J
(Y1
r
I
FINAL REPORT
a,
Of
"THE FEDERAL TASK FORCE FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT"
of the
WESTERN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
REGION IX
August I, 1973 to June 30, 1977
Compiled by
Charles T. Bourns, Task Force Chairman and
Supervisory Environmental Scientist
" , Hazardous Materials Branch
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
EPA .'
909/R
78-005
A.
Printed by
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
March 1, 1978
-------
FINAL REPORT
Of
"THE FEDERAL TASK FORCE FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT"
of the
WESTERN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
REGION IX
August 1, 1973 to June 30, 1977
Compiled by
Charles T. Bourns, Task Force Chairman and
Supervisory Environmental Scientist
Hazardous Materials Branch
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Printed by
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
March 1, 1978
-------
A
•x
•v
^
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
Foreword i
1 The Federal Task Force for Hazardous Material
Management— Formation and Organization 2
2 Executive and Subcommittee Actions 9
3 Directory of Federal Contacts on Environmental
Protection 15
4 A Regional Inventory of Hazardous Wastes from
Federal Agencies 17
5 A Survey of Existing Federal Facilities for
Hazardous Waste Management 38
6 Criteria for Selecting a Site for Land Disposal
of Hazardous Wastes 50
7 Guidelines for the Operation and Management of
Hazardous Wastes Disposal Sites 88
8 Resource Recovery and Resale of Excess Chemicals
and the Deveolpment of a Databank System 114
9 Retrograde Chemical and Pesticide Management
by the Department of Defense 120
10 Technology and Information Transfer 128
11 Coordination with State Agencies 132
12 Summary and Recommendations 135
Appendices
I Charter of the Task Force, April 24, 1974 140
II Revision of Task Force Charter, August 6, 1975 146
III Roster of Task Force Membership 151
IV Work Plan for Fiscal Year 1977 162
-------
FOREWORD
This report documents the establishment,
organization, objectives, procedures of operation and
results and outputs of the Federal Task Force for
Hazardous Materials Management, a working group
sponsored by the Western Federal Regional Council of
Region IX. This task force operated from August,
1973 through September, 1977.
Prior to the initiation of the activity reported
herein, several Federal agencies approached the
Environmental Protection Agency for answers to a
number of problems relating to management of
hazardous materials which were then surplus to their
needs, in deteriorated condition, longer useable, or
were hazardous wastes. Among the problems was a
situation wherein those materials needing disposal
would not be accepted into existing landfills or the
few designated hazardous waste disposal sites in
Region IX. There also were genuine concerns as to
the adequacy of existing sites for receiving some of
the materials and for protection of the environment
and public safety.
Prior to this time Federal regulatory programs
had been established for wastes which were discharged
into water or the air, but disposal of hazardous or
solid waste to land was not under an environmental
protection program. Advisory programs were in
existence however, for solid waste disposal and
legislation for hazardous waste management was before
the Congress.
For the aforementioned agencies, however, the
management of hazardous presented problems which were
acute and immediately in need of a solution. In
order to plan and provide technical assistance to
these agencies, it was decided by EPA to call a
conference of affected agencies within Region IX to
discuss ramifications of the problem and possible
interim solutions which might be augmented until a
national program could be instituted. This
conference was held in August, 1973, and this led to
the formation of a task force which operated until
September, 1977.
-------
11
This report discusses in some detail the
organization, membership, their considerations,
decisions made and activities undertaken to
accomplish task force established objectives. The
organization of this report is a compilation of the
reports prepared by each sub-committee. While a
format and style was recommended by the steering
committee for the respective reports, each
sub-committee deviated to some degree in preparation
of their individual reports. No attempt has been
made to rewrite or change these for fear of losing or
changing their content; however, some reports were
either so detailed, included non-essential material
(examples of reporting forms, etc.), or too
voluminous for this report. For the latter, the
committee prepared an abstract or summary which is
included herein in lieu of the whole submission.
-------
CHAPTER 1
THE FEDERAL TASK FORCE FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT
Formation and Organization
The Federal Task Force of Hazardous Materials
Management came into being almost spontaneously as an
"ad-hoc" working group on August 2, 1973, as a group
decision at the end of a two-day conference called by
the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss
problems related to hazardous materials management as
experienced by several Federal agencies in standard
Region IX. All Federal Agencies in Region IX were
invited to send a representative to this conference.
