5581
                                                        905R82112
           UNITED  STATES ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                 x-
                           PUBLIC HEARING

                       RE:  STANDARDS FOR OWNERS

                      AND OPERATORS OF  HAZARDOUS

                       WASTE TREATMENT,  STORAGE

                        AN'D DISPOSAL FACILITIES
                                   Thursday,.'March 11, 1982

                                   EPA     " -'- '
                                   Waterside. Mall
                                   401  "M"' Street, S.W.
                                   Room 3906
                                   Washington, D.C.
                The PUBLIC  HEARING in the above-entitled

    matter convened at  9:00  a.m.
U.S. rr~v'r::r-"--r;
                                    Pro' ;ct:on Agsn
                                   605G4
                         Diversified Reporting Services, lac.
                                 P.O. BOX 23S82
                             WASHINGTON. D.C. 20O24
                                 (20Z) 547-8100

-------
       2


       3


       4


       5


       6

       7


       8


       9


       10


       11


       12


       13


       14


       15

       16

       17

       18

       19


       20


       21


       22


       23


       24


       25
DHS, Inc.
          APPEARANCES:
 Panel Members:
       GARY DIETRICH, Chairman
       Director of the Office  of Solid Waste
       Environmental Protection Agency    ;

       BILL PEDERSEN
       Office of General  Counsel
       Environmental Protection Agency

       RON BRAND
       Office of Policy and  Resource
       Management
       Environmental Protection Agency
 Also Present:
S. Environ;"::ni'

-------
                                      INDEX
      4

      5

      6

      7

      8

      9

     10

     11

     12

     13

     14

     15

     16

     17

     18

     19

     20

     21

     22



DRS, Inc.
Speaker

    Opening Remarks  by Chairman Dietrich

    Honarable James  J.  Florio

    Honarable Guy V.  Molinari

    Mr. Marvin Durning
                                              5

                                             18

                                             26

                                             32
    Mr. Ted Reese
    '• . M  .'  • '/ h ' -' \ u^  >,-
    Mr. David .Fetter-
    Mr. Peter Vardy

    Mr. Philip Palmer

    Mr. Peter N. Skinner

    Mr. Ted Clardy

    Mr. William Eichbaum
        -31
    Mr.
McMillan
    Mr. Thomas Williams

    Mr. John Schofield

    Ms. Mary Kay Parker

    Mr. Gregg Franklin
    :Vl";,  j-, r+TV-re"',''/-'.' J ,i /, ^
    Ms. Khristine  Hall

    Ms. Jane Bloom

    Robert Janereau

    Mr. Barny Wander

    Mr. Kenneth Walanski

    Mr. Ernest Norman

    Ms. Mary Rosso
                                             69

                                             79

                                            '/OO
143

146

161

169

178

192

196

206

212

219

226

240

255

264

-------
f~
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22
                   INDEX  (Continued)






                   Mr. Lewis  Bellinger




                   Ms. Carol  Vitek




                   Mr. Ambrose  B.  Kelly




                   Dr. Bruce  Malholt




                   Donald Carruth
                                                        267




                                                        271




                                                        276




                                                        276




                                                        282
C«
                                              Ufl^/c



                                            J^/UUifld AfM
                        M s.
                              u
                           & G*
     DBS, Inc.

-------
                    ADDENDUM



ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD;


           BARNEY WANDER
           ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

           ANNA MILLER GRABOWSKI

           PRUDENCE WIDLAK

-------
       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;




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Good morning, ladies and




gentlemen.  My name is Gary Dietrich,  I am Director of  the




Office of Solid Waste.  I will be chairing this Public




Hearing.




          The purpose of this hearing is to take public




comment on EPA's February 25, 1982 ninety-day extension  of




the date for complying with the Agency's regulatory prohibi-




tion of the land filling of containerized hazardous wastes




that contain free liquids.




          Additionally, the purpose of this hearing is to




take public comments on two petitions received by the Agency




regarding that extension.




          One of these petitions was submitted by the




Hazardous Waste Treatment Council on March 1, 1982. This




petition asks EPA to administratively stay the February  25th




extension pending judicial review of that action.




          On March 8, 1982, the Council petitioned the




United States Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit for such




judicial review.




          The other petition was submitted on March 3, 1982,




by the National Solid Waste Management Association.  This




petition asks EPA to immediately promulgate, on a temporary,




interim, final basis, the rule proposed by EPA on February 25,




1982.
DRS, inc.

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
          To provide a background for this hearing, let me




review the events that have led to the issues to be discussed




here today.




          On May 19, 1980, EPA published interim final




standards applicable to existing interim status landfills.




Among these standards was a requirement that prohibited the




landfill disposal of containerized liquid hazardous waste and




containerized hazardous wastes containing any amount of free




liquid.  This requirement became effective on November 19,




1981.




          The principal purpose of this requirement was to




eliminate one of the several sources of water and other liquid;




that may enter a landfill and generate leachate that potential




ly can leak from the landfill and contaminate ground water.




          Other requirements in the May 1980 interim status




standards are directed at controlling and minimizing other,




larger sources of leachate generation.




          These other sources of leachate generation are  (1)




direct natural precipitation on the landfill which infiltrates




into the waste and  forms leachate;  (2) natural precipitation




run-off from surrounding areas that run onto or into the




landfill and generates leachate; and  (3) bulk liquids placed




into the landfill.




          A second  purpose of the containerized waste disposal




requirement is to minimize subsidence.  Containers eventually

-------
        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
DRS, Inc.
will degrade and rupture, losing whatever free liquid content




they contain.   These ruptured containers will usually collaps




causing subsidence.   Subsidence will usually cause rupture




and deformity of the final cover required to be placed on a




landfill at closure.




          Such disruption of the final cover can lead to




increased infiltration of natural precipitation through the




final cover and concommitant increased leachate generation




after closure.




          Importantly, the purpose of the containerized waste




disposal requirement was not to prohibit the landfill disposal




of any type or class of containerized liquid hazardous waste,




but rather to prohibit the landfill disposal of any container-




ized hazardous wastes in free liquid form as opposed to solid




or semi-solid form.




          Indeed, the Agency and many of the regulated




community foreaw that the principal means of complying with




this requirement would be the adding of absorbent material to




containerized wastes holding free liquids, in order to convert




the free liquids to solid or semi-solid form before landfill




disposal.




          To the extent that this method would be employed




for compliance, the requirement would not result in lessening




or changing the types or classes of containerized waste




disposed of in interim status hazardous waste landfills.

-------
       1





       2





       3





       4





       5





       6




       7





       S





       9





      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16




      17




      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
DBS, Inc.
                                                           8





           The Agency  recognized, however,  that  some facility




operators  would choose  to  comply with  the  requirement by de-




canting or otherwise  removing  free  liquid  from  containers




and  treating these  liquids.




           It also recognized that some generators or facility




operators  would opt to  incinerate or otherwise  treat




containerized wastes, and  thereby avoid the  landfill disposal




of these wastes.




           To the extent these  methods  would  be  used, the




types  and  amounts of  containerized  hazardous wastes landfilled




would  be changed.




           I feel compelled to  emphasize the  above points about




what are and are not  the purposes of the containerized waste




disposal requirements.




           Our data  and  analyses supporting this requirement




and  supporting our  actions of  February 25th  focus on the




[degree of  regulation  necessary to minimize leachate volume and




subsidence.




           These  data  and analyses are  not  sufficient to enable




us to  deal with  the question of the type and classes of hazar-




dous wastes,  including  liquid  hazardous wastes, that should




or  should  not be disposed  of  in landfills.




           We  recognize  that this latter question is an




 important  one  -- and  perhaps a more important one — and we




 did  discuss  this  in the preamble of the February 25th

-------
        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 degrade and rupture, losing whatever free liquid content




they contain.   These ruptured containers will usually collaps




causing subsidence.   Subsidence will usually cause rupture




and deformity of the final cover required to be placed on a




landfill at closure.




          Such disruption of the final cover can lead to




increased infiltration of natural precipitation through the




final cover and conconunitant increased leachate generation




after closure.




          Importantly, the purpose of the containerized waste




disposal requirement was not to prohibit the landfill disposal




of any type or class of containerized liquid hazardous waste,




but rather to prohibit the landfill disposal of any container-




ized hazardous wastes in free liquid form as opposed to solid




or semi-solid form.




          Indeed, the Agency and many of the regulated




community foreaw that the principal means of complying with




this requirement would be the adding of absorbent material to




containerized wastes holding free liquids, in order to convert




the free liquids to solid or semi-solid form before landfill




disposal.




          To the extent that this method would be employed




for compliance, the requirement would not result in lessening




or changing the types or classes of containerized waste




disnosed of in interim status hazardous waste landfills.
DBS, Inc.

-------
                                                                    8
       2





       3





       4





       5





       6





       7





       3





       9





      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16





      17





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
DRS, Inc.
          The Agency recognized, however, that some facility




operators would choose to comply with the requirement by de-




canting or otherwise removing free liquid from containers




and treating these liquids.




          It also recognized that some generators or facility




operators would opt to incinerate or otherwise treat




containerized wastes, and thereby avoid the landfill disposal




of these wastes.




          To the extent these methods would be used, the




types and amounts of containerized hazardous wastes landfilled




would be changed.




          I feel compelled to emphasize the above points about




what are and are not the purposes of the containerized waste




disposal requirements.




          Our data and analyses supporting this requirement




and supporting our actions of February 25th focus on the




degree of regulation necessary to minimize leachate volume and




subsidence.




          These data and analyses are not sufficient to enable




us to deal with the question of the type and classes of hazar-




dous wastes, including liquid hazardous wastes, that should




or should not be disposed of in landfills.




          We recognize that this latter question is an




important one -- and perhaps a more important one — and we




did discuss this in the preamble of the February 25th

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
proposed rule, and indicated that we have studies underway to




address this natter.  Importantly, we do not now have suffi-




cient data to support restriction of land disposal of




containerized free liquid waste for purposes other than




minimizing leachate volume or subsidence.




          Consequently, it will be very difficult, if not




impossible, for us to take action on the matters before us




today for the purpose of restricting or not restricting the




types of containerized wastes that are lar.dfilled.




          For example, it would be difficult for us to take




action to prohibit or continue the prohibition of solvents




being land disposed for the reason that they are solvents and




are toxic solvents.




          The reason we would deal with that, at this point




in time based on the data analyses we have, is that those




solvents are or would be in liquid form and would add to




leachate volume.




          Following promulgation of the containerized waste




disposal requirement in May 1980, EPA received, in response




to its request for public comment, numerous comments princi-




pally objectina to the ?Vringency of the rule; that is,




objecting to the prohibition of the landfill disposal of




containerized wastes containing any amount of free liquids.




          This issue was also raised by several of the




petitioners in the Shell Oil_Company vs. EPA litigation 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
                                                          10



the May 1980 regulations.  Both commenters and objecting




petitioners contended that the requirement was difficult and




expensive to implement because it required landfill operators




to open and inspect virtually all containers of waste to




determine if they contained free liquids in any amount.




          They further claimed that the requirement was




overreaching; that it was not necessary to eliminate all




containerized free liquids but only necessary to minimize




containerized free liquids within some reasonable limit to




control leachata generation and subsidence for the purpose of




adequately protecting human health and the environment.




          EPA carefully considered these public comments.




It also met with the litigation petitioners to better under-




stand their concerns, to obtain relevant information from them




on this issue, and to seek their agreement with a proposed




resultion.




          The Agency has typically met with litigation




petitioners in the Shell Oil Company vs. EPA case and other




cases to resolve litigation issues in order to avoid expensive




and time consuming litigation on technically complex issues




in the Courtroom.




          After consideration of the public comments and




discussions with the petitioners, the Agency recognized that




the containerized waste disposal requirement was difficult to




implement and unnecessarily stringent.
DBS, Inc.

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
                                                          11






          It concluded that a more practical but environmental-'




ly protective requirement would be one that limited the free




liquid content of individual containers of hazardous wastes




to approximately ten percent by volume.




          Under such a requirement, the contribution of




containerized free liquids to leachate generation from all




sources would still be very small and far exceeded by the




leachate resulting from natural precipitation.




          Also, under such a requirement, subsidence would




be minimized and within managable limits.  The Agency




presented this ten percent proposal to the litigation




petitioners.  While agreeing with this objective, they pointed




out that the requirement would still be difficult to implement




because it would require the opening and inspection of




virtually all containers of waste to determine free liquid




content in order to comply with the requirement.




          Several of the litigation petitioners proposed a




different approach which they claimed would achieve the same




environmental objective, would be more practical to implement




and enforce and, in addition, would deal more precisely with




the subsidence problem.




          EPA carefully studied this alternative and ultimate-




ly concluded that, with a few changes, it would serve as a




sufficient requirement.  This modified alternative was proposed




in the Federal Register on February 25, 1982, with a request

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
                                                          12



for public comments.  Also in that proposal, the Agency




solicited comments on the ten percent approach it had pro-




posed to the litigation petitioners.




          Given that the Agency had concluded that the prohi-




bition requirement was unnecessarily stringent and difficult




to implement, it faced the question of whether that require-




ment should remain in effect or be temporarily extended while




rulemaking on the proposed alternative requirements was being




undertaken.




          The Agency concluded that it was unreasonable to cause




the regulated community to bear the burden and cost of comply-




ing with such a requirement that might well soon be changed.




          Therefore, the Agency decided that it was justified




and reasonable to extend the effective date of the prohibition




requirement for a short time, ninety days, while corapletina




the  rulemaking on the proposed alternatives.




          We believe that we had good cause under the




Administrative Procedures Act to take that action without




notice and comments.  In taking that action, the Agency did




not believe that it would significantly lessen protection of




human health or the environment.




          It concluded the amount of containerized free liquids




that would be allowed to be disposed of in landfills over the




ninety-day extension period would not significantly increase




leachate generation or subsidence nor cause or significantly

-------
       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
                                                           13






increase ground water contamination over that which  otherwise




might occur.




          The decisions described above — both to propose




alternative requirements and extend the effective date of the




prohibition requirement — were tentatively made in  early




November of 1981 when it was thought that they might be pub-




lished in the Federal Register on or before November 19, 1931,




the effective date of the prohibition requirement.




          Unfortunately, the press of other business delayed




their final approval and publication in the Federal  Register




until February 25, 1982.




          EPA recognizes that this delayed action, particularly




with respect to the extension, has left the impression that




the Agency was reacting to noncompliance or avoided  compliance




with the prohibition requirement which did, indeed,  become




effective on November 19, 1981.




          Apparently, the regulated community, having know-




ledge about the Agency's resolution of this issue with the




litigation petitioners,  and expecting early publication of the




proposed change, largely chose to store containerized wastes




pending the forthcoming relief.




          I can assure you, however, that in its publication




of the proposed alternative requirements and the extension of




the effective date of the prohibition requirement on




February 25, 1982, the Agency was not reacting to compliance
DBS, Lac.

-------
       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       6

       7

       3

       9

      10

      11

      12

      13

      14

      15

      16
      17

      18

      19

      20

      21

      22

      23

      24

      25
DHS, Inc.
                                                          14
problems, but instead was completing action on decisions made
early in November 1981.
          As I've already stated, today's hearing is to focus
on the Agency's temporary extension of the effective date of
the prohibition on landfill disposal of containerized free
liquid wastes and on the two petitions received by the Agency
regarding that extension.
          The Agency hopes to obtain information and data
which will help it in acting on these petitions and in taking
any one of the following actions or any other possible action
that miaht be suggested today.
          One, leave the extension in place until May 26,
1982, by which time the Agency expects to take final action on
the proposed alternative requirements.
          Two, remove or stay the extension, thereby causing
the prohibition requirement to again become effective until
final action is taken on the proposed alternative requirement.
          Three, promulgate either of the alternative require-
ments in interim final, immediately effective form, but
continue to take comments towards taking final action on them
at a later date.  This action would concurrently revoke the
prohibition requirement and the February 25th extension of
the effective date thereof.
          The basic questions before us today are two in
number:  Will the withdrawal or stay of the February 25th

-------
       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
                                                          15






extension result in unreasonable disruption of the orderly




management of containerized hazardous wastes and in possible




harm to human health or the environment because of such




destruction?




          Two, will the continuance of the extension or the




promulgation of either of the proposed alternative requirements




result in management of containerized hazardous waste which




cause potential harm to human health or the environment?




          In addressing these questions, it should be kept in




mind that the Agency is concerned about these effects over the




next three months, during which time the Agency hopes to act




on the proposed rule.




          In addition, there are underlying questions about the




amount and types of containerized hazardous waste currently




being landfilled, the landfill practices likely to be followed,




and the alternative management practices, such as 'incineration




or treatment, that might be used to manage these wastes.




We are hopeful that today's hearing will address these




questions.




          Today's hearing is an informal hearing.  I will




invite persons wishing to make comments to do so and will




invite members of this panel to ask clarifying questions or




ask questions to elicit more information from those persons.




          Many persons have already indicated their desire




to comment.  I have scheduled these persons in an orderly
nns, inc.

-------
       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
                                                          16





fashion and, in some cases, with consideration of their travel




schedule.  If others wish to make comments, they may give




their names to Gerri Wyer who is at the table immediately




outside this room, or may wait until I open this hearing for




comments from the floor.  At the end of this hearing, time




permitting, I will entertain rebuttal comments if there are an




          All oral statements taken today are being recorded




and a transcript of today's hearing will be placed in our




docket as soon as it is available.




          Additionally, if persons commenting have copies of




their prepared comments or have other supporting materials, we




will be glad to have these and will place them in the docket




immediately following this hearing.




          Generally, we would like to obtain all public




comments on this matter today in order to make expeditious




findings and a timely recommendation to the Administrator.




However, we will keep the record of this hearing open through




the close of business Monday next, March 15, 1982.




          Submission of material may be made to our Docket




Clerk whose name, address and phone number are now different




from that identified in the Federal Register notice announcing




this hearing, primarily because of a personnel shift and a




chanae in our office.  The Docket Clerk is now Robert Axelrad.




He is located in Room S-269 at this address and his phone




number is 202-382-4487.
DRS, Inc.

-------
       2





       3





       4





       5





       6





       7





       8





       9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18





       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
DBS, Inc.
                                                           17





          Serving on the panel with me are Bill Pedersen,




from our Office of General Counsel, who is on my immediate




left and Ron Brand, of our Office of Policy and Resource




Management.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Let me just make two additional




comments.  First, I count twenty-two people who wish to make




a statement.  We want, if all possible, to enforce a rule




that your direct statement not take longer than 15 minutes.




          I hope that many of you will be able to keep it  to




less than that.  It's faster to read the statement, which  I




know many of you have in prepared form, than it is to sit  here




while it's read into the record.




          The second comment is as we question people who  make




statements, if any of you want to pass up a written question




for us to consider asking, feel free to do so.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Without further ado, we will




proceed with the comments.  We are honored today to have the




Honorable James J. Florio, Congressman from New Jersey,




Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation and




Tourism, of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce




of the House of Representatives.




          Congressman Florio has been a firm supporter of




this program and we appreciate his taking the time from his




busy duties to be with us today.  Congressman?




          CONGRESSMAN FLORIO:  Thank you  very much.

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
        Statement of The Honorable James J. Florio




          CONGRESSMAN FLORIO:  I welcome the opportunity to




address this public hearing on the Agency's action suspending




the ban on landfilling of containerized liquids.




          I regret the fact that I am addressing this body




after the fact.  I would have preferred having the opportunity




to address someone with regard to the merits of lifting the




ban before the ban had been lifted.




          In ntany respects, the action that is going to flow




from this hearina will already be too late to stop some of




the problems that are resulting from the lifting of the ban.




          It is my understanding that someone is going to




testify this morning that some 220,000 gallons per day of




containerized liquids are being disposed of, perhaps inappro-




priately, as a result of the lifting of the ban.




          The Agency's actions in this matter are raally just




the latest manifestation of a policy direction that I find




very difficult to live with, that really has had some, in ny




opinion, adverse impacts upon the public health and the




public commitment to environmental protection.




          The net effect of the actions that are the subject




of today's hearing will be to allow unqualified disposal of




liquid and ianitable wastes into landfills for the next ninety




days; to permit containerized liquid wastes to account for




25 percent of future landfill capacity; to eliminate any

-------
                                                                     19
       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
DBS, Inc.
requirement for liners or leachate collection systems at




landfill facilities; to disrupt the incentives for proper




recycling and incineration of liquid wastes; and to give the




wrong signal to the regulated community and to the American




people, each of whom have a stake in a sound and reliable




waste management system; and lastely, to shift the burden of




uncertainty and risk to future generations who derive no




benefit from current land disposal practices.




          The ironies and the inconsistencies of the Agency's




actions in this matter abound.  The Agency justifies the




immediate lifting of the ban on the grounds that severe market




disruptions would occur if the ban were not lifted.




          However, if the consequences of the ban on disposers




and landfill facilities were expected to be so severe, why did




it take the Agency some 89 days until after the imposition of




the ban to modify it?




          I heard today in the opening statement that there




were other pressing matters of concern that allowed inaction tc




take place from November until February.  I'm just not siire I




can identify what the sense of priorities is that allows other




matters of concern, whatever they are, to allow this period of




time to pass without appropriate opportunities for comment and




before action was taken.




          Furthermore, the Agency's expressed concern with




market disruptions is limited to land disposal facilities and

-------
      10





      11





      12





      13




      14





      15





      16




      17





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
                                                                    20
their clients.  Why is it that alternative methods of dis-




posal do not merit similar consideration?




          The Agency states that it was forced to immediately




lift the ban because of the significant environmental hazards




that would occur when large quantities of accumulated drums




were inspected prior to their disposal.




          Such concern I suppose is laudible, but why is it




the Agency is not similarly concerned about the environmental




hazards of containerized liquids once they are actually placed




into the landfill?




          The statement in the opening presentation, I think




by way of preliminary explanation, indicated all of those




environmental problems associated with the disposal of




containerized liquids that are inappropriately disposed of.




          The Agency now claims that any environmental damage




will be minimal because the rate of leakage for landfills will




be slow, dispersed and contained within the landfill, yet as




recently as February 5, 1981, the Agency stated, and I quote:




          "Leachate inevitably leaks out of the land disposal




facilities and migrates into the underlying soils and ground-




water, unless a containment system is constructed and




permanently maintained. .  . SPA seriously questions whether




such systems can be maintained and operated for long periods
DBS, Inc.
of time."
          The Agency cites  the  fact  that only ten percent 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
DBS, Inc.
                                                          21



landfill wastes are containerized, yet most of the Superfund




sites are landfills and the primary problem at those landfills




is groundwater contamination from containerized solvent wastes.




          The Agency accurately states that some wastes are




difficult to dispose of by alternative means.  But, in




accommodating this concern, the Agency simply decided to




allow all wastes to be landfilled, rather than issuing




exceptions for certain problem wastes, which would have been




a much more thought-out approach to the problem.




          The Agency and certain elements of industry claim




that only a small amount of containerized liquid would ever




be placed into landfills.  If that's the case, then why allow




25 percent of future landfill capacity to be reserved for such j




wastes?




          The Agency now claims that liners and leachate       j




collection systems "... will not provide significant addition-




al protection against migration of these liquids into the




environment."   The fact that both the disposal and the




chemical industries recommended that they be required was




ignored in this latest action.




          The Aaency likewise states in connection with this




action that it is not responsible for determining the economic




consequences of its policies.  Apparently, economics and




proper administrative procedure only matter when a regulation




nay actually profit,  or protect public health, or prevent a

-------
      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16




      17





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
                                                          22





disaster, but not when the action will continue to give




landfilling a free ride.




          The folly of this decision is a symptom of a much




larger problem.  I call attention to other recent and




disturbing developments which can only signal a further retreat.




from protective management policies.




          The policy reflected in the containerized liquid




decision will likely govern the expansion of existing interim




status landfills, which will be allowed to expand by fifty




percent of existing capacity.  This too was a product of EPA




industry negotiation.




          There is every reason to believe -- and I have good




reason to believe — that these same standards will also




govern the court-ordered final standards for existing land




disposal facilities.




          The Agency has moved to suspend the liability




insurance requirement for hazardous waste facilities, thus




leaving innocent third parties with no recourse in the case of




an accident.




          The Agency has also moved to suspend final standards




for existing incinerator facilities, thus delaying permit




review of these facilities.




          The Agency is also on the verge of weakening the




groundwater monitoring requirements at land disposal facilities;




in a manner that would reauire reporting only when a violation
DBS, Inc.

-------
        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
DRS, Inc.
                                                           23




was detected by the operator.  Under this system, the Agency




v/ill not know whether contamination problems either do not




exist or that simply they were not reported.




          In light of the recent findings of the GAO




regarding the alarming rate  of non-compliance with safe




drinking water standards, such a move would only further




weaken controls on groundwater contamination.




          Enforcement under RCRA continues to be almost




non-existent.  The resources for permitting and state grants




are plummeting precisely when they are needed the most.




          No new wastes have been listed or included in the




system since November of 1980.  Yet, deiistinc and exempting




petitions continue to be granted at a rapid rate.  No action




is in sight on the listing of waste oil.




          Any one of these actions, taken seoarately, is




disturbing; taken collectively, however, they present a




demolition of virtually all past progress in moving towards




addressing the larger problem of hazardous waste disposal.




          Perhaps the single most disconcerting aspect of this




entire matter is the total lack of any national policy on land




disposal and groundwater protection.




          While previous Agency policy recognized the risk




of land disposal and attempted to limit its growth, the new




EPA, according to the Administrator, would have the public




believe that landfilling is "the lowest risk option currently

-------
       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
DHS, lac.
                                                          24



available for dealing with large quantities of hazardous


wastes."  That's a quote from a letter from the Administrator


to Congressman LaFalce.


          While individual states are approaching landfilling


as a method of last resort, the new EPA views it as "a common


sense alternative to the indiscriminant practices of the


past."


          The Administration has set disgracefully low goals


for itself in this matter, and is meeting them.  Until the


Agency addresses the issue of land disposal policy and ground-


water orotection, it will continue to react to one crisis afteif

                                                               !
another without any sense of direction or protection of public


health and the environment.


          The very fact of this hearing, coming after the


action and after the public outrats that's been manifested,


reinforces the idea of action and reaction to the action


being the only precipitating cause of modification of Agency


policies.


          This Agency's new-found love affair with landfillinq


must come to a rapid end.  It must structure its policies so


that land disposal reflects its true cost to society; only


then will there be true competition between acceptable


alternative technologies; and only then will we begin to


move away from the sorry status quo that's caused us so many


problems over this land.

-------
       2





       3





       4





       5





       6





       7





       8





       9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18





       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
DBS, Inc.
                                                          25





          I would urge the Agency to reverse the actions it




has taken by reimposing general restrictions on the disposal




of containerized liquids in landfills and allow some variance




for those wastes that currently have no other feasible




means of disposal.




          With regard to land disposal and groundwater




protection policy, the Agency has a real opportunity to make




a positive statement when it issues final standards for land




disposal facilities pursuant to the District Court order.




I hope that the Agency makes good use of that opportunity.




          Our system of hazardous wastes management cannot




change overnight; that's fully acknowledged.  But change it




must and it must change in an approved direction.




          In the weeks and months ahead, my Subcommittee will




be conducting hearings on the reauthcrization of the Resource




Conservation Recovery Act.  In the course of that reauthori-




zation set of hearings, we will be examining land disposal and




groundwater protection in depth with the aim of rekindling




constructive change in current policies and practice.




          I welcome the contribution of the Agency if the




Agency is committed to move forward in a progressive way.




I am hopeful that they are and look forward to working with




those members of the Agency who are committed to move in that




direction as well as to the general public.




          I appreciate the opportunity to say some words 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
DBS, Inc.
                                                          26



you this morning, and it goes without saying that I'm looking



forward to working with the Agency towards the ends that  I've



enunciated.



          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Mr. Congressman.



          We also have the honor of having The Honorable



Guy V. Molinari, Congressman from New York and a member of  the



Committee on Public Works and Transportation.



         Statement of The Honorable Guy V_. Molinari



          CONGRESSMAN MOLINARI:  Good morning.



          According to the Environmental Protection Aqency,



the purpose of this hearina today is to determine if the  re-



laxation of restrictions on the disposal of containerized toxiq

                                                               I
wastes is in the public interest.



          I an horrified that EPA feels that they are serving



the public interest by conducting such a hearing, after they



have already made the decision to allow operators to start


dumping toxic materials, without considering the possible



effect on the public before they did so.



          I find the action to be the equivalent to the



opening of all jails for a period of ninety days to determine



if the criminals within could possibly pose a threat to the



public on the outside.
                                                               i
                                                               I

          In ray opinion, the public is not being served by



EPA's actions, but industry certainly is getting the benefit.



Allowina the manufacturers and disoosal corncanies to aet  rid of

-------
       10
       11
       12
       13
       14

       15
       16
       17
       18
       19
       20
       21
       22
       23
       24
       25
                                                           27
millions of gallons of their unwanted wastes to the ultimate
detriment of the rest of the population.
          EPA is charged, by law, with an oversight responsi-
bility to protect the public from the dangers of hazardous
materials.  In my view, you have failed in that responsibility.
          By relaxing the dumping regulations, you have placed
the oversight responsibility on the backs of the very people
who have the most to gain by not complying with the law.  EPA
has not only changed the rules, but has charged the dumpers
with listing the contents they are dropping into the earth,
by simply filling out manifests that won't be checked for
their accuracy.
          This, to companies that are trying frantically to
get rid of millions of tons of highly toxic waste, that would
otherwise be very costly to destroy.
          What is even more incredible, EPA announces that
they are well aware of the possibility that the containers
will corrode, spilling their dangerous contents into the
ground.
          And even though EPA calls for some precautions, they
admit that seepage would certainly result from such spillage.
          How can we trust EPA, or industry, when they say
"Trust us, we will do the right thing"?  Upon what record can
we base the trust that you are asking us to give?
          Here is what the recent oast has shown:  Under the
DRS, Inc.

-------
      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16





      17





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24
                                                                    28
          very  noses  of  EPA  and  the  New York  State  Department of




          Environmental  Conservation,  unscrupulous  waste  material




          handlers  have  illegally  dumped toxic  waste  containing deadly




          PCBs  in areas  close  to public residences.   I  say this only




          so  that I can  illustrate what we  can  expect by  way of over-




          sight by  EPA by  referring  to actions  that have  occurred in ray




          own Congressional  District.




                   DEC  and  EPA  have allowed  the transfer of those




          materials along  public highways,  across state lines, by a
company that was already under indictment for illegally




dumping toxic materials in two states.  That transfer was




accomplished under a manifest, such as the one that you




propose that we trust to allow dumping under your current




prooram.




          In the incident to which I refer, the company listed j




the contents as ordinary "waste oil".  That material was later




identified as toxic waste containing PCBs, and large quantities,




I night add.  It was then mixed with other oil products, and




then it was shipped back to New York, where it was listed on




the manifest as "home heating oil".    They were sold to the




unsuspecting public, who still suffer from its toxic effects.




So much for unchecked manifests and the "Don't worry, you can




trust us" theory.




          How does EPA's oversight work?  Your Agency has
       25 |
already issued a preliminary approval for the construction of
DRS, Inc.

-------
        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
                                                           29
a coal and refuse burning plant in my home District on
Staten Island.  Incredibly, the tower of that proposed plant
will be cooled by the waters from the Arthur Kill, the most
highly polluted stretch of water in the country.
          That approval, by the way, came after it was
discovered that forty million gallons of highly toxic waste
had been dumped into the Kill over five years, from one source
alone.
          The Arthur Kill, which experts have shown has an
extremely high concentration of dangerous chemicals and tons
of raw human waste containing enough deadly bateria to read
like a medical science dictionary -- that water will become
vapor and will spread over Staten Island and surrounding
areas like a toxic blanket.   Oversight by EPA?  What
oversight?
          The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is currently
looking into the reactivation of the largest liquid natural
gas tanks in the country, again in my District.  The project
falls once again within the oversight of the EPA.
          For eleven years -- for eleven years -- unscrupulous
operators, once again under the very noses of EPA, and maybe
I should interrupt at this point to make a statement that I
certainly don't intend to classify all the interim status
generators as being in this category.  I am saying this only
to illustrate the failures of EPA in the oversiaht area.
DRS, Inc.

-------
       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
DHS, Inc.
                                                          30





          But, for eleven years, unscrupulous operators,



once again under the very noses of EPA, have been dumping



enormous quantities of highly toxic waste into a garbage dump



in my district; as a matter of fact, five garbage dumps in the



City of New York that we know of.



          Experts have told me that those chemicals are



seeping into the water surrounding Staten Island at the rate



of 4,000 gallons a day.  This is another source.  Those



waters will be used at that power plant that I mentioned.



          In N'ew Jersey, industry has been illegally dumping



enormous quantities of toxic chemicals in landfills and the



waters nearby to say nothing of the noxious chemical fumes



that pour over into New York.



          Is this the same kind of oversight that EPA clans to !
                                                               !
                                                               i

utilize to protect us against the millions of gallons of filth j



that they are allowing to be dumped all cx^er America?  So



much for oversight.  And now, EPA conducts hearings to deter-



mine if the public health might be threatened by their most



recent action — hearings held after they have opened the



flood gates.



          Has EPA formed an unholy alliance with the very



people that they are supposed to guard us against?  What



indeed was the prime motivating factor that caused EPA to



relax the regulations on dumping?  An action, by the way,



that has been called by toxicologists that I've contacted all

-------
      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16





      17





      18




      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
DRS, Inc.
                                                                    31
over the country, "an act of lunacy".   It appears that Shell




Oil Company sued EPA for a relaxation of the rules, and the




Agency's reaction was to settle out of court; in fact, they




went further, to say that the Courts couldn't handle these




difficult, technical, complex questions.   That's quite an




indictment of the judicial system in this country.




          By reducing the requirements on dumping for a very




generous ninety days, whose suggestion did EPA take to rectify




the problem that industry finds so hard to face?  The




suggestion, so easily agreed to by EPA, came from the chemical




industry itself, the very people who are affected most by your




action.




          I have personally written letters of complaint to




the President, with copies to you at EPA.  I'm sad to say that




to this day, I haven't even received the courtesy of an




acknowledgment that those letters were received.




          Do you now understand why more and more members of




Congress are questioning your decisions and lack of decisions?




I demand that you immediately reinstate the regulations that




were scheduled to go into effect last November.




          But you'd better do it now, because even as we meet




here, the trucks are rolling into 900 landfills all over




America, carrying a deadly legacy that our children and grand-




children have no choice but to accept.




          I thank you for the opportunity to present my views

-------
       2





       3





       4





       5





       6





       7





       8





       9





      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16





      17





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
DRS, Inc.
                                                          32






here today.




           (Applause.)




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Congressman.




          Next, I'm going to call on Mr. Marvin Durninq, who




is representing the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, of




Washington, D.C.




               Statement of Marvin Durninq, Esq.




          MR. DURNING:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members




of the Panel.  At the outset, I would like to turn over to




your Docket Clerk for entry in the record a copy of my




statement today together with the technical appendix referred




to in the statement and a copy of the brief of the Hazardous




Waste Treatment Council for Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal




or Summary Reversal in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.




Circuit.  By doing that, ws can eliminate all discussion of




our legal arguments and perhaps save you considerable time.




          In addition, I would submit for che record a letter




just received  by Mr. Ed Kleppinger, an Environmental




Consultant who has also assisted the Counsel from the Texas




Department of Water Resources, concerning the Department of




Water Resources' policy prohibiting containerized liquid waste




in landfills in Texas and their lack of difficulty in




enforcing that prohibition.   I'd like ro submit that for




the record.




          The Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, a nonprofit

-------
        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





corporation, is a recently formed association of firms which




primarily treat or destroy hazardous wastes as opposed to




disposing of them in landfills.  The Council now has six




members; many other firms are considering joining the Council




at this very time.




          EPA's action lifting the ban on landfilling of




drummed hazardous wastes threatens public health and the




environment.  Hazardous wastes are just that — they are




hazardous to humans and to other living things when they are




improperly manaced.




          They include poisons, cancer-causing substances,




substances which can sicken, burn, explode, and kill.  Hundred^




of thousands of drums containing millions of gallons of liquid




hazardous wastes are generated each year in America.




          In the past, they have been dumped in landfills and




covered up at thousands of sites.  By the bitter experience




of Love Canal and hundreds of other sites, we have learned




that drums decay, whether they decay quickly or later and




slowly, they deteriorate.  The liquids leak out, threatening




wells, aquifers and neighboring homes.




          EPA does not dispute this; indeed, its February




25, 1982 Notice in the Federal Register says: "SPA strongly




believes that introduction of containerized free liquids in




landfills should be minimized to the extent possible, if not




orohibited.. . "
DBS, Inc.

-------
       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
DflS, Inc.
                                                          34





          Notwithstanding this, EPA has lifted its ban on




disposal of drummed liquid hazardous wastes, both ignitable




and non-ignitable, in landfills and has thereby increased the




threat to public health and the environment.




          EPA's action lifting the ban on drummed hazardous




liquids in landfills was unlawful.  It was unlawful when it




was made; it's unlawful today; it remains unlawful every day




that the ban was not in effect.




          In the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of




1976, Congress directed the Administrator of the Environmental




Protection Agency to adopt regulations tracking and controlling




the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, and dis-




posal of hazardous wastes.  Over five years have passed and




that regulatory system is not yet in place.




          On May 19, 1980, EPA adopted its Interim Status




regulations, providing in general that firms storing, treating




or disposing of hazardous wastes could obtain interim status




and the right to continue in operation until final standards




were adopted and permits issued by notifying EPA of their




activities and carrying out a prescribed course of monitoring




to detect health or environmental problems.




          In these interim status regulations, EPA recognized




the urgency of acting with regard to two classes of especially




dangerous hazardous wastes, liquid hazardous wastes and




ignitable hazardous wastes.  For these two classes, EPA

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
                                                          35



adopted substantive rules.




          Recognizing the overwhelming evidence of danger




from placing liquids in landfills, the interim status




regulations specifically restricted landfilling of bulk or non-




containerized hazardous liquids, and prohibited, after a




transition period, placing drums of hazardous liquids in




landfills.




          The transition period was set at 18 months to allow




time for generators to get ready and for the development of




facilities employing environmentally safe alternate technology.




The ban on putting drummed hazardous liquids in landfills was




set for November 19, 1981.




          The interim status regulations said that ignitable or




reactive hazardous wastes could not be placed in landfills




unless they were first rendered non-reactive or non-ignitable.




          This ban on putting ignitable or reactive wastes




in landfills was to take effect November 19, 1980.  The




effective date was later postponed for containerized liquid




ignitable wastes to May 19, 1981 and then again postponed to




November 19, 1981,




          In the 22-month interval since 'lay 19, 1980,  members !




of the Council and others have invested millions of dollars in




facilities to incinerate, chemically treat, or chemically fix,




liquid hazardous wastes.




          This hearing is held because on February 13,  19S2,

-------
       1




       2




       3




       4




       5




       6




       7  i




       8




       9




      10




      11




      12




      13




      14




      15




       16




       17




       18




       19




       20




       21




       22




       23




       24




       25
DBS, Inc.
                                                          36




the EPA abandoned the requirements of RCRA and the



Administrative Procedures Act and, without a public record,



without notice, without opportunity for comment, lifted the



ban on landfilling drummed liquid and liquid ignitable hazard-



ous waste for ninety days; that is, until May 26, 1982.



          As an aside, the lifting of the ban was made



effective February 18; and the day May 26th is really 97 days  |



rather than ninety and all of the figures I'll use later should



be increased by seven days.



          At the same time, EPA simultaneously proposed a new



rule to allow 25 percent of the volume of the landfill to be



used for drummed hazardous liquids, both ignitable and non-



ignitable.  This is all the more dangerous, because EPA has

                                                               i


also recently substantially weakened and proposed to weaken the
                                                               i


monitoring requirements for landfills.                         j



          Ten days aero, on March 1, 1982, our Council



petitioned the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia



Circuit to review the lifting of the ban concerning both



ignitable and non-ignitable liquids, and asked EPA to restore



the ban pendincr judicial review.



          Three days ago, on March 8, 1982, we asked the



Court of Appeals to order reimposition of the ban, pending



their hearing the matter on its merits.



          EPA's action lifting the ban on February 18, 1982



was unlawful.  Our reasons and authorities are set out in our

-------
       5





       6





       7





       8





       9





      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16





      17





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
DRS, Inc.
                                                           37



Request for an Administrative Stay and in the Brief to the




D.C. Circuit which I have given you, so I will skip over them




here.




          EPA1s response to date has been to call this hearing




We understand, however, that yesterday in a hearina before the




Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House




Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Mr. Christopher




Capper, Acting Assistant Administrator of EPA and Mr. Gary




Dietrich, Director of the Office of Solid Wastes, said that




lifting the ban was a mistake.




          It was indeed a mistake -- a serious and a dangerous




mistake -- a mistake which created an open season for putting




drummed hazardous liquids in landfills.




          Let us take an example.  The National Solid Waste




Management Association in a letter dated October 16, 1981 to




Gary Dietrich of EPA, the letter is appended to the Associa-




tion's petition to EPA in this matter.




          In that letter, the Association said that its member




firms "...receive over forty million gallons of containerized




liquid hazardous waste annually", and estimated,  "...the annua




receipts of containerized waste with some free liquid to be




630,000 drums or approximately forty million gallons."




          This estimate is but a part of the total, for it




excludes on-site disposers and some off-site disposers,




Assuming the figures to be correct,   EPA's promise  to lift

-------
 1






 2





 3





 4





 5





 6





 7





 8  i





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
DflS, Inc.
                                                                     38





          the ban, which resulted in three months of storage from the




          promise, and its subsequent lifting of the ban for ninety,




          really 91, days, means that a minimum -- a minimum — of




          315,000 drums containing twenty million gallons of hazardous




          liquids could move into landfills in the ninety-day period




          between February 25 and May 26, 1982, an averacre of about




          3,500 drums, or 220,000 gallons per day, and it would be




          perfectly lawful under federal law.




