nd Ave.
Golden, Colorado 80401
Jack C. Carmichael, PE
Director, Division of Solid
Waste Management
Texas Department of Health
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756
-------
Roger Caraichael
Chief, Utilities
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center
Feoria and Colfax
Denver, Colorado 80240
William C. Carpenter, Jr.
Refinery Engineer
Plateau Inc.
P.O. Box 10
Roosevelt, UT 84066
6. Max Carter
Senior Facilities Engineer
Ampex Corporation
600 Wooten Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906
Paul Canton
42 S. Holman Way
Golden, Colorado 80401
R. L. Chaffin
Technical Administrator
Environmental Services Dept.
Champlin Petroleum Co.
P.O. Box 9365
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Mary Ann Chance
Environmental Analyst
Continental Oil
P.O. Box 1267
Ponca City, OK 74601
Eenry Chisholm
Asst. to Executive Vice
President Operations
Oglefaay Norton Co.
1200 Hanna Bldg.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Mike M. Clark, Director
Colorado Agricultural
Aviation Assn.
Laird Route
Wray, Colorado 80758
Wendall J. Clark
Environmental Coordinator
Texaco
Box 509
Beacon, New York 12508
Al Clary
Process Engineer
Hewlett Packard
P.O. Box 307
Loveland, Colorado 80537
Chuck Clemen
Facilities- Engineer
Hewlett Packard
P.O. Box 301
Loveland, Colorado 80537
B.J. Coffia
Environmental Control Director
Grace Petroleum Corp.
6501 North Broadway
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
James W. Collins
Environmental Affairs
Cities Service Oil Co.
Box 300 (Rm. 2211)
Tulsa, OK 74102
Brec Cooke
Director of Research
Bonneville Associates
74 East So. Temple #111
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Ollie Cotton
Environmental Chemist
Dow Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 1398
Pittsfaurg, CA 94565
Andrew Covar
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek
Austin, Texas 78766
-------
Chester Culley
Regional Environmental Engineer
Burlington Northern R.R.
1900 Executive Towers
1405 Curtis
Denver, Colorado 80202
Howard Cunningham
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
Wit co Chemical
277 Park Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10017
R. W. Curtis
Environmental Control
ARICCO
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Thomas Dahl
Environmental Engineer
USEPA-NEIC
Denver, Colorado
Cave Daskam
Loss Control Representative
Hartford Ins Group
800 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Gary L. Davis
Consulting Engineering
CH2M-Hill
12000 E 47th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80010
L. Jack Davis
General Manager-Deputy
General Manager
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal
Authorities
910 Bay Area Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77058
Susan Davis
Interested citizen
Dr. E.K. Demos
Environmental Officer
City and County of Denver
5440 Roslyn St.
Denver, Colorado
R. S. Detrick
Manager, Environmental
Engineering Services
Koppers Co. Inc.
440 College Park Drive
Monroeville, PA 15146
W. S. Devine
Assistant Vice President -
Mining
Mblycorp, Inc.
Questa, New Mexico 87576
John R. Diemart, Chief Engineer
Trent Tube Division
2188 Church Street
East Troy, WI 53120
M.C. Douget
Account Representative
Ethyl Corporation
301 Writers Center I
1777 S. Bellaire St.
Denver, Colorado 80222
Gary Dounay
Laboratory Supervisor
S.W. Shattuck Chemical
1805 S. Bannack
Denver, Colorado 80223
R. H. Dreith
Staff Engineer
Shell Oil Co.
One Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas 77001
Ron Duncan
Safety Officer
Solar Energy Research Institute
1536 Cole Blvd.
Golden, Colorado 80401
Becky Edwards
Manager, Government Affairs
Labelmasters
7525 N. Wolcott
Chicago, IL 60626
-------
Kenneth W. Edwards, President
Natural Resources Laboratory
1100 Simms Street
Golden, Colorado 80401
Billy D. Egley
Coordinator Air-Water Quality
CF&I Steel Corp.