The response of over a hundred persons, representing
fifty-three agencies indicated the wide-spread
interest in this subject area.
The meeting was structured as follows: the first
morning a presentation was made of existing State and
Federal laws and regulations relating to hazardous
materials management to focus attention on existing
requirements to be met. This was followed in the
afternoon by presentations of several agencies of
their own particular problems and of the steps they
had taken locally to construct and operate facilities
to treat or dispose of their own special wastes.
These presentations revealed the inadequacy of both
singular or overal solutions to existing problems.
There was a consensus decision that there was clearly
an opportunity for a cooperative effort to solve
problems in this area. Another decision was that
existing disposal facilities in the Region were both
inadequate and incompatible with present and
long-range protection of the environment. There was
clearly a lack of lines of communication between
agencies on matters relating to this problem area and
a need for a mechanism to foster communication.
There appeared to be opportunities to share treatment
facilities and to exchange industrial chemicals.
Some agencies, having excesses, were seeking to
dispose of significant quantities of chemicals while
others were at the same time purchasing the same
-------
chemicals. Some agencies had accumulations of
chemicals in large volumes, chemicals whose
shelf-life had made them now questionable for use or
which had recently been "outlawed" for usage (i.e.
pesticides). The management of these latter
materials posed significant threat to local
environment, and for many materials there appeared to
be no "solution" to remove them from stock.
Another consensus decision was that is was
desireable to continue meeting periodically on an
"ad-hoc" basis as a task force and to establish a
mechanism to work toward solution of the various
problems which were presented. So, a motion was made
and passed to establish an "ad-hoc" task force. Mr.
Charles T. Bourns, Chief of the Solid & Hazardous
Waste Management Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX was elected Chairman of
the task force. It was also decided that it would be
more expeditious for the actual work to be carried on
by a smaller group; so, an Executive Steering
Committee was chosen. The membership of the Executive
Committee was selected to be composed primarily of
representatives of those agencies with the most
severe problems or who indicated an interest in
serving. Membership of the final Executive Steering
Committee and replacements (as changes were made) is
shown in Table 1.
The Executive Steering Committee was given broad
powers, i.e., to further delineate and define the
problems, to prepare workplans directed toward
solutions to problems, appoint sub-committees to work
on specific problems or designate individuals to
accomplish specific tasks where a committee effort
was not indicated, to propose policy and activities
to the whole task force, to schedule meetings for the
whole task force, and to attend to any other business
deemed necessary for the task force as a whole.
The original geographical area of concern was
standard Region IX. This designation posed a problem
since some Federal agencies were not organized along
the standard region configuration. This was resolved
by a decision to allow any Federal agency to
-------
participate in the whole task Force which had an
operating unit in the standard Region IX, regardless
of where its administrative regional headquarters was
located, and to allow not only agency regional
headquarters but also operating units within the
Region to participate. For example, three U.S.
Forest Service Regions overlap standard Region IX; so
all three Regions of the Forest Service participate
in the Task Force. The Bureau of Land Management is
organized on a state-wide basis. Similarly,
different branches of the various Department of
Defense agencies also participated. In some cases, a
representation from one agency of a Department was
designated to represent the whole Department on the
Executive Committee. In others, agencies within
Departments desired to serve on this committee. In
general all agencies who had an interest in hazardous
waste management who wanted to participate, did so
enthusiastically.
Another problem surfaced at the first meeting.
There seemed to be doubt by some agencies that they
would be able to participate in a continuing action
without some official sanction or sponsorship. The
Executive Steering Committee then decided that the
Task Force needed a sponsor which covered all the
Departments and Agencies concerned in this effort. A
review indicated that the Western Federal Region
Council (WFRC) came nearest to being "all
inclusive"—only the Department of Defense was not an
"official" member of that group. DOD, however, did
have "ad-hoc" representation on the Council. The
Task Force instructed the Executive Steering
Committee to approach the Western Regional Council
and to request that the effort be adopted as one of
its Task Force actions. This was done and the
Council agreed.The Task Force was officially
"chartered" on April 24, 1974.