                    EPA's admitting it has made a mistake is not




          enough.  Calling a hearing is not enough.  Thousands of drums,




          containing millions of gallons of hazardous liquids have




          already gone or can go to landfills while we talk and await




          EPA's decision.




                    EPA should immediately restore the ban, subject  to




          simple technical interpretation which will avoid any real




          problems in its implementation.




                    The proposed 25 percent of the landfill volume rule




          is unsafe.  It  is really just a continuation of past and




          present bad practices.




                    The rule proposed by EPA on February 25, 1982, to




          allow 25 percent of the volume of landfills to be used for




          drummed liquid  wastes would be merely a ratification of past




          bad practices in its practical effect.




                    The rule, by allowing 25 percent of the landfill




          cell to be containerized liquids, simply creates a ratio of

-------
       1


       2


       3


       4


       5



       6


       7


       3


       9


       10


       11


       12


       13


       14


       15


       16


       17


       18


       19


       20


       21


       22


       23


       24


       25
DRS, Inc.
                                                          39



thrsa parts of fill or other waste to one part drummed liquid.


Combined with the expansion of landfills, and we've heard


there are some 800 or 900 interim status landfills, combined


with the expansion of landfills allowed under the interim


status regulation, this proposal would not restrict any land-


filling of liquid wastes.


          The ratio proposed by EPA is the existing practice ofj


landfill operators engaged in the burying of drummed liquids.


Its promulgation by EPA will not change any existing


practices.  Adoption of a "paper" restriction such as this


proposal would be -- it would be, let's say disingenuous.


It would be "dumping as usual", repeating the mistakes of


the past.


          Adoption of the proposed rule as an interim final


rule would also be illegal, for all of the reasons the


suspension of the ban itself is unlawful.  The Council will


immediately seek judicial review of any such "paper"


restriction put into effect as "interim final".


          If EPA wishes to change the Agency's direction,


this years long determined direction, on this issue, in a


basic and fundamental way, the law requires that all procedural]
                                                               i
                                                               I
safeguards be adhered to and that the affected public have the


right to comment on the shift.  We do not believe that the


public will tolerate such a shift and a return to "dumping as


usual".

-------
       1



       2



       3



       4



       5



       5


       7



       3



       9



       10



       11



       12



       13


       14



       15



       16


       17


       18


       19



       20



       21



       22



       23



       24



       25
DHS, Inc.
                                                           40



          Incidental liquids in di mir.imis amounts and


voids in drums, both of which are problems which have been


mentioned in implementing the ban, these problems can be


addressed by technical amendment to the May 19, 1980


regulations and can come into effect with the restoration


of the ban.


          The issue of incidental liquids in containerized


solid wastes can be addressed without any suspension or


revision of Section 265.312(b) or 26-.314(b), provided the


incidental liquids are really incidental and they are de


minimis in amount.


          The Council has submitted to EPA in its technical


appendix which I handed to you a proposed technical amendment


which would interpret the containerized liquid ban to allow up


to five percent free liquids in an individual drum.


          This technical interpretation is based on the


actual practice in several states that restrict free liquids.


          In addition, our suggested technical amendment would


allow up to ten percent void space in a drum.  The void space


allowance is important to allow for safe transportation of the


containers.


          This technical amendment could be put into effect


simultaneously with restoration of the ban.  The Council's


oroposal would implement the ban and overcome any real oroblems-

                                                               i
without creating a major loophole, such as the proposed 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
DHS, Inc.
                                                           41





percent of the landfill rule.




          The suggested technical amendment is a minor change,




carrying out the goal of the May 19, 1980 ban, clarifying  the




intent and removing ambiguity.  It can, therefore, be




implemented immediately.




          The 25 percent of the landfill rule, or any other




rule allowing more than de ininimis amounts of liquids and




voids, would frustrate, rather than implement, the policy  of




the May 19, 1980 ban and, therefore, cannot be put into




effect without prior notice and comment.




          There is sufficient capacity to safely treat




drummed liquid hazardous wastes.  In its February 25, 1982




Federal Register notice of the proposed 25 percent rule, EPA




said that it did not find compelling merit in comments




received about difficulties in meeting the November 19, 1981




deadline or lack of capacity in alternate technologies.




          EPA pointed to incineration, deep well injection,




solvent recovery, other recovery, wastewater treatment, de-




watering technologies, chemical absorbent processes, and




keeping liquid and solid wastes separate at the generation




point.




          We agree with EPA.  Present alternate technology




facilities have excess capacity.  Moreover, capacity will




increase if there is a demand for services.




          Whether there are oroblem liauids for which there is

-------
       2





       3





       4





       5





       6





       7





       3





       9





      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16





      17  !





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





       24





       25
                                                          42






no alternative to landfilling is unclear, but the burden of




showing this should be on the generator or the disposer.




          Some have said that there are problem wastes for




which no alternative to landfilling exists.  If so, EPA should




place the burden of demonstrating this fact on the generator




or the disposer.




          It is unconscionable to allow wholesale landfilling




of all drummed liquids because it is alleged by somebody that




a few problem wastes may exist.




          Such problem wastes, if any, can be addressed




immediately through the provision for rulemaking petitions in




40 C.F.R. §260.20.  In the longer term, EPA could propose and




adopt an appropriate procedure for case-by-case variances




from the drummed liquids and lanfills rule.  Several states




already have procedures of this type.




          Landfilling of all highly persistent and extremely




toxic wastes should be prohibited.  The Council also urges




EPA to restrict other types of hazardous waste from being




lar.df illed.




          Highly persistent and extremely toxic wastes should




be restricted from land disposal, just as liquid hazardous




wastes should be.  EPA should not and need not wait until




1984 or 1935 before it begins to consider additional




restrictions.




          Several states have restrictions which provide an
DRS, Inc.

-------
       1





       2





       3





       4





       5





       6





       7





       3





       9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18





       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
immediate and effective place for EPA to start.  The Council




is developing a detailed submission on this issue which we




will be acting on within the coming weeks.




          Gentlemen, time is of the essence.  More than five




years after enactment of the Resource Conservation and




Recovery Act, there are now no federal restrictions on drummed




liquid hazardous wastes being put in the around and covered up.




          EPA has made a serious mistake in lifting the ban




which was finally effective after many delays on November 19,




1981.  There is a simple and quick way to immediately restore




the ban while clarifying it and removing any real problems.




The clarifying technical amendment suggested is based on




successful practice in several states.




          Today and every day — thousands of drums of




hazardous liquid wastes are placed in the ground -- adding




to the already serious threats to public health and the




environment.




          We respectfully urge you to immediately restore




the ban on placing drummed liquid wastes, both ignliable and




non-ignitable, in landfills, while adopting the technical




amendment we have proposed.




          EPA is responsible to all the American people.




They are depending on you.  And, they are watching you.




          Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Marvin.  I would
DRS, Inc.

-------
      10


      11


      12


      13


      14


      15


      16


      17


      18


      19


      20


      21


      22


      23


      24


      25
DRS, Inc,
                                                           44


like the record to show that neither Chris  Capper  or  myself •

made any statement: yesterday suggesting  the lifting of  the ban

was a mistake.


           If you can produce a  copy that we indeed did  say


that, I would appreciate receiving it, but  1 don't recall  us

saying that.


           Let me understand.  You are  suggesting  that; we


could lift the suspension,  but  we could  implement  the

prohibition by allowing up  to five percent.  I'm  not  sure


how we would do that without going first through  proposed

rulemaking.

           The ban seems to  say  zero to me.   How do you  allow


a  five percent or ten  percent variance without  going  through

some sort  of proposed  rulemaking?

           MR. DURNING:  Your Counsel,  Mr. Pedersen, will of


course advise you on this matter; however,  the  EPA has

implemented other regulations — an example is  the incinerator

regulation — by technical  amendments  and interpreting.

           As we understand  the  law, if a technical amendment

is clarifying ambiguities,  is implementing  the  policy and  goal

of the regulation as opposed to reversing it or frustrating


it, that it can be upheld lawfully and I would  be  pleased  to


submit to  you authorities on that point.

j           If, on the other  hand, the  25  percent rule, for
i
I
iexample, would be a reversal.   It's   really business  as usual
                                                                         j

-------
       1





       2





       3





       4





       5
       9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18





       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
DBS, Inc.
                                                          45






instead of a ban.  That would not be possible by technical




amendment.




          If the Agency preferred, and we do not argue against




this, it could restore the ban, implement the technical amend-




ment and also take comment on whether the rule should be




five percent, ten percent, whatever the rule should be.




          It would, however, be able to immediately restore




the ban.  It has been alleged that there are problems from --




I think what you called almost a ridiculous rule about the




prohibition on drummed liquid wastes.




          Several states are implementing such a rule by




some common sense rules of interpretation.  Incidental




liquids are liquids only incidentally present in something




which is otherwise not liquid.  If you keep it down to a very




small amount which truly has come about because you've shaken




it up in transportation or something where some liquid has




formed since it left the generator, why, that's just da minimi




problems, if it remains di minimis.




          I would say, gentlemen, if the EPA of the United




States can't overcome that, they're in even worse shape than




I thought.  Several states are doing it.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Well, I don't want to get into a




long debate on Administrative Procedure, but there are a




couple of things that I do want to say.  The first is that I




think that the Environmental Protection Agency, and I would

-------
       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
                                                          46






hope and I'm beginning to expect most of the people here have




an interest in being able to clarify expeditiously what is




meant by the term "free liquids", number one, which in turn




implies some kind of a test procedure; second, that they have




an interest in examining whether a no free liquids test, with




all the problems that that entails of getting down to an




absolute zero, is really the proper way to go, certainly in




the interim and for the long term.




          I would hope that we could get agreement with a




proposition that I adhere to that simply for practical reasons,




under a rule of necessity in the short term, we could adopt




some regime to deal with these questions of test procedure




and of zero.




          But, I do not think I agree with Mr. Burning's




comment that on a permanent basis, a test procedure could be




adopted without comment just because it furthers the intent




of the rule.




          It seems to me that which of a number of hypo-




thetical test procedures could be adopted is the sort of thing




that notice and comment was made for.




          On the other side, it seems to me that we want to




consider at least the possibility of other interim regimes




that could be put into place expeditiously.




          For example, I noticed that in your statement,




Marvin, you referred to the possibility that there were wastes
DBS, Inc.

-------
       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
DRS, Inc.
                                                          47




that might pose particular problems for landfilling.  I wonder




what your thought would be on establishing a procedural




mechanism to recognize that possibility and establishing  it




very quickly.




          MR. DURNING:  Are we speaking of the problem waste




issue?




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Whether we could, on an interim




basis, without comment, establish a procedure to deal with




wastes that may fall in that class.




          MR. DURNING:  Bill, I would like to have a sound




legal opinion on that, but I haven't gotten one and I




therefore won't go beyond what I actually have.




          As for the principals that I would think we'd have




to consider, they would be that the burden of showing that




there really is nothing else that can be done with the waste




should be on the party wishing to landfill it, not on the EPA




or others.  We've have to hear about it case by case.




          Now, whether that can be done — you say immediate-




ly or quickly — there's a difference between quickly and




immediately.  Quickly, I would hope this whole thing —




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Nothing happens immediately.




          MR. DURNING:  Perhaps notice and comment could be




taken quickly and the decision could be made after notice




and comment.




          MR. MOTT:  Marvin, there is an emergency provision

-------
       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
DHS, Inc.
                                                          48





in the Administrative Procedures Act, which certainly, if the




problem waste met the emergency test, we wouldn't sue.




          MR. DURNING:  That was Mr. Randy Mott of my firm




and one of the Counsel for Hazardous Waste Treatment Council.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I have a couple of questions.




We have information on some of the problem wastes, and I




would like to get an opinion from you if, indeed, over the




next ninety days or certainly in the near future, whether




some of these problem wastes in fact can be dealt with by




alternative treatment or incineration techniques and is




there a capacity out there.




          One is the several wastes from the electroplating




industry which are treatment sludges, bath sludges, stripping




and cleaning bath sludges.  There are about 9,000 generators.




They are generating about 100,000 drums of these wastes a




month.  Are there treatment techniques to deal with these and




is there a capacity to deal with these if they cannot ao into




a landfill?




          MR. DURNING:  I'd like to call on Mr. George Kush




of SCA Chemical Services, to answer you briefly on that issue,




          MR. KUSH:  We certainly have developed treatment




technology to go ahead and  treat the wastes from the electro-




plating industry.  If you recall, in your visit to our




newer plant, we showed you  the construction of a drum head




facility to which you could go ahead and off-load those

-------
       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
DflS, Inc.
                                                           49




particular materials and put those through a treatment




process.  Naturally, the cost is approximately some value




higher than landfilling.




          It depends upon the amount of metals in, but you




can remove the metals in treatment, go ahead and press those




out as a filter cake and if you have, in fact, over ten




percent of chrome and copper, you can go ahead and ship those




to a smelter for recovery.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  George, is there capacity, do yov,




think, for —




          MR. KUSH:  In the case of our newer plant, we're




only operating at about 25 percent capacity.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  What is that capacity?  I mean,




we have 100,000 drums a month.  Let's say they are 55-gallon




drums.  You're talking about five million gallons a month.




          MR. KUSH:  We certainly have capacity in that plant




to handle all the waste that's generated from the electro-




plating industry in the Northeast area.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  How about the rest of the




country?




          MR. KUSH:  I do not know the capacity of the




entire country.  That, I think, is something you could have




obtained if you had gone ahead and had the annual report




submitted last March and this March.




          (Laughter)

-------
       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
                                                          50




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Well, they'll get you one way




or the other.




          (Laughter)




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Another problem waste comes




from the paint and coating industry.  A large amount of their




wastes do indeed go to incineration or resource recovery, but




they are left with wastes with high solid content that are not




well handled or, indeed, are almost impossible to be handled




in the treatment facilities, or in liquid injection incinerators




          MR. DURNING:  I'd like to call on Mr. Jack McCoy.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Is there capacity in the




rotary kiln incineration area to handle those wastes?




          MR. DURNING:  First, I'd like to call on Mr. McCoy




of TWI.




          MR. McCOY:  Thank you.  My name is Jack McCoy and




I operate a relatively small incinerator in Sajay, Illinois,




just across the river from Downtown St. Louis.  I have the




good fortune of being able to look at all the pending  .




proposed federal regs for new incinerators when I designed




my system.




          I received my operating permit in October of 1979




and I had been going through my permitting process until today.




In February a year ago, I ran a stack test on still bottoms




that were generated from the recovery of solvent from the




paint waste industry.
DRS, Inc.

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
                                                           51





          The still -bottoms I tested were loaded with heavy




metals.  As an example, in one given hour, I put a million,




two hundred and fifty thousand parts per million of lead




through my incinerator and as measured out my stack, my




emissions ranged between 24 and 42 parts per million.




          After running that rather expensive still bottom




test and demonstrating that the tension in my system and my




ability to meet all the latest rules and regs, within one




month, that particular waste stream moved into the secondary




fuel market and I have not had the opportunity of incinerating




one gallon  of it since.




          The technology to destroy paint waste with the




so-called heavy metal pigments exists in this country.  The




capacity is probably not such that it could handle the entire




industry, but as long as the secondary fuel market is allowed




to go unregulated, you are totally discouraging appropriate




facilities doing a job to all the regulations because we




don't know whether we have a market or not.




          Have I partially answered your question?




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Yes, partially.  I think I'm




thinking about a waste that will not either be able to go to




the fuel market — will not be able to go to the fuel market




or liquid injection incinerators.




          Is there enough rotary kiln capacity to deal with




the recovery bottoms, the various semi-solid and solid

-------
       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       6

       7

       8

       9

       10

       11

       12

       13

       14

       15

       16

       17

       18

       19

       20

       21

       22

       23

       24

       25
DBS, Inc.
                                                          52
residues, sludges from solvent recovery that are generated

by the paint industry?  I mean, if we remove the ban and we

have hazardous wastes, what are we going to do?  That's my

question.

          MR. McCOY:  I will cite my case again.  I have been

in business for three years and I am at the 25 percent

capacity and I am scratching to build my business in order to

make a profit.

          I am not knowledgeable about the entire industry

across the United States, but I would say that if the capacity

does not exist and if private money can see the opportunity

for a market and if there is some intelligence used in the

incineration regs, that the capacity can be in existence in

less than two years.

          Now, there is capacity that has not been utilized

and I would like to add one more point.  In my part of the

country, and I operate in Illinois, by checking with the

hazardous waste landfills that I am aware of, just for the

record, my incineration fees are less per drum than the fees

to go in for a hazardous waste landfill.

          So, nobody can plead financial hardship on incinera-

tion versus landfilling.  Again, I must — Charlie, do you

have anything to add?

          MR. ROBERTSON:  My name is Charles Robertson,

INSCO, Little Rock, Arkansas.  Prior to the lifting of the ban

-------
       1





       2





       3





       4





       5





       6




       7





       3





       9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18




       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
OHS, Inc.
                                                           53






we had committed the funds to double the kiln capacity  of  our




rotary kiln incinerator.




          This should be on line by the latter part of  this




year.  We currently operate with one rotary kiln and will  be




operating two rotary kilns.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  But, what are we going to do




in the next ninety days?




          MR. ROBERTSON:  I am burning no paint waste now,




I am not asked to burn it.




          MR. KUSH:  According to a report given at the




conference sponsored by — or the symposium sponsored by the




EPA this week in Cincinnatti, the Cincinnatti incinerator  is




only operating at 50 percent capacity.




          We have not been able to develop enough of a  market




to fill our rotary kiln which goes on line 1 May 1982 in




Chicago.  My understanding is that Rawlins is going to  testify




that they, in fact, have not fulfilled all their rotary kiln




capacity.




          So, it seems that everybody who>is in the business,




the commercial business of operating a rotary kiln, has, in




fact, not filled to capacity.  I also understand that the




Volcanis didn't fill its capacity when it went out to sea.




          So, there seems to be excess capacity.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Since we're talking about capacity,




we have a statement at his request from a member 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
DBS, Inc.
                                                          54



audience, Mr. Ted Reese, who is President of Cadance




Chemical Resources, but who is not affiliated with the




Hazardous Waste Treatment Council.




                 Statement of Mr. Ted Reese




          MR. REESE:  Thank you for this opportunity to make




a brief statement.  I am President of Cadance Chemical




Resources, Incorporated, with offices in Michigan City,




Indiana.  Cadance, along with its processing partners, we




have the capacity to convert hazardous flammable and energy-




bearing waste materials that go in the landfills, we have the




capacity to convert that into our chem-fuel product.




          It's ironic that we're in Washington today and at




noon, we will be receiving a national award from the Environ-




mental Industry Council.  It is a national award for our




accomplishments and our achievements in converting hazardous




waste materials into our chem-fuel products.




          During the past two years, Cadance and its processin




partners converted 17.8 million gallons of flammable and




energy bearing hazardous wastes which contained lead,




chlorides and sulfides and so forth, from the paint industry,




the printing industry, the chemical industry; practically all




general industries use solvents and chemicals of some  sort for




cleaning.




          We have  some portion of by-products as well  as the




solvent recovery plants that we recover solvents; they have

-------
       1

       2
       3
       4

       5

       6
       7

       8
       9

       10

       11

       12
       13

       14

       15
       16
       17
       18
       19

       20
       21

       22
       23
       24
       25
DBS, Inc.
                                                          55
byproducts that we're able to utilize into our chem-fuel
product; 17.8 million gallons was converted into 17 million
gallons of chem-fuel.
          Today, we have eight processing plants between
ourselves and our processing partners in the States of
Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, Michigan,
Alabama, New Jersey, and these plants right today are
converting 1.2 million gallons a month.
          These are hazardous energy-bearing liquid wastes
that are shipped into our plants and back in drums.  Today,
we are converting 1.2 million gallons a month into our
chera-fuel product.
          In our plants, we have the capacity today at these
eight facilities to convert between five to six million
gallons a month; that's approximately 60 to 72 million gallons
per year of these kinds of materials.
          The hardware and everything is in place.  This
development project started in about 1975 and we have been
very busy in improving the technology with our in-use
application to be commercial and operate 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, 365 days a year.
          Our business is limited and hurt by the fact that the
landfills are now opening up to receive materials that have
been scheduled to go into our processing plants, our eight
processing plants; we have four more scheduled.

-------
 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                           56
          MR. PEDERSON:  I have a number of questions by

way of conclusion, but before that, I'd like to make a

request of you and your group, and whoever else you think

would be useful — we have gotten your — you may not agree

with this — but, what I would call your preliminary and

somewhat personal statement as to alternate capacity other

than land filling for these wastes.

          It would be helpful if you could provide us, for

the record of this hearing, a written statement that swells

out why you — how much non-landfill treatment capacity

exists for what kind of wastes this year and in the coming

years.

          I am sure that whatever you come up with will

not be universally agreed to, but it's certainly a body of

data that we should begin acumulating.

          MR. MOTT:  EPA made a finding on February 5th,

1932,that compliance with the November '31 date was feasible.

Maybe you could elaborate on the basis of the Agency's

finding.

          MR. PEDERSON:  I think I will just renew my

request  for a table of those who are clearly in the best

position to provide it.

          MR. DUR1IIMG:  Excuse me, Bill, our group will,

of  course, work with you as quickly as we can and provide

such information  we can and without debating because  I

-------
                                                               57
 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
feel that we're not debating.  We're looking for information,




We would ask you to help us by saying what information you




had when you concluded that there was no merit in the criti-




cism that somebody was making to you — I can suspect who.




          It was not capacity that was unfeasible to meet




the deadline, which you concluded in your preamble to the




February 25 notice — that that was not — there was no




compelling merit in those statements.




          Maybe we can combine the information and then




maybe we can take up an agenda of items so that the EPA




won't get itself in this spot again like getting back to




requiring the annual statements and reports that the statute




contemplated and then we can ask you instead of you asking




us.




          But we will work with you as rapidly as we can.




As soon as we leave here, we will caucus and see what we




can do to be of help.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Do you think you can provide




any — at least some of that data to us by the closing of




this record?




          It would be helpful, even among the membership,




to have some sense of what the — of what capacity you have




for burning some of the problem wastes that we're talking




about,




          MR. DURMING:  We would do our very best to get as

-------
 3





 4





 5





 6




 7





 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16




17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                           58




much — Monday is the closing?




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  We would like to close this,




yes, on —




          MR. DURNING:  We will do our very best and then  —




that's all we can do.  Do our best.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I would appreciate it.




          MR. PEDERSON:  Two other points:  on page 6 of




your statement you say that the 25 percent ration proposed




by EPA is the existing practice of landfill operators.




          What is the basis of that statement?




          MR. DURNING:  I'd like to ask Mr. Kush and some




others here to address that question.




          MR. KUSH:  That statement is based upon what's




in the marketplace.  We've had several extensive market




studies done in regard to these materials.




          It's also  the statement, I believe, that the




National Solid Waste Territorial Directors are going to make




and I think they're  probably are more knowledgeable than




any of us in regard  to what is the existing practices




around the country.




          It represents the approximate percentage of liquids




that go into landfill containers versus solids.  From what




we understand is  the data we've got — some confidential




market surveys that  we had done in the Northeast part of  the




countrv.

-------
                                                               59





 1              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I would point out that if it




 2    were not the existing practice, it would still be an unwork-




 3    able rule insofar as having any effect for a strip land-




 4    filling; for in order to put more drums, one would only have




 5    to dig deeper to create more volume or add more fill and




 6    other material around it.




 7              And there is a large quantity available of space —




 8    space out there so that if you have to meet a three to one




 9    rule, it could be done.  The existing flow of drums could,




10    nevertheless, go to the landfills.




11              And that's our point.  The 25 percent doesn't




12    really change the real world.




13              MR. PEDERSON:  The proposed de minimis rules that




14    suggest, the 5 percent and 10 percent rule, you say it is




15    based on actual practice in several states.




16  !            Could you provide for us a listing of exactly




17  !  which states those are and the requirements — and the exact




18    requirements that they impose.




19              \nd if it's possible, I think, we would — well,




20    maybe you can name them here.  That would really be best,




21    because then later people could comment on them.




22              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I'd ask Mr. Mott to address




23    your question.  We would prefer to give it to you by checking




24    out — we haven't called every state, but — and they're all




25    representative of states here.

-------
V
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                          60
          There will be testimony from the Association of

State Solid Waste Management Officials.  Perhaps they would

have that data.

          Otherwise, I will ask my group, is there anyone

here who can name the states?  All the states?

          MR. MOTT:  Not all — New York and Texas — Texas,

we provided a letter.  New York will be here.

          MR. PEDERSON:  Could you speak into the microphone.

I want to be sure we get this one on the transcript.

          MR. MOTT:  New York, Texas and Ohio, I understand,

and there may be additional states.

          EPA's May 1930 promulgation of the liquid ban

indicated 11 states restricted contanerized liquids.  The

statements — they'll be made on the record today and will

indicate that many states just adooted the May '80 rule as

their regulation and are living with that rule.

          And I think it is premature to take a representa-

tion of a lawyer representing a client about whether that

rule can work in practice when there are people here who have

been practicing it for almost two years now.

          MR. PEDERSON:  Well, let me pursue it one step

further.  I was asking for the — for some states that had

what amounts — what approaches the precise de minimis rule

that you suggest so that we could check out who it really

does work.

-------
                                                               61
 1              And your statement is that New York, Ohio and

 2    Texas have such a rule that you are urging us to adopt

 3    nationally.

 4              MR. MOTT: Very similar percentages, yes.

 5              MR. PEDERSON:  Okay.

 6              MR. DURNING:  And I think a representative of the

 7    State of New York is present and can perhaps better describe

 8    the New York situation.

 9              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  On that score, George Kush,

10    do you know how the testing of that requirement of 5 or

n    10 percent requirement indeed is accomplished by your

12    facilities in New York and I believe you said you might be

13    doing that in South Carolina.

14              MR. KUSH:  In the case of New York?

15              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  What kind of test procedures

16    do you use?

17              MR. KUSH:  In the case of New York, we use the

18    centrifuge method, this is the one that New York Department

19    of Environmental Conservation requires us to go ahead and

20    do-
21              We actually centrifuge it for — in fact, I can

22    go ahead and submit for the record the exact times and

23    different procedures.

24              In the case of South Carolina, we used your

25    filter system. In fact, we are basically testing this out

-------
                                                              62
4





5





6




7





8





9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
again to see how well that tracks and what we think is




true liquid and what is not true liquid, and we'll submit




that data to the Agency by the 30th of this month.




          I believe that's the comment period on your —




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Oh, I see.  Right.




          I think that I would like to move on.  Are you




gentlemen going to be here for the day.




          MR. DURNING:  We have no more important business.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: If I might, I would like to




move on to the next witness — or several witnesses.




          I'm going to call on Mr. Hugh Mullen, representing




the National Solid Waste Management Association, and he will




I think, be followed by Dave Fetter and Peter Vardy, also




representing that Association.




          Hugh?




                STATEMENT OF HUGH MULLEN




          MR. MULLED:  Thank you, Gary.  I am Hugh Mullen.




I am Director of Government Relations for Conversion Systems,




Incorporated, a copy that treats and disposes of many types




of hazardous waste.




          I also serve as Deputy Chairman for the Institute




of Chemical Waste Management of the National Solid Waste




Management Association.   And it is in that capacity that  I




address you this morning.




          The presentation of the Institute will include

-------
                                                               63





 1   testimony by  two other members, Mr. David Fetter of U.S.




 2   Ecology and Mr. Peter Vardy of Waste Management, Incorporated,




 3   who will discuss specific  technical matters.




 4             I would  then like to make a one or two minute




 5   summation of  our position.




 6             We  are here today to discuss two petitions:  one




 7   was submitted by NSWMA asking that the proposed regulations




 8   covering the  landfilling of containerized waste as published




 9   by the Agency on February  28th, 1982, be made an interim




10   final regulation effective immediately.




11             We  are also discussing a second paetition asking




12   that the ban  be — the absolute ban on landfilling of




13   containerized waste, that was lifted February 25th, 1982,




14   be reinstated.




15             The rule we're addressing today pertains to




16   facilities having  interim  status and/or state operating




17   permits.




18             The Institute of Chemical Waste Management does




19   not advocate  and has never advocated the indiscriminate and




20   unregulated disposal of liquids in landfills.




21             ICWM has always  advocated that stringent but




22   workable regulations be promulgated as quickly as possible.




23             We  were  involved in the drafting of the Resource




24   Conservation  Recovery Act.  We have worked for strengthening




25   the amendments, including  criminal penalties.

-------
                                                               64
 i              We were in the hallways  of Congress  in the closing

 2    hours of the debate on the  super fund,  urging  enactment.

 3              As a litigant in  the  scheduling litigation,

 4    Illinois v Gorsuch, we have pressed the Agency to promulgate

 5    the longer, overdue regulations for hazardous  waste manage-

 6    ment facilities including those for secure landfills.

 7              In our comments on EPA's option paper of December

 8    21, 1981, regarding potential regulatory schemes for

 9    permitting secure landfills, we recommended that the Agency

10    call Part B permit applications immediately upon promulgation

11    That would insure that all  hazardous waste would be placed

12    in permanent facilities within  13  months.

13              Further, we have  continually  opposed the small

14    generator exemption provided in 40 CFR  261.5.

15              Recently, on February 2nd, 1932, EPA reopened

16    the rulemaking records for  additional comments on the propose

17    regulations for permitting  wastewater treatment units

18    because of NSWMA's concern  that the proposed regulations

19    do not provide adequate record  coverage.

20              Finally, we have  supported the exemption of waste

21    from the hazard waste management scheme only when it can  be

22    demonstrated that those wastes  are, in  fact, non-hazardous.

23              We are strongly committed to  the protection of  the

24    environment.  And, indeed,  we have a compelling business

25    interest in stringent regulations.  Our market and our

-------
                                                               65





 1    economic interest coincide  with  the  overriding public




 2    interest of insuring proper management of hazardous  waste.




 3              Further,  we have  a continuing liability.   I would




 4    believe  that the best way to manage  that liability is




 5    through  compliance with  good regulations.




 6              It's  not surprising, therefore,  that we oppose




 7    the unregulated disposal of containerized, hazardous liquids




 8    in any type of  facility.




 9              Let us look at the facts,  facts  that have  been  lost




10    obscured in the public reports on  this issue.   Less  than  a




11    dozen ICWM facilities dispose of drums containing free




12    liquids.




13              These are mainly  located in  areas of the country




14    with exceptional and/or  climatological conditions.   At these




15    sites — some of these sites —  there  is no ground wear at




16    all or naturally occuring contamination makes  the groundwater




17    unusable.  At some precipitation is  nil.  At others  there are




18    many feet of impermeable clay or other natural formations




19    below the facility providing protection for the groundwater.




20              Some  of the sites have more  than one of these




21    protective features.  There is no  technological reason by




22    containers with waste, including free  liquids  cannot be




23    disposed of in  these facilities.




24              Half  of the drums received by ICWM sites typically




25    contain  liquid  waste and waste containing small amounts 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
                                                          66
free liquids.  The trend in the percent of liquid being

received in drums is downward, because of recycling and

treatment as performed by members of the Institute and as

stimulated by regulatory and economic incentives.  RCRA is

working as intended.

          Even though the 55 gallon drum has become the

unfortunate symbol of improper waste management, there are

very good reasons why drums should be used for storage,

shipment and disposal of hazardous waste.

          First, the drum is a  convenient, secure container

for accumulating and segregating wastes, especially by

generators who produce relatively small quantities.

          Second, shipment in drums is a safe and fully

approved method of shipment of hazardous wastes.  Third,

handling of drummed wastes both during transportation and

at the disposal sites minimizes the chances of exposure to

both the public and the facility employees.

          The regulation proposed by the Agency February

25th, 1982, would permit landfilling of drum wastes con-

taining liquids up to a maximum of 25 percent of the volume

of the landfill, including intermediate cover, as determined

by a very conservative formula.

          We support this rule as workable and believe it

limits the volume of liquids in our landfill to an environ-

mentally accented level.  It should be put into effect

-------
                                                               67
     immediately.
 2             While we support the proposed amendment, we must
 3   point out that we — what we consider to be a glaring
 4   deficiency.   The regulation as proposed is too stringent in
     certain circumstances.
 6             It gives no recognition to any site-specific
 7   hydrogeological or climatological conditions.  It does not
 8   recognize the obvious technical fact that liquids up to the
 9   maximum proposed limits can be safely disposed in secure
10   landfills in arid climates with deep groundwater located
11   below hundreds of feet of clay.
12             All situations are not the same and should not
13   be addressed by the same rule.  We hope the Agency will
14   consider this in the formulation of the final Part 264
15   regulations  for secure landfills.
16             There are two environmental concerns regarding
17   landfilling  drums containing liquids.  The first concern
18   involves leachate; the second, subsidence.
19             Liquids contained in the waste would become leachat*
20   if allowed to escape into the groundwater.  We believe that
21   liners and leachate collection systems are necessary under
22   certain circumstances and we will install them for our
23   protection even if they're not required by the regulations.
24             Voids within the landfill cells resulting from
25   collapsed drums might conceivably cause subsidence 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
                                                         68
completed surface creating breaches in the cover. This
condition would increase the potential for formation of
leachate caused by precipitation.
          Any landfill practice including an allowance for
the disposal of wastes containing free liquids must address
both of these concerns.
          The proposed rule is a workable solution to both
of these problems.  Mr, Peter Vardy of Waste Management,
Incorporated, will discuss these in greater detail.
          Why is the proposed amendment necessary?  It's
necessary because Section 265.314(b) of the hazardous waste
regulations published May 1980 totally bans even a single
drop of liquid in a drum without specifying  how this is to
be measured.
          It provides no provides no provision for a de
minimis amount of free liquid and is, therefore, unworkable.
And I might point out that that was the position of the
previous speaker in the previous group.  There must be a
de minimis amount.  We are just talking about percentages and
what that de minimis amount should be.
          Several states have instituted a ban on disposal
of waste containing free liquids similar to EPVs prohibition.
For the most Dart, however, they have accepted either
explicitly or implicitly a de minimis allowance.
          For example, New York State has such a ban in the

-------
                                                               69
 1    permit conditions  for its  two  secure  landfills.   Recently
 2    this  permit condition was  included in New  York's  hazardous
 3    waste regulations.
 4              To implement this  rule,  however, we  are advised
 5    that  New York will  accept  a  container of waste having up to
 6    a 10  percent fluid  volume  above  the solids.  Such  containers
 7    have  not been considered to  hold free liquids  for the
 8    purposes of the New York regulatory program.
 9              In this way New  York addresses both  concerns
10    attendant with the  disposal  of liquids in  landfills;  namely,
11    leachate and minimizing excessive  subsidence.
12              we believe the proposed  amendment  to be superior
13    to New York's method in that it  provides a limitation on
14    the amount of fluid volume in  a  landfill that  will be no
15    greater than that  allowed  by New York and  most importantly,
16    it gives the operator the  discretion  to test a drum or
17    charge it against  a prescribed liquid quota.
18              I would  like, at this  time,  to introduce
19    Mr. David Fetter of U.S. Ecology who  will  describe some  of
20    the types of waste  that we received and some of the problems
21    that  the industry  faces and  options available  to  us.
22                 STATEMENT OF  DAVID  FETTER
23              MR. FETTER:  Good  morning.   I am David  Fetter,
24    Corporate Chemical  Operations  Officer with U.S.Ecology.   We
25    are in the business of hazardous waste disposal,  primarily by

-------
                                                                              70
r
 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
landfill.  However, also associated with incineration.




          What I'd like to answer and exemplify this morning




is exactly what types of hazardous waste get landfilled.  I




think we too easily fall into the definitions in the regula-




tions and we picture, for example, an ignitable waste as




being a can of mineral spirits like we had around the house.




          We picture a corrosive waste as being almost 100




percent acid solution.  Reactive as being dynamite or TNT,




something like that.




          We're not dealing, in the waste disposal industry,




with anything that clean, though I wish we were.




           (Bottles of waste being displayed.)




          This is the kind of material that we're talking




about.




           (Indicating to bottles.)




          Okay,a conglomeration of all of these things that



nay have as many as 100 - 105 chemicals in any one.  We




ask what raises our concerns about the liquid content.




Decanting something like to a point where it contained




absolutely no liquid could be virtually impossible with all




the voids, even draining it.




           I use these as two examples.  Of course, this




would be a common spray -- I believe, Gary, earlier this is




probably the type of material you were referring to when




you referred to rotary kiln incinerators with the paint

-------
 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
                                                           71
solids.
          Filter cake — we get much, much filter cake from

treatment.  We get filter cake from the electroplating
industry who have destructed the cyanide present in their
waste stream.  They de-water it by way of the filter press.
          We've encountered numerous problems with this
de-watered filter cake.  In transit the normal vibration in
the back of a van will cause a separation and formation of
anywhere from 4 to 6 inches of liquid on top of that.

          Wastewater treatment sludge is much the same
situation.  And we do handle many, many wastewater treatment
sludges primarily because of the heavy metal content.
          I have to add here that the generators by and
large that we deal with are small generators.  Now, they're

not so small that they're exempt from the regulations, not
by any stretch, but they are small generators.
          By and large, they're small enough that there's
no way they can afford to go to bulk systems.  We have
approached them and encouraged this, that we go to a bulk
liquid handling system, bulk solid handling systems.
They just cannot afford that kind of thing.  The capital
investment would just absolutely tear them up.
          These are the people — and what we're concerned
about is that we don't get regulations that are aimed and
governed — the major — the large industries — and that

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                          72
these little guys end up going out of business as a result.

These are the people with the de minimis quantities of liquid:

They have to rely on drums.

          In addition, we received — probably one-third

of our waste is waste that is not hazardous in the regulatory

definition; that is, it does not meet the criteria of 261.30

through 33.

          The people understand their ongoing liability

whether it be a regulatory liability or whether it be just a

public liability.  As a result, they bring this waste to

us.  Many of these wastewater treatment sludges are not

hazardous under those regulations.

          We don't want to see getting to the point where

these people, in order to comply and de-water, that they just

say well the heck with it.  I won't worry about it.  "L can

go to a sanitary landfill any way.  That is not the case.

          What we get, I guess what I'm really pointing to,

is basically — at our landfills we get what other people

don't want or can't take in the way of waste.

          We've heard a lot of discussion regarding incinera-

tion.  One example that was given on the rotary kiln was the

Cincinnati incinerator that — it was operating, I believe,

at 25 or 50 percent of capacity.

           I might also add since we're a major broker into

that Cincinnati incinerator, that that Cincinnati incinerator

-------
                                                                73
 1    cannot handle drums.   The material  must be shipped in bulk.

 2              (Laughter.)
 3              Various incinerators will charge astronomical fees
 4    for low BTU or no BTU  value,  because of the fuel supplement
 5    that it takes to burn  that material, on highly aqueous waste

 6    streams especially.

 7              Precious fuel oil that we're  all concerned about
 8    in another building  in this same town right now — and in

 9    many cases simply to reduce the volume  not to  destroy as was

10    alluded to earlier.  The heavy metals in the wastewater
11    treatment sludges are  not destroyed, they're in elemental

12    form.   They may change form and be  made oxides, but they are

13    not destroyed.  They come out in the slag which eventually

14    goes to the landfill any way.
15              Ash content  being too high, sulphur  content being
16    too high, chlorinated  hydrocarbons  that require a special

17    scrubbing system downstream,  these  are  all things, I believe,

18    Gary,  that have to be  taken into account when  we look at
19    the capacity for treatment of the materials that we're
20    banning from the landfill.

21              We are not in favor of wholesale  landfilling
22    of liquids.  We agree  that it is not a  good practice.  We,

23    the Agency, and we, ray  company, are  not  in favor of this

24    wholesale.
25              What we're really talking about are  these kinds of

-------
                                                               74




 1   waste.  We're  talking  about  55  gallon  drums  full  of this




 2   type of material.  We're  talking  about having  to  decant that




 3   in  some way, shape or  form,  which,  like I  said, is  virtually




 4   impossible  under the absolutely no  liquid  — we're  talking




 5   about —  and I had two samples  that I  didn't bring  with me —




 6   I had prepared — the  reason I  didn't  bring  them  was they




 7   were too  small — but  two samples of material  that  on Monday




 8   was the consistency of peanut butter.




 9              I had just finished decanting a  sample  in our




10   laboratory. It was literally the consistency  and color of




11   peanut  butter.  I had  to  use a  spatula and spoon  the material




12   into the  sample bottle.




13              The  sample bottle  just  sat.   Now,  this  is after




14   it  has  been decanted.   It sat about three  months  in the lab,




15   re-decanted, and sits  again  for 24  hours,  and  I came back




16   and there was  a quarter inch of liquid on  top.




17              This is the  type of material that  we're talking




18   about,  that we have  to deal  with  on a  day-to-day  basis that




19   roll up to our gates.




20              Now  I will have to get  in a  little bit  too to




21    try to  dispel  the notion and the  picture that  many  people




22   have  from Love Canal,  that incident — I can,  myself — from




23    the valley of  the drums in Kentucky and my back yard — it's




24    right  there — have  the notion  of an open hole and  an open




25    pit in  the ground and  the dumo  truck backs up  to  it and tins

-------
                                                               75




 1    it back and dumps his drums in and pulls out.




 2              And once we get this humongous 100 foot x 100 foot




 3    x 25  foot deep hole filled with drums, then we come in and




 4    we put soil on top.  Nothing could be further from the truth.




 5    Absolutely nothing for the reputable landfill disposal




 5    companies, those that ICWM represents.




 7              We first of all — let's step through it just a




 8    little bit and I'll try to be as quick as possible — require




 9    an extremely detailed chemical and physical analysis




10    identifying every component in that waste stream,  identifying




11    various physical parameters that flashpoints these kinds of




12    things in the waste stream.




13              This is evaluated.  And these are approved or




14    denied based on can we handle it and can we handle it safely.