P.O. Box 316
Pueblo, Colorado 81002
Phil Ehr
Project Director
Science Applications
1596 Cole Blvd., Suite 210
Golden, Colorado 80401
Walter D. Ellis, Attorney
Duval Corporation
P.O. Box 2967
Houston, Texas 77001
Clell Elwood
Assistant to City Manager
City of Colorado Springs
P.O. Box 1575
Colorado Springs, Colorado 30901
David Engle
Technical Specialist - Staff
Engineering - E*CO Services
2400 West Loop South
Houston, Texas 77027
Ralph Engel
President, Associate Director,
Legislative & Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Assn.
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1120
Washington, D.C. 20036
Debbie English
CSU
1749A Spring Meadows
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Robert L. Eriksen
Environmental Control Supervisor
Basin Electric Power Coop
117E Interstate
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Glenn M. Eurick
Environmental Engineer
Minnesota Power & Light Co.
30 W. Superior
Duluth, MN 55802
Barbara D. Little-Evans
Environmental Attorney
Shell Oil Company
One Shell Plaza, Suite 4874
Houston, Texas 77001
Rita Ewing
Environmental Supervisor
Utah Internatio
550 California St.
San Francisco, CA
R. L. Exner
Senior Coordinator
Texaco Inc.
P.O. Box 2100
Denver, Colorado 80201
Mary Fackelman
Legislative Analyst
Western Interstate Energy Board
2500 Stapleton Plaza
3333 Quebec
Denver, Colorado 80207
Timothy H. Fann
Director of Environmental
Engineering
Raymond Vail and Associates
11049 W. 44th Ave.
Wheatridge, Colorado 80033
Leonard D. Felix, Jr.
Vice President
CAAA
60415 Hiway 50
Olathe, Colorado 81425
P.J. Ferrand
Assistant to Manager,
Technical Services
Freeport Chemical Co.
Uncle Sam, LA 70792
-------
Dave Finley
Engineer
Wyoming DEQ
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Craig M. Firestone
Assistant Manager,
Regulatory Compliance
WITCO Chemical Corp.
277 Park Ave.
New York, H.Y. 10017
Kenneth Fischer
Safety Officer
EPA National Investment Center
Bldg. 53, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
John J. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
Attorney
API/Gulf Oil Corp.
Box 8056
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Karen Fletcher
CSU
173 Briarwood #1732
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521
James E. Foard
Director
Environmental and Energy
Phelps Dodge Corp. - Box 2265
Tucson, AZ 85702
John D. Fognani
Attorney
Holland and Hart
555 17th St.
Denver, Colorado 80201
Jon R. Ford
Environmental Director
Dr. Scholl, Inc.
US 20 and Ohio St.
Michigan City, IN 46360
Gerald R. Foree
Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA, Region VII
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, MO 64119
W. B. Forsyth
Laboratory Coordinator
ASRMERA Oil (US), Inc.
5800 Brighton Blvd.
Commerce City, Colorado 80022
James W. Foster
Manager, Manufacturing Operations
AGRICO Chemical Co.
Williams I Center
Tulsa, OK 74101
Ben Franklin
Environmental Affairs Analyst
A. Coors
Golden, Colorado S0401
Helen D. Fukiu
7110 New York St.
Denver, Colorado 80229
Tim Gablehouse
Regulatory Affairs Coordinator
Adolph Coors Co.
Golden, Colorado 80401
Robert G. Gallaghar, CEP
President
Applied Health Physics, Inc.
2986 Industrial Blvd.
Bethal Park, PA 15102
Lawrence P. Gazda
Chief, Waste Management Branch
EPA/Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado 80295
John A. Geis
Senior Project Engineer
Samsonite Corporation
11200 E. 45th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80239
-------
V. E. Gilchrist
Attorney
EXXON
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001
Allen A. Gipson
Assistant Chief
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Denver, Colorado 80204
A. Gomez, Jr.
Director of Environmental Affairs
Duval Corp.
4715 E. Ft. Lowell
Tucson, AZ 85712
T. J. Gordon, President
Gordon Lab, Inc.
P.O. Box 605
Great Bend, Kansas 67530
George Grandbouche
Mine Engineer
U.S. DOE
Box 2567
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
T. Ed Griffith
Special Project Coordinator
Getty Oil Co.
P.O. Box 1404
Houston, Texas 77001
LTC Robert G. Grodt
Chief, Regional Division West
U.S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
FAMC, Denver, Colorado 80240
D. K. Gums
President
AERR Co.
