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 per pound for pesticides into an incinerator. ------- 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. ------- |