15              At that point,  after the review of extremely




16    qualified technical people, the waste does come to the gate.




17    Okay,  we've got an improvised system where two drums — if




18    we're  handling drums on a ban — two drums at a time are




19    taken  off of the truck.  And I have to add the truck gets




2Q    through the gate only after a very thorough inspection,




21    pulling of samples to verify that it is what the people said




22    it was before they shipped it.




23              It doesn't just come up to the gate  and the gate




24    guard  pulls the gate up,  and the guy drives in.  It's




25    stopped.  We have a chemist at our sites.  That chemist

-------
 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
                                                         76
takes samples, he runs some of the analysis on those samples

to verify that that material is what the generator had said

it was and here's what is manifested.

          The truck goes to the trench.  We take two drums

at a time and they are very carefully placed in a lined

trench.  We use three feet of compacted clay, containing a

leachate collection and removal system.

          The drums are placed.  Then each load of drums —

or each two drums — are covered with absorfaant material.

The significance being, even with the 25 percent rule, that

down the road, if there's any leakage, the absorbant material

is there to contain it.  We're not going to have just large

amounts of liquids leaving the landfill cell.

          We say, what's wrong with decanting?  Why can't

we decant these drums?  I think in looking at some of these

samples you can see where there may be problems with getting

absolutely all of the liquid out.

          In addition, many of the materials that we do

deal with that we do take, or we take because they are

extremely hazardous materials.  They're extremely toxic.

And no one is here to deny that today.  They have to be

disposed of.

          We  feel that it is an unnecessary measure in

some of these instances for the extremely toxic material to
have to open and pour or decant each drum.

-------
                                                             .77
               We tend to forget about the worker who's actually

     out there with the wand opening the drum and decanting it

     and his safety.

               We do agree with decanting, and I believe all of

     our sites to utilize decanting to some degree.  All we're

     asking by way of the 25 percent rule is to have the flexibi-

     lity for the trained, experienced professional to make a

     determination as to which of those are too hazardous and

     which are not to decant and dispose of in that manner.

 10             In addition — just one other note on the decanting

 11   Decanting is talked about as being only one part of the —

 12   well, we talk about decanting as being the operation.  It's

 13   only the first step.  Once the material is out, once the

 14   liquid is decanted, it still has to be disposed of.

 15             Once the drum is empty, the drum still has to

 16   be disposed of.  One of the critical — and one of the safety

 17   problems, when we're talking about especially ignitable

 18   waste, low flashpoint waste, is the actual crushing operation

 19   of that drum.

 20             You know, your gas tank in your car — I'm sure

 21   many you have heard — it's much more dangerous and much

 22   more of an explosion hazard empty than it is full because of

 23   the vapor content.  It's much the same with these drums.

24             You're taking an empty drum.  There is no way

25   to avoid the metal to metal — of one side of the drum

-------
!
10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                                           78



                  rubbing against the other and the possible sparking.  And




                  you're just asking for trouble.




                            What we're asking for is the flexibility for small




                  quantities of liquids not to have to do that on a selected
                  basis.
                            In summary, we do commend the amendment EPA has
proposed as stopping wholesale dumping of liquids in dumps.




And now I'll use that term:  not landfills; not RCRA permittee




interim status landfills, well-managed and well-operated.




But it does — it would stop the wholesale dumping of




liquids.




          In no other means — the record keeping that would




be required to demonstrate compliance with that rule and




regulation, to demonstrate that the liquids had been placed




in a trench, what liquids there are, in a uniform manner not




all at one end, not all in the middle, but in a uniform manner




          The record keeping, the location records that would




have to be kept.  The records of your budget — 25 percent




liquid.




          We encourage EPA today to give full regulatory




authority to that proposal because we do believe it takes




a major step in assuring proper management of all hazardous




waste by technically competent, ethically managed firms.




          Thank you.




          MR. MULLEN:  Gary, our next speaker will be

-------
                                                              79



 1    Mr.  Peter Vardy.




 2              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:   The next speaker is Peter




 3    Vardy with Waste  Management.




 4                     STATEMENT OF PETER VARDY




 5              MR.  VARDY:   Mr.  Chairman, my name is Peter Vardy.




 6    I'm  Vice President for Environmental Management for Waste




 7    Management,  Inc.   In  our subsidiary, Chemical  Waste Management




 8    Inc., we handle large quantities  of chemical and hazardous




 9    wastes.




10              In the  course of transporting,  storing, treating




11    and  disposing of  these wastes,  we employ  what  we think are




12    state-of-the-art  technologies which range the  full gamut of




13    landfilling, incineration, treatment,  deep-well injection,




14    solar evaporation, land farming,  fixation.   I  think you'll




15    probably find a full  range technologies employed by our




16    company  and by the companies  that represent ICWM.




n              i mention this only to  emphasize  that in this




18    industry there are no good guys and bad guys.   There's no




19    polarization where one guys does  the good thing, he incinerates




20    and  another guy does  the bad thing, he disposes to land.




21              I've been around this industry  for a long time.




22    I've been around  working with EPA for a long time.  And this




23    is almost a deja  vu.   It reminds  me of the  days of resource




24    recovery, where if you're going to have a black box, but




25    landfilled,  you were  the bad guy.  And if you  had a black

-------
c_
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 S

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         80
box, you were the good guy.

          It's a horrible misrepresentation of the facts,

and it is most unfortunate that the media tends to pick up

on that.

          Land disposal, if properly done, is not only

essential and an essential element of the proper disposal

of hazardous wastes, but it is, in fact, under certain

circumstances a good practice.

          It is not only an economical practice, but it is

also environmentally a safe practice.  And I think that when

you wrote your regulations, when you proposed your regula-

tions, you have taken that very well into account.
          I think some statements were made here this

morning that I find somewhat appalling.  It's almost like

a shell game.  Here it is and here it's not.  A statement

is made to the effect, for example, that interim status
regulations promulgated by your Agency specifically restricte

landfilling of bulk or non-containers — non-containerized

hazardous liquids.

          Note the subtlety, the cuteness of the word

restricted instead of banned.  The public doesn't know the

difference.  The public thinks restricted is equivalent to

banned.

          The fact of the matter is that particular provision

says that liquid hazardous wastes can be disposed of to land

-------
                                                               81
    provided the  restriction involves the presence of a proper
    liner and a leachate collection system.  The reason it
    recognizes that need is because in any landfill, whether it's
    a hazardous waste landfill or a sanitary landfill, in humid
    climates, there is  the expectancy of leachate generation and
    we're trying  to provide for that in the design.
              Where we  first got involved with the whole issue
    of drums or containerized liquids in landfills, everyone
    recognized two basic issues:  one was the issue of leachate
10   generation; the other was the issue of subsidence.
11             In  the case of leachate generation, I think it was
12   generally accepted  by everyone that proper design which
13   involves containment and the capability of removing any
14   leachates that are  generated for long periods of time into
15   the post-closure period is an essential and legitimate design
16   system.
17             This has  been recognized by everyone and I don't
18   think I've heard anyone this morning challenge that basic
19   concept.
20             So  we have eliminated, essentially, the question
21   of the handling of  leachates in properly designed landfills.
22   The next problem that arose was the question of subsidence.
23   And what causes subsidence, how is it formed and how can it
24   be mitigated  against in the most practical manner.
25              (Setting  up chart.)

-------
 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
                                                          82
          When we talk about drums, we have visions of drums
being dumped out of the back of a truck and a bulldozer comes
along and pushes it into the landfill and then pushes some
dirt over it and that's it.

          In fact, the proper procedure for disposing of
drums is the stacking of the drums, the initial placement
of the leachate collection system at the bottom of the land-
fill, the placement of cover and generally some absorbant
material over it and the continuous stacking and placement
of intermediate cover for a certain specified depth.
          Now, then, you have a drum at the bottom of the
landfill.  Over a period of time it corrodes.  It doesn't
collapse to a paper thin thickness, and, yet, in our
assumptions, when we looked at this problem, we have assumed
that every drop of liquid from the drum will be removed and
that the drum will essentially compact or crush to a paper
thickiness.
          With that assumption, if you look at the column
of soil above it, and the various procedures that are at
work; namely, sheer strength of the material, itself, you
come to the conclusion that the actual settlement above that
drum is generally considerably less than the thickness of
the drum or the depth of the drum.  That's because you get
some arching over it and the strength of the material itself
orevents total collanse.

-------
                                                            83
              Take a row  of drums.  If you put them horizontally,
    evenly placed across  the landfill, they will in time corrode,
    settle and you'll get a general settlement occurring along
    the area overlying  those drums.
              If the drums, are placed in uniform layers, evenly
    distributed over the  landfill, settlement occurs, but it is
    of the uniform nature.
              If you do not do this properly, you put some
    piles high, some piles low, you'll wind up with uneven
10   settlement and this is part of the problem that EPA saw as
11   a difficulty with the placement of drums in landfills and
12   proper operating procedures can mitigate against that.
13             And, finally, when you finish your landfill, cover
14   it, mound it with sufficient slopes, provide sufficient
15   soil for post-closure treatment in case there is settlement
16   and cracking, so that can be monitored and can be maintained
17   in the post-closure period, you have accomplished the taks
18   of eliminating subsidence and subsidence related problems
19   such as cracking which, in turn, results in leachate
20   generation.
2i             We have looked at all of these conditions and
22   we said to ourselves  what magnitude of settlement can we live
23   with, what magnitude  of settlement can we design for, and
24   have concluded that a maximum settlement on the order of 10
25   to 11 feet would be a reasonable maximum to establish for

-------
                                                              84
 1   potential settlement.

 2             On that basis, then, we have developed a set of

 3   formulas which limit the volume of liquids in the landfill

 4   to an amount which would not result in settlements in excess

 5   of what we have set as our maximum goal.

 6             This combined with proper operating procedures

 7   we felt was a safe approach to the disposal of drums in land-

 8   fills.

 9             Now, everyone makes reference to the fact that  this

10   is a 25 percent rule.  It is not.  It is a formula that

11   establishes the percentage of drums ranging from 10 to 25

12   feet.

13             And contrary to the statement that Mr. Durning

14   made, the deeper the landfill, the smaller the percentage.

15   If we have a landfill that's 25 feet deep, that's 25 per-

16   cent; a landfill that's 100 feet deep, it's only 10 percent.

17             And the reason for that is we want — we do not

18   want to exceed the maximum settlement that we have set for

19   ourselves as a goal as a maximum.

20             Now, is there really a difference between what

21   we're proposing and what the council has proposed in its

22   technical proposal:  5 percent liquid, 10 percent air space.

23   Does that differ very much from the 10 to 25 percent

24   proposal? Absolutely not.

25             If you assume that about half of the waste that we

-------
                                                               85




 1    receive is in drums, and generally speaking about 10 percent




 2    of that is liquid, and let's assume that 50 percent of it




 3    is liquid, by our approach we're saying that we're putting




 4    into the landfill approximately 5 to 12 percent liquid by




 5    volume.  Not 25.




 6              How does that differ from the other proposal?




 7    It differs simply in this way:  the one proposal says allow




 8    5 percent and 10 percent, let's say a total of 15 percent




 9    in liquid and air space.  You establish that on a drum-by-




10    drum basis.  You establish for each drum what that volume is.




11              The enforcement and the execution of that measure-




12    ment is a nightmare.  It's an operational nightmare.  And I




13    don't care if there are states that have enforced this and




14    are requiring it, I will bet you that those states don't have




15    the faintest idea how, in fact, that is being enforced and




16    how it operates.  Because they would have to have literally




17    dozens out in the field inspecting that procedure.




18              What we're proposing — and essentially that's the




19    only difference — is that the operator have the discretion




20    to say this particular drum is so difficult to handle because




21    of its content and its potential hazard to the operate that




22    I don't want to mess with it.  I don't want to open it.  I




23    don't want to test it.  I don't want to play with it.  I've




24    established its content by other valid methods, certification;




25    tests by acceptable laboratories, whatever, and I want 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
                                                          86
assign that drum against my total liquid budget for that
landfill.
          And I will not exceed that budget, but I have the
discretion to say this drum is too hard to handle. I don't
want to handle it and I will assign it to the budget.  That's
the only difference between what we're proposing and what
the other party that spoke earlier is proposing.
          What is the big difference?  What is the big
excitement?  What is the issue?  I suggest to you it's a non-
issue.  It's an issue that makes good headlines, it's
an issue that makes big news, it's an issue that allows
you to climb on EPA for a change, again.  And we've enjoyed
some of that a little bit.  I wouldn't pass up the fun.
           (Laughter.)
          We would have some issue over the fact that a
leachate collection system has been removed from solely
drum disposal.  We have a strong issue with that fact, liner
and leachate collection systems.
          We have some issue with a couple of other items
that are in the rules.  But basically what we're suggesting
is that the only logical thing to do at this point to
eliminate  the  confusion, the delays that come by way of the
suspension —  is to implement immediately the recommendations
or proposals of the Agency in the form of an interim final
rule.

-------
 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
                                                        87
          That is the only answer.  It will resolve all these
issues.  It will gives us time to comment in the areas where
we want to make comments, particularly in the area of liquid
tests, and I think it will resolve the entire difficulty
that we're facing here today.
          Thank you.
          MR. MULLEN: Just a brief summary here, Gary, but
first I would like to relieve your mind that you have not
alienated all the people in the country.
          I came over here in a taxicab this morning.  And
the taxidriver didn't even know where EPA was.
          (Laughter.)
          Just summarizing briefly, ICWM believes that
drums are a safe and convenient method of shipment, storing
and disposing of certain wastes and therefore should not be
eliminated.
          We think we have shown that it is not practicable
to eliminate all free liquids in drums.  Therefore, free
liquids in containers should be reduced to an acceptable
de minimis.
          I point out here that also the Council has said
the same thing.  As Mr. Vardy has explained, it is only a
question of interpretation.
          The proposed rule allows the operator to charge
a drum against a liquid quota based on professional judgment.

-------
f
                                                             88




 1    We believe that blanket rules that cover all sites are




 2    improper and result in inflexibility that hinders environ-




 3    mentally sound practices.




 4              The question of  free liquids should be addressed




 5    in greater detail in the final part 264 regulations.




 6    Allowance should be made for site-specific conditions,




 7    recognizing that some volume of free liquids can safely be




 8    placed in any properly designed landfill regardless of




 9    location.  Total ban is undesirable and should be avoided.




10              We believe that  the proposed amendment accomplishes




11    these purposes and should  be an interim final rule.  EPA




12    should take this action to address a public perception of




13    regulatory retreat.




14              The most appropriate means to convert the proposed




15    rule is to convert the proposed rule to become effective




1 e    imme dia t e ly.




17              And, finally, we commend the Agency for its




18    efforts to promulgate a workable and realistic regulation and




19    we stand ready to work with you on developing the test




20    procedure for a de minimis amount and the final Part 264




21    regulations.




22              And we will try to answer any question that you




23    might have.




24              MR. PEDERSON:  Yes.  I have a number of questions.




25              On Page  3 of your statement you say that less than

-------
                                                               89
    a dozen  ICWM  facilities dispose  drums  containing  free  liquids.

    What proportion of  the landfills with  interim status does
    your organization represent?
              MR. MULLEN:  Unfortunately,  I can't answer that.
    Can you  answer that?

              MR. PEDERSON:  Can you give  me  just an  order of

    magnitude?    Ten percent, eighty percent?
 8             MR. MULLEN: Shares or  volume?

 9             MR. PEDERSON: Share of the total.  A slice of  the
10   pie.
11             MR. MULLEN:  I think the difficulty with  that
12   question is that there are many  on-site landfills that we

13   know nothing  about.
14             CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:  We have  the total number.  You

15   tell us  hazardous waste landfills belong  to your  organiza-
16   tion and we'll be able to get at it that way.
17             MR. MULLEN:  I don't have the number, but we can

18   certainly get it for you.  I don't know that.
19             MR. PEDERSON:  Do you  have an opinion on
20   Mr. Durning's statement that the 25 percent rule  does  no
21   more than ratify what people are doing at present any  way?
22             MR. MULLEN: Yes.  I think we totally disagree with

23   that,  that this is  a restriction. It is —
24             MR. PEDERSON:  Would it be a restriction  on  —

25   because  it tightened up on every landfill or because it

-------
 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
                                                          90
brought the less well-run landfills up to the level that the

best landfills are meeting now?

          MR. MULLEN:  I don't think just by this rule you're

going to do that.  I think you need more enforcement.  But

that is a step in the right direction.

          MR. VARDY:  If I may respond to that as well.

I think the answer to your question is a combination of both

the —• there are landfills which will fall in the category

where 25 percent does not change its present status by

virtue of the amount that they take.

          There are other landfills that will see enormous

reductions in the liquid waste in drums that they see,

specifically I can cite you one of our facilities that will

see probably 70 - 80 percent reduction in the amount liquids

in drums, and we have, in fact, put into operation large

mechanical decanting systems to accommodate that.

          And that's not our problem.  Our problem in that

particular case is what to do with the kind of waste that

Mr. Fetter has addressed.

          There are also those who are not operating legally

that you mentioned, that have to come into line.

          So, all three are really correct statements.  It's

a mix of all of those.

          MR. BRAND:  I'd like to address this to

Mr. Fetter.  What — in the description you gave, how the

-------
                                                              91
 1   wastes  are handled at your sites, what percentage of  the
 2   industry operates  that way?
 3             MR.  FETTER:  I  don't believe I'd have  any way
 4   to  answer that,  not on total  industry.
 5             MR.  BRAND:  Well, what  I'm saying is how many
 6   sites have a chemist  on-site  to open the cans and do  tests?
 7   Is  that typical  or is that atypical?
 8             MR,  FETTER:  Amongst our members it is very
 9   typical.
10             MR.  BRAND:  You still can't answer the other questiojn
11   of  what percentage that is of the whole industry?
12             MR.  FETTER:  No.
13             MR.  BRAND:  Okay.
14             MR.  VARDY:  Let me  just answer — at least  for
15   myself  — that we  operate about 14 facilities.  Every one
16   of  them has a  laboratory.  Every one of them has a chemist
17   and every one  follows the waste analysis plan and everything
18   that's  required  under interim status.
19             MR.  BRAND:  I'm not questioning that.  I'm
20   wondering how  many of the approximately 900 landfills operate
21   in  the  manner  that Mr. Fetter described.
22             MR.  VARDY:  Well, let's not get married to  the
23   900 number, because I question it very seriously.
24             MR.  BRAND:  Some of them.
25             MR.  VARDY:  I don't know.

-------
 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
          MR. BRAND:  The other question I have is,
Mr. Vardy, how does enforcement differ under your method
as opposed to the states that say they're controlling it now
under the ban.  I don't understand why your method makes it
easier to enforce against.
          MR. VARDY:  Because you have two sets of facts
that you have to keep straight.  One is the configuration of
your landfill, the depth which essentially establishes the
volume and a running talley on the drums that are set
against the liquid budget.
          In other words, you just keep a running tab of
the liquid drums and you compute the amount of space avail-
able and you compare those two and see if you've met that
budget or not.
          MR. BRAND:  But how do I, under either method,
determine the amount of liquid in a drum?
          MR. VARDY:  Well, what we're saying is that when
a drum comes to a site,'it's presumed to be liquid.  As you
have said in your rule, unless you can demonstrate that it
is not by way of opening, of testing it and of providing
proof that it is solid using the best method that you
proposed or some other that we'll come up with at a later
date.
          Any other drum, by our method, is liquid.  And
what we're saying is that if there's only 10 percent liquid

-------
                                                              93
 1    in it,  and we don't want to open it,  we don't want to work
 2    with it,  we don't want to maange that drum in terms of
 3    exposing  our people to it, we conceed that all of it is
 4    liquid and all of that goes against the liquid budget.
 5              MR. BRAND:  And that's done on 100  percent of
 6    the drums?
 7              MR. VARDY:  Right.
 8              MR. BRAND:  You sample the  drums?
 9              MR. VARDY:  Well, the sampling procedures as
10    they're presently employed is if you're dealing with a, say,
11    a new customer that you've had no experience  with or you're
12    not totally familiar with his process or the  nature of his
13    waste,  that you test every drum that  he provides  you.
14              After a while,  when you —  when a pattern is
15    established, if you're familiar with  that waste stream and
16    you know  what process they use, you can reduce that about
17    10 percent of the shipment in terms of sampling.   That's
18    the general approach.
19              MR. BRAND: Thank you.
20              MR. MULLEN:  Just to emphasize that point,  what
21    we are  suggesting and what we are requesting  in this
22    decision  is that you impose that regulation as you've
23    written it and that means that we have the discretion to
24    test a drum that we believe will pass the test and will not
25    unreasonably harm our people.

-------
                                                            94
 1             We're not going to open a drum we know is liquids
 2   because it fails the test.  We don't have to touch it.  And
 3   that's the difference.
 4             MR. PEDERSON:  If I can ask a broad question.
 5   it may be too broad, but what is your position on whether the
 6   current amount of liquids disposed in landfills should stay
 7   as it is or diminish over time?
 8             MR. MULLEN:  Well, we think it will naturally
 9   dminish over time.  There are incentives in the whole Act
10   and the whole process  to diminish the amount of liquids, and
11   I think that is taking place gradually.  People are
12   recovering energy for  instance.
13             It's going to be a natural evolution and this
14   is going to be a decreasing problem.
15             MR. PEDERSON:  And, so, if — you see that the
16   major point of difference between yourselves and the pre-
17   ceeding speaker is really in what regulatory method is most
18   efficient in reaching  about the same results in the amount
19   of liquids that go to  landfills?
20             MR. MULLEN:  Generally, yes.
21             MR. PEDERSON:  I guess I would like to ask the
22   Hazardous Waste Treatment Council as they work on the
23   materials that we have requested to pay attention to some
24   of the points made by  these sneakers and in particular to the
25   question whether incineration and dther disposal methods are

-------
                                                               95
     practical when you are dealing with drums that must, perhaps,

     be decanted and may have a greater variety of waste than

     bulk shipment.

               CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Peter, you indicated that you

     thought that the average liquid content of drums in — at

     least coming into your facilities might be as low as 10

 7   percent.

 8             Do you have any data that supports that?  Have

 9   you done any inventories?

10             MR. VARDY:  Yes, we've done such an inventory

11   at least on one of our sites.  Now, that — there may be

12   something that's regional or geographical to that particular

13   site, but that's out general finding, or at least that amount

14   that is readily decantable.

15             I am not sure and that is a basic problem as to

16   whether after you've decanted whether you're left with a

17   solid or a liquid.  That's a real question.

18             But let me just stress so that there is no

19   misunderstanding that we're not suggesting that we will handli

20   any drum the contents of which we're not clear on.

21              In other words, we're not suggesting that we xvill

22    bypass the basic requirement of identifying what's in the

23    drum for purposes of compatibility or other problems that

24    may exist in the contents of it.  We're just saying that in

25    sone cases we know exactly what's in it.  l-Je know we don't

-------
                                                               96
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
want to mess with it.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:   Under Part A applications




there have been approximately 900 and some odd, I believe,




persons who have indicated that they're operating landfills.




          You seem to indicate that at least within the




Institute you have 12 to 15, something like that, of those




landfills.




          There must be a great many more, I suppose.  Is




that companies or is that individual sites?




          MR. VARDY:  No, let's get that straight, it's




10 to 15 that receive drums, not —




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Oh, I see.  Okay.




          There must be — I would presume that there are




several hundred sites, on-site facilities out there, that




could receive drums.




          One of our concerns is — although you can be




perhaps persuasive that you're operating correctly, it's




hard for us to know whether that is going to apply to all




landfills.




          Now, what in your estimation is going to prevent




somebody from using the 25 percent — the so-called 25




percent formula — I recognize it's a formula — and the




percentage of capacity allocated to landfills varies — to




use their whole allocation  for containers that are 100




percent or  75 to 100 percent  full of liquids.  What is going

-------
                                                              97





    prevent  that?  What is going to prevent the abuse of  that?




    How do we correct  that problem?




              MR. VARDY:  Well, whether you achieve  the —  they




    get a percentage by way of placing drums that are full  of




    liquids  versus filling a whole landfill with drums that have




    10 percent of liquid.




              I don't  know that I see the difference.  The




    difference is in how can you control one versus  the other.




 9   But what we're saying is in either case, we're limiting the




10   amount of liquid in the total volume of air space available




11   for disposal.




12             That's done whether the drum is full or empty.




13   As a matter of fact, in that sense, our approach is far more




14   conservative because we're conceeding that a drum that  may




15   have only 10 percent liquid in it — we're calling it all




16   liquid.    And we  feel that's a very conservative approach.




17             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Well, the point is is that if




18   you have a facility that exercises the use of that formula,




19   to use its 25 percent capacity, allocated the drums,  to




20   having drums that  are, indeed, full of liquid that is not in




21   my estimation minimizing liquid input into the landfill.




22             That is  not equivalent to the suggestion that




23   was proposed by the Waste Treatment Council this morning.




24             MR. VARDY:  I don't really see why.  If the




25   argument is that you — under their proposal that they're

-------
 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
distributing that liquid over a large mass of solids —

that's the argument.

          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Well, mathmatically —
          MR. VARDY:  Mathmatically it's the same.
          MR. PEDERSON:  If I can — just off the top of

my head as a drafter of regulations, I suppose one way to
address the point you raised, Gary, would be to impose an

additional restriction of no more than X percent of drums
that are known to be more than 75 percent liquid.
          And a restriction like that would control the —
if it were workable, would address the abuse you fear.

          MR. VARDY:  In terms of the mathmatics, Gary,
if I might just say, I don't know what the difference is
between 100,000 drums containing 10 percent liquid or
10 thousand drums that are full, unless you want to raise
some other issues.
          MR. PEDERSOH:  The difference is this, I take it,
that the thought behind each of these formulas is they set
an upper limit and in terms of normal commercial practice
the operator will use that upper limit to avoid uncertainty
in testing and thus will naturally come in well below the
limit because he's going under the limit just to be safe and

to avoid testing.
          But it could be that there was a facility that

knew it dealt mostly with liquid wastes and said I — well,

-------
                                                              99
     this formula was made  for me and I will  just landfill  the
     liquid waste.
              So,  the point would be that the  formula which  is
     designed — which everyone things will produce liquid  levels
     may be a fraction of what it formally allows.  In some cases
     we'll have people coming right up to the limit.
              MR.  VARDY:   The question is what are you  trying
     to regulate.   If the concern was subsidence then I  suggest
     to you there's no difference between the two.
10             If the concern is the contents,  then your entire
11    rule does not  address  the question of contents as to
12    specific types of weights.
13             So,  if you're guarding against abuses, you know,
14    that's a different  thing all together, but we were  addressing
15    leachate and subsidence which is conceeded to be the major
16    problems of the environment.
17             And  that's what was — what I believe we  tried
18    to address.
19             CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:  Do any of the Institute's
20    companies — are they  complying with the New York rule that
21    I understand — or  at  least it was suggested this morning
22    is on a 10 percent  by  individual container — do you know
23    how --
24             MR.  SKINNER:  Five percent.
25             CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:  Do you know  how any of your

-------
V.
                                                              100
 i   how rany of your  companies  are  complying with  that?

 2             MR.  SKINNER:   I'll sneak  to  that  in my  —

 3             CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH: Okay.   Thank you.  Next I

 4   would like to  call  on Phil  Palmer,  representing the  Chemical

 5   Manufacturers  Association.

 6                    STATEMENT OF PHILIP A. PALMER

 7             MR.  PALMER:   Good afternoon-, my name is Philip

 8   A. Palmer.   I'm  a senior environmental engineer with the

 9   Dupont Company in Wilmington,  Delaware, and I serve  as

10   Chairman  of  the  Chemical Manufacturers Association of RCRA

11   Regulations  Task Group.

12             CMA  endorses  EPA's efforts to substitute a reasonable

13   regulatory scheme for the  total ban of free liquid contain-

14   ing waste in drums  placed  in landfills.

15             CMA  representatives  participated  directly  and

16   vigorously in  the process  that led  EPA to propose alternative

17   means to  minimize the amount of liquids being placed in

18   landfills.

19             CMA  regrets that the public  controversy and

20   confusion have resulted from these  efforts.

21             To allay  fear that substantial improper disposal

22   make  take place  we  recommend that EPA  immediately make

23   effective the  alternative  regulation limiting liquids in

24   landfills proposed  on February 25.

25             Thus,  CMA endorses NSWMA's petition of  March  3.

-------
                                                             101
 1              There can be  no  debate  regarding  the  need  to
 2    minimize  the  amount of  liquids being placed in  landfills.
 3    A rigid ban,  however, is unworkable.
 4              In  the basence of  any protocol  to determine whether
 5    particular waste contain free liquides, a ban could  not be
 6    implemented in a fair and  sensible  fashion.
 7              Moreover,  even if  such  a  protocol existed, certain
 8    free  liquid containing  waste could  not be disposed of
 9    except by their being put  in drums  and placed in  landfills.
10              Certain wastes cannot be  incinerated.   For others
11    suitable  incineration capacity does not exist.  And  I stress
12    suitable.
13              In  framing responsible  proposals  for  amendment to
14    EPA's rigid ban one encounters the  obstacle that  no  readily
15    applicable and practical test exists for  measuring free
16    liquid content of particular wastes.
17              Because of the absence  of such  a  test,  CMA and
18    NSWMA proposed a standard  limiting  to no  more than 25
19    percent the overall volume of any particular landfill cell
20    that  could be filled by drums containing  any liquids or
21    free  liquids.
22              And as you've heard earlier today, in essence, the
23    25 percent leve is  going to  be much less  than that because
24    we'll allocating drums  to  the landfill which have considerabl\
25    higher solid  content.

-------
                                                            102
 1             Under this conservative standard, each drum

 2   containing any free liquid would, in effect, be presumed

 3   to contain 100 percent liquids when, in fact, most drums

 4   would contain a significantly lower amount of liquids.

 5             In addition, we propose that landfill operators

 6   be required to distributed drums evenly throughout a landfill

 7   cell so that when the drums corrode, they would not cause

 8   subsidence that could harm the clay cap placed on the land-

 9   fill enclosure.

10             Moreover we recommended design standards that

11   would help insure the integrity of the final cover assuming

12   some significant percentage of subsidence as a result of

13   failure of drums.

14             Finally, we recommended that drums containing

15   any fraction of free liquid only be placed in landfills with

16   liners and leachate collection systems unless absorbant

17   materials- were added to  the fill in sufficient quantity to

18   capture any liquid escaping upon eventual collapse of the

19   drum.

20             We believe that at  the time we initially made the

21   proposal  and continue to believe that it represents a sound

22   and environmentally responsible approach to limiting the

23    free liquid placed in landfills while avoiding a rigid and

24   potentially counterproductive ban.

25              In the  face of the  infeasibility of alternative

-------
                                                              103
     disposal of some wastes an absolute ban on landfilling
     might encourage irresponsible handling of drummed wastes
     rather than contribute to the protection of the environment.
               At a meeting on November 6th, 1981, the Agency
     was apparently persuaded that no simple and practical test
     of free liquids could be readily implemented and that our
     proposal would provide reasonable protection to the environ-
 8   ment.
 9             Accordingly, it consented to proceed to rule-
 10   making on an amendment to Section 265.314 along the lines
 11   proposed by NSWMA and CMA.
 12             This meeting was attended by representatives of
 13   a number of parties to the pending litigation including the
 14   Environmental Defense Fund.
 15             No objection to the proposed course of action
 16   was posed.
 17             The Agency stated that it would promulgate a
 18   rulemaking proposal by or before November 19th and accompany
 19   this proposal with a suspension of the compliance date to
20   last for 90 days or until finalization of the rulemaking
21    proposal, whichever occurred first.
22              The Agency did not act by November 19th to extend
23    the compliance date for the ban and took until February 25
24    to publish its oroposed regulations and the accompanying
25    suspension of the ban in the Federal Register.

-------
                                                             104
 1             Consequently, during the period of November 19th,
 2   to February 25 the ban on landfilling of drums containing
 3   any free liquids has been in effect.
 4             However, generators and landfill operators have
 5   been on notice that EPA intended to proceed to rulemaking
 6   on an alternative approach that would have allowed continued
 7   landfilling subject to the restrictions contained in the
 8   amendment that has now been proposed.
 9             Accordingly generators and landfill operators
10   store drums of waste above ground awating regulatory action
11   from EPA.
12             As time passed without action, technical regulatory
13   compliance problems became widespread.  Some landfill
14   operators advised their customers to store their waste
15   pending the Agency's action.
16             Others accepted the waste as usual but stored them
17   above ground.  Some generators who did not have interim
18   status storage areas, because they routinely ship waste
19   off-site within 90 days after generation began to accumulate
20   waste for more than 90 days.
21             Other generators and landfill operators accumulated
22   drums in numbers in excess of the capacity of drums storage
23   identified in Part A permanent applications.
24             EPA's delay in suspending the November 19th
25   compliance date and promulgating a limited approach for

-------
                                                           105
    limiting free liquids in landfills has caused a 90 day
    accumulation of drum waste which some fear may be placed
    landfills without adequate regulatory restraints.
              These concerns, while understandable, are
    exaggerated.  Generators who allegedly would send their
    waste to unscrupulous landfill operators together with
    the operators face the potential of long-term liability
    under super fund or state common law if these wastes are not
    disposed of in a responsible fashion.
10             Moreover, much of the accumulated drum waste has
11   been stored at interim status landfill sites managed by
12   responsible operators who will in normal course apply the
13   sound operating practices identified in EPA's proposed
14   regulations.
15             Whether or not these regulations have come into
16   effect, many such landfills will dispose of these drums
17   in cells with liners and leachate collection systems even
18   though they are not required by EPA proposed regulations.
19             Moreover a number of states have regulations
20   governing landfilling of liquid waste and these states will
2i   continue to limit these practices whether or not Federal
22   limits are in effect.
23             Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the timing of
24   this action with respect to this necessary regulatory relief
25   has had an unfortunate impact on public perception and may

-------
 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
                                                        106
result in imprudent disposal of some quantities of drummed

liquid waste.

          It is for these reasons that CMA strongly endorses

HSWMA's petition to make the proposed regulation effective

immediately.

          Simple reinstitution of the November 19th ban

in the absence of a firm commitment by EPA, expeditiously

to complete rulemaking on modification of this ban, would not

be an adequate alternative approach.

          Moreover it could cause widespread technical

violations of EPA's interim status storage requirements.

          The concerns that led CMA and other industry

representatives to urge relief from a rigid ban remain

compelling.  Inceineration is not a feasible alternative for

many of the wastes of concern to CMA.

          Some of them are two-hased and quite high in in-

organic solids and consequently are just not amenable to

incineration.  For them there is no sensible alternative to

landfilling in drums.

          Other chemical industry wastes are highly viscous

slurries and tar-like materials that pose special handling

problems in incineration.  These wastes can can at best

only be incinerated in scarce facilities capable of destroy-

ing wastes  in netal drums.

          Nor is decanting and mixing such wastes by the

-------
                                                             107
 1    generator of the landfill  operator a generally  feasible

 2    alternative.  Such actions are not possible with some wastes

 3    and with others  may pose serious  human safety risks.

 4              Accordingly,  we  have concluded that continued,

 5    limited disposal of drummed liquid and free liquid containing

 6    wastes  in hazardous waste  landfills during interim status

 7    under closely controlled conditions is a sound and necessary

 8    alternative  to a rigid  proscription.

 9              CMA agrees that  in the  longer term it should be

10    feasible and proper to  limit further the landfilling  of

11    drummed free liquid containing wastes.

12              Additional experience in minimizing liquid

13    content in drums,  the availability of suitable incineration

14    capacity and the installation of  safe decanting and

ts    mixing  systems should allow the minimization of this

16    practice.

17              It is  our understanding that EPA may insure this

18    result  by gradually reducing the  allowable fraction of land-

19    fill cell volume that may  contain drums of liquid waste.

20              In the meantime, the Agency's proposal will provide

21    a substantial barrier to indiscriminate landfilling of

22    liquid  wastes.  This proposal should be made effective

23    immediately.

24              MR. PEDERSON: -Jhat is  your opinion of the

25    statement of the Hazardous Waste  Treatment Council?  Does

-------
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
                                                         103
25 rule sanction the existing state of affairs and wouldn't
really require and substantial change in what's happening
now?
          MR. PALMER:  Well, if you look at the proposal
as CI-1A and NSWMA proposed it, there are two limitations
there on it.
          One is that there is a limitation on the number of
there's a 25 percent limitation but it's a. curve that goes
up.  The way the curve is put together, it would probably
force many of the people out of business that have the
simple trench type operations because they're volume
requirements would be very much lowered compared to everyone
else's and in this sense it would drive these materials to
the larger facilities.  I might add, the larger, more
well-managed facilities.
          Our requirement that CMA was concerned about was
the leachate collection systems involved would insure in
addition that these wastes would only go to the better
constructed, designed and operated facilities in existence
today under interim status.
          MR. PSDERSON:  Could you comment on the extent
to which capacity to dispose of the waste — the liquid
containerized wastes that are currently being landfilled is
available?   Presumably there is capacity for some, but not
all of them.  Could you —

-------
                                                             109
 1              MR.  PALMER:   There's  presumably capacity.   Our
 2    experience is  that the folks  that say they have incineration
 3    capacity,  when you send them  certain  waste become  very
 4    selective  and  so  say,  well, maybe not this one.
 5              The  real problems lies  in materials  that are very
 6    very viscous,  that can't easily be pumped out  of drums,  that
 7    can't be used  —  put into an  incinerator by liquid injection,
 8    and they are — there  are very  few incinerators today that
 9    have the capacity to burn steel drums with these materials
10    in them.   So,  we're in a box.
11              On top  of that, a number of the wastes in  our
12    industry consists of waste that no only  have these properties
13    but in addition have very high  solids content  and  very high
14    metals content.
15              This is not  a material  that these people are
16    ready, willing and able to handle.
17              I think there's a basic policy question  that
18    has to be  addressed in this too and it was alluded to before.
19    If you have a  material which  is 80 to 90 percent solids  and
20    some organics, does it make a great deal of sense  from a
21    solid waste management perspective to taka this at great
22    expense, run it through an incinerator to move the 10 percent
23    material,  wind up with some more  ash, which then has to  be
24    removed from the  incinerator  and  put  in  a landfill any way.
25              So,  when you're talking about  waste  management,

-------
 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
                                                       110
you have to take into consideration that, you know, we're

really talking about management.

          MR. PEDERSON: I'd like to get your opinion on two

possible regulatory positions.  And I should emphasize that

really with complete truth that these are my personal

thoughts and the only reaon that I'm uttering them now is

because we hope to move very quickly.  And I just want to

inform the people here as wide a range of options as

possible — I understand the argument.  I think we all

understand the argument why the 25 percent rule would in

practice be expected to result in a much lower average

liquid content than that.

          But I imagine the concern will remain that in

some particular cases, someone who has a special situation

and a special class of waste will be able to fill right up

to the 25 percent limit.

          Would it feasible to include some type of a

provision that would guard against these cases arising?

          MR. PALMER:  Part of the problem has been in the

last year is that we really still don't have a test for

free liquids that we've all had experience in using and

has been verified and we understand which wastes are in and

which wastes are out.

          And I think  that's part of our problem.  And until

we answer that, it's going to be hard to give an answer on

-------
                                                            Ill
 1    that.   And the main reason is  that we have a lot of wastes
 2    which  are highly viscous which flow very,  very slowly
 3    which  would go into a landfill in close to 100 percent.
 4              These materials have a very low  potential for
 5    migration because of their viscosity and really probably
 6    shouldn't add into the liquid  consideration at all, but we
 7    don't  have a test yet to define whether or not that's the
 8    case.
 9              So,  if you try to limit on a 100 — you know, a
10    certain percentage in a drum or you can't  put any drums
11    that contain 100 percent ^liquid, it depends upon the test,
12    how much problem it really would be for the industry.
13              MR,  PEDERSON:   Assume that we are using the
14    paint  filter test that has been proposed,  what about a
15    requirement that no more than  X percent of the drums can
16    contain more than some high percentage of  liquid as measured
17    by that test.
18              MR.  PALMER:   We did  receive some early indication
19    of what this test would be from EPA and we've implementing
20    test procedures with our waste to determine if we can meet
21    this.
22              And we're really not done with this yet.   So, I
23    really — I have a hard a time answering that question for
24    y°u-
25              It seems at this noint that that may still be a

-------
                                                           112
 1   yes-no type of test rather  than a percentage test.  And  the
 2   real problem involved in any of these drum materials  is
 3   getting a representative sample to begin with in order to
 4   run the test so that it's validity as a totally qualitative
 5   material for these viscous  drum materials may not be  too
 6   good so we may still be faced with using it as a yes-no
 7   proposition type situation.
 8             MR. PEDERSON:  The other possibility I wanted  to
 9   raise, which, in fact, has  been raised by some of the
10   proceeding speakers, is whether it should — whether  before
11   a  liquid is landfilled there should be some regulatory
12   requirements to examine or  certify that other disposal
13   methods are not available that it is not the kind of  waste
14   that can be incinerated or  neutralized.
15             MR. PALMER:  Well, I guess there's a problem in
16   timing with this.  This is  somewhat the same type of  approach
17   that was used for  the ocean disposd. type situation  and
18   it only takes years to do that from one situation.
19             You have to understand that some wastes that we
20   produce are relatively routine in that they're produced
21   continuously and if we were given enough time to go through
22   the regulatory process and  after a year or so or two  years
23   we could  finally come to  the conclusion that, yes,  there was
24   no other  alternative, but what would we do in the meantime.
25             There  is a  tremendous  amount of the waste that we

-------
 1





 2




 3





 4





 5





 6




 7





 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18




19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                              113
get in our industry that are incidental or one-time, or
strange, or unusual.  And, so, there would be a tremendous




number of these types of waste that we would have to file




this kind of petition for.