5801 Federal
Denver, Colorado 80221
Biff Hallenfaeck
Corporation Hazardous Materials
Manager
Hewlett-Packard Company
1900 Garden of the Gods Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907
Philip R. Halverson
Attorney
Minnesota Power & Light
30 W. Superior Street
Duluth, MN 55812
Ellis T. Hammett
Petroleum Engineer
U.S. Geological Survey
Conservation Div. - Western Regio:
Suite 400 - Room 401
2465 East- Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
M. Handelman
Staff Engineer
Reynolds Metals Co.
Box 9177
Corpus Christi, Texas 78408
Raymond D. Harbison
Director, Toxic Substance
Control Lab
Vanderfailt Medical Center
21st Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37232
LT Timothy C. Harms
Sanitary Engineer
U.S. Army
USA EHA Road West (FAMC)
Denver, Colorado 80240
Larry W. Harrington
Environmental Coordinator
U.S. Department of Energy
Laramie Energy Technology Center
P.O. Box 3395, University Station
Laramie, WT 82070
John W. Harris
Corporate Environmental
Consultant
International Minerals & Chemical
Corp.
421 East Hawley Street
Mundelein, IL 60060
Jordan S. Earwood
2780 El Rancho Drive
Brookfield, WI 53005
-------
Doyle W. Hasseman
Public Health Sanitarium IV
Denver Dept. of Health,
Division of Environmental Health
605 Bannock
Denver, Colorado 80236
Phillip J. Hatch
Program Manager, Environmental
Affairs
Great Western Sugar Company
P.O. Box 5308 Terminal Annex
Denver, Colorado 80217
Don Haumann
Research Environmental Engineer
Rockwell International
Rocky Flats Plant
P.O. Box 464
Golden, Colorado 80401
Kathy Hayler
Colorado State University
775 W. Lake A304
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521
R. J. Heaney
Environmental Advisor
Kennecott Copper Corporation
P.O. Box 11299
Salt Lake City, UT 84147
Robert S. Hearon
Environmental Services Supv.
Int Mine Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 867
Bartow, Florida 33830
Henry M. Heidt
Environmental Coordinator
Babcock & Wilcox
P.O. Box 785
Lynchburg, VA 24505
R. N. Heistand
Vice President
DEI
Anvil Points - Box A
Rifle, Colorado 81650
Thomas A. Hendrickson
Senior Consultant
Cameron Engineers, Inc.
1315 South Clarkson
Denver, Colorado 80210
Lyda W. Hersloff
Radio Ecologist
Rocky Mountain Energy
4704 Earten Street
Denver, Colorado 80212
F. Farrell Higbee
Executive Director
National Agricultural Aviation
Association
Suite 459 - National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
Eric J. Einzel
Soil Scientist
Wyoming Dept. of Env. Qual.,
Land Qual. Div.
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Norman E. Ho1mberg
Environmental Manager
Arapahoe Chemicals
2075 N. 55th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80307
Michael Hughes
Director, Env. Reg. Affairs
El Paso Products Co.
Box 3986
Odessa, Texas 79760
Clara Lou Humphrey
Solid Waste Chairman
League of Women Voters of Colorado
1407 S. Yank Street
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Barry Hutchings
Technical Advisor
APi
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001 '
W. C. Button
Manager Solid Waste
Diamond Shamrock
1149 Ellsworth
-------
Dianne Jarboe
Secretary
Hewlett-Packard Company
1900 Garden of the Gods Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907
Jacqueline Jennings
Marketing Assistant
Camp Dresser & McKee
11485 W. 48th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Tammy Johnnie
Environmental Coordinator
Hewlett-Packard
1900 Garden of the Gods Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907
Don F. Johns
Manager, Chemical Dist.
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 1900
Boulder, Colorado
Floyd L. Johnson.
Meteorologist
U.S. Geological Survey
P.O. Box 25046 - MS 601
Denver, Colorado 80225,
Samuel C. Jones
Asst. Director Division SACES
IMCO Services
2400 W. Coop S
Houston, Texas 77027
Environmental
Thomas J. Jones
Director, Engergy &
Sytems Group
Industrial Technological Associate, Inc.