The Executive Steering Committee met on the
average of every two months. The whole Task Force
met once or twice a year, as the need arose. The
work, however, was done by the Executive Committee,
its several sub-committees and those individuals
given specific assignments. This organization
-------
resulted in a tight working arrangement which
functioned effectively. All participation by
individuals was largely over and above the
individual's normal working assignment, a further
indication of dedication and interest among all the
participants. Elected officers and appointed
committee membership remained essentially the same
during the four year life of the Task Force except
where individuals retired or were transferred out of
the Region. In the latter cases, the Agencies
affected then designated a replacement
representative.
The Western Federal Regional Council agreed with
the original set of objectives proposed by the Task
Force but added an additional one of its own (i.e.,
to require "coordination with appropriate State
agencies"). The original objectives established for
the Task Force were as follows:
1. Provide a mechanism for technology and
information transfer, for responsible agency
personnel within the Region relating to the
management of hazardous materials in an
environmentally safe manner;
2. Develop and maintain a directory of
individuals within agencies who are
designated for contact regarding management
of hazardous materials and environmental
matters;
3. Develop an inventory of excess
hazardous materials and wastes (including
related information pertaining to these)
which are in the purview of these Federal
agencies;
4. Explore, develop, and recommend courses
of action to the Council to safely manage
hazardous materials where problems are
identified. This may involve either
recommending action to the individual
agencies concerned, or implementing a
multi-agency cooperative approach;
-------
5. Identify, develop, and disseminate
recommended plans of action for
environmentally safe management
(transportation, storage, resale, recycling,
re-use, modification, and ultimate disposal)
of these materials; and
6. Coordinate inter-agency actions
relating to hazardous waste management when
requested by the agencies concerned.
7. Coordinate final disposition actions
with appropriate State agencies.
The WFRC designated as the "lead agency" to
coordinate and guide this task force, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency- Mr. Paul De Falco,
Jr., EPA Regional Administrator, was designated as
the Council member responsible to the Council for
accomplishment of the objectives of the task force.
The WFRC concurred with the Task Force in its choice
of a Chairman and Mr. Charles T. Bourns was
designated as the WFRC Task Force Chairman.
The letter chartering the Task Force is shown in
Appendix I. This letter includes enclosures showing
the first plan of work developed by the Executive
Committee. The original charter was amended by the
WFRC, August 6, 1975 to establish revised objectives
and operating plan, Appendix II. A Roster of the
membership of the whole Task Force is shown in
Appendix III. The work plan for Fiscal Year 1977 is
shown in Appendix IV.
-------
7
TABLE 1
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
(February 27, 1976)
Chairman
Charles T. Bourns, P.E.
EPA
Chief, Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management Program
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-4606 (also FTS)
Deputy Chairman
Walter S. Weaver
USFS
Regional Sanitary Engineer
California Region
U.S. Forest Service, USDA
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-8345 (also FTS)
Members of the Executive Steering Committee
LTC John P. Meade, USAP
DOD
Director for Categorical Programs
OASD (Health & Environment)
Pentagon, Room 3D-181
Washington, B.C. 20301
(202) 695-0221
MAJ Wyatt L. McGhee,USAF
USAF
Bioenvironmental Engineer
USAF Clinic/SGB
McClellan Air Force Base, CA 95652
(916) 643-5797 (FTS-533-5797)
(also alternate for DOD)
Alternate: James J. Jordan
USAF
Chief, Engineering and
Construction
Code: 2852/Dee
McClellan Air Force Base, CA
95652
(916) 643-6489 (FTS-533-6489)
Leonard Lanni
ERDA
Assistant Director
Safety and Nuclear Materials Div.
San Francisco Operations Office
Energy Research & Development Agency
1333 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 273-7963 (FTS-536-7963)
COL Robert C. Hawlk, USA
ARMY
Commanding Officer
Sierra Army Depot
Herlong, CA 96113
(916) 827-9100
Alternate: LT John K. Harris
ARMY
Sierra Army Depot
Herlong, CA 96113
(916) 827-9100
C. Thome Johnson, P.E.
NAVY
Environmental Branch
Western Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
P.O. Box 727
San Bruno, CA 94066
(415) 871-6600, ext. 2603
Karl E. Kneeling, P.E.