          And as a workable management scheme, I'm not




sure how good it would be.  In fact, I don't think it would




be very good at all.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Somebody on the floor asked




the question are incinerators among CMA companies — have




full capacity?




          MR. PALMER:  Absolutely. And I don't know what




the latest tally is but it's in the 100's.  And, in fact,




that may be part of the problem, I think, that the outside




incinerator operators are seeing, that our industry has




taken it upon ourselves to do a great deal of this in-house.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Including in boilers.  Right?




          MR. PALMER: For very clean solvents, that's




correct.  And I think — there's some truth in the fact that




there has been a great deal of recycle lately.  The types of




waste that you're beginning to see at the disposal sites




are much lower in solvent content than they have ever been




before becuase we're extracting much more solvent from these




wastes in order to recycle them.




          \nd so they're getting gooier.  They're getting




higher in solids content.  They're getting higher in

-------
                                                         114
 i   inorganic solids content, they're getting more difficult  to

 2   handle.

 3             MR. BRAND:  On this issue about the liners, is  it

 4   correct, my understanding, that many of the containers and

 5   barrels are going to outlive the liner any way?  What is  a

 6   liner —

 7             MR. PALMER:   I don't know that that's a  foregone

 8   conclusion.   I don't see any proof to say that this would be

 9   the case.

10             Our basic feeling, and, of course, there isn't

11   much historic data on this that's of any value, is that it's

12   likely that becuase of  both external and internal  corrosion

13   that you're going to see the drums degenerate quite  fast

14   and typically within the post-closure period.

15             Whether this  means it's going to outlive the liner,

16   I  don't know. Liners,  both synthetic and clay, can't have

17   very long lifetimes, indefinite.

18             So, I  don't think it's ever been proven  that

19   liners will have long lifetimes.

20             MR. BRAND:          The important thing  is not  the

21   liner.   It's  having the leachate collection system operating

22   and moving what  is caught by the liner;  Is that correct?

23             MR. PALMER:   Well, that's right.  We think that

24   with the  25 percent limitation  at worse, and the standard

25   that you  folks  set, we  can't agree with EPA that the

-------
                                                            115
 1    generation of leachate under just these conditions would be
 2    trivial,  but nonetheless we feel that if for some reason
 3    there might be an excess of leachate generation that we would
 4    prefer to see a system in place that can handle that.
 5              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  A gentleman back there would
 6    like  to rebut a statement of fact that you made.
 7              MR. PALMER:   Yes.
 8              MR. SCHOFIELD:  My name is John Schofield, Vice
 9    President, I.T. Corporation (Phonetic).  You just indicated
10    that  industries'  incinerators full capacity.  This is
11    absolutely untrue.
12              MR. PALMER:          Whose industry?  We're talking
13    about our industry.
14              MR. SCHOFIELD:  We are currently working for two
15    chemical  companies concerning four incinerators.   We have
16    been  asked to modify those incinerators because they are
17    lying idle because the cost of running those incinerators
18    is too high and it's cheaper for them to send their waste
19    to landfills rather than use their own incinerators.
20              MR. PALMER:   I have 22 hazardous waste  incinerators
21    in my company and they are all running at full capacity.
22              MR. SCHOFIELD:  You made your statement on behalf
23    of the industry —
24              MR. PALMER:   And I'll make on behalf of the CMA
25    too.

-------
                                                             116
 1             MR. SCHOFIELD:   I'm sorry, it's untrue, otherwise

 2   we wouldn't be being paid  right now to work on those

 3   incinerators.

 4             MR. PALMER:  Well, perhaps at 95 versus 100

 5   percent  capacity is what you're talking about.

 6             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: Thank you.

 7             I'd like to  call one more speaker before  lunch.

 8   His name is Mr. Peter  Skinner, and he's with  the State  of

 9   New York Attorney General's Office.

10                   STATEMENT  OF PETER N. SKINNER

11             MR. SKINNER:  Good morning — I guess it's

12   afternoon.  My name is Peter Skinner and I'm  a professional

13   engineer licensed to practice in  the State of New York.

14             I'm presently employed  by and represent today

15   the New  York State Department of  Law.  New York State

16   Attorney General Robert Abrams has asked me to testify

17   in his place today about the summary ban on land burial of

18   free  liquids in hazardous  waste landfills.

19             He strongly  urges EPA to immediately reinstate

20   the ban  for  the reasons  I  will be discussing  here today.

21             Aside from my  appearance before the EPA at  this

22   time, the Attorney General has also, together with  the

23   Environmental  Defense  Fund and others, sought to intervene

24   in  the proceeding brought  by the  Hazardous Waste Treatment

25   Council  for  court  review of  this  recent  rule  suspension and

-------
                                                             117
 1    committed to  taking  such  other legal  actions  as may  necessary
 2    to  assure that liquids  remain  banned  from hazardous  waste
 3    landfills.
 4              For the  past  eleven  years,  I have served in  the
 5    Attorney  General's Environmental  Protection Bureau.  My
 6    staff of  five other  environmental professionals and  I
 7    provide scientific support  for the Attorney General's  environ-
 8    mental advocacy and  enforcement efforts  in cour,  the legisla-
 9    ture and  at the negotiating table.
10              We  have  become  intimately involved  in with
11    hazardous and nuclear waste management issues through  our
12    involvement in the cleanup  of  the West Valley Nuclear  Fuel
13    Reprocessing  Plant,  lengthy permit hearings for CECOS
14    and SCA chemical waste  management facilities, litigation
15    surrounding the Love Canal,  remedial  efforst  at numerous
16    abandoned waste sites and spills, and many other matters
17    concerning hazardous wastes.
18              I have appeared personally  before EPA before,
19    have authored numerous  professional papers on landfill
20    performance and am working  right  now  on  a long-term
21    dynamic sub — landfill subsidence model.
22              The RCRA rule promulgated May  19, 1930,
23    represented a long overdue  start  at the  difficult job  of
24    modernizing an industry with technology  at least  four
25    decades out of date.

-------
                                                                         118
V
                           Foreign countries such as England, Denmark,




                 West Germany are more circumspect about the future of




                 their land and water resources than we have been and moved




                 years ago in this area to develop and operate detoxification




                 destruction, retrievable storage and fixation facilities




                 to properly dispose of the increasing quantities of




                 ever more toxic and persistent chemical waste.




                           The United States, however, despite its leader-




                 ship in creating this waste in the first place has been




             10   slow to develop appropriate waste management facilities.




             11             Rather, we have continued to indiscriminately




             12   dump toxic waste into pits, ponds,  landfills and our rivers




             13   even after Love Canal brought to national attention the




             14   irrationality and shortsitedness of this approach.




             15             Many responsible industries, however, have been




             16   working on solutions to the problem:  3M, General Electric,




             17   Kodak and others have installed special incinerators and




             18   solidification equipment to destroy or render harmless most




             19   or all of their waste streams.



             20             Many companies found the simple process adjustment




             21   significantly reduced quantities of toxic waste in




             22   treatability.




             23             The energy crisis intervened to increase the value




             24   of organics, which could be recycled and used as fuel and




             25   thereby help reduce the volume of hazardous waste.

-------
                                                           119
               Simultaneously, a viable, hazardous waste

     management industry began phasing in new and more expensive

     facilities designed to comply with emerging RCRA regulations

     and increasing demands of a more knowledgeable public.

               In 1979 and 1980, New York State carefully

     scrutinized the efforts of private hazardous waste management

     companies to which it had granted land burial permits as

     early as 1975.

               These companies provide much of the basic waste

10   disposal capacity for hazardous waste in the Northeast.

11             The Marathon permit hearings, one of which lasted

12   over a year, which focussed much needed attention on the

13   deficiency of past operations in each facility, the two

14   major facilities reviewed had historically relied on land

15   burial of toxic wastes as a disposal method.  In every case

16   the so-called secure landfills had failed to operate as

17   promised.

18             Leachate levels inside the landfills were

19   elevated and out of control.  Landfill caps refused to

20   shed water and serious questions were raised about the

21   compatibility of waste which had been in place.

22             The rule in New York for leachate levels is

23   two feet deep above the bottom liner.  I have with me today

24   some data which I took yesterday from the inspection reports

25   carried out by the 1-lew York State Department of Environmental

-------
                                                             120
 7





 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
Conservation monitors at those two facilities in question.




          As late as February 2nd of this year, Secure




Landfill Number One at CECOS, closed in 1978, showed levels




of 20.6 feet of leachate.  At Secure Landfill Number Two,




closed in 1979, 14, 16 and 20 feet of leachate.  Secure




Landfill Number 3 which is still open shows levels as high




as 24 feet.




          SCA, for instance, whose landfills were closed in




the late 1970's, show levels — Secure Landfill Number One —




of 13 feet.  Eighteen feet at Number Two, 27.3 at Number




Three, 26.3 at Number Four, and onward.




          What we see here is a dredful difficulty in




achieving the kind of landfill leachate levels which are




required by the rules.




          Some of these landfills were operated on the




basis of a 15 percent free liquid rule and we can still see




leachate grows very, very quickly.




          During these permit hearings in New York, a




number of highly qualified witnesses testified about the




availability of technologies to properly treat and destroy




a broad range of toxic wastes.




          Based on the record of these hearings, the New




York State Department of Environmental Conservation required




the  facilities to reduce from 15 percent to free liquid to




5 percent  free liquid for containerized and non-containers —

-------
                                                               121
     non-containerized waste.  They were install and utilize
     solidification pre-treatment equipment and to submit a
     10 year modernization plan as a condition for the permit to
     construct a new secure landfill capacity.
               In his decision the Commissioner stated, and
     I quote:
               "In this atmosphere of ever-increasing knowledge,
     experience and rigorous regulation, it is essential that those
     applicants given the privilege to construct and operate
10   a secure landfill be required to take concrete, affirmative
11   and demonstrable steps towards implementing currently
12   recognized detoxification, incineration or other feasible
13   al te rna t i ves.
14             It is clear that New York's tolerance of hazardous
15   waste landfills is exhausted.  It is also clear that alterna-
16   tive technology is available to destroy much of the waste
17   which poses a threat to the health and welfare of the
18   citizens of the state and the nation as well when land
19   buried is in the past.
2o             In addition to the permit requirements discussed
2i   above, the New York State Legislature is considering the
22   passage of a bill to prohibit land burial of many acutely
23   toxic wastes and all bulk liquids.
24             Other states are considering similar bans as
25   well.

-------
 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
                                                        122
          While the State of New York is moving quickly

to totally eliminate land burial as a basic technology for

hazardous waste management, it began years ago to limit

land burial of liquids.  In the mid-1970s, certain permits

grandted to the Newco and Chemtrol facilities' secure land-

fills required the operator to limit burial of liquids

to 15 percent by volume both in containerized and non-

containerized waste materials.

          To achieve this permit limitation, the operators

developed a number of workable techniques.  First, they

found that generators were sble to comply with the 15 percent

free liquid rule if properly notified in advance and

monitored assiduously.

          Next, each facility adopted a quality control

program to assure waste compliance with permit limitations

which programs required random and systemmatic spot checks

on drums being received.

          Similarly, all bulk loads of wastes were checked

for their free liquid constituency.  Each facility found that

a charge-back to the generator for the extra costs associated

with on-site solidification by the addition of kitty litter

or other bulking agents -quickly inspired compliance with

permit requirements at the point of transport.

          Contrary to what Mr. Vardy said earlier, 'lew York

maintains full time monitors on each site who write weekly

-------
                                                               123
 1    inspection  reports  about the  ability  of each operator to
 2    meet permit conditions.
 3             Based on  the success  of  these efforts  and the
 4    regulatory  recognition of the dangers to facility  integrity
 5    posed by  liquids in landfills,  the New York  State  Department
 6    of  Environmental Conservation moved to further limit the
 7    burial of liquids to 5 percent  free liquid by volume for the
 8    CECOS Landfills No.  4 and No. 5 and the SCA  Landfill No. 10.
 9             Number 4  has been built.  Number 5 is  under
10    construction as Number 10.
11             Reportedly, CECOS has been  able  to achieve 10
12    percent free liquid in each container to date without undue
13    hardship  based  on initial quality  control  and generator
14    dialogues.
15             Aside from these permits limits  for industrial
16    facilities,  rules promulgated by the  New York State
17    Department  of Environmental Conservation required  that
18    hazardous waste destined for  land  burial possess no free
19    liquids at  all,  although compliance with these rules may
20    require additional  free  treatment  and or fixation  processes
21    on  site.
22             The intent is  clearly to ban all liquids from
23    burial in New York  State landfills.
24             New York  State is not alone  in recognizing the
25    importance  of banning liquids from hazardous waste landfills.

-------
                                                              124
 i   The EPA set forth in the Federal Register clearly some of
 2   the hazards associated with landfill liquids.   On Page 8310,
 3   SPA states it is concerned about the long-term subsidence
 4   that may occur in allowing landfill disposal of containerized
 5   liquid waste.  We deeply share these concerns.
 6             Subsidence has been a very troublesome problem at
 7   all low level nuclear waste sites in humid climates which
 8   came before much of secure landfill capacity.   Three-
 9   quarters of these landfills have been closed largely based
 10   on the difficulties of subsidence.
 11              Similar difficulties beset Love Canal and more
 12   modern secure landfills at the Chemtrol facility.
 13             EPA goes on to suggest that on 8310 that burial
 14   of liquids might result in "significant and irrevocable
 15   damage to the integrity of multi-layer final covers."  We
 16   agree and believe the damage will occur and we agree
 17   entirely with Mr. Vardy who has depictions of that very
 18    damage.
 19              In fact, if I could, I'd like use one of
20    them.  Could I?
21              (Laughter.)
22              ('4r. Skinner setting up Mr. Vardy's charts.)
23              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  While he's setting that
24    up, there is a phone message at the registration desk for
25    Bob Leahy.

-------
                                                             125



 1              MR.  SKINNER:   Today's  final covers  are  usually




 2    constructed of a  gas  collection  system,  soil  compacted  clay,




 3    drainage  layers,  synthetic membrane, compacted  clay  again,




 4    sub-soil  and  turf.  This is  not  the case in the depictions




 5    here.




 6              (Indicating.)




 7              Subsidence  amounts in  the range of  11.25 feet,




 8    as estimated  by USEPA on Page  8310 in the Federal Register




 9    would  absolutely  destroy the integrity of such  a  final




10    cover  and allow surface  water  to enter,  mix with  the waste




11    and  facilitate leachate  migration.




12              A description  by Mr. Vardy here on  this rather




13    simplified diagram of the drop indicated right  here of




14    differential  settlement  would, in the case of New York




15    State  landfills,  sheer all liner layers  and cause at least




16    in the Spring of  the  year significant infiltration of water




17    at these  cracks,




18              In  fact, at the low  level waste site  in West




19    Valley, in the mid-70's  we nearly lost one of our regulators




20    down a subsidence crack.  So,  consequently it can be




21    serious and a very real  problem.




22              Repair  of such cover failures  is possible, but




23    exceedingly expensive and certainly only temporary.  Repair




24    of West Valley's  single  layer, minimally comnacted trench




25    covars, not unlika what  Patsr Vardy shows here, cost

-------
 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
                                                       126
hundreds of thousands of dollars for the first seven

trenches.  Kentucky has spent even more at their low-level

waste site in Maxey Flats.

          Illinois is seeking in court tens of millions of

dollars to remediate the trenches at the Shieffield site.

Complete repair of the complicated covers of today's

secure landfills will cost untold dollars each time it

must be done, long into the future.

          Liquids in landfills cause other terrible problems

as well.  As USEPA freely admits landfill containers will

eventually release their contents into the fill itself.

The first six landfills at Chemtrol in New York are good

examples of this phenominon.

          As I said double digit in feet levels of leachate

have plagued the facility in spite of continual efforts to

remove and reduce that volume of leachate.  PCB's have

floated to the surface of some of these landfills and

further frustrated attempts to remove and de-water the

fills.

          This problem is particularly troublesome in the

Northeast where evapotranspiration plays a lesser role in

the surficial water balance than in dryer climates.

          High levels of lechate cause several difficulties.

First, the higher the liquid levels or hydraulic head in the

landfill cause contaminants to run more quickly through the

-------
                                                              127
  '    liner  into  the  environment.  The higher  the  leachate

  2    level,  the  greater the likelihood soluable contimanants

  3    in  the fill itself will become part of the leachate for

  4    eventual  transport out of  the landfill into  the  environment.

  5             The greater the  liquid volume  in the landfill,

  6    the less  stable and resistent to earthquakes  the landfill

  7    will be.  Perhpas,  most important is the high liquid  levels

  8    increase  the stress on the exterior berm walls enclosing

  9    the fill.

 10             Any instability  problem due to erosion or

 11    earthquake  stress  could quickly lead to  mass  carriage of

 12    contaminants far from the  site via surface and groundwater

 13    transport.   In  short, secure landfills with  appreciable

 14    amounts of  leachate inside can be likened to  chicken  pot

 15    pies,  the crusts of which  will collapse  with  the least

 16    stress or liquid removal.

 17             Since many of the liquids traditionally buried in

 18    landfills are solvents or  solvent mixtures,  they possess

 19    unique  capabilities to mobilize hydrophobia  and  otherwise

 20    immobile wastes.   The leachate generated by  the  addition

 21    of  such liquids inevitably becomes a witches  brew of  toxics

 22    far more  dangerous  than the original waste materials

 23    themselves.  Solvents have been undeniably linked to  severe

 24    and rapid degradation of both synthetic  membrane and

25    compacted clay  liners in numerous and varied  laboratory

-------
                                                             123
 1    experiments paid  for by EPA and others.

 2              Field experience with such liner systems bears out

 3    these  findings.   Recent data  from  the modern Earthline Wilson

 4    ville  landfill indicate that  gross levels of contaminants

 5    have escaped  the  liner in not just one area but several.

 6              On  the  basis of these indications and as a result

 7    of court  proceedings on the matter, the  facility owner has

 8    been ordered  to begin exhumation of the wastes at the

 9    facility. Recent analysis of four out of five New Jersey's

10    secure landfills  by Princeton University investigator,

11    Dr.  Peter Montigue, clearly demonstrated that all four have

12    suffered  liner failures even  before the  landfills were

13    closed.

14              Based on these uncontested laboratory and and

15    field  observations, placement of solvents and other liquids

16    in secure landfills constructed with such liner systems

17    seems  totally irresponsible.

18              In  spite of  all the dangers associated with this

19    practice, well-known  to USEPA, the Agency argues that

20    burial of large quantities of liquids is required because

21    "substantial  capital  costs" while  EPA resolves of the key

22    issues will have  an impact on industry.

23              This  argument has  falacious on its face because

24    the ban has been  effect  for  several months  and has been

25    promulgated after years of  public  debate, 13 months nrior

-------
                                                             129
     to  its  effective date.
               Industry has  had ample  opportunity to  install
     whatever equipment was  necessary  to  provide  containers
     compliant with the free liquid ban.  In  addition,  decanting
     equipment will not be needed  at most facilities  at all  for
     wastes  produced for particular liquid levels.
               Rather,  inexpensive production  process  adjustment
 8    will  determine the liquid  levels  for a  particular
 9    waste.
10              The argument  is  additional falacious because
11    most  generators have received USEPA  permits  to store wastes
12    on-site preparatory to  disposal.   These permits will allow
13    storage for an additional  period  to  USEPA determination of
14    the free liquid limit issue discussed in  the Federal Register.
15              Furthermore,  if  the  generator  does  not want  to
16    store  or  decant existing barrels of  liquid wastes,  they
17    can  be shipped to  existing destruction or solidification
18    facilities across  the nation.
19              USEPA argues  that limiting landburial of  liquids
20    in each container  for a particular level requires land
21    disposal  facilities  to  "open inspect all incoming containers
22    and  perform additional  de-watering operation  on these
23    containerized liquids."
24              New York State has successfully implemented  a
25    reasonable liquid  limit ban and the  regulated community has

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         130
not found it unworkable.  Cooperative arrangements between

the generators and disposers have resulted in contracts

that specify certain waste characteristic limitations,

allowing disposers to develop quality control schemes which

require opening only a fraction of the drums.

          If any of the drums do not comply with the rules,

a larger fraction is inspected and the generator notified

of the deficiency.  The generator then chooses whether the

drums are to be returned to him for additional treatment

or whether the additional work is to be done by the disposer

on site and charged back to the generator.

          The additional costs of transportation and/or on-

site treatment provides the necessary motivation to generators

to comply with contract specifications.

          Based on USEPA's unreal perception of the

"real-word problems" at waste disposal sites, it believes

a landfill-wide limitation of liquids based on the

formulae provided in the Federal Register would eliminate

inspection of drums and thereby the theoretical endangerment

of workers.

          It is hard to see how this reduction of endanger-

ment will occur since the proportion of containers described

as solid by the generator — approximately 75 percent in a

25 foot desr> landfill — will still need the same quality

control efforts and nrotocol on site which all containers

-------
                                                            131
     receive now.  Consequently, the proposed EPA liquid limit
     formulae for landfills should eliminate only 25 percent
     at most of the inspection required when the ban was in
     effect.
               EPA bemoans the lack of remove technology to
     determine liquid contents of barrels.  We join them in this
     concern as inspecting barrels remotely would be preferable
     to opening them manually.
 9             We do believe, however, that such technologies
10   exist that could be researched'in developing systems which
11   do not require manual container inspection activities.
12             Let the entrepreneurial ingenuity recently
13   demonstrated by the rush toward alternative treatment
14   technology for hazardous wastes be brought to bear on this
15   problem, as it will, if the ban is reinstated.
16             These arguments are clearly EPA's proverbial
17   Trojan Horse.  The real truth is that some parochial
18   industrial interests have pressured EPA into suspending the
19   ban on liquids and landfills because destruction or solidi-
20   fication is mora expensive in the short run than dumping
21   liquids in the ground.
22             Land disposal of the liquids postpones the costs
23   and puts those costs not on industry but on the public
24   custodians of landfills. Industry gets a free ride at the
25   expense of the taxpayers.

-------
                                                                          132
              1              Rather than weaken already unconscionable rules

              2    permitting land burial of untreated waste,  EPA should follow

              3    New York's leadership in requiring waste management facility

              4    modernization;allowing burial of liquids destroys  economic

              5    incentives for state-of-the-art destruction fixation facili-

              6    ties.

              7              The suspension of the ban on land burial of liquids

              8    and the proposed formulae for liquid limits in landfills

              9    will break the precious momentum that years of industry,

             10    government and citizen cooperation have generated  to

             11    modernize the waste management practices in New York and

             12    other states.

             13              If our neighboring states are allowed to manage

             14    waste irresponsibly under USEPA rules and choose to do so,

             15    New York State industry may leave the State in search of

             16    cheaper disposal fees and our growing and modernizing waste

             17    management firms will be starved for revenue.

             18              In the long run, of course, the public will be

             19    the big losers.  As we have all discovered too late

             20    remediation of such toxic disasters as Love Canal  costs

             21    much much more in the end than prooer management in the

             22    beginning.

             23              Having briefly addressed the problems surrounding

             24    the substantive impact of the Agency action being  discussed

             25    today, I would like to close with a comment on the Agency's
V

-------
                                                             133
 1    inexplicable  disregard of  lawful  procedures  in summarily sus-
 2    pending  a  duly  promulgated regulation.
 3              Beginning with the  passage of  RCRA,  the
 4    New  York State  Attorney General has been committed to  a
 5    strong involvement  in  the  promulgation of the  regulations
 6    under the  Act.
 7              My  office actively  participated in the development
 8    of the rule that was effectively  thrown  out  by EPA on
 9    February 18th of this  year.
10              Long  before  the  long-delayed promulgation of that
11    rule in  May of  1980,we expended a great  deal of time and
12    energy.  We put in  more than  100  pages of comments on  the
13    proposed rules  and  did sd  for the purpose of making the
14    Resource Conservation  Recovery Act carried out properly [sic].
15              NOW after 18 months of  lead time for the rule
16    to take  effect, which  followed a  four-year effort  to imple-
17    ment the Act, and another  three months following the
18    effective  date, EPA unilaterally,  summarily  and totally
19    without  notice  tells industry that the rule  can be ignored
20    while the  Agency considers an amendment  to it.
21              On  behalf of Robert Abrams, Attorney General  of
22    the  State  of  ?Iew York, I urge the Agency to  immediately
23    withdraw its  suspension not only  for the sound environmentally
24    related  reasons that I've  discussed today, but as  a showing
25    of good  faith to those of  us  who  have worked so hard to

-------
                                                           134
    the accomplishments we now have reason to fear will be
    eroded.
              MR. PEDERSON:  Mr. Skinner, what's your opinion
    of the proposition that the EPA proposed rule is more or
    less equivalent in strigency to the New York rule, because
    under the EPA proposed rule, any drum with any liquid is
    counted as having a 100 percent liquid?
              MR. SKINNER:  Well, first off, that's not the
    way I read the rule.  More importantly, one of the issues
10   that has not been raised here — at least this morning—
11   is the notion of bulk wastes, which may or may not meet
12   the 25 or 10 percent rule.
              In New York demand for sludge disposal is so
14   great that one of the operators developed his own sludge
15   disposal facility so that it would not mix with and cause
16   subsidence problems in the normal secure landfill.
17             Because the demand is so high in New York, we
18   fear that having 25 percent of the containers be liquid
19   added to the non-regulated — at least in other states —
20   excuse me.  It's regulated in New York.
21             But in other states the 25 percent of liquid in
22   drums plus the highly liquid sludges and other materials in
23   bulk form will cost much more than 25 percent of the landfill
24   to be liquid.
25             And EPA points that out in their preamble and I

-------
                                                              135
 1    agree entirely with that.
 2              Those kinds of considerations, I think, make a
 3    mockery of the — this limited rule covering just con-
 4    tainerized waste.  The way to get around that rule, of
 5    course, is to deliver the bulk liquid waste in a truck,
 6    dump them over the side and then all of a sudden you have
 7    made a mockery of your efforts to minimize liquids in
 8    landfills.
 9              MR. PEDERSON:  Yes, but focussing just for the
10    moment on the containerized wastes, you have an opinion as
11    to whether you are proposing one stricter than the one that
12    we have proposed, taking into account the difference in
J3    sampling methods.
14              MR. SKINNER:  Well, certainly at the 5 percent
15    limit for liquids in containerized and non-containerized
16    waste, it certainly is, yes, absolutely, because if I
17    read your rules right — by the way, you should put in
18    your rules that it's measured in feet. Because if it's
19    measured in centimeters or — it would — you have to do it
20    in feet.
21              Certainly, at 5 percent free liquid, we are
22    certainly more strigent because not only can we cover
23    containerized waste, but we do non-containerized as well.
24              CHAIRI1AN DIETRICH:  What test do you use — test
25    methods do you use for free liquid content?

-------
                                                            136



              MR. SKINNER:  Well, I think that's a hard




    question.  At the present time, the particular test in




    question is under negotiation between our operators and the




    Department of Environmental Conservation.




              There are a number of tests that have been used




    in the past.  One was perhaps an appropriate but poorly




    carried out test, that was called the honey test; namely,




    once the drum was opened and it was stirred, if it had the




 9   consistency of honey, then it was okay, if it was not, it




10   wasn't.




11             Now, I didn't quite support that notion.  And




12   I didn't support it for a number of reasons:  (a) I think




13   there are a lot better ways to do it; and,  (b) there are




14   certainly no reason in many many cases to put those kind of




15   materials in the landfills in the first place.




16             But assuming that a showing can be made that there




17   is no treatment capability for such materials there are




18   many tests carried out, physical chemistry  tests, such as




19   sheer tests for liquids which can be determined to be




20   appropriate.




2i             And I know  EPA has appropriately  looked at




22   75 of those.  And I think it might be helpful to all of us




23   if SPA would put in the Federal Register a  description of




24   all  75 for the review of technically oriented oerson, in




25   industry and the private sector as well.

-------
                                                          137



               CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Those are, I believe, in our




     docket.   It seems to me, though, if you want to have an




     enforcement policy with regard to the 5 or 10 percent, you




     do need some sort of precise test to carry that out.




               MR. SKINNER:  I don't think a precise test is




     really waht is needed.  What is needed is a generally




 7   acceptable test.




 8             And the basis for that test should be a determina-




     tion based on criteria to what objective you wish to




     achieve.  If viscosity — a high viscosity — achieves that




11   objective; namely, reduction of migration potential, as




12   CMA seems to indicate, the viscosity would be an




13   appropriate approach.




14             I think one of the basic questions that has




15   been alluded to that needs careful review, of course, is




16   the fact that under vibration you get materials floating




17   to the surface. Does that indicate that absorbtion is




18   really taking place.  I think that's an important question,




19   so research should go into it.




20             I think the addition,  of kitty litter may not,




21    in the long-run, keep  even neutonian (phonetic) fluids in




22    place.  I think that's very important to determine whether




23    in the long-run pouring absorbants really isn't answering




24    the question either.




25              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: Tell me once again, how does

-------
 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
                                                         133
a New York inspector at a landfill site determine whether
a particular drum is in compliance or not.
          MR. SKINNER:  I don't know the precise answer to
that.  They indicate in their inspection reports that they
achieved what they believed is 10 percent free fluid which
includes air, by the way.
          But the exact protocol we use today I don't know.
In the past —
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Could you supply that?
          MR. SKINNER:  Certainly.
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Could you perhaps do that
by Monday?
          MR. SKINNER:  I will certainly attempt to.
But I would indicate that those — the issue is the —
the issue is being negotiated because we are committed to
the stand, but want to do it in a fair —
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  And do I understand that the
state regulations use the term prohibition or ban?
          MR. SKINNER:  That's correct.
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  The actual enforcement of it
is —
          MR. SKINNER:  This ban
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: Shows some discretion.   Is
that right?
          MR. SKINNER:  That's correct, because as people

-------
                                                              139

 1    here  have indicated the variety of waste that comes in

     requires  a somewhat flexible approach.

 3              However,  the clear intent is  to reduce those

 4    fluids  which have the capacity to cause difficulties in the

 5    landfills.

 6              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  You gave  some amazing figures

 7    about depth of leachate in three or four fills,  13 - 20

 8    feet.   Are you suggesting that all that leachate has come

 9    from  liquids placed in the landfill or  could some of that

10    ha'vecome  from rainwater infiltrating through the cover or

11    falling on the facility during —

12              MR. SKINNER:  I think we have to look  carefully

13    at that issue.  At CECOS, for instance,  where secure landfill

14    numbers one and two were governed by the 15 percent free

15    liquid  rule, there is clear indication  that probably most
                  ^
16    of that may be precipitation from rainfall if that's during

17    the open  period.

18              In terms of the SCA facility,  one through five

19    as far  as I know were not governed by the 15 percent free

20    liquid  rule so many of those, especially, for instance the

21    PCB's which are appearing,  are clearly  liquid and clearly

22    were  liquid when they were placed there.

23              In additionl, SCA's present high levels are exas-

24    cerbated  by the placemsnt of sewage sludge atop  the landfill

25    to cao  that was never enplaced on the six fills.

-------
 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
          So, I think those high levels at the present

time can be explained that way. In the past, however, prior

to the enplacement of that sludge, similar levels existed

and that probably is a mixture of enplaced liquids and

rainfall.

          I think the important thing to look at  is the

CECOS facilities which are state-of-the-art, were constructed

as planned and were governed  by the  15 percent free

liquid  and still high leachate levels exist.

          Since '73, that's four years now and —

          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  That suggest that you have

a rainwater problem.

          MR. SKINNER:  I don't think that's the case and

I think CECOS would argue that's not the case as well.  But

at the present time those liquids fluctuate every time you

try to pump it out and as such they are pumped on a

continuous basis year round to try and reduce the levels.
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  To your knowledge, has

compliance with the five or ten percent rule been accomplishe

by removing liquids from tha waste or by addition of

absorbants?

          MR. SKINNER:  The addition of absorbants and

care at  the generating facility to reduce the amount in the

first place.

          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:   Do you have any idea of what

-------
                                                              141



    proportion?




              MR.  SKINNER:   No,, but I think that representatives




    of  the  industry will be here today to help you out on that




    question.




              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Okay, it's now three and a half




    hours after we started  and I'm hungry and you're hungry,




    and I think I  would like to reconvene at 1:30.




               (Whereupon, at 12:30, a recess for lunch was




    taken.)




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
       2





       3





       4





       5





       6





       7





       8





       9





       TO





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18





       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
DBS, Inc.
                                                           142
                        AFTERNOON  SESSION
           CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Peter, I would really appreciate




 it if you could give us as much information as you could




 on how you are implementing the five and the ten percent.




           MR. SKINNER:  I'll be happy to.  I think it's




 important that perhaps a presentation by the Department




 of Environmental Conservation by the monitors themselves




 who are on site and actually carry out the day-to-day




j work to achieve that would be very helpful to you.




           For instance, I do know that their review of




 the site when they first went there, they found it very




 easy to locate non-compliant drums that were actually




 already landfilled, required the operators to move those,




 add the necessary agents and put them back in place, so,




 even in the  fill, through tapping measures and some other




 things, they were able to segregate non-compliant drums




 and the compliant drums.




           So it's not completely impossible.  I'm not




 on a day-to-day basis in the fill, but I think it would




 be very helpful if you talked to them.




           CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Maybe you could arrange




 something for tomorrow and tell me how we could get that




 information.




           MR. SKINNER:  I'll do that.




           CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I've been asked to announce

-------
        1

        2

        3

        4

        5

        6
        7

        8

        9

       10

       11

       12

       13

       14

       15

       16

       17

       18

       19

       20

       21

       22

       23

       24

       25
                                                143
that there will be a press conference tomorrow  on the
National Contingency Plan.  It will be at 1:00.  It will
be in Room S363 which is the new offices over the sinkway
in this building, in this complex.
          We have 21 people, more people.  At that rate,
we'll be here all night. I'm going to see if we can get
through maybe 15 minutes apiece.  What I'll try to do
is go to 4:30 this evening, and have a half-hour break,
reconvening at 5, and perhaps we can wind this  thing up
at 6.
          I think that would be better than letting this
thing over into tomorrow.  I'm going to exercise the discre-
tion of the chair and do a little bit of reshuffling.
I first would like to call on Mr. Ted Clardy, State Coordi-
nating Organization of Missourians against Hazardous Waste.
He's from Excello, Missouri, and he has driven  three days
to get here, and I would like to give him an opportunity
to make his statement.  Ted?
                 STATEMENT OF TED CLARDY
          MR. CLARDY:  Thank you for allowing me this
time and putting me ahead of some of the other  people.
I am one of the grassroots movement.  I'm one of the many
concerned citizens throughout the United States, and they
are growing everyday.  We heard people, technical people
from the regulatory agencies.  We are the people who are
DBS, Inc.

-------
       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
DH5, Inc.
                                                 144
 going to have to live by these sites.  We're going to

 have to drink the water when it's contaminated, and I'm

 here to make sure — I  think it's concern and everyone

 else is.

           Like I said, I'm Ted Clardy, I'm a farmer, I

 live in northeast Missouri.  My address is Rural Route

 1, Excello, Missouri, and don't try to find Excello on

 a map.  There's not over 70 people there.

           I'm one of the many thousands of concerned citizens

 across these United States who believe in God, our country

 and that the health and welfare of the people shall be

 the supreme law.  We believe that we were made by God

 to be the spirit of the land, and that we have a responsi-

 bility until God, ourselves and our fellow men to pass

 this land of ours onto the next generation as good or

! hopefully in better condition than what it was passed

 onto us.

           This, I believe, and this is my own, that this

 is a basic law of survival for mankind as it was intended

 from the beginning.

           I am member of Missourians Against Hazardous

 Waste, Macon County, Jissouri, and a member of the State

 Coordinating Organization of Missourians Against Hazardous

 Waste.   I wish to read the following  statement.

           A policy  statement from the State Coordinating

-------
       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
                                               145
Organization, SCO of Missourians Against Hazardous Waste,
MAHW, in regard to the U.S.EPA policy reversal record
in the Federal Register dated 2/25/82 concerning 90-day
suspension of the EPA ban on burying liquid hazardous
waste in landfill effective 2/18/82 to 5/26/82, docket
number 3004, extension of Section 265.314 (b).
          To the participants in this United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency hearing, the SCP of MAHW is a
not-for-profit corporation in the State of Missouri.  As
an umbrella alliance with individual and organization
affiliates, the SCO represents more than 100,000 Missourians.
          The SCO was created to promote safe and responsi-
ble methods of hazardous waste disposal, like incineration,
recyling and recovery.  The SCP policy maintains that
the use of landfill for hazardous waste disposal is an
unjustifiable risk to human health and to the environment
and ecological safety.
          The SCO further maintains that the use of landfills
for hazardous waste disposal is illogical and irresponsible.
Therefore, because of our grave concern for the diminishing
protection of our nation's water, soil and air; and because
of our firm belief in the U.S. EPA's continual obligation
to strengthen, rather than weaken, the laws that provide
this protection; and because of our unified commitment
to the SCO objectives, we, the members of the SCO, challenge
DBS, Inc.

-------
                                                          146
       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 oppose U.S. EPA 90-day suspension of the ban on land-




filling liquid hazardous waste and call upon.the members




of this committee to override, nullify or otherwise repeal




said 90-day suspension.




          This statement submitted on behalf of the SCO




membership by Sue Behrens, the Vice Chairman of the SCO




of MAHW and Linda Clardy, Secretary Treasurer of the SCO




of MAHW, Route 1, Excello, Missouri.




          Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  I'd next like




to call on Mr. William Eichbaum, Assistant Secretary for




Environmental Programs of the State of Maryland.




              STATEMENT OF WILLIAM EICHBAUM




          MR. EICHBAUM:  Thank you very much, Mr. Deitrich.




Thank you for taking us at this time.  My name is William




Eichbaum.  I am Assistant Secretary for Environmental




Programs in the Maryland Department of Health and Mental




Hygiene.




          I have with me here today several other members




of my staff who might also be able to help any questions




you might have.  Dr. Max Eisenberg who is responsible




for our science and health advisory group and also serves




on the Administrator's Council for Toxic Substances.   We




also have Mr.  Ronald Nelson who is Acting Administrator




for our Waste  Management Program and who serves as
DBS, Inc.

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
                                               147





Maryland's liaison on the Northeast States Hazardous Waste




Coordinating Council, also Mr. Bernie Bigham from Mr.




Nelson's staff.




          My purpose here is to in the strongest terms




possible object to the 90 day suspension of the ban against




disposal of containerized liquids in hazardous waste land-




fills.  One of the points I'd like to make initially and




that has not been addressed before really arises out of




the remarks and the concerns that you just heard from




Mr. Clardy.




          I think one of the things you've got to recognize




when you at EPA go for a rulemaking process is that out




in the states there are people like me, and our responsi-




bility is to issue permits, to conduct enforcement actions,




inspections and to try and actually allow the development




of facilities pursuant to which we can wisely manage our




hazardous waste problem.




          It ultimately boils down to the citing question.




The public reaction to the kind of decision that you have




made both in the 90 day suspension and that you are likely




to make if you impose the proposed rule which would allow




the 25 percent and would remove the requirements for leachate




systems and liners and the rest of it further undermines




public confidence, A, do we know what we're doing, and,




B, that what we are trying to do will work to protect

-------
V
 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
       DBS, Inc.
                                                    148
the public health and the environment, and to the extent
that you erode and you undermine that public confidence,
you make it absolutely impossible for me to do a major
part of my job which is to try and get sites located and
facilities in operation to manage the sites.
          There are people here from the State of Maryland
who live fairly close to our major hazardous waste  landfill.
They're not always delighted with everything I do or do
not do, but they do not want to see liquid waste in land-
fills, and they will make my job infinitely more difficult
if they think that you are opening the door so that that
may occur.
          Let me say that the State of Maryland has abso-
lutely no intention of allowing either the suspension
to have an effect in Maryland or any subsequent rule which
would allow 10, 15, 25 percent or whatever it might be
of liquid containerized waste be put in landfills.
          Fundamentally, let me try and tell you why that
is.  A, we don't do it now, and we have not done it since
we have had a program in Maryland going back to 1977.
Your record, your statements, much of what we heard from
the industry today, suggests that, and we believe  in Maryland,
that liquids are not good for landfills.
          I think we have to remember that landfills are
a technology.  They're a technology like an incinerator

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
                                               149




is, they're a technology like a reprocessing facility




is, and that technology to many people is not the best




technology, because there are risks associated with  it,




but it is perhaps a necessary technology, but many of




those risks arise because of water, because of liquids.




          Therefore, it is our position in Maryland  that




to maximize the opportunities for the technology of  land-




filling to work, we just should not allow liquid materials




to enter into those landfills, and we have, therefore,




a pretty absolute prohibition against that.




          In fact, we don't even like to have liquids




in our hazardous waste landfills if we can avoid it, so




we don't, for example, in many situations, we highly dis-




courage the placement of sludge from sewage treatment




plants just because we don't want all that water mucking




around in that landfill.




          We would suggest that the situation in a hazardous




waste landfill is even more serious and, therefore, more




urgently suggests that we should not allow liquid container-




ized waste in hazardous waste landfills.




          I'm somewhat struck by the discussion this morning,




and I'm not giving my prepared remarks which I actually




didn't give you at all, I guess.  You don't seem to have




them, but I'm not reading them either, and we can give




those to you if you'd like to have them for the record.

-------
                                                          150
       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 was struck by the discussion this morning




because we seem to, A, not be talking about whether or




not EPA should have suspended any requirement for 90 days




out of whole cloth which I think is the major subject




matter of this hearing and which we are very strongly




opposed to, but, secondly, we did seem to get quite exten-




sively into the question of the 25 percent, the 10 percent,




the 5 percent, and I guess I want to say, as I have said,




we do not believe the suspension should have taken place




as a matter of policy.




          We believe that the agency should maintain the




absolute ban as it considers its proposed rulemaking in




any change, because we do not believe the technology will




work with any other posture, but we got led into a debate




between 25 and the other numbers, because there was some




concern about whether or not you could measure or know




whether liquids were going in.