912 Thayer Ave - #300
Silver Spring, Maryland 20901
Nancy L. Juday
Attorney
S teams-Roger
Box 5888
Denver, Colorado 80217
Tracey Katchen
Colorado State University
1200 E. Stuart St.
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525
John E. Kennedy
Director of Environmental Control
St. Joe Lead Company
P.O. Box 500
Viburnum, Missouri 65566
Don Kenne'rson
Hazardous Waste Management
Raymond Vail and Associates
11049 W. 44th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Larry Kern
Chemist
Protex Ind.
1331 W. Evans Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80223
J. E. Kerrigan
Senior Sanitary Engineer
AMAX ESI
4703 Harlan St.
Denver, Colorado 80212
S. Norman Kesten
Asst. to Vice President,
Environmental Affairs
ASARCO Inc. & American Mining Congrt
120 Broadway
New York City, N.Y. 10005
Robert M. Klimoski
Manager
Chemical Waste Management of
Wisconsin
W-124 N-9451 Boundary Road
Menominee Falls, WI 53051
Gerald Knudsen, Director
N.D. State Department of Health
1200 Missouri Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505 ^
Jay T. Knutson
Sales & Marketing
Mountain Chemicals, Inc.
16045 W. 4th Ave.
Golden, Colorado 80401
-------
10
Michael Kruger
Laboratory Technician
City of Broomfield
#6 Garden Center
Broomfield, Colorado 80020
Francine Bellet Kushner
Associate Director, Legislative
& Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Specialties Hfrs. Assn.
1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20014
Walter C. Lackemann
Environmental Consultant
ASAMERA Oil
5800 Brighton Blvd.
Commerce City, Colorado 80022
Kenneth Ladd
Chairman of RR&tl Tech. Coma.
USWAG
P.O. Box 1261
Amarillo, Texas 79170
Miles LaHue
Environmental Specialist -
Air Quality
USGS/Area Oil Shale Office
131 N. 6B St. - Suite 300
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
& Mfg. Services
S.M. Lane
Manager, Environment
Mobil Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 26683
Richmond, VA 23261
E. L. Lantz
Vice President - Env. & Safety
me
421 E. Hawley St.
Mundelein, II 60060
W. L. Lapp
Senior Consultant
Mead Corporation
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
John M. Lattimer
Environmental Protection Specialist
EPA-NEIC
P.O. Box 25227
Denver, Colorado 80225
Greg H. Lazarus
Research Assistant
National Conf. of State
Legislatures
1405 Curtis Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Frank R. Lee
Executive Director
IPAMS
1214 Denver Club Bldg.
Denver, Colorado 80202
R. B. LeFever
Contract Representative
Justiss-Mears Oil Co. t
10565 Katy Freeway
Houston, Texas 77024
Max W. Legatski
Planning A dvisor
Atlantic Richfield Co.
555 17th St., P.O. Box 5300
Denver, Colorado 80217
James Leiser
Sales
mco
410 17th - #2070
Denver, Colorado 80209
Arend R. Lenderink
General Manager
Colorado Disposal, Inc.
3925 So. Kalamath
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Harold Lenhart
Government Affairs Coordinator
Peabody Coal Co.
12015 E. 46th Ave., Suite 600 ,
Denver, Colorado 80013 '
-------
11
William L. Lewis
Senior Advisor Env. Cons.
Exxon Co. USA
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001
Tim Link
Chemist
State Health
1200 Missouri Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58501
Richard J. Ludeman
Engineer
Colorado Interstate Gas
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944
Robert J. Madden
Chief, Government Affairs & Liaison
3840-G York St.
Denver, Colorado 80205
Wilbur Madonna
Process Engineer
Storage Technology Corp.
2400 Industrial Lane
P.O. Box 98
Broomfield, Colorado 80027
A. Joe Madonna
Director
Boulder County Special Studies
Court House Annex
P.O. Box 471
Boulder, Colorado 80302
R. Madsen
Manager
White River Shale Project
1315 West Highway 40
Vernal, Utah 84078
Ralph E. Magnuson, Jr.
Director of Environmental Affairs
The Cleveland-Creffs Iron Co.
1460 Union Commerce Bldg.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
John T. Makans, DVM
President
Colorado Veterinary Medical Assn.