          Well, the thing that strikes me is whether the




numbers 25 or 10 or 5, you have that problem.  It doesn't




matter what number you pick so let's keep that in mind,




and I seem to hear from industry that you can, in fact,




tell whether or not liquids are going in.




          There may be a cost associated with it.  There




may be a delay associated with it, and you may make some




mistakes, but by and  large, you can tell if liquids are
DBS, Inc.

-------
10                                                          151




        1    going in, and it's our view that, therefore, the issue




        2    is not whether or not 10, 25 or whatever percent of the




        3    capacity should be liquid, the issue is are we correct




        4    that liquids should not be in landfills ideally and, in




        5    fact, we do seem to be able to tell whether or not liquids




        6    are going in; therefore, if we are correct that they should




        7    not be there, let's not allow them to go in.




        8              That would be, I think, the first point of con-




        9    fusion.  I don't understand why we're even talking in




       10    this context about the 25 percent or the 10 or whatever




       11    the rest of it might be.




       12              A second concern seemed to be, and this is cer-




       13    tainly, I think, a much more legitimate concern is, in




       14    fact, do some liquids have to be landfilled.  In Maryland,




       15    we have a siting process that is run by the state, and




       16    which can ultimately override local zoning opposition.




       17              That process has recently, and I can only speak




       18    for the State of Maryland, completed a needs survey which




       19    was done by the Arthur D. Little Company, and we'd be




       20    happy to try and provide you with a copy of that, I'm




       2i    sorry I didn't bring one today, and it does not suggest




       22    that there is a need in Maryland, and we have a somewhat




       23    sophisticated industrial base, for landfill capacity for




       24    liquid wastes.




       25              So at least to the extent that we've taken a

-------
       11
/
   I                                                 152




 1    look at the issue, to the extent that we now have an absolute




 2    prohibition, to the extent that in response to that prohibi-




 3    tion an industry has developed in Maryland over the last




 4    decade which, in fact, does reprocess and handle in many




 5    different ways liquid wastes, I'm not sure the need exists.




 6    It certainly doesn't in Maryland.  There's certainly no




 7    evidence to support it.  In fact, the evidence could go




 8    the other way.




 9              I'm not sure we need to across the board conclude




10    that we need 25 percent perhaps of the capacity of the




11    landfills in America for this undefined, unknown liquid




12    hazardous waste.  Perhaps though there are some ways,




13    somewhere, as the gentleman from CMA seemed to suggest,




14    that there is no option, and I certainly think we have




15    to look at that.




16              I would recommend that some sort of rulemaking




17    process be pursued that would do that, but I don't think




18    we ought to throw out what I view as fundamentally a major




19    question of the reliability of this technology in the




20    interest of allowing these few wastes, perhaps, to go




21    into landfills.




22              I guess the only other point that I would make,




23    and this again by way of analogy and what I think we're




24    doing, you know, we have 55 mile an hour speed limits,




25    and we know an awful lot of people go 70 miles an hour,

-------
12
                                                               153
        1    and we don't catch everyone of them, but we don't raise
        2    the speed limit to 75 miles an hour.  We think about whether
        3    there are better ways to catch them.  We think about whether
        4    or not the benefits still don't outweight, and I think
        5    that goes to the question, how can the state guarantee
        6    that no liquid will go into a landfill.
        7              If you can't guarantee it, isn't it a stupid
        8    requirement?  Well, I can't guarantee that everyone is
        9    going to drive 50 miles an hour, but you don't think that's
       10    a stupid requirement.
       11              I do think that the desirability of having zero
       12    is sufficient important, that that is the goal we should
       13    shoot for, and we should rely on the ability of state
       14    agencies to inspect the manifesting system that many states
       15    have and perhaps EPA will have in a usable form, and the
       16    proper action of most of industry in order to insure that
       17    liquid wastes will not go into these fills.
       18              Our experience has been in Maryland where we've
       19    had a manifest system now for about five years that if
       20    the burden is placed on the generator and if the disposer
       2i    knows that that's where he can look that, in fact, the
       22    system works pretty well as it is with the prohibition.
       23              Thank you.  We'll be happy to try and answer
       24    any questions you might have.
       25              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Do you allow any containerized

-------
13
                                                               154
      1     wastes in your hazardous waste landfills?
      2               MR. EICHBAUM:  No.  Yes, we do allow container-
      3     ized waste.
      4               CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  How do you enforce or inspect
      5     that they indeed do not include any liquids?
      6               MR. EICHBAUM:  Well, one of the men from industry
      7     really answered that question this morning, and I forget
      8     which gentleman it was, but, as I said near the end of
      9     my remarks, we place that burden on the generator and
     10     on the operator.
     11               The normal procedure is that the operator of
     12     the fill will, in fact, fairly closely examine barrels
     13     as they come in in order to determine whether or not there
     14     are liquid wastes there.  That will be, as was pointed
     15     out this morning, typical where a disposer has a new cus-
     16     tomer that he hasn't dealt  with before.
     17               Once there is an understanding of the business
     18     relationship and how it's likely to proceed, the inspection
     19     by the disposer tends  to be a lot less frequent.  The
     20     operator, the major operating landfill that's generally
     21     available to industry  in Maryland today has chemists on
     22     site who are able to conduct, not only for this purpose,
     23     but other purposes whatever testing may be necessary.
     24               MR. PEDERSEN:  If I could just clear up one
     25     point, is  it the law in Maryland that a. container cannot

-------
14
                                                                     155
         1   landfilled if it contains any liquid?
         2             MR. EICHBAUM:  I'd have to see whether that's
         3   law or regulation. Rom?  Regulation.
         4             MR. PEDERSEN:  But the regulation is an absolute
         5   ban?
         6             MR. EICHBAUM:  There are exceptions for very
         7   deminimus amounts as there were in your original —
         8             MR. PEDERSEN:  What's a very deminimus amount?
         9             MR. EICHBAUM:  Ampules, car battery issue, that
        10   kind of thing.
        11             MR. PEDERSEN:  And you say you place the burden
        12   on the generator and the landfill owner in the first instance,
        13   Well, what do you do in the second instance to make sure
        14   that they are discharging that burden?
        15             MR. EICHBAUM:  Well, we conduct inspections.
        16   We review manifests, and if we find that there are indica-
        17   tions of problems or there are problems, we will pursue
        18   it.  One of the better examples, it doesn't have to do
        19 .  with containerized waste, it happened to be free wastes,
        20   we found a major — the major site that was disposing
        21   of liquid waste freely.
        22             We initiated a civil action against them, collected
        23   a $30,000 penalty, and a major issue in that case was
        24   whether or not this was truly a liquid or was it something
        25   else, and we used what I guess is commonly called the

-------
15
         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
                                                156



plate test or the inclined plane test which is like many




of these tests less than scientific, but it was sufficient




to persuade the company that what they had been doing




as a matter of practice, they should not have been doing,




they should pay a penalty for it, and that it would not




be done in the future.




          It was also sufficient to persuade the source




of that particular waste that they should change their




practice and in the plant, to generate that waste so that




that problem did not exist and, in fact, it has solved




the problem of putting a fairly gooey waste into a landfill,




          Now I use an example, if you will, of the non-




containerized situation, because the confrontational issue,




was it liquid or was it not was the same.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  But the point is you do




not have in your regulations or in guidance any specific




test procedure, sampling procedure, inspection procedure




that is used by your instructors to make a clear yes or




no answer with regard to whether the regulation is being




complied with.




          MR. EICHBAUM:  Yes, our regulations set forth,




I believe it's called the inclined plane test.  We will,




however, work with a particular site to allow them to




use some additional or other process that we would find




equally satisfactory. Ron, do you want to add to that?

-------
16
                                                           157
       1              MR. NELSON:  Only that we also have guidance
       2    to our inspectors.  We have an operations manual, a manual
       3    of guidance for our inspector on how to do things. Obvi-
       4    ously we don't have sophisticated tests in all cases,
       5    but a person with a reasonable mind can certainly tell
       6    a liquid in a lot of cases from a solid, and we do that.
       7              I might also that, you know, we do have that
       8    test, but we've also worked with the industry on other
       9    tests that have come up that they have proposed to us
       10    to show that there's liquid, so there are guidance docu-
       11    ments available.
       12              MR. EICHBAUM:  I think one of the things you
       13    have to make a choice between, and this is going to have
       14    to be EPA's choice, I can't tell you which way to go is
       15    whether or not, as Mr. Nelson suggests, you're going to
       16    rely on some judgment by the field inspector and by the
       17    operator of the facility in order to minimize which is
       18    our goal the placement of liquids in these fills, or in
       19    the alternative, are you going to do what you're proposing
       20    to do, adopt a regulation which while dealing with the
       2i     inspection and the enforcement problem also happens to
       22    substantially change how these fills are probably going
       23    to be able to  — the capacity to be able to demonstrate
       24    these fills are secure, and I would not recommend that.
       25               I'd rather rely on the judgment of the

-------
17

                                                           158
        1    fellow in the field than open these things up lock, stock
        2    and barrel.
        3              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  But you seem to be suggesting
        4    that in actual implementation, you do recognize that you
        5    can allow a deminimus amount of liquid in containers going
        6    into landfills.
        7              MR. EICHBAUM:  You can't stop it.  This is not
        8    a norm that I would shoot for.
        9              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Okay, that's fine.  I think
       10    our goal is different from your goal.
       11              MR. PEDERSEN:  The norm  that you would shoot
       12    for this year or in ten years or eventually, what?
       13              MR. EICHBAUM:  I think you're right.  That's
       14    a good question.  What can we do today, and what can we
       15    do in ten years?
       16              My sense in Maryland is today we can shoot for
       17    zero liquids going into these landfills.  My view also
       18    is that the wider you open the door, and  I think you've
       19    opened it pretty wide, not only with the  90 day thing,
       20    but also with your proposal for after March 22, the wider
       21    you open that door, the more  likely it is that in two,
       22    three, four, five years, we will not have the technologies
       23    in place that are going to be able to deal with these
       24    liquid wastes.
       25              We had industries in the State  of Maryland that

-------
18
                                                            159
        1    have grown up in the last ten years precisely in response
        2    to the reality of and anticipation of this kind of ban,
        3    and I can tell you that one of the worst things that happens
        4    to them, and they cause me a regulatory problem when they
        5    start to go out of business, and they're undercapitalized,
        6    and they've got all these liquid wastes there, when you
        7    cut the market out from under them, they go out of business,
        8    and another guy isn't going to start into business very
        9    soon when his whole economic ability really depends upon
       10    the stability and the rationality and the constancy of
       11    a federal and a state approach to managing this problem.
       12              So I think, you know, Bill, you say what about
       13    in ten years?  I say maybe ten years is where we should
       14    shoot, but if you do what you're going to do, it ain't
       15    going to happen in ten years, because the industry won't
       16    develop.
       17              MR. PEDERSEN:  I have a question from the audience.
       18    Where are the liquid hazardous wastes generated in Maryland
       19    being disposed?
       2o              MR. EICHBAUM:  There are about three or four
       2i    facilities in the State of Maryland where there is chemical
       22    treatment, and I think some solidification occurring.
       23    I won't give the names of the companies here, but if anybody
       24    wants them, we'll be happy to give them to them if you
       25    need a place to go, and a good bit of it is going out

-------
19
                                                           160
        1    of the state.  We do not have an incinerator in Maryland.
        2    I say  a good bit, not all of it, and not a substantial

        3    part of it, and we'll give you those numbers if you'd
        4    like them by Monday.
        5              We do not have an incinerator in the state,
        6    and one of the things that came out of the Arthur D. Little
        7    study is probably that there is not enough of that type

        8    of waste generated in the state to justify a private company
        9    developing an incinerator just for Maryland waste that
       10    would normally go to an incinerator.
       11              We have a number of businesses that do this
       12    and that take waste from as far away as New York, North
       13    Carolina and New Jersey.  In fact, one of the complaints
       14    that you might hear from our citizens is that we take
       15    a lot more out of state waste than we do waste generatedin
       16    the state.
       17              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  I would appreciate
       18    it, I would  like  if we could receive a copy of your guide-
       19    lines or implementing instructions with regard to implernenta-
       20    tion of your rule.
       2i              MR. EICHBAUM:  I'd be happy to.
       22              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Bill.  I would
       23    like to complete  the presentation by the state representa-
       24    tives by calling  Jack McMillan who is representing the
       25    Association  of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management

-------
20
       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
                                               161





Officials.  Jack is Director of the Division of Solid




Waste Management of the Mississippi Board of Health.




               STATEMENT OF JACK McMILLAN




          MR. McMILLAN:  I am Jack McMillan, the Director




of the Division of Solid Waste Management for the State




of Mississippi. I'm speaking on behalf of the Association




of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials




who represent the regulatory agencies throughout the states




of the United States.




          I want to first state that Norman Nosenchuk,




our President, regrets that he was not able to be here




to make this presentation, but since it was necessary




that I come to town, he asked me to do it on his behalf.




          I'm also sorry to say that it's necessary for




the state regulatory agencies who is a part of the regulatory




program and was dictated by the law that we would carry




out the major portion of the responsibility under this




law, that it's necessary for us to come to Washington




to have an input into the process of this regulatory program.




          I think it would have been much better if we




had been consulted and asked our opinions and had an input




prior to this hearing.




          The Association of State and Territorial Solid




Waste Management Officials hereafter will be referred




to as ASTSWMO is extremely concerned about the Environmental

-------
f
V
21                                                         162


        1    Protection Agency's decision to allow containerized liquids


        2    or waste containing free liquids to be disposed of in


        3    landfills.


        4              ASTSWMO is opposed to the lifting of the ban


        5    on the land disposal of liquid hazardous waste.  Instead


        6    of moving ahead, EPA is now proposing to move backward


        7    in the management of hazardous waste.


        8              I have also been authorized by the Environmental


        9    Subcommittee of the National Governors Association to


       10    express NGA's opposition to the suspension of the ban


       it    as well.


       12              In comments on the hazardous waste regulations


       13    proposed in December of '78, NGA stated opposition to


       14    the land disposal of containerized liquids .and NGS still


       15    maintains this policy.


       16              I want to note to the best of our knowledge


       17    that EPA did not survey the states regarding this change


       18    in policy which will have a great effect on the states'


       19    hazardous waste program.


       20              One effect it will have that has not been alluded


       21    to this morning is the fact that since the proposed rule


       22    to ban such disposal practices was proposed and put into


       23    regulation in many states and EPA personnel also has promised


       24    the public that we would not put hazardous — liquid hazard-


       25    ous waste in the landfills, and now we've got to go back

-------
22
                                                           163
       1    to the public and tell them, no, fellows, we changed our
       2    minds, we want to do it the other way.
       3              This, I think, will have a tremendous effect
       4    on the siting of hazardous waste landfill and the confidence
       5    of the public.  The suspension of the ban is a reversal
       6    of policy dating back to EPA's policy statement in the
       7    August 18, 1976 Federal Register that places all other
       8    means of disposal of waste, such as treatment, recovery,
       9    reuse an incineration as higher priorities above secure
       10    ultimate disposal, especially land disposal.
       11              This policy shift was undertaken with no public
       12    discussion until today and a minimum amount of documentation.
       13    It is the position of the states that the federal ban
       14    on the landfilling of liquids should be reinstated immedi-
       15    ately.
       16              EPA states in the February 25th Federal Register
       17    notice of this action that it believes the current Section
       18    265.314, prohibition is too extreme for real world applica-
       19    tion.  My question is, what evidence have you received
       2o    since the ban went into effect three months ago that made
       21     you come to this conclusion.
       22               The states that have banned liquids in landfill
       23     before the federal ban went into effect have been able
       24     to enforce their ban and the remaining states with programs
       25     that are in effect are prepared to enforce a similar ban.

-------
23
        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
                                                  164




          Because the notice did not discuss the various




methods of enforcement that are used by EPA in the states




regarding the ban, we assume that those methods were not




reviewed.  The ban has been in effect at the federal level




since November 19, 1981, and we feel this is not enough




time to decide whether or not this policy really works.




          We considered the argument that the ban is too




extreme for the real world to be a false one, that it




is intended to cloud the issue and convince those with




less knowledge of the subject that government really cannot




enforce the ban although it was proposed for 18 months




and in effect only three.




          The federal ban is enforceable and workable




and should be given a change to work before EPA declares




unilaterally that it is not practical for the real world.




EPA should not sell short the system it has worked so




hard to develop.




          The uniform manifest system that was proposed




in the Federal Register last Thursday and on which ASTSWMO




has worked with you closely will give facility operators




good information on the content of the containers.  Supple-




menting this information with spot checks of drums should




not disrupt an operation or endanger personnel's  safety




if the proper safety equipment is used.




          EPA states its final regulation for land disposal

-------
24
                                                            165
        1   may absolutely prohibit certain liquid wastes, especially




        2   in some hydrologic settings.  If those wastes must be




        3   banned from land disposal in the future, when finer regula-




        4   tions are promulgated, there is no reason for these wastes




        5   to be allowed into the landfills presently.




        6             In studying the problem, we feel that this ban




        7   on the disposal of liquids into landfills should not be




        8   lifted.  Although, if the ban is reinstated, the question




        9   of liquids and landfills will be a moot point.  It is




       10   an aspect of EPA's proposal that must be addressed.




       11              The most glaring omission from the Federal Register




       12   notice is any mitigation measures for leakage that may




       13   occur. Land disposal regulation must be based on the poten-




       14    tial for leakage. No ground water protection measures




       15    are proposed.




       16              There is only discussion of controlling subsidence.




       17    Liners and leachate collection systems are declared unneces-




       18    sary without the citing of any specific evidence.  There




       19    is a need for additional documentation and discussion




       20    before conclusions can be reached.




       21              For example, EPA uses clay as an example of




       22    a relatively   permeable material.  While the statement




       23    may be accurate generally, research has shown that the




       24    permeability of a clay liner may be affected by the primary




       25    leachate of a waste and should be tested with that leachate.

-------
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
                                               166
          As with the possible prohibition of various
wastes from landfills, general statements should be avoided
until documentation has been fully reviewed.
          After discussing various amounts of liquid waste
that might be allowable, EPA has settled on 25 percent
of the volume of a landfill to be designated for receiving
liquids.  Given the documentation in the notice, this
amount seems arbitrary and, in fact, is nothing less than
placing in regulation what was business as usual before
the federal ban went into effect.
          If the ban remains suspended and if there are
releases into the environment of these liquid wastes,
the responsibility for cleaning up the sites and taking
care of those people affected will fall to the states,
and we are ill-prepared for that role.  The post-closure
liability trust fund that was established in the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 will not be sufficient to handle the problems
we expect to occur.
          As you can see by the response to the February
25th notice, the public is concerned about the subject
of land disposal of liquids.  The suspension of the ban
will make the siting of any landfill extremely difficult,
if not impossible in the future.
          People do not trust landfills,  do not want

-------
26
                                                    167





 1     landfills  in  their  area,  and will  be  even more fearful




 2     of  them because  of  this  suspension.




 3               in  summary,  EPA has lifted  the suspension of




 4     the ban on landfilling liquids,  has attempted to authorize




 5     business as usual and  has not proposed any action to protect




 6     the groundwater  should any leakage occur.




 7               EPA has created a barrier in hazardous waste




 8     management that  will take the states  years to overcome.




 9     In  conclusion, the  Association of  State and Territorial




10     Solid Waste Management Officials recommends that EPA rein-




11     state the  ban immediately.   Thank  you.




12               CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:   Thank you,  Jack.   Do  you




13     have any data as to how  many states do have a regulatory




14     or  statutory  ban on disposal of  containerized liquids?




15               MR.  McMILLAN:   Gary, I'm surprised.  I was under




16     the impression that EPA  had copies of all  the individual




17     state regulations.  I  would have certainly reviewed those




18     regulations prior to making a decision of  this magnitude.




19               (Applause.)




2Q               To  directly  answer your  question,  no,  I don't




21     know.  I'm sure  that all of those  states that originally




22     adopted your  regulations by reference does have  a ban




23     on  it until this point.




24               CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:   Well, we certainly have




25     reviewed regulations with regard to authorization,  and

-------
27
                                                           168
        1    we do have those statistics, but I was asking it in a
        2    broader sense.  Of the states that have not been brought
        3    in, do you have any information with those non-authorized
        *    states?
        5              MR. MCMILLAN:  No, I don't have.
        Q              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Basically this morning,
        7    we've talked about the premise that although a ban is
        8    good, you may have to allow some diminimus amounts.  Do
        9    you have any sense of how your state or other states repre-
       10    sented by the Association, do they allow some recognition
       11    of diminimus amounts in the actual implementation of the
       12    ban?
       13              MR. McMILLAN:  We have discussed this point,
       14    and it is agreed by most of the states that the absolute
       15    drying up of all liquids in landfills might be impossible.
       16              Our point is, and I think it would be a more
       17    workable point, is that we've more clearly defined liquids
       18    and solid waste and to better define testing methods for
       19    determine those liquids.
       2o              Percentages, I think as I stated earlier, 25
       21    or 10 percent is arbitrary.  I think that it depends a
       22    lot on the particular waste that you're disposing of.
       23    Some wastes  have greater abilities to migrate.  Some of
       24    them certainly have different characteristics for the
       25    potential of endangerment.  Other wastes  have more

-------
28
        1





        2





        3





        4





        5





        6




        7





        S





        9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18




       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
                                               169



persistency in the environment, and if it did migrate,




some of it would not harm groundwater when it reached




it while others would.




          I think that it's necessary for us to define




liquids at this point and to define testing methods and




to keep the ban that we have in place.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  One question.  Could you expand




a bit on your statement that EPA's proposed 25 percent




would just sanction business as usual and wouldn't lead




to any real change in landfilling practices?




          MR. McMILLAN:  It's business as usual with a




bit of modification. Instead of putting 100 percent liquid,




you've reduced it to 25, and really the end result is




that you have less liquids that will migrate out of the




landfill and probably take it a little longer to do it,




but the end results is the same.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Jack.  I'd next




like to call on Mr. Tom Williams.  He is an environmental




consultant in Arlington, Virginia.




                STATEMENT BY TOM WILLIAMS




          MR. WILLIAMS:  My name is Tom Williams.  I'm




a private citizen who has long had a strong interest in




waste management.  As a former employee of EPA, I empathize




to a considerable extent with those civil servants who




for more than five years now have seriously struggled

-------
29
                                                    170





 1    to implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.




 2              RCRA is a far-reaching law calling for radical




 3    changes in a critically important environmental area which




 4    until 1976 had suffered a history of almost total neglect




 5    by our society.




 6              Consequently, when EPA began, there were vast




 7    technical and scientific deficiencies in the knowledge




 8    base and little public understanding of the health and




 9    economic ramifications of the hazardous waste issue.  It




10    is not surprising then that you have had to travel a diffi-




ll    cult road, featuring as many twists and turns as any Grand




12    Prix concourse.  Moreoever, even though RCRA became law




13    in October 1976, the rest of the agency at that time place




14    only moderate emphasis on the problem until about the




15    middle of 1978 when Love Canal forced everyone's attention




16    to the tragic long-term implications of hazardous waste




17    mismanagement.




18              There were other problems.  You had to carry




19    out your complex assignments under two different assistant




20    administrators who had somewhat different notions as to




21    how you ought to proceed, a matter on which the current




22    EPA Administrator has commented several times.




23              In addition, your work for 1978 has been the




24    subject of lawsuits from all sectors of the environmental




25    spectrum, left, right and center and wherever else, and

-------
30
        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
                                               171




to conclude this synopsis of happy days at EPA, when the




present administration came in, you were promptly deprived




of almost all your technical information and public partici-




pation capability, and publicly given low marks for your




past efforts to implement an act so difficult and complex




that it has provoked more voluminous comments from industry




and the public than any other legislation in the history




of EPA.




          One day a historian may be able to sort out




all of the political and technical complexities which




have made the implementation of RCRA so difficult, but




even in the future when that may be possible, I submit




that we can be certain now that underlying everything




else would be the simple fact that EPA has been reluctant




and in my opinion with very good reason to officially




sanction in final regulation the placement on or into




the ground of certain categories of hazardous waste, no




matter how carefully done with the best of known technology.




          To delay, to not get the law out is not quite




as guilt provoking an act as would be to say here, officially




we EPA sanction the placement of these wastes where they




will reach you sooner or later.  Many of the known technical




and economic issues influencing the development of standards




applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste




treatment, storage and disposal facilities, were discussed

-------
31
        1





        2





        3





        4





        5





        6




        7





        8





        9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18





       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
                                                172




in the commendably clear and comprehensive 15-page supple-




mental notice of reproposed rulemaking which appeared




in the Federal Register on May 26, 1981.




          This particular notice was referred by EPA's




administrator in her report to the U.S. District Court




last October.  Mrs. Gorsuch outlined her views on the




deficiencies in EPA's earlier regulatory approaches and




then went on to say "that a more thorough and sophisticated




analysis of the issues is needed."




          There's no question that a more thorough and




sophisticated analysis of many of the issues is needed




now, and will continue to be needed for years to come.




However, I suggest that the desire to delay final regula-




tions in order to do more analyses will exist indefinitely




until there is aceptance of the fact that no further analysis




is needed to conclude now that some wastes should be pro-




hibited from disposal in landfill.  That this is a motion




which has not filed to reach the attention of EPA is sug-




gested quite clearly in the following statement which




appears in the preamble to the interim final amendments




to fule published on February 25, 1982, and I quote, "In




particular, it  (EPA) believes that certain persistent




mobiles and highly toxic or carcinogenic liquid wastes




might need to be absolutely prohibited from disposal in




landfills in either bulk or containerized form."

-------
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
                                                173
          I submit that enough is known now for EPA to
remove the word "might" and to begin to identify the wastes
and implement the prohibition.  All the major environmental
laws that have been written or amended in the last two
decades represent attempts to rectify problems which people
neglected and passed on to future generations.
          The actions which EPA has taken since the interim
status standards which went into effect on November 19,
1981 were announced suggest we have paid too little attention
to that important lesson of history.
          I realize that the rule which went into effect
on November 19 has caused some problems to pile up in
both a figuration and literal sense, but by extending
the compliance date until May 26, 1982, you may well have
decided to sacrifice to an unknown extent the health and
welfare of people not yet born.
          In the long term, it may matter not at all whether
at the time of disposal certain liquid wastes were sloshing
within the drum or temporarily held in check by an absorbent
material of one kind or another.
          In the long term, it may not matter at all what
our admittedly deficient knowledge of the problems of
subsidence and landfill covers suggests might happen during
the historically trivial period of a landfill's active
life, plus the ever-so-brief post closure period.  Liners

-------
33

                                                            174
        1   which may last for 20 or 30 years, and leachate collection
        2   systems may be fine for many kinds of waste but they represent
        3   a very roundabout and hazardous method of trying to deal
        4   with certain highly toxic or carcinogenic wastes.
        5             The proposed rules rests on shaky ground.  You
        6   say that unanticipated events may lead to non-compliance
        7   with the formula on the fraction of free liquid wastes
        8   allowed in the proposed rule.  That's a quote.
        9             Experience suggests to anyone who's worked in
        10   the environmental field very long that you can usually
        11   count on the occurrence of unanticipated events.  These
        12   might be, as you suggest, premature closing of landfills,
        13   failure to obtain the expected volume of other than free
        14   liquid wastes and several others.
        15             Since any of these or all of these would change
        16   the formula based volumes, it appears not to be a very
        17   great idea.
        18             The proposal for "uniform placement of containers
        19   in the landfill" and "a final cover at closure designed
        2o   to accommodate the expected  subsidence" does not offer
        2i    a great deal of reassurance  either.
        22             As you have writte, "the Agency and the regulated
        23   community simply do not have much observed experience
        24   or data conerning subsidence in those landfills where
        25   containerized wastes are carefully placed".  You also

-------
34
                                                     175




 1    point out that the agency has some concern about the ability




 2    of landfill owners and operators to adequately plan and




 3    provide for remedying the damage caused by post-closure




 4    subsidence.




 5              I am sure that many share EPA's concern here,




 6    and hope that it will be extended to the long, long post,




 7    post-closure period.




 8              The amendments proposed on February 25 are intended




 9    to be rational and useful, I am sure.  But they can readily




10    transform the reader into an eerie Kafka-esque landscape




11    largely obscrubed by clouds of cyanide, vinyl chloride




12    and other choice ingredients of the witches brew to which




13    Peter Skinner of New York referred earlier.




14              The gentle sound of 630,000 or more drums of




15    liquid hazardous waste being dropped ever so carefully .




16    into  the ground is barely audible in the fetid air.  On




17    the horizon are huge, corroded, dimly lit signs proclaiming




18    the virtues of reasonableness in pursuing "real-world"




19    solutions.




20              If we have learned anything from Love Canal,




21    from the thousands of other mismanaged waste sites in




22    our country, including the clum piles of Appalachia and




23    the uranium tailings piles of Colorado, it should be to




24    realize finally that current suppositions about the future




25    fate of wastes placed on or into the ground are not reliable.

-------
35
                                                    176





 1              To rely on subsidence formulae or on unique




 2    ways of carefully stacking drums under the earth, to assume




 3    that our data on flood plains, on types of soil and ano




 4    the many other variables that must be taken into account,




 5    will be reliable 50 or 500 years from now, represents




 6    an act of faith that many of us would rather not embrace.




 7              What we do know now, with certainty, and which




 8    is all likelihood will forever be true, is that some wastes




 9    should not be given the opportunity of reaching people,




10    now or in the future.




11              I do not believe that EPA's attempts to deal




12    with the hazardous waste problem will receive widespread




13    public support until the agency begins in earnest to take




14    the route taken by some of the other states.  I will cite




15    California for example which proposed, as you know, to




16    ban the land disposal of certain classes of high priority




17    wastes comprising almost 40 percent of the 1.3 million




18    tons disposed of annually in off-site facilities in that




19    state.




2o              If California, with its dry climate and relative




21    abundance of available land, sees the need for such action,




22    for how long can EPA keep  its eyes closed in implementing




23    a  law which is intended to protect areas of a country




24    where rainfall is abundant and where "appropriate" land




25    for disposal is becoming harder and harder to acquire.

-------
36
                                                           177
        1              I realize that such an approach by EPA would
        2    be fraught with difficulties, t,ut that would be nothing
        3    new or unusual for you.  Until you do that or when you
        4    do that or if you do that, the debate, and all this long
        5    debate this morning which reminded me of times — it's
        6    like the medieval debates on how many angels can dance
        7    on the head of a pin, it can be endless, and it will go
        8    on for years, but, at least, if you began forbidding the
        9    landfill of certain wastes, the debate would be brought
       10    from beneath the ground to on top of the ground, and you
       11    could begin discussing the proper issues and the proper
       12    atmosphere.
       13              If not, in the meantime, the agency is probably
       14    creating or perpetuating conditions that could guarantee
       15    the extensions of the five-year superfund legislation
       16    of 1980 far into the next century.  This is hardly the
       17    proper way to protect public health or the environment,
       18    and for those who may not be persuaded by this argument,
       19    let me quickly add that it is not cost effective either.
       2o    Thank you.
       21              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Tom.  I next
       22    would like to call on John Schofield of the IT Corporation,
       23                   STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHOFIELD
       24              MR. SCHOFIELD:  Thank you.  IT Corporation,
       25    a California-based company, is currently the largest U.S.

-------
37
                                                            178
         1   company engaged solely in the business of hazardous waste
         2   management.  It currently owns eight disposal facilities
         3   in the U.S. all of which involve landfilling as the final
         4   step in waste treatment and disposal.
         5             Each of these disposal facilities has been moni-
         6   tored since its inception, and great care has been taken
         7   to insure that no migration of leachate occurred.  This
         8   has required careful management, including the rejection
         9   of materials or disposal practices which threatened to
        10   generate potential health or environmental problems.
        11             In particular, IT does not accept drums containing
        12   liquid for burial at its own landfills.  As a result of
        13   this careful design and monitoring and the policy against
        14   landfilling containerized liquids, IT Corporation has
        15   maintained a clear record in its operation of landfills
        16   since 1956.
        17             Over the past 20 years, IT Corporation has devel-
        18   oped various chemical processes for oxidation, neutralization,
        19   incineration, stabilization and recovery of different
        20   wastes.  We have designed a complete technical package
        21   to analyze, transport, recover, destroy or detoxify a
        22   full range of hazardous wastes, both organic and inorganic.
        23              IT's technical sophistication has recently been
        24   calledon in a number of areas.  For example, in Louisiana
        25   where we are the first company  in the United States to

-------
38
                                                     179





 1    receive all  state  permits  for  an  integrated  regional  waste




 2    treatment center and  the first applicant  in  the country




 3    for a Part B federal  permit  for such  a  facility.




 4              in Texas where IT  was selected  by  the Gulf  Coast




 5    Waste Disposal Authority,  a  statement corporation  formed




 6    by the Texas Legislature to  assist  in the construction




 7    and operation of the  Gulf  Coast Waste Management Center.




 8              in the State of  Massachusetts where  the  company's




 9    project for  an integrated  waste treatment center have




10    been judged  to be  feasible and deserving  by  the State




11    Siting Board, justifying their expenditure of  state funds




12    to assist in the establishment of the project,  and  in




13    the State of New York where  IT Corporation currently  is




14    on the short list  of  companies whose  technology have  been




15    acknowledged as suitable for a potential  state  run  facility.




16              To date, IT Corporation has spent  almost  $20




17    million of its own money to  secure  the  sites and permits




18    necessary to establish these facilities.  We're  all  familiar




19    with the formidable problems which  are  phased  in any  effort




20    to site regional hazardous waste treatments  and disposal




21    facilities,  but IT with a  very limited  state and virtually




22    no federal assistance, has focused  on integrated high




23    technology treatment  centers in the belief that that  is




24    the correct  and safe  thing to  do and  in the  belief  that




25    these centers best meet the  intent  of RCRA which was  to

-------
39                                                         180




        1    eliminate the problems associated with traditional approaches




        2    to waste disposal.




        3              It should be emphasized that treatment centers




        4    of this type  would use proven technologies for destruction




        5    and detoxification of hazardous waste, technologies which




        6    have been employed in Europe and Japan for over ten years.




        7              During the two years that IT Corporation has




        8    been pursuing state and federal permits for the Louisiana




        9    facility, we have seen fundamental changes take place,




       10    all of which represent a substantial erosion of the goals




       11    and safeguards of RCRA.




       12              To apply for and obtain the permits, and to




       13    commit upward of $100 million for the construction of




       14    a regional treatment facilities involves a commitment




       15    which can only be made and financed in the belief that




       16    there will be some consistency and stability in the rules




       17    and regulations concerning the management of hazardous




       18    waste.




       19              Regrettably the current proposals are the latest




       20    in a series of actions which defer or delete major elements




       21    of record, including, for example, a provision which allows




       22    waste generators to dispose of substantial quantities




       23    of hazardous waste in their own boilers without permits




       24    or limitations in the name of energy conservation.




       25              No such permission is afforded to the regional

-------
40
        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
                                                 181




 treatment plant even if heat recovery systems are included.




 Or the proposal to again allow landfilling of liquids




 coupled with a virtual endorsement of drum disposal into




 landfills despite the fact that these practices have been




 at the source of most of the serious leachate migration




 problems from landfills.




           Thirdly, the weakening of regulations concerning




 financial responsibility and insurance.  It is apparent




 to IT Corporation that a fundamental change is taking




 place in the federal government's commitment to use proven




 advance technology in the treatment, destruction and detoxi-




 fication of hazardous waste.




           The constant revision for deferral of the regula-




 tions makes it increasingly impossible to commit the resources




 needed to pursue  permit applications since the regulations




 changes before the application can be completed.




           Additionally, with the proposed changes concerning




 disposal of liquids in landfills, even if all the permits




 are obtained, it now becomes highly questionable whether




 the remaining demand for regional treatment facilities




.can justify the large investment required to properly




 treat these hazardous materials.




           In view of this situation, IT Corporation is




 announcing today a suspension of all its activities in




 the development of regional treatment centers with the

-------
41
                                                     182




 1   exception of  the proposed Louisiana  facility where  the




 2   permit process has already been underway  for two  years




 3   with costs  amounting  to  $16.2 million.




 4             IT  Corporation is unwilling  to  invest resources




 5   in  the development of permit applications for  other regional




 6   treatment facilities  unless and until  there  is a  clear




 7   governmental  commitment  to the destruction and detoxification




 8   of  hazardous  waste as the preferred  method of  disposal.




 9             IT  Corporation will continue with  its traditional




10   business of landfilling  with the  knowledge that proven




11   technology  exists which  can remove the necessity  of direct




12   landfilling of hazardous wastes.




13             We  will continue to work with any  state which




14   shows  a responsible attitude towards solving rather than




15   deferring its hazardous  waste problem and which by its




16   legislative effort moves away from undue reliance on land-




17   fills  and towards destruction and detoxification.




18             Unfortunately, it  is clear that not  all states




19   would  enact comprehensive preventative legislation if




20   left  to their own devices, particularly if influenced




21    by  continued  relaxation  of  federal guidelines.




22              This  relaxation means  that increasing quantities




23    of  hazardous  waste will  be  landfilled in those states




24    which  have  the  weakest regulation and are, therefore,




25    the least  equipped  to handle  the hazardous waste  problems

-------
42
                                                           183
        1    which will arise in later years.  For the above reasons,
        2    IT Corporation strongly recommends that the U.S. Environ-
        3    mental Protection Agency reconsiders its decision to allow
        4    landfilling of liquids and the burning of hazardous wastes
        5    which have not been permitted specifically for that purpose.
        6              We urge the administration to return to the
        7    original intent of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
        8    Act in the interest of the health and safety of all citizens,
        9    the potential liabilities of waste generators and the
       10    sanity of the waste disposal industry.  Thank you.
       11              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  John, do you dispose of
       12    any containerized waste in your landfills?
       13              MR. SCHOFIELD:  We do not dispose of any container-
       14    ized waste whatsoever.  We are one of the largest truckers
       15    of containerized waste to other people's landfills.
       16              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  But if you received containers
       17    at your facility, you'll either empty the container and
       18    put it in a vault, or you'll send the truck down the road
       19    to the next —
       2Q              MR. SCHOFIELD:  Absolutely.  We will empty the
       21    container, and we will process the waste and dispose of
       22    the residues to landfill, or we will send the container
       23    away.
       24              Under no circumstances can we accept an argument
       25    that some containers are too dangerous to open.  In order

-------
      43
V
                                                    184
 1    to properly dispose of any container, you must know what

 2    the contents are,  and if it's too dangerous to open to

 3    sample,  then it must be too dangerous to bury.

 4              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  What does it take to have

 5    a container opening operation?  Can you give us a typical

 6    cost and time to put one in, so that one could deal with

 7    containers?

 8              MR. SCHOFIELD:  Dealing with containers, first

 9    of all,  I think it must be appreciated that the DOT regula-

10    tions for the transportation of containers is very, very

11    stringent indeed.

12              It used to be a situation where a lot of waste

13    was in very poor containers, and they were very difficult

14    to handle; however, that doesn't apply any more.  Containers

15    are generally speaking in good condition, and even when

16    they're in bad condition, the ability to handle those

17    containers is now quite clearly known.

18              As anybody such as ourselves who have dealt

19    with major site remediation projects where you have to

20    dig up drums, and in digging up those drums and staging

21    those drums, you don't then remove the drums untested

22    to some other site.

23              Everyone of those drums is opened, and generally

24    speaking, their contents are emptied and segregated into

25    different types of waste when you're handling one of those

-------
44
                                                           185
       1     -site remediation situations, and there are no drums more
       2     dangerous than those than you dig up unknown out of clean-
       3     up situation, and yet the technology, hardly technology,
       4     the common sense handling techniques are all there.
       5               The equipment is all there.  The equipment is
       6     available to handle the most dangerous situations, and
       7     nothing that comes in normally from a generator even
       8     approaches the danger associated with that situation,
       9     and yet under those conditions, every drum is opened,
      10     the contents are sampled, and, if necessary, the container
      11     is emptied.
      12               We use a very simple test to decide whether
      13     it's liquid or solid.  If you turn it over and it runs
      14     out, it's liquid, and if you turn it over and it doesn't
      15     run out, it falls out, it's solid, and I don't know what
      16     there's all this obsession about some kind of test.
      17               There has to be some subjective situation, a
      18     subjective decision, and when you're dealing with site
      19     remediation situations, everybody knows what's a liquid
      20     and what's a solid.
      21               You don't get into a great debate and testing
      22     whether it is or not.  You use a straight judgment, and
      23     there is a responsibility there.  There is a responsi-
      24     bility by the operator, there's a responsibility by the
      25     generator.

-------
45
 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




2i




22




23




24




25
                                                            186



                      CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Your policy of not landfilling




            any containers, is that because you fear that they might




            have some liquids in there and you want to keep liquids




            out?




                      MR. SCHOFIELD:  No, it's for a very different




            reason, and this is why I think this obsession with an




            initial test is not necessarily the whole of the criteria,




            because the condition of a material when you put it into




            a landfill versus the condition that a material or the




            properties the material will exhibit at the bottom of




            the landfill are very, very different indeed.




                      You can take a material which is maybe 25 percent




            solid, and it's fixotrophic and it looks totally and abso-




            lutely solid, and you can put that into a landfill as




            a solid, but under the conditions in that landfill, that




            material may flow very, very simply indeed.




                      So what is a liquid and not a liquid, or what




            is a solid, not a solid, and it's not sufficient necessarily




            just to use the criteria of what it's like before  it goes




            in.  That's what when somebody said we're surprised that




            we suddenly found there were 13 feet of liquid there,




            there's not a  lot of surpise.  When you're putting materials




            in, 25 percent solid and the remainder is liquid,  even




            though it appears to be a solid, you're filling a  landfill




            with 75 percent of liquid even though it's a solid material.

-------
46
        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
                                                187
          That material will accumulate in time, and it

will generally accumulate because of the pressure of the

landfill, and it will eventually squeeze some of that

out and the level of leachate will rise.

          We can't afford to do that situation. One of

the main reasons, we have over 5000 acres landfill, so

we're not a small operator from that point of view.  Somebody

talked about California being dry.  California  is dry,

but when it rains, it really rains.  You only get it twice

a year, but you really get it, so you've got to be very

careful, because you can't afford to be carrying liquid

in a landfill under those conditions when you might receive

24 inches of rain in 24 hours, because then your landfill

becomes very heavily soaked and very heavily contaminated

and you have to have a run-off system, a treatment system

that can handle that, and you can't afford to have that

amount of rainfall on say a 2500 acre site adding to a

leachate problem.

          You cannot afford to have a leachate at all.

          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  What kind of materials do

you put in your landfill?

          MR. SCHOFIELD:  Well, if we receive liquid,

as I said —

          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  What kind of waste?

          MR. SCHOFIELD:  What kind of waste?  Every kind

-------
47
                                                    188


 1    of waste.


 2              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Dry waste is all you'll


 3    permit in your landfill?


 4              MR. SCHOFIELD:  If we receive liquid waste,


 5    we will do treatment, and we will reduce them to sludges.


 6    I'm not saying we only handle very, very dry waste.  I
                                         +

 7    didn't say that, but we're very prudent, and we're very


 8    conscious of the fact that the condition of the material


 9    going into a landfill has to be taken into account.  The


10    degree to which we add other materials.


11              We also use particularly in California, we obvi-


12    ously use solar evaporation to the maximum to remove liquids


13    so that what we're then landfilling are dry materials.


14              CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  This morning, I mentioned


15    some of the problem wastes that had been identified to


16    us, several electroplating wastes as well as wastes from


17    the paint and the coating industry.


18              Are you able at your facilities, would you be


19    able to acommodate those containerized wastes if they


20    came into your facility?


21              MR. SCHOFIELD:  Yes, that could be done.  Really


22    with regard to electroplating wastes and those kinds of


23    things, there's really no problem whatsoever in precipitating


24    out, neutralizing and then either vacuum filtering the


25    resultant sludge to get it as low in water content as

-------
48
                                                189
        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
possible.  All those things can be reduced so that what




you're landfilling is a sludge. . When I say a sludge,




I'm talking about get it as dry as you possibly can, and




solids content or liquid is not a criteria.  It really




isn't, because you have to understand the waste, and you




have to consider how it's going to be in the landfill




itself.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  In your opinion, is there capacity




at present to treat by alternate methods all the container-




ized liquids that are now landfilled?




          MR. SCHOFIELD:  No, and there never will be




if the legislation continues backing off the way it's




done.  If you — you know, we're in a chicken and egg




situation.




          Everybody understands why you have to promulgate




what you're promulgating, but this should be an interim




situation until such time as the facilities are in position




that can properly, safely detoxify and destroy these materi-




als.  What you're enacting is you're enacting a permanent




situation.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  When you refer to the thing that




everyone understands, do you mean the 25 percent rule




or something like that?




          MR. SCHOFIELD:  No, the landfilling of liquids




is not a desirable thing to do.  The landfilling of

-------
49
         8





         9





        10





        11





        12





        13





        14





        15





        16




        17





        18





        19





        20





        21





        22





        23





        24





        25
                                                 190




material in containers is not a desirable thing  to do.




Technologies exist to detoxify and destroy these materials




in other ways, but nobody on the basis that to do that,




when we have experience, to go from start to scratch,




to build a facility, get it permitted, it's something




like five to seven years, and if along that route, the




regulations change, then you'll never arrive at  the end.




          You'll arrive with a bunch of permits  that will




be as useful as a piece of paper.  Let me say this.  This




problem is not unique to this country.  Every country




has faced this problem, and what they've done is they've




done it over a period of time.




          They have enacted an interim situation to allow




time for other facilities which can better handle these




materials to come into position so everybody knows this




is an interim situation, and the encouragement is there




to go to the ultimate solution.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Yes, and we are talking about




an interim regime?




          MR. SCHOFIELD:  Are you talking about  the adminis-




tration or the regulations?




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Do you think that the 25 percent




rule that EPA has proposed, if it were promulgated, would




lead to a reduction in the amount of liquids that is cur-




rently being  landfilled?

-------
50
        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
 DBS, Inc.
                                                191
          MR. SCHOFIELD:  Absolutely not, because there's

no way that you or I or anybody else would ever know.

          MR. PEDERSEN:  Why not?

          MR. SCHOFIELD:  For the simple reason that the

way you're going about it, you'll still be debating two

years from now a test as to when a material is liquid

and when a material is a solid, and that's not the criteria.

          As I've tried to explain, the test of that initially

does not describe how the material will perform in a landfill.

The fact is that there should be in my view a ban on liquid,

and if somebody has a particular need, a very specific

requirement where there's no other way of getting rid

of that material, then they should make special application

and give the reasons why that material must be landfilled

and why it's landfilled in that particular area in that

particular way, and let it be done on a case-by-case basis.

          They can store it for 90 days right now.  That's

adequate time to process those very specific applications

by exception.  You don't need to cover the whole range

of materials, but in what you're dealing with are very

exceptional materials.  There is a requirement for some

materials, but that doesn't mean when you open the door,

you take off the hinges.

          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  I'd like to

call on Mary Kay Parker with the League of Women Voters

of the United States.

-------
       1



       2



       3



       4



       5



       6



       7



       8



       9



      10



      11



      12



      13



      14



      15



      16



       17



       18



       19



      20



       21



       22



       23



       24



       25
                                               1 Q2
               STATEMENT OF MARY KAY PARKER    ^


          MS. PARKER:  I am Mary Kay Parker, testifying



on behalf of Marilyn Reeves, Environmental Quality  Chair



for the League of Women Voters of the United States, a



grassroots citizens organization  with members in more



than 1300 communities across the country.



          We are pleased to have this belated opportunity



to express our opposition to the action EPA has already



taken to lift the ban on the 1'and disposal of containerized



liquid and ignitable hazardous waste and to address EPA's



proposal to weaken the regulations governing the disposal



of toxic liquid and ignitable waste in landfill.



          League members around the country are infuriated



by the fact that EPA1s suspension of the prohibition against



landfilling containerized liquids and ignitable hazardous



wastes went into effect before there was any opportunity



for public review and comment



          Such an action is clearly contrary to the intent



of the public participation provisions of the Administrative



Procedure Act.  Though EPA did make an after-the-fact



decision to hold this public hearing on the issue, the



practice of burying containers of toxic liquids is taking



place all over the country right now.  This public hearing



should have been held two months ago



          The League opposes the disposal of any bulk



or containerized liquid hazardous waste in landfills
DBS, Inc.

-------
       1

       2
       3

       4

       5

       6
       7

       8
       9

       10

       11

       12

       13

       14

       IS
       16
       17

       18
       19

       20

       21
       22
       23

       24

       25
                                                193
unless the waste has been treated or stabilized by chemical
or physical means so that free liquids are no longer present.
          We urge EPA to immediately reinstate  the ban
on the disposal of liquid and ignitable hazardous waste
in landfills and to reject the petition of the National
Solid Waste Management Association calling for EPA to
put the February 25  1982 proposal into effect temporarily.
          The February 25, 1982 proposal would significantly
weaken the landfill regulations by dropping requirements
for liners and leachate collection systems and by permitting
as much as 25 percent of the landfills capacity to be
filled with drums containing hazardous liquids and sludges.
          The League urges you to reject this approach.
We believe that it is environmentally unsound due to the
widely recognized danger acknowledged by EPA in its own
proposal that drums can corrode and leak their contents
out of the landfill and into ground water supplies.
          As EPA has clearly stated in its February 25,
1982 proposal, and, I quote, "Containers disposed of in
a landfill eventually degrade allowing their liquid contents
to escape," unquote, and, quoting again, "When containers
degrade and their liquid content escapes  they collapse
creating voids which, in turn, may allow slumping and
subsidence of the landfill cover material which may increase
the infiltration or precepitation and thereby exacerbate
DBS, IDC.

-------
       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
                                               194
the leachate generation problem/" unquote

          In short, during the 90-day period when EPA

is considering amendments to the landfill regulation,

the agency is allowing a practice to take place that it

has already acknowledged will endanger the environment

and the public health.

          It is totally unacceptable to allow as much

as 25 percent of the landfill's capacity to be devoted

to liquid hazardous waste, and it is pure folly to simul-

taneously propose that landfills without impermeable liners

and leachate collection systems be allowed to accept these

wastes.

          As EPA points out in its proposal, there are

technologies available to treat waste containing liquids

by dewatering techniques, such as screens, vacuum filters,

filter press, centrifuge and heat drying, as well as

chemical absorbent processes that rely on the additional

materials such as cement kiln dust, flyash, vermiculite,

fuller's earth and semintitious materials

          Generators should be required to certify that

their wastes are liquid free, and EPA should make random

inspections to enforce this requirements.

          EPA has also lifted the ban on the landfill

disposal of ignitable wastes, and, again we believe that

the May 19, 1980 regulation should be retained.  The
DBS, Inc.

-------
                                                           195
       1





       2





       3





       4





       5





       6




       7





       a





       9





       10





       11





       12





       13





       14





       15





       16





       17





       18




       19





       20





       21





       22





       23





       24





       25
League supports the requirements of Section 265.312 that




states, quote, "Ignitable or reactive wastes must not




be placed in a landfill unless the waste is treated, ren-




dered or mixed before or immediately after placement in




the landfill so that, one, the resulting waste, mixture




or dissolution of material no longer meets the definition




of ignitable or reactive."




          In conclusion, we urge you to immediately cancel




the February 25, 1982 suspension of the ban on landfilling




liquid toxic and ignitable wastes and to immediately rein-




state and retain the May 19, 1980 regulations that are




on the books.  We deplore EPA's handling of this situation




which has only served to further undermine public confi-




dence in the government's ability to regulate toxic wastes




and will impede efforts to secure sites for environmentally




sound treatment, storage and disposal facilities.  Thank




you.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Do you have any thoughts




on the proposal that was made by the Hazardous Waste Manage-




ment Council that we, indeed, take the suspension off,




leave the prohibition in effect, but allow to implement




that exercising some enforcement and discretion for the




minimus amount of liquids?




          MS. PARKER:  The League of Women Voters would




like you to reinstate the May 19, 1980 regulations.
DBS, Inc.

-------
       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
DBS, Inc.
                                               196



After that, we would be happy to attend and express our




views at any public hearing on any proposals you might




make, but we would like that ban put back, that May 19th




regulation.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  Next I would




like to call on Gregg P.Franklin, the Permits Coordinator




for the Stablex Corporation.




               STATEMENT OF GREGG FRANKLIN




          MR. FRANKLIN:  Thank you.  Once again, I'm Gregg




Franklin from Stablex Corporation. I handle all of the




regulatory affairs which includes dealing with state agencies




and acquiring permits.




          I am pleased to speak to you here today, and




in the interest of time, I'll be cutting my remarks some-




what short, and if you have a copy of our prepared state-




ment, I'll be reading from page five.




          The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act compels




EPA to establish standards for the handling, treatment




and disposal of hazardous wastes which will protect human




health and the environment.




          Obviously, EPA cannot require compliance with




standards which are not technologically achievable.  Nothing,




however, in the explanation provided by EPA in the February




25 Federal Register notice justifies such an open-ended




retreat  from the prohibition of the disposal 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
DBS, Inc.
                                               197
containerized liquids.  While the total prohibition may

have been unduly restrictive, there is no technological

basis, and I want to emphasize that, there is no techno-

logical basis for allowing large quantities of all liquid

wastes to be placed into landfills without prior treatment,

          Specifically, our company, Stablex Corporation,

has developed a proven technology for converting inorganic

liquid wastes into an environmentally inert, solid rock-

like materials.  This materials, termed "STABLEX" can

be placed on land without fear of the two chief hazards

posed by the disposal of free liquids.

          That is, STABLEX is a hard, solid material which

will not subside and will not generate harmful leacha e.

Stablex employs a unique patenteded technology knows as

"SEALOSAFE" to convert inorganic industrial wastes into

an environmentally inert synthetic STABLEX material.  A

Michigan court has ruled that STABLEX is, quote, "not

a waste, it is noxious free, non-toxic, noninflammable,

noncombustible," close quote.

          Untreated liquids in containers will eventually

leak from their containers and migrate into the environ-

ment. STABLEX prevents such leakage.  STABLEX results

from a crystal capture mechanism which combines two inter-

dependent reactions.

          First, pollutants present in the solution as

-------
       1





       2





       3





       4





       5





       6




       7





       8





       9





      10





      11





      12





      13





      14





      15





      16




      17





      18





      19





      20





      21





      22





      23





      24





      25
DBS, Inc.
                                                 198





 ions react with carefully selected processed chemicals




 to form strong chemical bonds.   Second, the pollutants




 present in an insoluble form are further bound by a solidi-




 fication process and thus prevented from escaping into




 the environment.




           Because of the nature of the STABLEX material,




 Stablex Corporation has petitioned the EPA pursuant to




 40 C.F.R Parl 260.2 to exclude STABLEX from being considered




 a hazardous waste.




           EPA has granted a temporary exclusion for a




 Stablex facility, but this exclusion was conditioned on




 several substantial requirements, including the company's




 voluntary agreement to place the STABLEX material into




 a facility which has a double liner and leachate collection




 system.




           EPA imposed this requirement notwithstanding




 substantial evidence presented by Stablex showing that




 the STABLEX material will not generate harmful leachate.




 Given EPA's present posture of requiring liners and leachate




 collection systems for Stablex treated wastes, waste which




 are solid material which cannot generate harmful leachate




j and which do not cause subsidence problems, we find it




 absolutely incredible that the Agency would allow others




 to dispose of any type of containerized wastes into unlined




 landfills.  Indeed, even the industry sponsors of the

-------
       1


       2

       3

       4

       S


       6

       7

       8

       9

       10

       11

       12

       13

       14


       15

       16

       17

       18

       19


       20

       21

       22

       23

       24

       25
                                                199

EPA proposal advocated requiring the use of impermeable

liners and leachate collection systems under the landfills

to catch chemicals which will inevitably leak from untreated
                            l
liquids in the containers.

          By allowing the continued disposal of container-

ized untreated liquids in unlined landfills, EPA has cast

away the incentive to use more advanced, environmentally

reliable treatment techniques which are known to be avail-

able.  Instead, EPA should encourage hazardous waste

generators to lock up their wastes in a solid rock-like

material such as STABLEX if that waste is -compatible with

our process.

          In conclusion, EPA's mandate under RCRA is to

promote environmentally sound hazardous waste treatment

facilities.  EPA should not allow the continued disposal

of untreated liquid inorganic hazardous wastes where better

methods of permanent environmental security exists.

          Stablex offers a sound method of converting

hazardous wastes into a virtually inert mass which can

be placed on the ground without adverse environmental

impacts.  Given the serious shortage of new facilities

for responsible treatment of hazardous wastes, it seems

more desirable for the EPA to direct its efforts to assist

Stablex and similar companies promoting responsible hazardous

waste treatment methods rather than to relax regulations
DBS, Inc.

-------
       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
                                               200
to such an extent that large quantities of liquid hazardous
waste can be released into the environment.
          We recognize the current shortage of suitable
treatment facilities in the U.S. to handle all the liquid
wastes which are presently generated.  Until sufficient
treatment capacity is developed, it would be appropriate,
on a case-by-case basis, for EPA to grant limited exemp-
tions from the ban on the disposal of containerized wastes
where the generators can demonstrate that no suitable
treatment facility to convert these liquid wastes into
a solid inert mass exists.
          Furthermore, where containerized liquid wastes
are allowed to be disposed of untreated because of the
absence of suitable treatment techniques, they should
only be disposed of in a lined landfill with the appropriate
leachate collection and treatment systems.
          That concludes my comments.  Any questions?
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you very much.
          MS. SKINNER:  Mr. Dietrich, my name is Peter
Skinner. In answer to the question at lunchtime, a contact
in the Department of Environmental Conservation, they
indicate in order to determine whether a particulate waste
is a liquid or not, the first test is the tap test where
they determine, as I indicated before, whether it's generally
compliant, pure nutonian fluids, can clearly be heard
DBS, Inc.

-------
10
        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
                                                201




as being in existence, and they open those up, check the




depth of the nutonian fluid and add kitty litter where




it's appropriate.




          The non-nutonian or fixotrophic wastes which




he says — which this is Mr. John Beecher of Region 9




of Department of Environmental Conservation — indicates




that fixitrophic plastic type waste which the CMA  seems
to be concerned about
seen in the landfills
is not the majority of waste being




at this time, and the best engineering
judgment, the site achjieves the kind of ban that we feel




is appropriate.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Peter.  Next




I'd like to call on Ms. Katherine Durso-Hughes with the




Environmental Action Foundation in Washington, D.C.




           STATEMENT OF KATHERINE DURSO-HUGHES




          MS. HUGHES:  Thank you.  I'm Katherine Durso-




Hughes with Environmental Action Foundation.  We're a




national non-profit citizens' organization which has served




state and local groups throughout the country for more




than a decade with our educational and research work on




waste and toxic substances issues.




          Thank you for this opportunity to present our




views on the 90-day suspension of the ban on landfilling




of liquid hazardous waste.




          Since EPA lifted the ban late last month,
 DBS, Inc.

-------
11
        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
 DBS, inc.
                                                202



Environmental Action Foundation has heard from citizen




and environmental group leaders around the nation who




have decried this Agency action and the covert way it




came about, using such terms as outrageous, counterproductive,




irresponsible and appalling.




          You must understand that we are not talking




here about casual comments from armchair environmentalists.




We are talking about what one citizen called "indignation




bordering on disbelief" on the part of those who have




spent years trying to work cooperatively with state and




federal agencies, with the chemical and the waste management




industry and with other citizens.




          We are talking about the reaction of people




who have been working in good faith and with some successs




to improve waste management in their states and to encourage




recovery, treatment, destruction and, where possible,




elimination of hazardous wastes.




          With this recent action, the U.S.  Environmental




Protection Agency has betrayed that good faith, undercut




the progress being made toward alternative hazardous waste




management techniques, created future liability problems




for industry and virtually guaranteed future health and




environmental problems for all of us.




          The people we have spoken with represent millions




of Americans more than casually  interested in hazardous

-------
12
        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
DBS, Inc.
                                                203
waste problems who now see years of effort washed away
with this liquid hazardous waste landfilling decision-
These people cannot be here to talk to you today, but
what they have to say should be heard.
          You can listen and do something about what they
are saying now, or you can let industry and government
officials listen to it in the future every time they try
to cite a hazardous waste management facility or deal
in good faith with the community.
          We heard from the heartland of the chemical
industry, Louisiana.  Ross Vincent of the Ecology Center
of Louisiana believes EPA has opened a Pandora's Box.
Many people, he says, still believe government will take
care of a problem once government understands the problem.
          With this action, he said, "EPA has made it
abundantly clear that they have no intention of taking
care of the hazardous waste problem, and when people realize
that there is no hope for government protection, they
will resort to any action they feel is necessary to protect
themselves."
          From Florida, Joe Podgor of Friends of the
Everglades, sees EPA action permitting the landfilling
of liquid hazardous waste as a favor to all the industries
who have been stockpiling waste in their back forty since
November, and as a reprieve for the midnight dumpers,

-------
13
        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
 DBS, Inc.
                                               204
allowing them to dump in daylight and with government
blessing.
          Some of the people we spoke with cited the problems
this action creates for state government.  Mark Sullivan
of the Natural Resources Council of Maine points to the
triple blow of diminishing resources for state hazardous
waste programs combined with steadily weakening federal
regulations and limited funds for remedial action and
clean-up.
          "There is no way," says Sullivan, "that my organi-
zation can support the siting of facilities until we have
laws and regulations adequate to protect the public from
potential dangers of hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal as well as the resources adequate to enforce
these rules."
          Steve Sedam of the Ohio Environmental Council
says the people of his state don't support the direction
in which EPA appears to be moving with the lifting of
the ban, that is toward discouraging rather than encouraging
alternatives to land disposal.
          According to Sedam, the citizens of Ohio have
exhibited their preference by posing much less opposition
to the siting of facilities which employ waste management
alternative methods, and despite these tough economic
times, Sue Behrens of Missourians Against Hazardous Waste

-------
14
                                               205
       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
says that the thousands of people she represents would




rather pay to take care of the waste now than pay to clean




up the site or purify contaminated water later.




          There is no legitimate, far-sighted economic




argument to explain the dumping of liquid hazardous wastes,




and EPA has not even bothered to try to defend its position




in terms of fufilling its mandate to protect health and




the environment.




          This Administration seems intent on taking a




giant step backwards by setting irresponsible precedents




for hazardous waste handling.




          "Look back historically at places where liquid




hazardous wastes have been landfilled," warns Dede Hapner




of the Environmental Health Coalition in San Diego.  "The




names of those places have become household words repre-




senting the worst possible consequences of short-sighted




hazardous waste disposal practices.  Now, by lifting the




ban on landfilling of containerized liquid hazardous waste,




EPA is setting the stage for future remedial action, cleanup




and possible victim compensation at sites across the country.




Why do they insist on approaching the problem backwards?"




          So that people across American will not have




to keep asking this question, the ban on landfill disposal




of containerized liquid hazardous waste should be rein-




stated.  Thank you.
DBS, Inc.

-------
      15
\
             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
       DBS, Inc.
                                               206





          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  Next I would




like to call on Ms. Khristine Hall, Staff Attorney, Toxic




Chemical Program, Environmental Defense Fund.




               STATEMENT OF KHRISTINE HALL




          MS. HALL:  The thought occurred to me as I was




sitting back there that really I'm superfluous to this.




You've all heard from the broad spectrum of interests




the objections to EPA's rulemaking, and I don't know if




I've got anything more to add to that, but I'll make a




statement anyway.




          During the last nine months, we've witnessed




a startling reversal in EPA's attitudes on regulating




hazardous waste.  I'm sure all of you know that EOF, or




more of you know that EOF has been a vigorous participant




in most of EPA's rulemakings, and it's been a litigant




in most of the the litigation.




          No longer is EPA concerned with protecting public




health and the environment.  Their main emphasis, their




main concern in the last nine months has been deregulation




and consideration of costs of control to industry.




          At this point, practically six years after passage




of RCRA, there's virtually nothing in place that will




guarantee that the sort of things that we're now  spending




money on will not happen again.




          EPA's actions in the last nine months fly

-------
16
                                                207
        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 fact of its mandate under the Resource Conservation




Recovery Act and in the face of strong public sentiment.




In the eight years I've been in Washington practicing




environmental law, I've never seen the kind of public




sentiment expressed on an issue as on this one.




          EDF in the last two weeks has gotten phone calls




from all segments of society ranging from truckers who




haul hazardous wastes and are very concerned to stock-




brokers.




          The liquids and landfills issue is a very good




example of the blatant disregard of this agency of their




statutory mandate, and the basis of the outrage on this




issue is the realization of the public that instead of




moving forward, we are moving backward.




          Landfilling is the least desirable method of




addressing our hazardous waste problem.  The public senses




this intuitively and the science supports it.  In my written




statement, I've got several pages going through the various




scientific studies  that have been done on the problems




of landfilling.




          Landfilling of hazardous waste has undoubtedly,




indisputably caused damage in the past.  It's caused damage




to our ground water supplies, our surface water supplies.




It's caused documents damages to drinking water, fish




kills, agricultural land, and it's caused health effects.
 DBS, Inc.

-------
      17
(
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
                                               208




          Liners in landfills are not efficient.  Clay




can be leached. Clay breaks down under the influence of




solvents, and synthetic liners are also not effective.




Leachate collection systems are not effective.




          We do not now possess the know-how to contain




hazardous wastes perpetually.  There is no institutional




body in place that can make sure that the kind of care




that has to be taken to guarantee that the hazardous placed




in landfills do not leave them.




          In addition, the costs of upkeep, if we were




to do that over the period of years that the hazardous




waste remains hazardous, are exorbitant.  All this  says




that we should be moving away from landfills, and we saw




the prohibition on liquids and landfills as a significant




step in that direction.




          EPA  itself in promulgating that requirement




acknowledged the problems of liquids in drums in  landfills,




recognizing that the drums corrode and the liquids  leak




out, that subsidence happens, and more leachate is  generated.




Placing drums  of liquids in landfills can be seen as a




trigger mechanism for a long series of events that  eventually




in many  instances culminate in damage to ground water




supplies and other environmental problems.




          Ironically, EPA again acknowledged the  problems




of liquids  in  drugs  in landsfills when it suspended the
       DBS, Inc.

-------
18
       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
                                               209
regulations and proposed the 25 percent rule.  The bottom
line of all this is that EPA knowingly disregarded the
public health and environmental effects when they suspended
the ban and proposed this 25 percent rule.
          They know that this is going to create problems.
They know that what they've done does nothing to encourage
sounder treatment of hazardous waste. In addition, as
has already been mentioned frequently, what they've done
was done on a unilateral basis.
          This is very characteristic of what's been taking
place in the last nine months.  EPA has undertaken rule-
making in a vacuum.  They only listen to part of society,
and a very narrow portion of that as well as can be seen
from the comments today.
          Those comments were solicited on the suspension.
Apparently EPA feels that when they deregulate an industry,
there's no need to ask for comments.  This is arrogant
and extreme and intolerable from an agency whose mandate
is to protect the public.
          Any significant change in the basic ban regulation
has to be preceded by the opportunity of the public to
comment on it, and I'm including in that the 25 percent
rule that EPA proposed.
          If there are problems in the ban regulation,
EPA has two courses of action, either to propose a change
DBS, Inc.

-------
19
        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
 DBS, Inc.
                                               210
and allow it to undergo public comment or, and I think
this is more feasible, to finetune it.  If EDF does not
care about a single drop of liquid in the drum, nor should
EPA. EDF doesn't care about a sheet of liquid across the
top of a drum, nor should EPA.
          If we have to finetune the rule, finetune the
rule.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  We
hope that this will mark a turning point.  The cries of
outrage on this issue should be taken to heed by EPA,
and EPA should reassess its direction.
          We demand that EPA reimpose the ban immediately.
Everyday of delay on this subject allows more drums to
be buried.  We urge EPA to insure that the landfill regula-
tions now under consideration and now under development
adequately protect public health and the environment and
that EPA start to develop creative strategies for  dealing
with the problems that landfills ultimately create, and
we urge ElPA to reassess a number of other actions  that
they've taken in the last nine months to weaken the overall
regulatory program of hazardous wastes.  Thank you.
          MR. PEDERSEN:  Yes, I would just like to point
out a missing piece on EDF's specific involvement  in this
matter.  I have before me a copy of our letter from Mark
Greenwood of our office to David Linnett of the Environmental
Defense Fund.

-------
20
          1


          2


          3


          4


          5


          6

          7


          S


          9


         10


         11


         12


         13


         14


         15


         16


         17


         18


         19


         20


         21


         22


         23


         24


         25
                                                211
          EDF  is an active participant in the  Shell Oil

negotiations out of which this suspension arose.  "Dear

Dave," says the letter, "As I indicated in our  November 6th

meeting, I am summarizing our understanding of  the agreement

reached on the provisions covering containerized liquids."

So, the letter on December 1st is already a month after the

meeting.

          Then it goes forward to recite, in  essence, the

proposal that has been issued and paragraph two  of this

letter of December 1st to EDF from EPA says, "EPA will issue

an interim final rule extending the compliance  date for 90

days or until final amendments are made, whichever is

sooner."

          The letter concludes, "I hope this provides an

accurate summary of the understanding that we reached on

this issue.  If you have any questions or clarifications,

let me know as soon as possible."

          I quess my question is:  If it was all that bad,

why didn't you let us know*sooner?

          MS. HALL:  Okay, I'm really happy to  have the

opportunity to respond to that.  We never agreed to a sus-

pension of the rule, and we never agreed to the 25 percent

rule.

          Our lack of comment on that group has grown out

of months of frustration of dealing with EPA.  As you have

-------
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
                                               212





mentioned, we've been participating in several negotiating




sessions and other matters on these issues.  Never once has




EPA listened seriously to what we said.  Every single issue




that we've raised in negotiations, EPA has ignored or turned




against us.




          It was our judgment, and I think it's still the




correct one, that whatever we said would have been futile.




          M.R. PEDERSEN:  But surely these were not confi-




dential settlement papers because we said from the beginning




we need them to be public, at least as a matter of good




lawyering, if you had concerns you would have commented to




make a record.




          MS. HALL:  I've already replied.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you, Khris.




          Next I'd like to call on Ms. Jane Bloom of the




Natural Resource Defense Council.




               STATEMENT OF JANE BLOOM




          MS. BLOOM:  The Natural Resources Defense Council,




NRDC, is a national environmental organization of over




40,000 members.  NRDC has long worked to ensure that drink-




ing water is protected from contamination by toxic chemicals,




Today we are deeply concerned that EPA's action in sus-




pending it's ban on the landfill disposal of liquid hazard-




ous waste adds a significant threat to the nation's already




endangered underground sources of drinking water.

-------
22
          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
                                                213






          NRDC strongly opposes both EPA's 90-day suspension




of the ban and it's proposed partial suspension of the ban.




          EPA imposed the ban because overwhelming evidence




demonstrated that disposal of liquids in landfills poses




major threats to public health, safety, and the environment.




The ban was a realistic response to what EPA conceives are




the real world problems, that landfills leak, liners crack,




covers subside, and contaminants leach out from a landfill




into the surrounding environment, particularly into the




ground water which provides over 50 percent of our nation's




drinking water.




          At present, except in the realm of theory, per-




petually secure landfills simply do not exist.  Even at




so-called secure or sanitary landfills, leaching is likely




to occur because the protective linings and covers which




are used to prevent migration of contaminants into the




environment often do not remain intact long enough to out-




live the toxicity of the landfill's contents.




          EPA expressly concedes this point in its announce-




ment of suspension of the ban by acknowledging that, and




I quote from the Federal Register, "The containerized free




liquid wastes allowed in landfills often will eventually




leak from their containers and migrate out of the landfill




and into the environment."




          The agency further concedes that the subsidance

-------
23
          1





          2





          3





          4





          5





          6




          7





          8





          9





         10





         11





         12





         13





         14





         15





         16





         17




         18





         19





         20





         21





         22





         23





         24





         25
                                               214






which results from the inevitable decay of landfill drums




may cause "significant and perhaps irreparable damage" to




the landfill covers thus causing migration of contaminants




from the landfill, yet under the proposed partial suspension




of the ban we take collection systems and liners would not




be required.  These are devices which prevent such migration




of contaminants into drinking water.




          Equally troubling is the fact that many, if not




most, of the existing landfills do not now contain liners,




leaching collection systems, or other protections necessary




to protect against leakage.




          These protections are not required under interim




status and this situation is likely to persist until that




time, predicted to be as long as ten years hence, when




final permiting is completed, and that is assuming that




the final landfilling regulations, which have not yet been




promulgated by EPA, requires such protective measures.




          It is not surprising, therefore, that burial of




liquids in landfills is one of the major ways in which




contamination of ground water sources of drinking water




occurs.




          Contrary to the agency's unsubstantiated claim




that the inevitable weakage of contaminants from landfills




into the environment "is likely to be diluted and attenua-




ted ", ground water is extremely vulnerable to contamination

-------
24
          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
                                               215





accumulating at very high concentrations.




          For example, trichloroethylene, TCE, a carcino-




genic solvent which is one of the most prevalent contaminants




discovered in drinking water wells, has been found in ground




water in concentrations that are many orders of magnitude




greater than the highest concentrations fround in surface




water.




          EPA recently found that whereas in surface water




the highest reported concentrations of TCE were 160 parts




per billion, in ground water the highest recorded amounts




were over 35,000 parts per billion, which were found in




ground water.




          TCE is just one of a number of dangerous con-




taminants that enter drinking water wells through migration




from land disposal sites.  In fact, just one week after




suspending the ban, EPA published an advance notice of




proposed rule making in the Federal Register in which it




expressed concern that 14 toxics commonly found in drinking




water, which EPA acknowledges got into drinking water




partially through improper hazardous waste disposal prac-




tices.




          Once contaminated, ground water is prohibitively




expensive if not technologically impossible to clean up.




For all practical purposes, therefore, contamination of




ground water by hazardous wastes leaching from landfills

-------
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
                                               216




is irreversible.




          In light of these real world facts, the veracity




of which EPA concedes, the agency's authorization of 90 days




of unrestricted dumping of containerized liquids into land-




fills practically guarantees the continued contamination of




ground water.




          EPA is currently charged under the new super fund




law with spending $1.6 billion to clean up hazardous waste




sites, a sum which will enable it to clean up only the




very worst problems created by improper land disposal of




hazardous wastes including ground water contamination.




          Given the scarcity of funds available for clean




up and the magnitude of the existing problem, we believe




that it is unconscionable for the agency to aid in the




creation of a new generation of potential super fund sites,




this is especially true when safer, and in the long run,




more economical alternatives to land disposal currently




exists as previous speakers have testified.




          As EPA acknowledges, these alternatives, which




according to EPA include incineration, reprocessing and




recovery, and treatment by dewatering of chemical absorbent




processes are presently available and feasible.




          Rather than actively promoting a method of dis-




posing of hazardous liquids which has potentially disastrous




environmental consequences, EPA should be focusing its

-------
26
          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
                                               217






attention and resources on providing incentives and en-




couragement for the utilization, development, and expansion




of these alternatives to land disposal of hazardous liquids.




          EPA's suspension of the ban on landfilling of




these liquids and its proposal to partially suspend the




ban, however, will senselessly undercut the viability of




environmentally preferable alternatives.




          The overwhelming evidence supporting a ban con-




trasts sharply with EPA's scant explanation for its abrupt




and dangerous decision to lift the ban, no new evidence nor




indeed any scientific evidence is presented in  support of




EPA's decision to allow a three-month free-for-all on land-




filling containerized hazardous wastes nor has any compelling




evidence be presented to explain how allowing 25 percent,




which is clearly not a diminimous amount, of liquid hazard-




ous wastes into landfills will protect the public from




ground water contamination.




          The agency's only stated basis for immediately




eliminating its well-founded ban and proposing a formula




which would allow up to 25 percent of the volume of a land-




fill to be filled with drums of hazardous liquids is "the




professional judgment of the capable, expert landfill




operators who advised the National Solid Waste Management




Association and the Chemical Manufacturers Association."




          As EPA boldly states in the Federal Register

-------
27
              1





              2





              3





              4





              5





              6




              7





              8





              9





             10





             11





             12





             13





             14





             15





             16




             17




             18





             19





             20





             21





             22





             23





             24





             25
                                               213





notice, this advice was given to EPA during the course of




settlement negotiations in a lawsuit brought by these




advisers to challenge EPA's regulations under RCRA.




          It is unseemly at best, we believe, for EPA to




rely upon the not disinterested advice and proposals of the




deponents in litigation whose objective is to negotiate a




settlement which will release them from RCRA requirements




that they consider burdensome.  Furthermore, given the




serious concerns which EPA currently expresses concerning




the safety of landfilling liquid hazardous wastes and the




serious criticism by other members of industry who were




represented here today, as well as the public, of the sus-




pension of the ban and the industry proposal, we believe




that any suspension of the ban of affected industry prior




to completion of rule-making is unjustified.




          By lifting the ban pending the outcome of rule-




making, EPA unnecessarily shifts the burden to the public




to bear the consequences of increased risks of harm to the




environment and to the public health and safety, especially




since EPA may ultimately decide to retain the ban.




          Such a shifting of the burden clearly contravenes




the intent of RCRA, to provide protection for the public




against just such risks, and in our opinion violates EPA's




broader responsibilities to protect the environment.




          In conclusion, NRDC stronly urges EPA to reinstate

-------
28
            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
                                               219





the ban on landfilling of containerized liquid waste.  NRDC




will address the specifics of EPA's proposal to allow up to




25 percent of the capacity of a landfill to be filled with




containerized liquid wastes prior to the close of the com-




ment period.  However, NRDC will also be formerly submitting




a request that the agency extend the comment period on the




proposal for an additional period of time.  I believe that




NRDC may not be alone in feeling that 30 days, which is the




minimum comment period generally afforded in rule-making, is




too short a time in which to meaningfully evaluate a proposa




of such enormous consequence for public health, safety, and




the environment.  Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  I'd like to next




call on Mr. Robert Janereau of the National Association of




Metal Finishers.




             STATEMENT OF ROBERT JANEREAU




          MR. JANEREAU:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and member;




of the panel for this opportunity to address this issue.  My




name is Robert Janereau, President of Stanley Plating Co. in




Forestville, Connecticut.  I currently serve as Chairman of




the Solid Waste Committee of the National Association of




Metal Finishers, and in my home state of Connecticut serve




on the Advisory Committee to the Board of Water Resources.




          The NAMF represents approximately 3,000 metal




finsihing operations nationwide, all of which are relatively

-------
29
          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
                                               220





small job shops.  A profile of a job shop would reveal sales




at $665,000 per year with 15 employees and an after-tax




profit of 3 to 4 percent.




          Members of NAMF generate hazardous wastes in




their metal-plating and metal-finishing operations and




accordingly are vitally affected by EPA's RCRA regulations.




          NAMF endorses EPA's efforts to find a reasonable




regulatory substitute for its rigid ban on landfilling of




free liquid containing waste in drums during interim status.




          It also strongly endorses EPA's efforts to pre-




scribe a sensible test of whether or not waste may fairly




be said to contain free liquids.




          Further, we support the suspension of the ban on




landfilling of drum free liquid containing wastes pending




rule-making on an alternative.




          However, we also support the petition to make




EPA's proposed amendment effective immediately.




          NAMF recognizes the need to minimize the amount




of free liquids placed in landfills and supports all rea-




sonable regulatory efforts to accomplish that purpose.  We




submit, however, that a complete ban is infeasible and




may prove counterproductive.




          NAMF represents many small businesses that cannot




afford extensive on-site treatment of their wastes.  We,




therefore, favor concerted efforts nationwide to remove

-------
30
          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
                                               221




local political obstacles to siting of vitally needed off-




site treatment facilities.  We believe that those local




political obstacles are not economic incentives allegedly




created by federal regulations that cause the current




shortfall of treatment capacity metal finishing wastes.




          In the absence of adequate off-site treatment




capacity, many members of our industry face no practical




alternative to sending their free liquid containing wastes




in drums to landfills.




          The waste of particular concern to our industry




is waste water treatment sludge from electroplating opera-




tions.  These metal hydroxide sludges result from waste




water treatment facilities installed to comply with the




Clean Water Act and in our opinion represent far less of a




problem to our environment than those reactive and organic




wastes.




          Our industry generates more than 14 million




gallons of these sludges per month.  When federal pre-




treatment regulations go into effect in 1934, the volume




of waste generated will increase dramatically.  Approxi-




mately two-thirds of this amount is generated by small job




shops which do not accumulate sludges at a rate sufficient




to make it practical to ship them in bulk unless these




sludges are placed in drums for off-site treatment and




disposal.

-------
31
          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
                                               222




          On-site treatment of these sludges to eliminate




free liquid is not feasible.  In the absence of an agreed




test to establish the presence of free liquid, many small




businesses such as ours cannot scarce capital to install




drying equipment that may later be deemed insufficient.




          If the agency were to adopy the test of free




liquid proposed on February 25, we estimate that the instal-




lation of in-house drying equipment to allow our sludges to




pass this test could average upwards of $30,000.  Installa-




tion time would be up to a year.




          Independent of possible permitting delay, these




costs are equal to the annual net earnings of the typical




job shop.  Our members cannot afford to gamble on such an




investment only to find that some more stringent degree of




liquid removal is to be required.




          As I have already noted, off-site treatment is




not a readily available option in many areas of the country.




Such commercial treatment capaacity as does exist must as




a first priority treat reactive metal finsihing wastes to




render them non-reactive.




          Technically, one  further alternative exists,




absorbent material may be added to the sludges placed in




drums.  We estimate that this would increase the volume of




sludge sent off-site in drums by a. factor of two.  This




labor intensive and costly  practice of doubling the volume

-------
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
                                                223




of metal hydroxide sludges sent to off-site disposal  would




cause these sludges to command an increasing  share  of




diminishing existing landfill capacity.




          Metal finishers also engage in painting operations,




Hazardous ignitable wastes from these operations are  placed




in drums.  These wastes are very difficult to mix or  de-




drum, as has been stated by various waste treatment firms,




nor because of their intrinsic character can  they be




removed from drums for incineration if not placed in  land-




fills.  Such materials can only be incinerated  in a rotary




kiln capable of destroying wastes in drums, and such




commercial facilities are scarce.




          For the foregoing reason, NAMF urges  the  agency




to stay on the course established by its February 25




actions.  We would, however, urge the agency to make




immediately effective its proposed amendment pertaining to




the volume of a landfill that may be occupied by drums




containing liquids.  This step should help restore  public




confidence and the integrity of the agency's regulatory




scheme.




          Reinstitution of the ban would confront my  indus-




try with an impossible situation and force widespread




technical non-compliance with interim status storage  require-




ments .




          In the longer term, the solution to the problem

-------
    33
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
                                               224

of drum liquids in landfills lies in the development of a
sensible test for the presence of free liquids, and in the
long run, deregulated community the time to install the

techniques necessary to eliminate free liquids to meet this
test.   Also necessary is cooperation by state and federal

governments to eliminate obstacles to siting of new
hazardous waste treatment facilities necessary to treat
wastes of our industry's and others.
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  Let me just ask
a couple questions.  Have you run the paint filter test of

the February 25th proposed rule on your waste water treatment
sludges?