1220 E. Hampden
Englewood, Colorado 80110
B. Charles Malloy
Director, Special Projects
Engineering Science
P.O. Box 69
Berwyn, PA 19342
John H. Marshall, LT
Denver Fire Department
745 West Colfax Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80204
A. L. Martello
Waste Management Specialist
US DOE/ALO-WPD
P.O. Box 5400
Albuquerque, NM 87115
James E. Martin
Chief, Hazardous Waste Section
State of Colorado
Colorado Health Department
Denver, Colorado 80220
John W. Martywy
Vice Chairman
Intergovernmental Methane Task Fore
7475 Dakin
Denver, Colorado 80221
Shaun McAvoy
Civil Engineer/Field Ops.
U.S. EPA/NEIC
Bldg. 53, Box 25227
Denver, Colorado 80225
Charles A. McCauley
Research Director
Tucson Electric
Box 711
Tucson, AZ 85719
-------
12
Tin McClure
Colorado Recycling
P.O. Box 73
Frisco, Colorado 80443
William E. McKinney
Environmental Programs Administrator
IBM Corporation
400 Parsons Pond Drive
Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417
John McNeill
Staff Attorney
Colorado-UTE Electric Assn.
P.O. Box 1149
Montrose, Colorado 81401
Hester P. McNulty
Natural Resources Coordinator
League of Women Voters of the
United States
2160 Vassar Drive
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Bob Medlock
Project Environmental Specialist
Bear Creek Uranium Co.
P.O. Box 2654
Casper, WT 82602
Chris H. Menzel
Lead Environmental Analyst
Gulf States Utilities Co., P.O.
Beaumont, Texas 77704
David B. Merchant
Manager, Hazardous Materials
Hooker Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 4289
Houston, Texas 77210
Gordon H. Miller
Environmental Coordinator
Texaco, Inc.
P.O. Box 2100
Denver, Colorado 80201
Box 2951
Stewart H. Miller
Plant Manager
Electro-Phos Corporation
1155 Pebbledale Road
Mulberry, Florida 33860
E. W. Milnes
Distribution Analyst
Scientific Products
1430 Waukegan Road
McGaw Park, IL 60085
David Moffitt
Environmental Engineer
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
511 N.W. Broadway - Rm. 510
Portland, Oregon 97209
Ronlad F. Morgan
Advanced Scientist
Marathon Oil Company
P.O. Box 269
Littleton, Colorado 80160
Philip W. Morton
Environmental Coordinator
Gulf Mineral Resources Co.
1720 South Bellaire
Denver, Colorado 80222
James R. Muhm
Director, Government Affairs
Occidental Minerals Corp.
777 S. Wadsworth Ave.
Lakewood, Colorado 80226
Dick Mullen
Secretary
Rocky Mountain Paint and Coatings
Assn.
1902 Blake Street
Denver, Colorado 80020
Ralph S. Nelson
Attorney
Burlington Northern
176 E. 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55416
-------
13
LeRoy E. Newland
Manager, Environmental Services
Utah Power & Light
P.O. Box 899
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
Bernard T. Noonan
Environmental Control Engineer
Burlington Northern, Inc.
176 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Timothy S. Oliver
Environmental Engineer
Magma Copper Company
P.O. Box M
San Manuel, AZ 85631
Kent R. Olson
Attorney
Rio Blanco Oil Shale Co.
1720 S. Bellaire St.
Denver, Colorado 80210
Lee D. Ormsten
Chief Chemist
Woodward Gararner
1600 Drake Road
Fort Collins, Colorado
Terry D. Orwin
Senior Engineer
Thiokol Corporation
Box 524 MS 552
Brigham City, Utah 84302
Wiley W. Osborne
Chief, Plans & Program Branch
Division of Solid Waste Mgt.
Texas Department of Health
1100 N. 49th St.
Austin, Texas 78756
Raymond E. Ouellette
Senior Engineer
Shell Oil Company - P.O. Box 2463
Houston, Texas 77001
L'Ann Pardue
Colorado State University
775 W. Lake - Apt. B304
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Mr. A. B. Parker
Senior Conservation Engineer
Arco Oil & Gas Co.
P.O. Box 2819
Dallas, Texas 75221
Gary E. Parker
Environmental Engineer
Homestake Mining Co.