          MR. JANEREAU:  No, sir.  We have not had sufficient
time to react to that.  I've discussed this with several
waste treatment people, and the results that I got from
them, their feeling was that metal hydroxide sludges
specifically on this item would have to attain at least an  11
to 12 percent solids content in order to pass that paint
filter test.
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Would that require a vacuum

filtration in your view?
          MR. JANNEREAU:  First of all, the experience, of

course, on metal hydroxide sludges that as precipitated,
they characteristically fall in the 2 to 5 percent solids,
depending upon the efficiency of your actual water treatment

-------
34
          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
                                               225




system.  To get them drying than that, of course, requires




some thickening and what have you.




          I think it's generally accepted that centrifuge




and that sort of technique is capable at best of 11  to  12




percent.  If you were to go higher than that, than rotary




drum vacuum type technology, high-pressure filtration is




required; and I'm sure you may know that capital investments




there are more like $150,000.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  But the $30,000 was based on




something like centrifuge?




          MR. JANNEREAU:  Centrifuge or filtration.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Now, you seem to mostly dis-




cuss the waste water treatment sludges.  You also have




cleaning bath sludges and stripping and cleaning solutions




that also are sent to landfills in containers, is that




correct?




          MR. JANNEREAU:  Mine aren't, we send ours  to a




treatment facility.  It would be our position that the F-00.8




and the F-009 category of materials we prefer to see existing




waste treatment facilities handle those materials, the        I




allowable capacity to treat those materials as opposed to




the landfill.                                                 j




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Now, existing waste treatment,




is that hazardous waste treatment or is that into a municipal




waste treatment facility?

-------
35
          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
                                               226




          MR. JANNEREAU:  Hazardous waste.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH;  Do you have any ideas on




whether there is capacity in the hazardrous waste treatement




area to deal with those types of wastes generally throughout




the country?




          MR. JANNEREAU:  It would be my personal opinion




that capacity exists to handle the F-008 and F-009 categories




presently but certainly not the metal hydroxide sludges.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  The waste water treatment




sludges?




          MR. JANNEREAU:  Yes, sir.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.




          I next call on Mr. Barny Wander of the Rollins




Environmental Services of Wilmington, Delaware.




              STATEMENT OF BARNY WANDER




          MR. WANDER:  Thank you.  My name is Barny Wander,




and I'm Director of Public Environmental Affairs for




Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., of Wilmington,




Delaware.




          I'm submitting a copy of our full statement for




the record.  My oral remarks will be in the interest of




time, and my voice with considerable abbreviations of the




longer annotated versions.




          For more than 30 years, the United States has been




building a body of law both in statutes and regulations

-------
36
          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
                                               227





designed to protect human health and the environment in the




area of waste disposal.  The most comprehensive of these




laws is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.




          In it Congress singled out land disposal as a




particular problem, saying that the landfilling of hazardous




materials was not the preferred method of disposal if other




methods are available.




          The regulations that have been promulgated over




the past six years under RCRA have reemphasized this need




to find evermore safe ways to dispose of hazardous wastes.




Now, however, EPA  is  apparently abandoning the national




goal of seeking safer ways to dispose of hazardous materials.




          We believe this is a clear contradiction of the




intent of Congress as expressed in RCRA.  In particular,




the agency's 90 day suspension of the prohibition of land-




filling containerized liquids and ignitable hazardous




wastes does not reflect the current state of hazardous




waste treatment and disposal technology for the real world




long-term problems that accrue from placing liquids in




landfills.




          We believe we are well qualified to hold these




opinions and to make suggestions in this area for Rollins




Environmental Services is the oldest and most experienced




high technology waste treatment and disposal corporation in




the United States.

-------
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
                                               228
          We operate large-scale commercial high-temperature
emission controlled hazardous waste incinerators for over
12,000 individual waste streams.
          We, along with the EPA and others, have for more
than a decade been developing a wide variety of technologies
for the safe disposal of liquid hazardous wastes by means
other than landfilling.
          We do, however, operate secure, controlled, class
one landfills for the disposal of drummed and bulk solids
and pre-treated sludges.
          RES also is engaged in the business of cleaning
up past waste disposal sites that are now threatening health
or the environment.
          In all of these endeavors we believe we hold a
position of public trust, earned over more than a dozen
years of operating experience.  We further believe that
EPA holds an even greater position of public trust.
          Unfortunately, by its two recent actions, EPA
is being responsive neither to requirements of the law, nor
to its responsibility as a protector of the public good.
          Our comments today will not address the legality
of the suspension but rather its substance.  Similarly, we
will comment on the longer term proposal by EPA to allow up
to 25 percent of a landfill capacity to be used for disposal
of liquid hazardous wastes from a substantive standpoint

-------
58
            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
                                               229




based on our own experience.




          For the past several years across the United




States, federal and state agencies have been discovering




sites used in the past for the disposal of hazardous materi-




als that are now posing threats to human health or the




environment; one result, of course, has been Superfund.




          As a company involved on a day-to-day basis with




the clean up of these sites, we know that one of the major




problems is liquid materials that are leaching from the




sites into ground and surface water.




          By allowing for even 90 days the disposal of




hazardous liquids in landfills, EPA will create future




problems of exactly the same nature as the problems it is




attempting to solve with Superfund.




          On the face of the issue, this is an obvious and




unacceptable contradiction that must be abated.  The




agency should immediately retract its 90 day suspension of




the regulations to fulfill the requirements of the law as




well as the agency's obligations to the maintenance of




public health and the protection of the environment.




          Now, the longer term question of eventual revision




of current regulations governing landfilling of containerized




liquids and ignitable hazardous wastes is not as cut and




dried an issue as the temporary opening up of landfills to




unlimited liquid waste disposal.

-------
39
          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





          We agree it is impossible to regulate to a zero




requirement, however, the revision the agency has proposed




goes too far in correcting the problem.




          In our company alone we have an annual landfill




capacity of about 280 million pounds.  Under the EPA pro-




posal we could theoretically dispose of 70 million pounds




of liquids a year.  We do not believe this to be an environ-




mentally sound practice.  At the present time we do not




landfill free liquids at Rollins facilities, foremost




because we believe we're in the business of trying to pre-




vent environmental problems, not create them.




          Under current regulations, we have what is a




built and suspender approach to landfilling hazardous




materials.  Liners and leachate collection and removal




systems are required in addition to the prohibition on




landfilling hazardous liquids.




          In its current proposals, EPA intends not only to




substantially relax the prohibition on liquids, but also




intends to eliminate many of the requirements for liners




and leachate collection and removal, thus EPA is eliminating




both the belt and the suspenders.  It will be returned to




the very problems of the past we are attempting to correct




today.




          EPA bases its proposed regulation in large measure




on what the agency perceives is an unwarranted and dangerous

-------
40
          t

          2
          3
          4

          5

          6
          7

          8
          9

         10

         11

         12

         13

         14

         15

         16
         17

         18
         19

         20
         21

         22
         23

         24

         25
                                               231
need to open waste containers for purposes of inspection or
to perform additional dewatering or absorbent addition
operation.  Yet in its own proposal, EPA would require waste
disposal facility owners and operators to demonstrate
whether a container holds free liquids, and such demonstra-
tions and the required analyses would be difficult to make
without opening containers.
          We believe the issue of opening containers is
largely spurious.  Under current regulations owners or
operators of waste disposal facilities must before dis-
posing of any hazardous wastes inspect and, if necessary,
analyze each hazardous waste perceived at the facility.  It
is impossible to make such inspections and analyses without
opening the containers.
          There is no question that the opening of con-
tainers of hazardous waste can present risks, but these
risks are well-controlled by practices developed over many
years that are designed to protect persons handling the
wastes.
          A much more pertinent question is:  Should some
risks be taken by opening hazardous waste containers before
treatment and disposal to prevent future risks following
treatment or disposal?  We believe the answer is yes.
          The hazard involved in opening waste containers
in a controlled environment of a waste disposal site is

-------
     41
/
 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
                                               232





negligible.  The hazard of a landfill leaching toxic materi-




als into the environment is major and serious.




          The opening of waste containers is an accepted




practice currently in place which can continue without




posing substantial threat to health or the environment.




          If we relagate this consideration to its proper




place as a relatively inconsequential tangential issue, we




are then left with the basic question:  Should liquids and




ignitable hazardous wastes be disposed of in landfills?  We




do not believe the answer can be a straightforward no.  As




we have already stated, there is no way to completely




eliminate liquids in landfills because while zero can be




approached and may be desired, it can never be achieved.




          But if our answer is yes, then we are faced with




two more critical questions:  How much and under what




circumstances?




          EPA's answer to the first question is 25 percent




of the landfill's capacity, or perhaps more in some in-




stances.  However, if a high volume of hazardous liquid




waste is allowed to be landfilled, this can become a vicious




circle.  If more landfilling is allowed, there will be less




high technology used, which in turn will lead to more land-




filling; and in the process, there is little incentive to




develop new and safer treatment technology.




          We believe the answer to the question how much

-------
42
          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
                                                233





should be the absolute minimum consistent with  the Congres-




sionally mandated national goal of limiting the disposal of




hazardous wastes in or on the land and mindful  of the costs




required to achieve this objective.




          We propose, therefore, that current regulations




be revised, not as proposed by EPA, but rather  to reflect




the following:  First, some free liquid but not more than




3 percent should be allowed in each container of hazardous




waste disposed of by landfilling except for certain speci-




fied wastes.  An example might be known human carcinogens




that could not be landfilled above the limits of detect-




ability.




          Second, the waste generators should specify in




addition,to other information that already must be speci-




fied, the percentage of free liquid in each container of




hazardous wastes up to the permitted limit of 3 percent.




In fact, the hazardous waste data sheets currently used by




most disposal facilities already ask for this information.




          Third, EPA should specify an appropriate standard




test to verify the percentage of free liquid in a waste in




instances where such verification is required.




          Fourth, if any waste generator believes a particu-




lar liquid waste should be allowed in containers at a per-




centage greater than 3 percent, than that generator should




be allowed to petition the agency for an exception which

-------
43

          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
                                               234





would establish a definite higher percentage for that waste




only for specified landfill locations.




          And, fifth, owners and operators of hazardous




waste disposal facilities will be required to verify waste




generator analyses for free liquid content in the same




manner as they carry out other tests that already are re-




quired.   This is how we propose answering the question how




much.




          In response to the question under what circum-




stances, we propose the following:  First, any landfill




permitted to accept containerized liquid waste should be




required to have the same liner and leachate collection




and removal specifications as landfills permitted to accept




non-containerized liquid waste.




          Second, as is currently the case, a landfill owner




or operator would be permitted the option of refusing to




accept any containerized waste containing free liquid in




any amount.




          We blieve the proposals we have outlined above




are appropriate to protect all involved interests.  First




and foremost, the interest of the public in health and




environmental protection will be safeguarded; second, the




interests of those using or developing new technologies




for waste treatment or disposal will be protected; and,




third, the interests of waste generators will be protected

-------
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
                                                235



by building reasonable flexibility into the regulations.




          There is no lack of capacity to treat liquid and




ignitable wastes by high technology means, particularly




incineration, based on the experience of our own company.




          The ability to treat or dispose of wastes safely




and efficiently should itself be considered a natural




resource worthy of development and preservation.




          We, therefore, urge that the current  suspension




of restrictions on the landfilling of liquid and ignitable




hazardous wastes be rescinded immediately and that amend-




ments to current regulations incorporation the  suggestions




we have presented here be studied and adopted quickly as




interim rules and later as permanent regulations.




          The details of our opinions and proposals are




contained in the complete statement we are submitting for




the record today.  If you have any questions, I'd be glad




to try to answer them.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Yes, sir, you referred to the EPA




proposal for 25 percent containerized liquids at landfills.




My understanding had been that, in fact, the formula peaks




at 25 percent and because any drum with some liquids is




treated as being all liquid that in practice it would be




very difficult for the liquid content to even come near




25 percent.  Do you agree with that or not?




          MR. WANDER:  I both agree and disagree.  In point

-------
45
          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
                                               236



of practice any reputable waste disposal operation would




probably meet the conditions you just outlined, however, I




can envision a case where I might buy a 100 acre hole in




the ground, put in 25 acres of drums containing 100 percent




hazardous liquids, and my next address would be Argentina.




That concerns us a loophole in the way the EPA is currently




proposed.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  I understand.




          MR. WANDER:  You're correct if you're dealing




with a responsible operator; if not, you run that risk.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  If EPA were to adopt on an interim




basis this 25 percent regulation for nationwide application,




would it in your opinion decrease the amount of liquids




that go to landfills or would it just sanction existing




practices?




          MR. WANDER:  The 25 percent, if you put that




into effect for —




          MR. PEDERSEN:  As opposed to a situation of no




regulation.




          MR. WANDER:  It would probably somewhat decrease




it but not to a great extent.  I'd have to go back and do




a little mathematics to give you a precise answer, but I




think it would decrease it somewhat.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  It would be helpful if we could




have your estimate of that somewhat.  Where did you get the

-------
46
          1





          2




          3





          4





          5





          6





          7





          8





          9





         10





         11





         12





         13





         14





         15





         16





         17





         18





         19





         20





         21





         22





         23





         24





         25
                                               237






3 percent free liquids from?




          MR. WANDER:  Based on our experience and the kinds




of wastes that we normally receive at landfills that require




further treatment — first place, at our landfills normally




liquids aren't a great problem.  Wastes come in, they can




be treated to solidify them or since EPA has not relaxed




the rules so that a generator can solidify wastes before




they're delivered to folks like us without them having go




through the permanent process, in point of fact, liquids




just plain aren't that much of a problem for us or figuring




out what is a liquid and what isn't, sure, you sometimes




have that problem but not a great deal.  There are a certain




number of limited wastes where there is a problem in this




area, and those are sometimes, frankly, difficult to deal




with.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  You say there is no lack of




capacity to treat liquid and ignitable wastes by high




technology means.  I guess I have two questions about that.




          First, can you tell us a bit more about the




factual basis of that statement; and, second, do you mean




to include all liquid wastes?




          MR. WANDER:  No, my statement I believe was




qualified based on the experience of our own company.




Right now our situation is artificial because we have an




incinerator shut down for the addition of some air pollution

-------
47
          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
                                               238




equipment, so the other incinerators are running pretty




close to capacity; but before that happened, we had been




running for sometime at somewhere in the vicinity of 65 to




70 percent of capacity, so there is excess capacity as far




as we are concerned, and we're obviously actively selling




in order to try to get business into those incinerators,




and it's difficult to do.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  What about according to reports




by other treatment disposal firms, does that express your




understanding?




          MR. WANDER:  The reports and the literature




generally have indicated the same situation in other com-




panies.




          I took note of your question earlier to get you




precise figures in those areas, and we will get them to




you.




          MR. PEDERSEN:  Now, are there liquid wastes that




cannot be treated through use of this excess capacity even




if it is available?




          MR. WANDER:  Sure, there's no question that there




are some wastes that have relatively-high liquid content




where you can reduce the amount of free liquid in them but




where they still are in, let's say, a semi-solid state as




opposed to it being, you know, rock-hard solid.  They cannot




be incinerated, for example, and can't find cogs to eat

-------
48
          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
                                               239





them up, and those materials up to date we know of nothing




other to do with them other than landfill them, that's




correct.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Is your excess capacity on




both sides of the rotary kiln as well as the liquid injec-




tion?




          MR. WANDER:  It's predominantly on the rotary




kiln side.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  In other words, you could




take some of these so-called problem wastes that people




have identified to us?




          MR. WANDER:  If they can be burned.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  If they can be burned, you're




right, you're right.




          MR. WANDER:  You know, there are some things you




can't burn.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  The containerized wastes that




you put in your landfills/ are you  achieving something




approximating 3 percent liquid content?




          MR. WANDER:  I would say considerably lower than




that.  In the first place, most of the time we don't land-




fill containers.  We get the containers in, the containers




are opened, the contents are emptied, they are further




solidified, the solidified material is buried within a cell




in the landfill, the containers that they came in are

-------
49
          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
                                               240




crushed and are buried separately.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I've seen your drum handling




facility up at your — is it New Jersey?




          MR. WANDER:  In New Jersey, right.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  How many drums a year can you




handle at that facility?




          MR. WANDER:  I honestly don't know, I can get you




the number.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Okay, thank you very much.




          MR. WANDER:  Thank you.




          Let me call next on Mr. Kenneth Walanski of the




National Paint and Coating Association.




            STATEMENT OF KENNETH WALANSKI




          MR. WALANSKI:  Thank you very much.  My name is




Ken Walanski, I'm the Corporate Environmental Engineer




for DeSoto, Incorporated, in Desplaines, Illinois.  I'm a




member of a water quality and waste disposal task force of




the National Paint and Coatings Association, an organiza-




tion that we know of as NPCA.




          Today I represent the NPCA which is composed of




more than 900 companies, collectively produce about 90 per-




cent of the dollar amount of consumer paints and industrial




coatings in the United States.




          NPCA has been actively involved in the liquid and




liquid-ignitable waste disposal issue, both as a litigant

-------
50
          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
                                               241




in the Shell Oil vs. EPA case and in administrative pro-




ceedings.  It is an issue of great significance ot our




industry.




          The NPCA data bank program shows that the paint




and coatings industry generates at least 20 million gallons




of ignitable wastes each year.  Over 5 million gallons of




this material is reclaimed by off-site recycling facilities,




the remaining 15 million gallons must be incinerated, used




as auxiliary fuel or landfilled.




          The ignitable waste generated by the paint and




coatings industry takes several forms and includes water




solvents, sludges from paint solvent recovery, obsolete




and defective coating products, used filter media, and




semi-solid and solid residues in tank cleaning and floor




cleanings.




          In general, the waste cleaning solvents, which I




first mentioned, can be classified as clean wastes due to




the lower solids content which enables them to be reclaimed




or readily used as auxiliary fuel or incinerated in a




liquid injector incincerator.




          The other wastes, however, are considered problem




way streams, and they are characterized by high solids




contents, high inorganic pigment content which results in




high ash when incinerated, heavy metal content, relatively




high viscosity, which ranges from pumpable off specification

-------
51

          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
                                               242
coatings to non-pumpable sludges, and they are also
characterized by having often times a solid and liquid phase.
          Another point to be made is that we are dealing
with mixtures in many instances of organic and inorganic
materials which further complicates some of our management
problems.
          The characteristics which I've just referred to
severely limit the disposal options open to generators of
these wastes and has led the EPA to identify them as a
so-called problem ignitable waste.
          EPA states in their February 20th background
document, and I quote, "The clear ignitable wastes in
general have already been reclaimed as solids or used in
liquid injection incincerators as fuel sources.   In general
it is the 'problem ignitable wastes' which the reclaimers
and incinerator operators don't want that are going to the
landfills.  Often what is received at the landfills are the
rejects or sludges of the reclaimers.  Therefore, the most
obvious alternatives to landfilling of these wastes
reclaiming and incineration are not praactical or readily
usable even when available."
          Larry Straff, who is a Manager of Environmental
Engineering and Control at PPG Industries has already
testified as the former chairman of a water quality waste
management task force.  He has testified at a public

-------
52
          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
                                                243




hearing held by the EPA on March 25, 1981, concerning EPA's




intention to ban the landfilling of ignitable wastes.  Mr.




Straff discussed the serious lack of incineration  capacity




to handle ignitable wastes in the United States.




          While he cited the lack of incinerators with




technological capabilities to handle high solids and high




viscosity wastes, there is an additional serious shortfall




which he mentioned, even for ordinary incinerators, par-




ticularly in the Western United States.  In such instances




there may not even be adequate incineration capacity for




the so-called cleaner or non-problem wastes.




          The EPA has consistently recognized the practical




problem of a lack of alternative capacity and safe methods




besides landfilling to handle containerized liquid and




liquid ignitable wastes.




          EPA's discussion of the basis for its decision




to first suspend the ban of landfilling of ignitable




wastes for six months spoke of the practical problems that




a ban would cause, and I quote:  "In the past; containerized




ignitable liquid wastes often in large volumes have been




disposed of in many of the major landfills.  Typically




these are two phase wastes, that is, semi-solid sludges




with both liquid and solid phases.  The liquid phase is




often the phase that exhibits the characteristic of ig-




nitability, thereby causing the waste to be a hazardous

-------
53
             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
                                               244



waste.  (Paint waste and spent solids are the most common




of these ignitable wastes.)  Because of the high solids




content of many of these wastes, they are not easily incin-




erated, particularly in liquid injection incinerators where




the solids tend to plug the injector nozzles.  For the same




reason, these wastes cannot easily be injected through deep




wells.  Also, most incinerators, even some rotary kilns,




are unable to burn wastes in metal drums.  Other options




for handling liquid ignitable wastes, such as solvent




recovery, land treatment, and chemical, physical, or




biological treatment can be successfully used to treat




some, but not all, of these wastes.  Even when it is




technically feasible to handle liquid ignitable wastes in




incinerators, deep wells, or other facilities, such




facilities may not always be readily available."  And,




again, that was a quote from the EPA.




          We certainly concure with these comments by the




agency.  The paint industry would be shackled with an




almost impossible regulatory burden if a complete ban on




landfilling were to be imposed now or in the near future




due to the lack of disposal options.




          The alternatives of deep well injection or




incineration or not suitable or sufficient for liquid and




liquid-ignitable paint wastes.




          The EPA acknowledges that several regions in the

-------
54
          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
                                                245



United States have no available commercial incinerators,




while others have only a limited number.




          The EPA has in the past relied on the December




1980 report prepared by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton to  judge




the availability of alternative commercial disposal facili-




ties.




          NPCA believes that the Booz, Allen report presents




a misleading and over-simplified view of the commercial




hazardous waste management situation in the United States.




          In the Spring of 1981, the National Paint and




Coatings Association undertook a critical review of this




report.  This review included a survey of the 127 hazardous




waste management facilities listed in the report.  Our pur-




pose was to determine which facilities actually had the




capability to treat or dispose of ignitable paint wastes.

-------
                                                             246

              MR. WALANSKI:  The results of our survey were




    most interesting.  Our survey showed that 15 were no longer




    in business, three were not operating at the time, seven




    were not hazardous waste management facilities, but in




    reality offered some other type of service.




              Thirty-eight were incapable of handling any —




    and I stress any — of the hazardous waste.  Twenty-three




    were strictly waste solvent recycling operations.  That




    leaves forty-one.




10             Of the 41 remaining facilities only 19 could be




11   identified as operating incinerators that could handle




12   some type of ignitable paint waste again because of the




13   problem and the characteristics which I referred to




14   earlier.




15             In our comments filed in 1930 with the EPA,




16   NPCA documented this survey, including a breakdown by region,




17   which has demonstrated to our satisfaction, a severe shortage




18   of suitable incineration capacity for paint waste streams.




19             This capacity shortage we believe has not been




20   alleviated during  this suspension period, and in some cases,




    in some areas of the country it has actually worsened.




22             Indeed,  during EPA's March 25th, 1981, hearing




23   even witnesses who supported the ban could not testify that




24   the millions of gallons of problem waste of the paint




25   industry can be handled exceot through landfilling for the

-------
                                                               247




 t    foreseeable future.




 2              Mr.  Whiteman, an EPA official, asked and I quote,




 3    "Well,  the question is, based on your knowledge of walls




 4    capacity and other alternative capacities available today,




 5    are you able to confidently say that there is adequate




 6    capacity to handle the volume that NPCA has spoken about?"




 7              Mr.  Moon, a representative of the Reliance




 s    Corporation (phonetic)  responded and I quote, "No,  I could




 9    not possibly comment on that."




10              I might also add we've heard testimony today




     again reiterating that there is not sufficient capacity




12    nationwide for disposal of some of the problem waste from




13    our industry.




14              I should mention that some incinerators will




15    accept bulk shipments only.  Some cannot handle steel




16    drums,  only fiber packed drums.  Some cannot handle materials




17    which are non- pump able.




18              These practical limitations make the actual
ig
21
     availability of incineration to the industry even  less  than
20    the extremely limited capacity which Mr.  Moon implicitly
     recognized in his reply.
.              Another major concern of the members  of our




23    Association is the method of management of ash  and residue




24    by the incinerator operators.




               We feel that we must concern ourselves  with this

-------
                                                              248





1   since under super fund we can have liability for improper




2   disposal.




3             Before adopting any rule which would, in effect,




4   require incineration, EPA should guarantee the controls are




5   in place for the disposal of  the ash and residues.




6             Finally, given the lack of incineration capacity/




7   any return to a complete ban will force generators to




8   resort to more on-site storage of waste.




9             This situation may, itself, pose a more serious




10   environmental safety and health risks than control land-




11   filling.  Many small generators do not have the storage




12   capacity for a large number of drums.




13             These generators are also not in a position to ship




14   in bulk shipments as demanded by qualified incinerators.




15   Because most small generators are not approved with interim




16   status as storers, they would find themselves an unwilling




17   violator of the reckless 90 day storage requirements.




18             In summary:




19             1.   EPA acknowledges that many paint wastes




20   exhibit characteristics which render them unacceptable  for




21   underground injection or incineration.




22             2.  The Booz-Allen report which EPA relies on




23   for incineration  canacity data shows large geographical




24   areas without sufficient capacity to burn even those liquid




25   wastes which are  suitable for the more common forms of

-------
                                                               249


     incineration.




 2             NPCA's more recent study documents the fact that




 3   the shortage in capacities are far more severe throughout




 4   the United States than even Booz-Allen suggests.




 5             I might add that delaying promulgation of final




     incineration rules, we believe, has also had a chilling




     effect on the development of new incineration capacity.




 g             3.  The fundamental question EPA must answer before




 9   any complete ban on landfilling can be imposed is where the




     millions of gallons of liquid waste will go if the only




     means currently available for their disposal is cut off.




12             The EPA should immediately,  we believe, conduct




13   a comprehensive survey of the incineration industry's




14   capacity to accommodate all liquid waste to determine the




15   true scope of the problem.




16             It is incumbent on the EPA to demonstrate that




17   adequate incineration capacities exist.  Otherwise the




18   complete ban on landfilling is arbitrary and unfair and




19   will only incur more legal challenges  to the agency's




„-   actions.
20



               4.  The imoosition of a complete ban in the near




     future will work a special hardship on small generators




_,   who lack storage capacity and in many  instances who have
ZO



     no alternative but to violate RCRA storage requirements.




               The overall ootential for environment ±>use and

-------
                                                              250





1   mishaps is therefore increased should a ban go into effect.




2             5.  We urge the EPA to stand firm and continue




3   the extension until May 16th, 1982.  However, if the EPA




4   feels that the continued extension of the compliance date




5   for another 76 days may substantially increase environmental




6   risks, NPCA joins with others to urge that the proposed rule




7   of February 25th, 1982, go into effect immediately in




8   interim final form.




9             NPCA endorses the Agency's belief that minimization




10   of landfill disposal of containerized wastes is a reasonable




11   objective for interim status standards.




12             But real-world constraints must be kept in mind




13   until alternatives to landfilling are readily and reasonably




14   available.  The EPA must act prudently to allow necessary




15   landfilling with proper safeguards to protect the public




16   healt!i and safety.




17             Thank you very much.




18             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  The problem wastes that  you




19   list on Page 2 of your statement, high solids, etc., do




20   vou think they would meet a  3 percent rule and  a 5 percent




21   rule on an individual container basis as has been suggested




22   by some earlier commenters?




23             MR. WALANSKI:  That's a difficult question to




24   answer  for this reason, the  gentleman — I believe he  was




25    from TA. — showed you some containers and one of the problems

-------
                                                               251



     inherent in our waste is space separation.  What is 3




     percent liquid today may be 4 percent tomorrow, and may be




     5 percent the next day.




               I think we have concerns about the extractability




     of some of these liquids.  Again, we're also arguing —




     talking about definitions.  What is a free liquid?   What




     is a percentage?




               I might also point out that three percent, just




     in the rough calculations is about what's allowed in an




 10   empty drum based on the one inch rule.  So, we'd be allowed




     three percent or whatever that turns out to be in terms




 12   of gallons in an empty container much less a —




 13             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  It would tend to be an




 14   organic material, would it not?




 15             MR. WALANSKI:  Excuse me?




 16             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:   In your rfaste that you're




 17   talking about, the liquid would be an organic —




 18             MR. WALANSKI:  Yes, it would be.




 19             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Have you had any experience




 2Q   with a test like the paint filter test that we proposed on




 21   February 25th?




22             MR. WALANSKI:  I have not, but I have only one




23   thing to report, and it was reported to me, so I don't know




24   if that makes it second-hand or third-hand information —
25
     I was told that a survey was conducted and in — in a large

-------
                                                               252
 1





 2





 3





 4





 5





 6




 7





 S





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
metropolitan area.  And contrary to the Agency's contention




the filters are not readily available. So, this is the




only information I have.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Is there any reason why the




wastes could not be put into fiber packed drums, meeting




DOT specifications, which would eliminate one of the problems




that you cited in moving them to an incinerator and getting




them incinerated.




          MR. WALANSKI:  It's my understanding and let me




go — I'm an in-house person who tries to help our plants—




I've been asked the question many times, what can I ship




in?  And I've done some research on it.  I hope I'm giving




you the write answer.




          It's my understanding that if the material has




a flashpoint of less than 73 degrees, it must be packed in




a 17HE — the other one escapes me — there are only three




drums which are approved for any material which has a




flashpoint of 73 degrees that would not include a fiber




packed drum.



          I would be helpful on those areas where we can




have — where we do ignitable waste with a flashpoint greater




than 73 degrees.




          MR. BRAND:   If the ban had stayed in effect, what




were you planning  to do with all that waste?




          MR. WALANSKI:  I  believe we made some comments to--

-------
                                                               253





    to what we believe will happen.




              We  are  a diverse  industry and we  are  scattered




    throughout the  United  States.  We are  composed  of big people




    and little people and  I can't  tell you what all of  the  900




    companies are going  to do.




              Some  of the  larger companies may  go to extremes




    in terms of capital  investment, to put in some  equipment




    if they're able to do  that  under  the  regulations.




              Smaller people, perhaps, will store as we've




10   said in our testimony  and kind of hope for  the  best and




11   hope that something  will come  out in the next three or  four




12   months.




13             I know  a paint company that  has stored waste  on




14   cite for one  year, and there were just drums everywhere




15   because they  were looking for  an alternative, and this




16   happened to pre-date the RCRA  regulations.   These were




17   state regulations that they were trying to  comply with.




18             So, I think  — it's  difficult to  generalize because




19   of the diversity  of  our industry.  I think  it's fair to say




20   that we are —  everyone will have problems,  depending on




21   location, the amount of waste  they produce,  the type of




22   waste they produce.




23             We  may  be  sitting next to a  Rollins (ohonetic)




24   incinerator in  one of  our paint nlants.  We  have no  problem




25   should the ban  continue in  effect.

-------
 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
                                                          254




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: Somebody in the audience asked




a question, can paint waste be solidified.




          MR. WALAMSKI:  Solidification is our — is a




technique which has a very attractive feature to it and we




have looked at solidification of paint wastes — at some




paint waste.




          The one material which we did look at — I don't




recall the brand name — had a curious aspect to it.  We




could solidify a paint waste.  In this case it was an




aqueious paint waste.




          And in about three days the materials de-solidified




which has a curious twist to it.  It could be solid when it




goes to the landfill and can be completely de-solidified




when it's  — I think there are some technologies for




providing — for taking out the organic materials — for




example, some recovery techniques.




          Actually, our form of solidification, that is




your taking out the volatile fractions or the less viscous




fractions — what remains behind is the viscious material.




          But by and large  I don't ?cnow the technique which




we can just buy in the form of a black box and test every




paint plant  and provide a solid material, no, I don't think




that exists.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  To some extent, I'm left




with  the impression  that a lot of your problem wastes would

-------
                                                                255




     probably appear to be basically not having  free liquids




     in  them.  And, therefore,  at least pretty much meeting the




     goal that a number of people that I've talked to.  Is that




     a true impression?




               MR. WALANSKI:   I think there are  some wastes which




     might.  But there are other wastes which are problems because




     of  face separation.




 8             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  And, so, you  get 10  or so




 9   percent or more?




 10             MR. WALANSKI:   Perhaps, yes




               CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Okay, thank you very much.




 12             MR. WALANSKI:   Thank you for your time.




 13             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Mr. Ernest Norman, Corporate




 14   Counsel for CECOS International.




 15           .        STATEMENT OF ERNEST NORMAN




 16             MR. NORMAN:  My name is Ernest Norman and I'm




 17   the corporate attorney for CECOS International.  And I




 13   have a prepared statement I'd like to read.  It's  not too




 19   long. So, if you bear with me.




 20             CECOS is a chemical and industrial waste manage-




 21    ment firm with operations in Niagara Falls, New York, and




 22    Williamsburg, Ohio.




 23              I'm here today  to express CECOS'  concern and




 24    opposition to the resuming of the ban on land burial of




25    liquid chemical wastes.

-------

                                                             256




 i              In  this  regard, our  concerns are based primarily




 2   on environmental,  technical  and business development




 3   reasons.




 4              First  as to  the environmental and  technical




 5   considerations:  in essence,   there are four basic  environ-




 6   mental  and technical reasons for CECOS* to the  land burial




 7   of liquid chemical waste.




 8              First  of all,  deposited  liquid waste  materials




 9   are  usually in a highly  mobile state  and possess the




10   potential for migration  beyond the confines  of  their




11   disposal  point into other ares of  the land burial  facility.




12              This migration and co-mingling of  waste




13   materials placed in a  land burial  facility could precipitate




14   undesirable reaction.  These reactions would most  likely not




15   occur until degradation  of  the drum occurred and after the




16    facility  was  closed, which was at  the time that the drum




17    degradation most likely  occurred.




18              Reactions after closure  would, therefore, be




19    very difficult  to  detect and control.




20              Our second reason  is that many liquid materials




2i   which are land buried are known  to have adverse reactions




22    on clay and synthetic liner systems.  Possible  effects




23    includes  changes in physical properties of the  liners, that




24    is changes in the  liner  structure  and the permeability




25    characteristics.


-------
                                                             257
 1              These physical changes may lead to the structural
 2    degradation of the liners.  Changes in either the structure
 3    or permeability of the liners will reduce the containment
 4    capability of the land burial facility and increase the
 5    likelihood of migration of the landfill contents into the
 6    surrounding environment.
 7              Thirdly, if the undersirable reactions described
 8    in number one referenced earlier occur they could produce
 9    a leachate which is extremely difficult to treat.
10              Constituent interactions may also produce unde-
11    sirable gases which could migrate into the environment or
12    accumulate in the facility.
13              Four, as the deposited drums degrade,  void  spaces
I4    will be formed in the land burial facility.  Since this drum
15    degradation is most likely to occur after the facility .
16    has been closed, the possibility exists that major subsidence
17    threatens the structural integrity of the facility.
18              Even more problematic, because of the  difficulty
19    of detection, are cases of minor subsidence which may cause
20    small cracks in the land facility.  These cracks may also
21    allow more precipitation to enter into the facility and
22    increase the quantity and formation of the leachate.
23              In contrast to the above, CECOS disposes of waste
24    materials that are essentially in solid form.  The only
25    exception to this standard is that such waste may contain

-------
 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
                                                         253
a liquid content which is not in excess of five percent of
the volume.
          When CSCOS receives wastes that have an excess
liquid content above the five percent level, it follows
certain set procedures in order to reduce the liquid level
to the five percent volume or less.
          These procedures include pumping off any excess
liquids for further treatment in our wastewater treatment
facility and/or adding certain absorbant or reagent
materials which will solidify any excess liquids.
          In the event that any of the pumped off wastes
contain organic liquids with BTU fuel value, CECOS will send
these wastes to either recycling or incineration facilities
for further treatment or disposal.
          In addition to these initial procedures, CECOS also
takes special care in disposing theri wastes by placing it
into segregated cells in our secure chemical management
facility.
          We do this in order to avoide any possibility of
adverse interaction.
          We have five main sub-cells which include areas
for heavy metals, pseudometals, general, flammable and
toxic sub-cells.
          In addition to those procedures that I noted
earlier, we also place special covers  over waste  containers

-------
  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
                                                         259
which will further prevent and minimize any waste inter-

actions which might subsequently occur after placement of

the drums.  These would include items such as lime, hydrated,

ferrous sulfides, calcium carbonate, among others.

          Besides the technical and environmental reasons,

we also have certain very basic business considerations

that we'd like to speak to.

          Besides those points that I above-raised, we feel

that the land burial -- lifting of the ban on land burial

liquids resulted in adverse economic pressures which could

negatively affect our efforts to move towards new disposal

technologies and away from pure land burial, as it is known

today.

          Specifically, waste management companies in

states which regulate waste disposal by Federal

standards, that is allowing the disposal of liquids in land,

fills, would be able to offer lower disposal prices than

companies in states with stricter standards.

          This puts environmentally responsible companies

at a competitive disadvantage since the disposal of liquids

in landfills is usually significantly less expansive than

the proper pre-treatment of solidification of the liquids

as it is done in the manner of CECOS' — as CECOS has done

as previously stated.

          Although many waste management companies have

-------
                                                                            254
f
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
          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: Somebody in the audience asked




a question, can paint waste be solidified.




          MR. WALANSKI:  Solidification is our — is a




technique which has a very attractive feature to it and we




have looked at solidification of paint wastes — at some




paint waste.




          The one material which we did look at — I don't




recall the brand name — had a curious aspect to it.  We




could solidify a paint waste.  In this case it was an




aqueious paint waste.




          And in about three days the materials de-solidified




which has a curious twist to it.  It could be solid when it




goes to the landfill and can be completely de-solidified




when it's  — I think there are some technologies for




providing — for taking out the organic materials — for




example, some recovery techniques.




          Actually, our form of solidification, that is




your taking out the volatile fractions or the less viscous




fractions — what  remains behind is the viscious material.




          But by and large  I don't know the technique which




we  can  just buy in the form of a black box and  test every




paint plant  and provide a solid material, no, I don't think




that exists.




           CKAIRMAM DIETRICH:  To some extent, I'm left




with  the  impression   that  a lot of your problem wastes would

-------
  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
                                                        259
which will further prevent and minimize any waste inter-

actions which might subsequently occur after placement of

the drums.  These would include items such as lime, hydrated,

ferrous sulfides, calcium carbonate, among others.

          Besides the technical and environmental reasons,

we also have certain very basic business considerations

that we'd like to speak to.

          Besides those points that I above-raised, we feel

that the land burial -- lifting of the ban on land burial

liquids resulted in adverse economic pressures which could

negatively affect our efforts to move towards new disposal

technologies and away from pure land burial, as it is known

today.

          Specifically, waste management companies in

states which regulate waste disposal by Federal

standards, that is allowing the disposal of liquids in land,

fills, would be able to offer lower disposal prices than

companies in states with stricter standards.

          This nuts environmentally responsible companies

at a competitive disadvantage since the disposal of liquids

in landfills is usually significantly less expensive than

the proper pre-treatment of solidification of the liquids

as it is done in the manner of CECOS1 — as CECOS has done

as previously stated.

          Although many waste management companies have

-------
c
                                                            256




 J  .            In this  regard, our concerns are based primarily




 2   on environmental,  technical and business development




 3   reasons.




 4              First  as to  the environmental and  technical




 5   considerations:  in essence,  there are four basic environ-




 6   mental  and technical reasons for CECOS* to the land burial




 7   of liquid  chemical waste.




 8              First  of all,  deposited  liquid waste materials




 9   are  usually in a highly  mobile state  and possess the




10   potential  for  migration  beyond the confines  of their




11   disposal point into other  ares of  the land burial  facility.




12              This migration and co-mingling of  waste




13   materials  placed in a  land burial  facility could precipitate




14   undesirable reaction.  These reactions would most  likely  not




15   occur until degradation  of the drum occurred and after the




16   facility was closed, which was at  the time that the  drum




17   degradation most likely  occurred.




18              Reactions after closure  would,  therefore,  be




19   very difficult to  detect and control.




20              Our second reason is  that many  liquid materials




21   which are  land buried are known  to have adverse reactions




22   on clay and synthetic liner systems.  Possible effects




23    includes  changes in physical  properties of the liners, that




24    is changes in the  liner structure  and the  permeability




25    characteristics.

-------
  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
                                                         259
which will further prevent and minimize any waste inter-

actions which might subsequently occur after placement of

the drums.  These would include items such as lime, hydrated,

ferrous sulfides, calcium carbonate, among others.

          Besides the technical and environmental reasons,

we also have certain very basic business considerations

that we'd like to speak to.

          Besides those points that I above-raised, we feel

that the land burial -- lifting of the ban on land burial

liquids resulted in adverse economic pressures which could

negatively affect our efforts to move towards new disposal

technologies and away from pure land burial, as it is known

today.

          Specifically, waste management companies in

states which regulate waste disposal by Federal

standards, that is allowing the disposal of liquids in land,

fills, would be able to offer lower disposal prices than

companies in states with stricter standards.

          This outs environmentally responsible companies

at a competitive disadvantage since the disposal of liquids

in landfills is usually significantly less expensive than

the proper pre-treatment of solidification of the liquids

as it is done in the manner of CECOS' — as CECOS has done

as previously stated.

          Although many waste management companies have

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         253
a liquid content which is not in excess of five percent of
the volume.
          When CECOS receives wastes that have an excess
liquid content above the five percent level, it follows
certain set procedures in order to reduce the liquid level
to the five percent volume or less.
          These procedures include pumping off any excess
liquids for further treatment in our wastewater treatment
facility and/or adding certain absorbant or reagent
materials which will solidify any excess liquids.
          In the event that any of the pumped off wastes
contain organic liquids with BTU fuel value, CECOS will send
these wastes to either recycling or incineration facilities
for further treatment or disposal.
          In addition to these initial procedures, CECOS also
takes special care in disposing theri wastes by placing it
into segregated cells in our secure chemical management
facility.
          We do this in order to avoide any possibility of
adverse interaction.
          We have  five main sub-cells which include  areas
for heavy metals,  pseudometalsy general,  flammable and
toxic sub-cells.
           In addition  to those  procedures  that  I noted
earlier, we  also place special covers over waste containers

-------
  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
                                                        259
which will further prevent and minimize any waste inter-

actions which might subsequently occur after placement of

the drums.  These would include items such as lime, hydrated,

ferrous sulfides, calcium carbonate, among others.

          Besides the technical and environmental reasons,

we also have certain very basic business considerations

that we'd like to speak to.

          Besides those points that I above-raised, we feel

that the land burial -- lifting of the ban on land burial

liquids resulted in adverse economic pressures which could

negatively affect our efforts to move towards new disposal

technologies and away from pure land burial, as it is known

today.

          Specifically, waste management companies in

states which regulate waste disposal by Federal

standards, that is allowing the disposal of liquids in land,

fills, would be able to offer lower disposal prices than

companies in states with stricter standards.

          This puts environmentally responsible companies

at a competitive disadvantage since the disposal of liquids

in landfills is usually significantly less expensive than

the proper pre-treatment of solidification of the liquids

as it is done in the manner of CECOS' — as CECOS has done

as previously stated.

          Although many waste management companies have

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        260
begun programs which seek to develop new technologies for

the treatment of chemical wastes, no company in this country

has made a more comprehensive financial and technical

commitment to such advanced technologies as ours.

          At our Niagara Falls facility alone, we have made

a $55 million commitment over the next 10 years for the

implementation of 16 specific waste treatment technologies

over the period I mentioned.

          In spite of the fact that these technologies require

significant development expenditures by disposal  firms, as

well as increased disposal costs for generators,  there

presently exists very little incentive for industry to move

towards high technology disposal under the present regulatory

framework.

          The lifting of the ban on liquids in landfills

will only exacerbate that situation further.  To  illustrate

this point, for example, let's consider the average present

disposal  costs for liquid chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes.

          These average disposal costs are as follox^s:

          Between 2.5 to 5C per  pound as  a liquid into a

          landfill.

          Between 3.5 to 11* per pound as  a solidified

          liquid into a landfill.

          35  to 40
-------
                                                          261





1             50  to  60* per pound  for PCB's into an




2             incinerator,




3             Although, over the short term CECOS  remains




    committed to  the high technology we are seeking,  it is not




    unreasonable  to  assume that over the long term the economic




    impact will be such that companies like ours will be  forced




    to reconsider its  treatment of disposal choices in serving




    its markets needs, when generators in all likelihood will




    seek  the cheapest  disposal option available to them.




10             CECOS  has made a firm and realistic  commitment




11   to environmentally and economically sound waste disposal




12   method and management practices.  We ask that  the




13   Environmental Protection Agency reassess and withdraw their




14   full  rescinding  of the ban on  the land disposal of liquid




15   chemical wastes.




16             Thank  you.  If you have any questions?




17             MR. PEDERSON:  Yes.  At your landfill facility




18   do you accept drums?




19             MR. NORMAN:  Yes, we do.




20             MR. PEDERSON:  Do you open all the drums?




21             MR. NORMAN: Yes, we  do.




22             MR. PEDERSON:  How do you determine  whether a




23   drum  has 5 percent or — more  or less of liquid in it?




24             MR. NORMAN:  If the  drum has any liquid in  it,




25   we, if it's appropriate, we'll drain or pump out  the  fluid,  if

-------
c
 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
                                                         262
it can be put in through our wastewater treatment facility,

or if it could be sent to another location for solvent

recovery, etc.

          If it's something that we can't do that with,

we put in a — reagents or absorbant materials.  It doesn't

matter whether it's 5 percent — we strive to have a full

solid rather than try to quantify it between 5 percent or

10 percent.

          MR. PEDERSON:  The question I'm getting at is

there have been statements that there are difficulties in

testing  to make sure how much liquid is in a drum.

          And you had said that you had a cut-off point of

5 percent.  Now, your answer, I take it, is you really don't

worry too much about that, you just and try to get the free

liquids  down as far as you can?

          MR. NORMAN:  Well, the 5 percent I mentioned is

a permanent requirement that we have with the State of
New  York.  And we have that as our guidelines.  We don't

try  to limit it to the 5 percent content.  We try to solidify

it to the  full extent.

           And  I think  the 5 percent guideline is nothing

raore than  an  attempt not  to require us  to have a 100 percent

standard which might not be reasonably  or physically

attainable  in every  instance.

           CIIARIMAN  DIETRICH:   But  it's  mostly by observation,

-------
1
2
10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                              263
    right?
              MR.  NORMAN:   It's  done by  physical  examination.
The drums are opened.  They're examined.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: But you don't — you don't always




take a sample and put it on in New York's plain test




(phonetic) do you?




          MR. NORMAN:  No, we don't.  Again, as I mentioned




earlier today, a physical observation is usually sufficient




to determine whether or not there are any liquids, and if




there are, we will add solidification materials or reagents




to solidify it.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Do you open every drum?




If a truckload comes in and it's manifested showing •— the




manifest shows that it's typically all the same waste —




          MR. NORMAN:  Our operating procedures call for




opening up every drum and examining it.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Do you have to have any




safety —




          MR. NORMAN:  Yes, we do.  That's determined by




the nature of the material that's coining in.  We have




various safety procedures and equipment used by the people




who are doing this at the site.




          It is done in the confines of the landfill and




we've had no incidents of any problems of any major natures




with the drums causing a problem for those individuals who

-------
                                                                          264
V
              1  || opened them up.




              2  II            CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:   The safety is  what,  wearing




              3   masks  —




              4              MR. NORMAN:   We could have either  a full rubber




              5  I' suit with an airpack or an airmask,  rubber gloves, rubber




              6  || boots.  It depends on  what the nature of the material is.




                            CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:   What percentage of your
 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





J6





17




18





 19





20





21





22





23





 24





 25
containers do you have to apply those sophisticated safety




precautions to?




          MR. NORMAN:  Well, you're asking a technical




question which I could obtain the information for your but




I don't have it.  I don't know it offhand.




          MR. PEDERSON: Suppose that EPA were to adopt the




proposed maximum 25 percent rule, in your opinion would that




have the effect of decreasing the amount of containerized




liquids at landfills compared with the situation of no




regulation?




          MR. NORMAN:  I can offer you no credible comment




on that.  I really do not have any estimate.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: Thank you.




          MR. NORMAN:  Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  We have several speakers from




the Maryland Waste Coalition. The first is Ms. Mary Rosso.




                  STATEMENT OF MARY ROSSO




          MS. ROSSO:   I'm Mary Rosso. I'm from the Maryland

-------
                                                             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
Waste Coalition.  Unfortunately, Mr. Antione  (phonetic) is




not here, but he did refer to some citizens who would be




very unahppy if this went into effect, and some of those




citizens are here today from Maryland.




          It was actually 10 of us that started out on a




little but and two of them had to leave.  So, we're still




here watching and listening.




          Unfortunately, some of the gentlemen who appeared




earlier — I had some questions for them.  I. wonder —




I wanted to say Mr. Fetter is not here.  And Mr. Vardy.




And I think it's an insult to the intelligence of the




citizens all over that are aware of hazardous waste problems




that we don't know the difference between restrict and




ban.




          And I think that they have  a tendency to sell




the citizens short in many cases thinking we don't know what




hazardous waste is.




          Believe me, the citizens out know what it is and




the citizens who are here today are people who live near a




hazardous waste facility, the only one in the state that's




allowed to take hazardous waste at this point and is up for




a permit.




          And we've had some problems with that landfill.




Mr. Eishbaum has been very good recently helping us with it.




          At any rate, we're here to make a public statement.

-------
10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                         266



The Maryland Waste Coalition is here to protest the EPA's




decision to lift the ban on liquid chemical dumping in




landfills.  We know that liquids leach more readily than




sludges and recognize the increased hazards that this




directive will present to all citizens.




          Our state regulations do not permit liquid




dumping.  And even though these regulations will still apply




for our state, we know that the economic gains will be an




incentive for the present company now operating our only




hazardous waste landfill, Browning and Fair (Phonetic) to




challenge our state law, and this could cost our State of




Maryland and many citizens tax dollars, not only in court




proceedings, but in environmental damage. -




          We respectfully request that this committee




restore this ban and also the Maryland Conservation Council




which  is a member of our group just wishes to state they're




an umbrella group representing over 30,000 individuals in




Maryland.




          They  are opposed to any relaxation of EPA




regulations concerning hazardous waste landfills .  In additior




we  fsel  that  the disposal of liquid hazardous waste should  —




more  compounds  the existing contamination problems associated




with  so-called  secure hazardous waste  facilities.




          And it — would it be okay if  I ask a question,




olease.

-------
                                                            267
 1             CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH: Okay.
 2             MS.  ROSSO:   We  keep  hearing  about  drums.  Was
     the  questioned raised why they have  to be  put  in  drums all
     the  time?   They keep  saying  it has to  be put in drums.
              CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:   I believe a  lot  of  the  small
     companies produce —  they're medium  sized  companies and it's
     hard to manage their  waste in  bulk form.   It's more
 8    convenient  and more practical  to  ship  their  waste in  tons.
 9             MR.  PEDERSON:   But if you  don't  ship it in  bulk,
10    the  Department of Transportation  makes you use a  drum.
11             MS.  ROSSO:   Well,  we kept  hearing  that.  And also
12    we just want to mention  that necessity is  the  mother  of
13    invention.   And I think  it was Mr. Walanski  that  said about
14    the  little  black box, and I  think we have  to do this.
15             if you permit  this to happen, we're  never going
16    to find a solution  to the problem,
17             Thank you.
18             CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:  Were there others from  your
19    coalition?
20             MS.  ROSSO:   Ye»sf  Mrs.  Vitek and Mr. Bellinger.
21          '   MR.  BELLINGER:   I  will  take  about  a  minute  and a
22    half and mine will  be different than the  rest  of  them.
23                 STATEMENT OF LEWIS BELLINGER
24             MR.  BELLINGER:   I've heard enough  technology  today
25    to last  a lifetime.

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

H

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        268
           (Laughter.)
          My name is Lewis Bellinger.  And my father was
a supervisor in a landfill in upstate New York.  And I
worked for him when I came out of the service.
          And I'll tell you it's a disgrace to stand here
and see people put things down on this counter and look
at things  — for one thing, those drums would not stay in
place 10 minutes, with a bulldozer going over them.  Anybody
in their right mind would know that.
           Now, another thing, have any of you people ever
been in a  hole 70 feet deep with rubber gloves and rubber
boots on?  Well, I have.  And I'll tell you, when it rains,
you got to go down there and pump it out before you can
put the waste in.
           Now, you have to pump it out in ponds.  Now,
what you're — if you're going to put liquid waste in there,
and you pump the water and the leach pond, what are you
going to do, take the leach pond and pump it back in the
dump after you get through.  Because that is what is going
to happen.
           If you're  going  to put liquid waste  in a dump,
you already got water in  there to start with every time
it rains.  And  that  is the thing —  I  think some people  are
real stupid un  here  today.
           They've been talking all  the  technology, but I

-------
                                                            269
    don't think there's one of them that's ever been down in a
    70 foot hole.  And I have been down in plenty 70 foot holes.
    And I have worked where there's a lumbermill and I've worked
    in it.
              There's chrome, there's formaldehyde, there's lime,
    you name it, they got it.  There's 41 operations.  And I'll
    tell you they dump it all in one place. They don't even
    consider it hazardous.
              Years  ago chrome was not considered hazardous.
10   My father died of cancer.  And I figured he was 10 years
11   the supervisor of a landfill and that's what caused his
12   death.
13             But that's what you've got. And _today I live
14   three-quarters of a mile — I come from New York down here
15   and I live three-quarters of a mile from a hazardous waste
16   landfill on one  side and a mile and a half on the other
17   side.
18             Now, if we don't get a nice cross-wind, the smell,
19   I guarantee you  it's something.  And now they want to put
20   a garbage dump another half a mile away.
21             If you listened to the Love Canal, you know
22   that  leach got in the water, but where they got the hazardous
23   waste over there, they got two water pipes going within a
24   16th of  a mile,  it  feeds Baltimore, it feeds Annapolis, it
25   feeds all the communities in the Northern of Ann Arundel

-------
 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
                                                        270
County.
          Now, they, want to put liquid waste in.  The
pressure acquafeed (ph.) is 100 feet under the ground.  And
you let Browning and Fair go 75 feet in the ground to start
a hazardous waste — which leaves you 20 feet.
          Now, you go up 55 feet, that's a standard law
in Maryland.  How much feet does that give you.  All these
people that got wells.  Nobody has tested them.  The EPA
won't even come out.
          They closed Browning and Fair because it contami-
nated the ground on Quarantine Road where they used to have
the quarantined people come in.  Now it's contaminated.
They've closed.  They don't know what to do, and yet they
want it for another hazardous waste dump there, because
they got so much.
          I heard a lot of people snicker in the back
when I was sitting there when they said we have the largest
harzardous waste facility on the Eastern Seaboard.
          I sit in my house.  I'm retired now and I can
watch  them come in from Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
New York, Delaware, they come in and dump there because
Browning and  Fair is  in 33 states and that's their biggest
hazardous waste dump  on the Eastern Seaboard.
          They bring  drums in there.  That truck goes  in
ani 15 minutes later  it's out.   Do you  think  they place

-------
                                                            271



    drums on  top of one another.  No.  They pick  them  up  and




    roll them down the hill because  that's the only way they




    can get them in a landfill.




              When that guy out that thing here,  it was terrible.




    It was a  disgrace.  Anybody in his right mind would know  that




    you can't put drums in like that.  The minute you  go  over




    them with a 10 ton bulldozer, bang,  they're busted and




    you go-t your liquid waste  right  back in there where it




 9   started from.




10             Thank you.




11             CHAIRMAN DIETRICH: Thank you.  Carol Vitek?




12                   STATEMENT  OF CAROL VITEK




13             MS. VITEK:  My name is Carol Vitek  and I represent




14   the United Council of Civic Associations in Ann Arundel




15   County.   I'm also with the Maryland  Waste Coalition.




16             We do live within a half a mile of  the dump




17   and I wish Mr. Fetter was  here,  because he's  the only one I've




18   ever heard say that that was a beautiful dump.  And I'm




    sure that Browning and Fair belong to the National Waste




20   Management group.




21             And I can tell you living  near that dump, it's




22   probably  the worst dump. And it's not a landfill,  but it's




23   considered a landfill.  And it's terrible.  Our soile is




24   contaminated.  And the only time we  knew about our soil




25   being contaminated was when the  snow turned green  and 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
                                                        272




think that's a well-organized, secure landfill for you.




          Anyhow, listening to some comments made up here




and I'd like to kind of make some comments back.




          If you permit, as you claim, 25 percent, or




shall we permit diminutive amounts, any time you permit




by permit — allow this to happen, there are going to be




people that will go over that percentage.




          If you ban it, then if you're going to get the




diminutive things, you've got some control over what you're




taking in.  But you give them a 25 percent limit and you




know they're going to get 50 percent.  And that's been




our problem.




          And I  can guarantee you that the citizens will




never ever let you place a  facility if we've got to take




liquid waste.




          In Maryland, we're  just starting to address




the problem.  They have convinced us in Maryland that we




do need landfills.  There are some chemicals that have to




landfilled.  If  you put liquid waste in those, you'll never




get a site, because people  will violently opoose them, and




they will stand  there.




          I know for myself I have been convinced by  the




Booz-Allen  report and  the Little  report that  there  are




chemicals that have  to  be  landfilled  and  I'll accept  that




as long as  it's  secure.  As long  as we thought we've  had —

-------
                                                             273
 1    if the state wasn't enforcing our laws that the EPA was.

 2    The EPA isn't doing their job. Number one, they're cutting

 3    the budget.   Number two,  you've taken away the RCRA act

 4    that we've waited years for implementation of that.

 5              I  think it's an absolute criminal intent to hurt

 6    the citizens of this state and this country.  And I think

 7    it's unconscionable that you would do something like that.

 8              The citizens have waited a long time for the RCRA

 9    to be implemented.  What has happend before this Act is

10    fully implemented — this Agency's function is to protect

11    the environment.  It is now permitting liquid hazardous

12    waste to be  dumped in landfills.

13              I  as a citizen find this decision close to a

14    criminal act against the citizens.

15              Previous testimony has already been — has

16    already discussed the problems and the risks this directive

17    will have on our health and environment.

18              Hazardous waste landfills in Maryland are existing.

19    'VJe already have existing what they call solid waste land-

20    fills, then  they were giving permits to nut hazardous

21    waste landfills in.

22              Thesa facilities as the Browning and Fair solid

23    waste are situated near bodies of water.  Both of our

24    landfills are situated — both of them on the tributaries

25    of the Chesapeake Bay.

-------

c
                                                            274
1             We have had leachate.  They're going right into
2   those tributaries.  We have had soil contamination, and we
3   have had opssible contamination to our ground water.
4 j            It appears that no one is sure exactly how hazardous
5   waste landfills are supposed to be designed, since those
6   that supposedly meet regulations and criteria, we are still
7   have huge problems with containment.
8             Sure we have clay liners, etc., but we are
9   also — it is cracked and it also erodes.  You can hit
10   sand lenses  (phonetic) and here again there are no
11   regulations on how to patch sand lenses.
12             And if we allow industry to patch them, which we
13   don't know what's going to happen to those patches — and
14   once you have a sand lense you're going to have the liquid
15   go out into  the groundx^ater.
16             It was under the Republican Administration that
17   wo ended up  with the EPA.  It  is now under the Republican
18   Administration that you are trying to tell the citizens of
19   this country we're not concerned or you're going to ignore
20   the  facts.
2i             Maryland has — Mr.  Eishbaum  started to address
22   the  disposal of hazardous waste.  And we're taking  steps to
23   protect our  health and safety, yet, we  as citizens  thought —
24   we  need EPA, not  just  for our  state, but if we in Maryland
25   ara  going  to address  the hazardous waste problems, vhat  if

-------
                                                            275
    Virginia doesnt?  What  if  Delaware  doesn't?  We've
    accomplished  absolutely nothing  unless we  have  a  national
    policy  that each  state  has to  address that problem  and do
    it in an environmentally safe  way,  because you  can't get
    back your drinking water once  it's  destroyed.
              I find  the  action by this present Administration  —
    Republican Administration  and  the Director of EPA certainly
    not in  the best interest of the  citizens or the environment.
              Industry can  find ways to detoxify, but as long
10   as the  EPA is going to  allow them to dump  cheaply into
11   landfills, they will  never find  a way to detoxify this
12   thing.
13             And I think the  man  from  IT said, there's probably
    a way to detoxify all hazardous  waste except you  let them
15   in landfills  they're  never going to put  in the  money to
16   detoxify.
17             Thank you.
18             CHAIRMAN  DIETRICH:  Thank you.   Is Mr.  Ambrose
19   Kelly here?
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
ls-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
  DRS, Inc.
                                                          276





              Statement of Ambrose B. Kelly




          MR. KELLY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all




of you who have been here all day.  I will be as brief, as mud




as possible.  I represent an association of insurance




companies which is starting to write pollution liability




insurance.




          We oppose the lifting of the ban in this case for




one very simple reason, and I can't put it in less than thirty




seconds.  We feel that a landfill which has had liquid wastes




put into it is a greater hazard than one that has not.




          Since we are interested in reducing hazards when




we're writing insurance, we are in favor of the procedure




and the technique which will give us the lowest test.  It is




for this reason that my Association supports the continuation




of the ban on the disposal of liquid waste in landfills.




          I won't go into any of the technical things.




Thank you for listening.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you very much.   Is Bruce




Molholt here?




          DR. MOLHOLT:  Yes.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Bruce is with the Delaware




[Valley Toxics Coalition.




             Statement of Dr. Bruce Molholt




          DR. MOLHOLT:   I will certainly honor the  tenet  of




the previous speakers and try to make this very brief.

-------
ls-2
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
  DBS, lac.
                                                          277





          As was said, my name is Bruce Molholt.  I'm a




Ph.D, I am Director for the Center for Environmental Health




in Philadelphia, and I'm here representing the Delaware Valley




Toxics Coalition which is a coalition of two dozens environ-




mental, labor, and citizen action groups in Philadelphia.




          Their primary concern is with the contamination




of the Delaware River and of different  aquifers within the




Delaware Valley Region, primarily by hazardous wastes.




          Just a brief word about my background — I came to




the Director of the Center for Environmental Health position




from 15 years of teaching in graduate schools and medical




schools and doing research into molecular genetics and into




the basis of cancer.  This is why I have a.professional




concern with the involvement of toxics.




          I'd like to just briefly go over two reasons that




both my organization and myself are opposing the rescission




of the ban-  at present, and we would like to see the ban




in toto reinstated.




          First of all, I believe the Chairman, Gary Dietrich




here today, earlier expressed that we should consider the




health hazards of permanently allowing 25 percent liquid waste




to be put back into landfills.  So, I will be considering




that in a little detail; it will probably take about five




minutes.




          I would like to say that the reason we are so

-------
ls-3
         9

         10

         11

         12

         13

         14

         15
         16
         17
         18
         19

         20

         21

         22

         23

         24

         25
                                                          278
opposed to the lifting of the ban on dumping is because first
of all, the constituency groups — I've talked to many of
them through the Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition — are
already concerned that there has been a lot of water over the
dam since the ban was lifted on February 18th.
          I don't know if you'd call it so much water over
the dam or leachate over the retainer.  We urge that the ban
be made permanent immediately.
          We join with many other groups such as you heard
earlier from the State of New York in the banning of all
liquid and commercial landfills.  We agree with the banning
of all hazardous wastes in landfills, as stated by California,
and you've heard several other people — Mr. Eichbaum today
from Maryland.  You've heard some people from other areas of
the country in which they ban either on a State-wide basis
or a Region-wide basis the bearing of hazardous wastes  either
in liquid form or in solid form in some cases, in their
commercial landfills.
          We have become impressed that alternate technologies
are available.  These are not only alternate technologies  for
the qualitative handling of different kinds of wastes,  but
also for handling the quantities of wastes.
          The capacity is there, and we think it ought  to
be implemented.  This morning, for those of you who have
stayed  the entire day, there was a raging argument between  two
   DRS, Inc.

-------
ls-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
  DHS, Inc.
                                                          279





xperts, arguing whether the 55-gallon drums would decay first




or the retainers would decay first; which would happen?




          Would you have corrosion of the drum before the




liner gives out or will the liner give out before the




corrosion of the drums?  I don't care which one happens first.




          In either case, the loser of that argument is the




public, so we feel that any attempt right now — and it's




going on right now, of course — to put these liquid wastes in




drum form, with or without a retainer; the fact that there




won't be a stiff retainer requirement; the fact that it won't




be a leachate collection requirement in the EPA proposal in




the future makes the situation that much worse.  We feel




that this is not in the best interest of the public whatsoever




          Hazardous wastes in landfills, in liquid form,




are just time bombs.  We are just putting off the necessity




for cleanup until sometime in the future.  These are stable




compounds — heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons.  You know




that these do not atrophy in the environment and they will be




there to face us again at some time in the future, likely in




a more diffuse form, likely in a very expensive form to clean




up.




          The only sanity is to detoxify every material before




it is disposed of, and the technologies do exist.  Now, I'd




like to spend just a few moments on a situation that has shown




the folly of such practices in the past.

-------
ls-5
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
  DBS, Inc.
                                                          280


          We haven't had much example in terms of a  scientific

assessment, and I'd just like to spend a few moments on  a

scientific assessment recently done  in cooperation with  the

EPA as to the toxics inventory which has gone into the

Cohancy  (phonetic) Aquifer which is  in the  Eastern part  of

New Jersey from a hazardous waste  site called Price's Pit.

          First of all, Price's Pit  was a gravel and sand

pit up until about 1968 when it was  turned  over to a brother

in the family for a commercial landfill.  The commercial

landfill operation occurred for about two years, at  which  time

apparently, with State complicity, toxic chemicals were dumped

on the site.
                          %
           In 1971 and 1972, nine million gallons of  toxic

chemicals were put into the Price's  Pit landfill.  Ten years

later, now here's the situation.   There are,  in that Cohancy

Aquifer, which is moving  toward Atlantic City and which  is

the  source for thirteen public wells for Atlantic City,

there are  now eleven  toxic chemicals in very high concentra-

tions, nine of which  are  carcinogens.

           I will only read you  the concentrations  in terms of

parts per  billion  for the first  three of  this;  that  is,

I Benzene  is there  in  7,900 parts  per billion;  dichloroethane is

there in 128,000 parts  per billion;  and  dichloroethylene is

there at 3,000  parts  per  billion.   Those  are on the  down-

gradient side  of  the  Price's  Pit landfill  moving  toward

-------
ls-6
 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
  DBS, Inc.
                                                           281




Atlantic City.  We know that the front of that edge, the




contaminated aquifer edge, has reached the first of the public




wells now, feeding Atlantic City.  Four of the public wells




out of the thirteen are directly in the plume path from the




pit and, as you may know, Atlantic City not only feeds




40,000 people that are permanent residents there, but because




of the casinos and because of the industry for tourism there




are populations that run up between 15 and twenty million  per




year that consume that water supply.




          If one takes the ambient water criteria and applies




those criteria to the contaminants of the aquifer "as could




be intercepting the four public wells and if one assumes just




for the worst offenders, the four leading carcinogens of that




list, and one calculates how many people would contract cancer




from drinking that contaminated water, you find that fully




one-fourth of the people in their lifetime could contract




cancer from that source of pollution alone.




          I believe that this is an adequate symbol of what




can happen when liquid hazardous wastes are placed improperly




into a landfill; that at some time in the future, and in the




Price's Pit case it was only ten years, you may have to pay




the price for that.




          The price of the clean-up now, of course, is




absolutely immense; there are not funds available.




          Thank you.

-------
     ls-7
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
       DBS, Inc.
                                                           282




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Thank you.  Last but not least




is Donald Carruth, President of the American Eagle Foundation




of Chevy Chase, Maryland.




               Statement of Mr. Donald Carruth




          MR. CARRUTH:  I thank you for the privilege of




allowing me to comment on several of the other comments.




          I want you to know that the American Eagle Founda-




tion is a national encironmental organization.  I left the




federal government after 33^ years to create an environmental




organization to help do the things we couldn't do in the




government because of the red tape.




          I was, for about ten-and-a-half years, the Chief




Management Staff Officer to the Director of the old Bureau of




Commercial Fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  now




known as the National Marine Fisheries Service under NOAA




and Commerce.




          There are a few points here that I'd like to raise




over and above what has been raised.  Number one, I would  like




to state to begin with that I was very much involved —  our




foundation was — on the closing of the chemical landfill  on




St. Stephen's  Church Road right outside of Annapolis,  right




over the Magathey Aquifer.




          I've never seen so much red tape in my life  in




trying  to get  something  done in the State plus trying  to get




the federal  government interested in what was happening  to a

-------
ls-8
 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
  DBS, Inc.
                                                           283




bunch of people that really just finally banded together and




said look, we're going to raise all kinds of Cain to get this




thing stopped.  They finally did; it was like Al Capone.  They




couldn't get him for shooting people, but they got him on an




income  tax evasion charge and put him in jail.




          That's the same way it happened in Anne Arrundel




County.  Let me read you — oh, I forgot to tell you, too,




that for about five and a half years, I served as Charter




President of the National Foundation for Cancer Research.




          I helped establish cancer research laboratories in




the United States and overseas.  At the last count, we had




32 laboratories, most of which are in this country; all but




one are affiliated with very prestigious universities in




Sydney, Australia and Japan and we even have one back of the




Iron Curtain in Czchekoslovakia.




          My point being, I like to approach this situation




from not only the reprehensible dumping of hazardous and




toxic chemical wastes into landfills which even the State




of Maryland, their chief hydrologist said, "If I was to chose




a landfill in the whole State of Maryland, the last place I




would chose would be the Beam Joy  (phonetic) landfill because




of the geologic structure of the land".




          It was strictly a political set-up and it's




surprising how an elected delegate on the one hand should be




representing the people of Anne Arrundel County and yet he

-------
ls-9
         6





         7





         8





         9





        10





        11





        12





        13





        14





        15





        16





        17





        18





        19





        20





        21





        22





        23





        24





        25
  DBS, Inc.
                                                                      284
turns around and represents Beam and Joy, the people that




are dumping all of this crud in the landfill.




          I would like to read to you a very short statement.




I'll give you this statement as my prepared statement, but I




want to comment in addition.




          This is a statement that I prepared and gave to




quite an interagency assembly on May 13th of this year.  It




was before the Inter-Agency Collaborative Group on Environment




al Carcinogens and that is chaired by a Dr. Herman Herdell




(phonetic) who is an assistant to the director of the




National Cancer Institute.




          I'll stick by the points that the American Eagle




Foundation — I'll just give it to you in a nutshell, this




first part of it.  It was appointed by Hansa Line in Bremen,




West Germany, the owners of the motor transport, Volcanis.




          We were apointed in 1973, August 23rd, as their




U.S. environmental representative for a demonstration project




in the United States for the destruction by very high temper-




ature burning — we mean 1650 degrees Celsius or 3,002 degrees




fahrenheit — the burning of chlorinated hydrocarbons.




          This first test was on four shiploads of  16,800




metric tons total of Shell Chemical Company out of  Deerpark




Texas.  Now, combining that background and the fact that we




worked a year and a half before we could even interest the




Environmental Protection Agency in touching the project with

-------
ls-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
  DRS, Inc.
                                                           285





a ten-foot pole.  They still haven't been too  sold on it,




because they have not yet issued the regulations telling




industry what the destruction efficiency level of American




incineration tank ships has to be.




          I know it's in draft form, but it hasn't been




issued yet; they could have issued that in August of 1975




when they came out in July of '75 with the results of a very




detailed monitoring operation that showed that that ship could




destroy a five-streamed chemical waste product from Shell




Chemical out in the Western incineration zone  in the Gulf  of




Mexico.




          The destruction efficiency level exceeded 99.93




percent.  Anyway; all right, I'll get back to  this.  There  are




several points in here over and above just dumping crud in  the




land.  I'll start over here.




          The safe and rapid destruction of approximately




57 million metric tons of hazardous waste which EPA estimates




were produced in the United States in the year 1980 should  be




one of the national priorities for America.




          In the June 6, 1980 written testimony of Dr. David




P. Rail, Director, National Institute of Environmental Health




Sciences, Department of Health and Human Services, to a Senate




Judiciary Committee Hearing, included, among other things,




the following statement:




          "The ideal way to protect people from health

-------
ls-11
 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
  DBS, Inc.
                                                          286




problem s due to chemical exposure is to identify the chemical



and study the toxicity of the chemical in laboratory animals
                   r


before exposure.  This has historically been an effective way



of projecting certain health problems from single chemicals.



          "However, some of these studies take many years



and are inadequate for predicting effects such as neuro,



behavioral and reproductive damage.  We in the National Toxi-



cology Program in Health and Human Services are trying to



develop better, less expensive and more rapid test methods



to identify accurately these effects.



          "One research area that is not adequately developed



concerns the toxicity of many chemicals acting together."



          And, if you think you  don't get many chemicals,



various chemical analyses types  in — just for instance,



the Beam Joy landfill out in Maryland and other types of



landfills, you can  see what this man is talking about.



          We do not have the scientific tools today to



estimate the toxic  effects of twelve, 24 or 36 chemicals to



which a person may  be exposed simultaneously.  We're talking



about drinking water and a few other things.



          This was  the problem in Love Canal, where residents



were exposed to not a dozen, but to perhaps two or three dozen



or more chemicals  at the same time.  The most we  can do  at



this time is examine the toxicity of single chemicals and



project human  health effects.

-------
ls-12
         2





         3





         4





         5





         6





         7





         8





         9





        10





        11





        12





        13





        14





        15





        16





        17





        18





        19





        20





        21





        22





        23





        24





        25
  DBS, Inc.
                                                          287






          Because today we cannot generalize about the toxic




effects of multiple chemical exposure, it is almost impossible




to estimate the health impacts of such exposure other than to




assume that they are simply addicting.




          In the 1970 report for the Surgeon General in a




report titled "Evaluation of Environmental Carcinogens"




prepared by the ad hoc committee on the evaluation of low




levels of environmental chemical carcinogens, the National




Cancer Institute, notes in its recommendation number eight:




          "A basic distinction should be made between




intentional and unintentional exposures.  No subs-tance




developed primarily for uses involving exposure to man should




be allowed for wide-spread human intake without having been




properly tested for carcinogenicity and found negative.




          "Any substance developed for use not primarily




involving exposure in man but nevertheless resulting in such




exposure, if found to be carcinogenic, should be either




prevented from entering the environment or if it already




exists in the environment, progressively eliminated.




           In the Sixth Annual Report of the Council on




Environmental Quality dated December of '75, Chapter One,




Carcinogens in the Environment, it notes that chemicals intro-




duced into our environment by our consumption pattern and way




of life can cause cancer and that much of the cancer is




probably associated with carcinogenic agents produced by man.

-------
ls-13
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
  DBS, inc.
                                                          288





          We are now coming to recognize and accept the fact




that mere "disposal" of hazardous and toxic chemical wastes




by dumping in landfills, well injection, spread of material




over open ground and storage should not be concluded to be




feasible alternatives to ocean incinerations since there has




been no demonstrated destruction efficiency factors stipulated




for these alternatives for disposal of such chemical wastes




or concerns.




          It should be noted that neither government nor




industry is capable of reproducing in their laboratories the




scope of tremendous pressures exerted by nature on the Earth's




fragile crust.




          Of the many millions of tons of hazardous and toxic




chemical wastes dumped into land injections in each year in




the United States, there are no data which has been made




available to this Foundation to show that groundwater in the




general area of the injected waste cannot eventually be




contaminated by such waste.




          The proven technique for destroying incineratable




chemical wastes by high temperature controlled incineration




tankships operating far at sea and away from masses of people




is probably the safest method available to government and




industry for the destruction of those chemical wastes that




contribute to the causing of cancer and malformations in the




human body.

-------
                                                                       289
ls-14
 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
           When we speak of high temperatures,  we mean the




 capability of the vessel to sustain temperatures up to and




 including 1650 degrees Celsius in each incinerator unit,




           America should give no less consideration to over-




 coming the detrimental effects caused by a ravaging, deadly




 disease which attacks America's human resources than it does




[to the destructive effects of a hurricane or other disaster,




I           The same effort of dedication by the government




 should apply to resolving both types of problems.  Finally,




|it may be of interest that the following is the last paragraph




 in an April 17, 1974 — that's eight years ago —'letter from




 the research and development department of a large chloro-




 carbon manufacturer in the United States to a representative




 in New York of the motorship Volcanus.




           "We believe that a long-term disposal service




 operating out of U.S. ports such as you now provide for




 European customers might satisfy a real need of North




 American industries and we hope that you will find it attrac-




 tive to eventually establish such a service."




           Let me add that our foundation works with anyone




 and everyone.  We work with the people who have the problem,




 which is the generators of these hazardous and toxic chemical




 wastes.  We've had very excellent working relationships with




 the Chemical Manufacturers Association.  Over the years,  they




 have published in their monthly document, titled Chemicology,
  DBS, Inc.

-------
ls-15    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
  DBS, Inc.
                                                          290
articles beginning as far back as February  '74.  I'll give
you these so that you can see what they were doing.
          In this article, in 1974, it says, "Ocean incinera-
tion, a new weapon for toxic wastes."  I'm only telling you
this because it's been proven.  It's been proven by EPA when
they were interested in doing the kind of a job that's
necessary to be done to destroy these wastes and not open
up a can of worms on a hot stove; that's what they're doing
in the situation as it relates to the present concerns here
today.
          Here is one that's reprinted from Popular Science
with the permission of the outfit.  It says, "A converted
cargo ship destroys a deadly chemical and proves a new method
that's 99.9 percent efficient."
          Well, this talks about Herbicide  Orange; it talks
about other activities; and here's what  I said in the
article.  "Destroying wastes before they reach the ocean is
far preferable to direct  dumping on a land-based method such
as deep well injection."
          Donald Carruth  of the American Eagle Foundation,
one  strong proponent of at-sea incineration says,  "It's
cheaper than land incineration which requires scrubbing of
the emissions and operational costly facilities."
          Here is the  last paragraph:   "The Environmental
Protection Agency, which  hasn't yet issued  final regulations

-------
ls-16
 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
  DRS, Inc.
                                                          291





on the method, should actively encourage the building of




incinerating ships 1  One source of ships could be the Maritime




Administration which offered in 1976 to sell small dry cargo




vessels from the National Defense Reserve Fleet for conversion




into these floating furnaces.




          I'll also give you this and these for your




information.  This is my document that I gave to the carcino-




genic group.  Just retitle it for this.  Now, in addition —




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  We're tired, you know.




          MR. CARRUTH:  Well, this is important and I've sat




through it all day long to do specifically what will take




about ten minutes more and then I'll quit.




          All right, we couldn't get operations through the




State — that was back in 1980, early in  '80. We couldn't get




the type of operations to the State of Maryland to close the




landfill.  Finally, they decided to transfer the function from




the Department of Natural Resources over to Baltimore to the




Health Department where it is now.




          So, in- order to move this along, I ask the people




from EVOKE, which some of you people from the Maryland delega-




tion know about — I asked them to get some signatures for me




relating to the closing of that big landfill.




          They only came up with an original handwritten




signatures for 343 people.  They said, "Do you think that will




be enough?"  I said, "I think so."  I went over to see

-------
ls-17
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
  DRS, Inc.
                                                          292





Congressman Barley Staggars and he just about jumped through




lis skin.  That was on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce




Committee.




          I said, "I'm aware of your Committee's jurisdiction




over the Safe Drinking Water Act and several statutes




pertaining to solid and hazardous waste.  I have been working




with a number of people that had the State of Maryland  investi




gate the Beam Joy hazardous waste landfill and  so forth."




          A relatively large number of residents in the




general area have found groundwater contamination.  Your




committee should investigate this matter  so as  to determine




the nature and extent the  groundwater is  contaminated and




the threat to human health posed by the improper disposal of




hazardous waste.




          Enclosed is a petition from citizens  who have an




interest  in your committee investigating  the matter.  It




appears the State of Maryland  has not acted to  the satisfac-




tion of these citizens; therefore,  I feel that  the federal




government's intervention  is called for at this time."




This letter was dated June 23rd.  The three letters  that  I




have were also dated June  23 of  1980; one of them  is  addressed




to me, Donald Carruth, President of the American Eagle




Assocation and so  forth,  signed by  Ha-ley Staggars.




           "Thank you for your  letter of June  23, the  same




date,  concerning  the Beam  Joy  hazardous waste  landfill.

-------
ls-18    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
  DRS, Inc.
                                                          293
Enclosed are a copy of a letter to The Honorable Bob Eckhart,
Chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation
and The Honorable Douglas M. Costell, Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, concerning  the landfill.
When I hear from these individuals, I'll let you know."
          These two letters are somewhat similar, except it
was a more direct order to Congressman Eckhart, Chairman of
that Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
          He says:  "I am concerned about improper hazardous
waste disposal and its effect on our environment, especially
sources of drinking water." I'd appreciate it and-so forth.
          Here's the one to Dough Castle —  "Enclosed is a
letter", and so forth.  "Mr. Carruth and other concerned
citizens feel that the Beam Joy hazardous landfill poses a
health hazard, so I'd appreciate it if you would investigate
the situation."
          They did and about four days later, they came in
with a report saying, "We don't find any problem there.  We
don't find any problems."  So, there are people — I will tell
you this.  There are people in the Congress  today, The
Honorable James R. Jones, I wrote him a letter.  The letter
was dated February 10th, 1982 and he was Chairman of the
Committee on Budget.
          Dear Mr. Chairman, in the review by the Budget
Committee of the President's proposed budget for fiscal year

-------
ls-19
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
  DBS, Inc.
                                                           294


 '83 and hearings relating  thereto,  it  is  requested that this


 letter and attached exhibits  be  included  as  part of the


 official records of such hearings." I went  on to say that


 where funds were appropriated to the U.S.  Congress for carryin


 out authorized programs by the Executive  Branch of government,


 the American  people have the  right  to  expect the Executive


 Branch to use a reasonable degree of judgment in the expendi-


 tures of such funds.


          The Courts  have  gone beyond  the point of general


 expectations  of the public and have included references to


 the use of common  sense  in carrying out the  requirements of


 Congress.  They wouldn't define  what common  sense was.


          Here  it  says7  "For  the year" — oh, okay, "It


 should be noted" —  "In  the year 1980, EPA estimated that at


 least 57 million metric  tons  of  hazardous wastes were being


 produced  in  America.


          It should be noted, however, that  a lack of good


 supportive rules and  regulations in EPA has  made it very


 difficult for the  incineration at-sea  program to function."


          That  includes  the Chemical Manufacturers Organiza-


 tion  that has been strongly supportive of this technique for

j
 [destroying waste.   Another problem arising — well, all right.


          There is a  very big need to improve and thoroughly


 revise  EPA's permit program into a practical and effective


 support mechanism.   'The last paragraph:  It is requested
                                            ,v,icy.
                 Chiu..p,  •'••>--  L —

-------
ls-2G
 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
                                                           295




that your Committee give very in-depth consideration to the




1983 budget requirements for the Environmental Protection




Agency not alone from the standpoint of the role that the




American people expect of the Agency in protecting the quality




of our human and natural resources, but also  from the use  of




appropriated funds.  Where common  sense is greatly needed  by




the Agency and a number of its personnel  in order to effective




ly carry out the mandate of Congress.




          I have a lot more.  That's enough to let you know




that there is a way it can be destroyed;  they don't even have




the regulations that have been issued yet that permits this




to be done. They only have one vessel in  existence that was




the one that we were representing  the owners  of back in  '73




and '74.  Then it was taken over by EPA but only for the




demonstration monitoring aspects.  Thank  you  very much.




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I did promise that I would open




it for comments.  Does anybody have any comments?




           (No response.)




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  Does anybody have any rebuttals?




           (No response.)




          CHAIRMAN DIETRICH:  I appreciate your attendance




here and I will close this hearing.




           (Whereupon, the hearing  was concluded at 5:20 p.m.)
 DBS, IDC.

-------