7625 W. 5th Ave.
Lakewood, Colorado 80226
H.J. Parr
Planning Specialist
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution
Control & Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72219
Arnold Pettijohn
Plant Manager
El Paso Products - P.O. Box 3986
Odessa, Texas 79760
Paul Petzrick ^
Oil Shale Resource Manager
DOE
1201 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20585
Stephen J. Pfaff
Radiation Coordinator
Getty Oil
Box 2509
Shriley Basin, WY 82615
William N. Philo
Supervisor, Quality Engineering
Stanley Aviation Corp.
2500 Dallas St.
Aurora, Colorado
I
-------
14
4
Joseph J. Picarelli
Attorney
Anaconda Copper
555 17th St.
Denver, Colorado 80217
Barbara Polich.
Co tins el
Kennecott Copper Corporation
P.O. Box 11299
Salt Lake City, Utah 84147
Robert Poyser
Environmental Coordinator
Pathfinder Mines Corporation
P.O. Box 831
Riverton, WT 82501
Melanie Pratt
Colorado State University
608 W. Laurel
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Joe Prisco
Sanitarium III
University of Colorado
Stad. 260, University of
Colorado
Boulder, Colorado 80309
E. B. Pugsley
Environmental Scientist
Steams-Roger
P.O. Box 5888
Denver, Colorado 80217
Roman Z. Pyrih
Consulting Geochemist
Roman Z. Pyrih & Assoc.,
1475 Orchard Drive
Golden, Colorado 80401
T. W. Quigley
Environmental Engineer
CONOCO
555 17th St.
Denver, Colorado 80202
Inc.
Aarell J. Rachels
Chemical Engineer
Texas Eastman Co.
P.O. Box 7444
Longviev, Texas 75602
Rhett D. Ragsdale
Division Manager
Waste Resources
P.O. Box 180
Philadelphia, PA 19020
K. Dale Rasmussen
President
Iron Range Plastics
Route 1, Box 670
Cohasst, MN 55721
Lowell D. Rasmussen
Laboratory Director
Eagle Ottawa Leather Co.
200 Beechtree St.
Grand Haven, MI' 49417
Lyle A. Rathbun
Environmental Engineer
Aerovironment, Inc.
P.O. Box 1484
Mills, WY 82644
Kenneth G. Reick
Environmental Engineer
Anaconda Copper Co.
555 17th St.
Denver, Colorado 80217
J.G. Reilly
Director of Environmental Planning
(Mining Division, St. Joe Zinc)
St. Joe Minerals Corp.
Balmat, N.Y. 13609
Stanley J. Reno
Regional Consultant
Occupational Safety & Health
NIOSE-USPHS
Room 1194 - 1961 Stout St.
Denver, Colorado 80294
-------
15
Bruce P. Ream
Mine Planning Engineer
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Brigham Canyon, Utah 84006
Paul Reynolds
Environmental Engineer
Basin Electric Power Coop
1717 E. Interstate Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58501
Robert Rinehart
President
Rinehart Labs
P.O. Box 564
Arvada, Colorado 80001
William C. Robb
Attorney
CF&I Steel Corp.
1100 United Bank Center
Denver, Colorado 80290
James E. Rodgers
University Northern Colorado
7095 Inca Way
Denver, Colorado 80221
James A. Rogers
Director, Denver Office
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
1665 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
William D. Rogers
President
Rogers' Sales, Inc.
1395 Fawnwood Road
Monument, Colorado 80132
Donald G. Romero
Packaging Specialist
DCASMA-Denver
701 W. Eampden Ave.
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Edward C. Rosar ^
President
Industrial Resources, Inc.
11011 W. 6th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80215
Michale Rounds
Senior Editor
Western Oil Reporter
P.O. Box 1917
Denver, Colorado 80201
Jim V. Rouse
General Manager
Envirologic Systems, Inc.
155 S. Madison St.
Denver, Colorado 80209
Tom Roy
Hazardous Waste Specialist
State of N.H., Bureau of Solid Waste
State Lab Building
Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
J. E. Rucker
Environmental Affairs Asst. Dir.
API
2101 L St.
Washington, D.C. 20037
H. E. Runion
Manager, Hygiene & Radiation
Health Physics Dept.
Gulf Oil Corporation
Pittsburgh, PA 15250
Michale J. Rushman
Wald Earkrader & Ross
1320 19th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Stuart H. Russell
Environmental Engineer
Harringson, Durham, & Richardson
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114
-------
16
A. P. Rylant
Safety Director
Woodward Gov. Co.
Box 1519
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
James E« Salmon
Environmental Health Specialist
Utah Division of Health
150 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Sandors
Doris E.
EPA
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado
80295
Robert C. Sandoual
Executive Director
Colorado Masonry Institute
3003 E. 3rd Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80206
Rohena Santos, Jr.
Associate Member
P.R. Environmental Quality Board
Box 11488
San Juan, P.R. 00910
L. E. Savory
Technical Advisor
Pexmzoil Co.
P.O. Box 2967
Houston, Texas 77001
Robert J. Schafish
Principal Engineer
R. W. Beck & Associates
400 Prudential Plaza
Denver, Colorado 80265
Rick Schelin
Attorney
Forest Oil Corp.
950 17th St. - Suite 1500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Karl Schendel
Wyoming Mineral Corp.
3900 S. Wadsworth Blvd.
Lakewood, Colorado 8120
Danamane Schmitt
Solid Waste Technician
Adams County
450 S. 4th
Brighton,. Colorado 80601
Henry C. Schroeder
Waste Management Specialist
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colordado 80203
Rich Schumacher
Development Associate
Monsanto Co.
12898 W. Adriatic
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Gerald Schurtz
Environmental Advisor
Kennecott Copper Corp.
P.O. Box 11299
Salt Lake City, utah 84147
Richard B. Schwendinger
Schwendinger Assoc., Inc.
3314 South Oneida Way
Denver, Colorado 80224
James H. Sherrard
Environmental Administrator
Texas Oil and Gas
Fidelity Union Tower
Dallas, Texas 75201
J. Siegfried
Manager, Community Environmental
Control
Johns-Manville
P.O. Box 5108
Denver, Colorado 80217
-------
17
Michael K. Simon
Regulatory Programs Supervisor
Ladd Petroleum Corporation
830 Denver Club Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
John C. Singer
Environmental Engineer
Cotter Corp.
8305 W. Alameda
Lakewood, Colorado 80266
Tony Skelton
Engineer
Pozzolanic Northwest, Inc.
c/o Travel Trends, Inc.
1624 Market Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Forrest Skretteberg
Environmental Affairs Coordinator
The Carter Mining Co.
P.O. Box 209
Gillette, WY 82716
Alfred C. Smith
Attorney
EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado 80295
Conley P. Smith
Past President
Ind. Petroleum Assoc. MTN States
1214 Denver Club Bldg.
Denver, Colorado 80202
Denny L. Smith
Chemical Storage
Hewlett Packard
815 SW 14th
Denver, Colorado 80537
Mary Ann Smith
1151 Cedar St.
Broomfield, Colorado 80020
T. G. Smith
Vice President
SI Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Bos 5108
Lakeland, Florida 33803
Terry Smith
Colorado State University
1717 Welch - Apt. 11
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525
Wayne C. Smith
Manager, Water Pollution Control
Dames & Moore
605 Parfet
Denver, Colorado 80215
Willaim E. Smith
Deputy Manager of Public Works-
Operations
City & County of Denver
Rm. 377, City & County Bldg.
Denver, Colorado 80202
Dehn Solomon
Project Manager
Environmental Research and
Technology
1716 Heath Parkway
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524
Wayne Sowards
Senior Environmental Engineer
Utah International, Inc.
P.O. Box 187
Craig, Colorado 81625
Roy Space
Director, Environmental Affairs
Agrico Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 3166
Tulsa, OK 74101
H. Michael Spence
Mosely Wells 7 Spence, PC
1600 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80202
Fred A. Staafa
Assistant Manager - Western Region
Schlegel Area Sealing Systems, Inc.
420 Petroleum Bldg.
110-16th St.
Denver, Colorado 80202
-------
4
Peggy Staften
Colorado State University
775 W. Lake - Apt. A207
Ft. Collies, Colorado 80521
David R. Stewart
Project Engineer
CH2M Hill
12000 E 47th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80239
Orville F. Stoddard
Senior Public Health Engineer
Colorado Dept. of Health
4210 E. llth Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80220
Robert Strand
General Engineer
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Bldg. 67
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
W. C. Studabaker
Environmental Engineer
Association of American RR
1920 L, N.W.
Washington, D.C. ^
Peter Suchecky
Chemist
ADCOM/DEV
Peterson AFB
Colorado Springs,
Colorado 80914
Steven Swanson
Economist
API
2101 L St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
James Sykora
Attorney
Cities Service Co.
P.O. Box 300
Tulsa, OK 74105
Darold R. Tabor
President
Darold R. Tabor
P.O. Box 11354
Pueblo, Colorado
81001
Ivyl G. Taylor
Coordinator CRBSCP
Bureau of Reclamation
Bldg. 67, penver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Robert Taylor
Senior Engineer
GAI Consultants
570 Beatty Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15146
Joe Teller
Deputy General Manager
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authoritie
910 Bay Area Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77058
Mr. Templeton
Division Environmental Engineer
Kennecott Copper
Salt Lake City - P.O. Box 11299
Salt Lake City, Utah 84147
Lynn Teschendorf
General Counsel
New Mexico Oil Commission
P.O. Box 2088
Santa Fe, MM 87501
Dr. J. E. Tessieri
Vice President, Research Environment
& Safety Dept.
Texaco
Box 509
Beacon, NY 12508
Robert S. Thiel
Corp. Environmental Engineer
Velsicol Chemical
341 E. Ohio Street j
Chicago, IL 60611 "
-------
19
Terry Thoem
Director, Energy Coordination
EPA
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado 80203
Jack C. Thomas
Traffic Analyst
Eastman Kodak Co.
C-20 Distribution Dept.
Windsor, Colorado 80551
Veronica Thomas
Training Associate - Dept. #702551
Western Electric
111 Havana St.
Aurora, Colorado 80012
Virgil Thompson
Industrial Hygiene Technician
IBM - Greencastle
RR #15
Brazil, IS 47834
J. Martin Thrasher
Deputy City Attorney
City of Colorado Springs
107 N. Nevada
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
Ronald Uchida
Geophysicist
International Engineering Co.
1777 S. Bellaire St.
Denver, Colorado 80222
Dale Uhl
Dale's Spray Service
Oneida, SD 57564
Allen E. Valentine
Director of Government & Public
Affairs
Cement Division, National Gypsum Co.
P.O. Box 887
Southfield, MI 48037
Victor H. Vodra
Director, Research & Development
Birko Corporation
P.O. Box 1315
Denver, Colorado 80201
Larry Wapensky
Physical Scientist
EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado 80226
John L. Warren
Section Leader-Solid Waste Disposal
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
MS-517, P.O. Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Ken Webber
Landfill Supervisor
Colorado Disk, Inc.
3925 S. Kalamath
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Jack Westney
Staff Executive
Houston Chamber of Commerce
1100 Milan Street, 25th Fl.
Houston, Texas 77002 M
Earl Robert White
Health & Regulatory Affairs Chemist
Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc.
2075 North 55th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Lynne White
Colorado State University
2115 W. Plum - #7
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521
D. L. Whiting
Reg. Manager
Hazleton ES
2257 So. 1100 E, Suite 20
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
James L. Wible
Executive Vice-President
Delta Drilling Co.
P.O. Box 2012
Tyler, Texas 75710
-------
20
G. E. Wilkinson
Technical Associate
Gardinier Big River, Inc.
P.O. Box 3269
Tampa, Florida 33601
J. Kemper Will
Asst. Regional Counsel
EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado 80203
C. G. Wills
Enforcement Specialist
EPA-NEIC
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado
Lee Wilson
Assistant Vice President
Radian Corp.
8500 Shial Creek Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78766
John C. Winkley
Manager, Air & Water Quality
Control
CF&I Steel Corp.
P.O. Box 316
Pueblo, Colorado 81002
Carol Winston
Environmental Coordinator
City of Broomfield
#6 Garden Office Center
Broomfield, Colorado 80020
Wayne S. Winters
Senior Environmental Engineer
U.S. Steel, Geneva Works
Prove, Utah 84601
W.W. Wright
Senior Engineer
Shell Chemical
P.O. Box 2633
Deer Park, Texas 77536
------- | |