NAVY-EPDS
Sanitary Engineer, Code 2512
Naval Environmental Support Office
Port Hueneme, CA 930403
(805) 982-4062 (FTS-799-4062)
-------
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE (con't)
Members of the Executive Steering Committee
Douglas Leisz
USDA/FS
Regional Forester
California Region
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-4310 (also FTS)
Alternate: Walter S. Weaver
USD A
Regional Sanitary Engineer
California Region
U.S. Forest Service
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-8345 (also FTS)
CDR Edward G. O'Keefe, USCG, Chief
DOT/USCG
Marine Environmental Protection
Branch
12th U.S. Coast Guard District
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-1380 (also FTS)
Alternate: LTC G.W. Risinger
DOT/USCG
Marine Environmental Protection
Branch
12th U.S. Coast Guard District
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-1380 (also FTS)
John H. Peth, Ph.D.
DOI/GS
Staff Hydrologist
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 323-2337 (FTS-467-2337)
Edward L. Hastey
DOI/BLM
Director, California Region
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 468-4676/4100 (also FTS)
Alternate: Stuart Porter
DOI/BLM
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 468-4701 (also FTS)
Michael D. Sullivan
DOT/FHWA
Suite 530
Two Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-3553 (also FTS)
Robert C. Scott, Hydrologist
EPA-Water Division, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 556-7832 (also FTS)
Former Executive Committee Members
Who Were Transferred from the
Region, Withdrew, or Retired:
COL Skinner E. Anderson, USA (former)
CO, Sierra Army Depot (TRANS)
LT Robert Kinney, USA, Sierra
Army Depot (TRANS)
Ralph B. Cowles, PPD, FSA, GSA (WD)
H. Ann Inouye, PPD, FSA, GSA (WD)
J.R. Penney, DOI/BLM (RETIRED)
Holland M. Hamilton, NAVPAC (RETIRED)
Willis L. Burnham, USGS (RETIRED)
Secretariat Liaison: Iffv Terzich, EPA
-------
CHAPTER 2
EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE AND ITS SUB-COMMITTEE
ACTIONS
The Task Force effort was accomplished primarily
by several sub-committees operating under the
guidance and auspices of an executive steering
committee which reported directly to the Task Force
at large. There were approximately 125 members of
the Task Force from which a steering committee was
selected representing the 12 agencies with the most
serious problems. Various sub-committees were
established with members chosen from the roster of
the Task Force and supplemented by experts invited
from agencies outside this group, both Federal and
State. Sub-committees varied in size and numbers of
members.
The first order of business of the Executive
Committee was to delineate significant problem areas
and propose a scope of work to solve them. Several
significant problem areas were identified for which
there did not appear to be environmentally acceptable
or adequate solutions. These are discussed below.
The foremost problem appeared to be that there
were either not treatment facilities or disposal
sites located within reasonable distances of the
Federal agencys which originated these materials or
that sites which were designated for receiving
hazardous wastes by a State agency appeared to
present a potential for either present or future
environmental insults. The latter portion of this
problem seemed to be composed of two parts: (1) the
location of existing disposal sites and locations
were not based on adequate consideration of all
necessary parameters for environmental, social, or
political protection and (2) the disposal or
treatment sites appeared to be operated and managed
in an adequate manner.
A second problem was that there was not
sufficient information for planning purposes as to
the types of materials that were being generated as
-------
10
hazardous wastes within the Federal establishment.
Also, the quantities and time of generation were not
unknown. It was discovered that large volumes of
many types of materials, particularly pesticides,
were being returned from Pacific military operations
to mainland United States and that large residual
stocks were still on hand from World War II.
A third major need was for a listing of people
and functions within the various Federal agencies who
were concerned with hazardous waste management. It
was felt such information would be useful in
coordination of actions.
Still another concern was a lack of a catalog of
facilities for treatment or disposal of these
materials which already existed or were being planned
and constructed by Federal agencies and an assessment
of their potential for treating or receiving another
agency's waste.
It was also discovered that many materials were
merely "excess" to a particular agency's needs and
still had a "value" to others who were currently
procuring the same materials. Also, some materials
had value for uses other than for that which they
were originally bought for, or had value but required
reconditioning. A "recycling" strategy was needed.
It was found, also, that there was a great need
to share hazard waste management technology and to
present new technology to the participants.
Further, but not least in importance, it appeared
that a mechanism was needed to motivate local and/or
State of Federal government agencies into
establishing hazardous waste facilities and
regulatory programs.
All of the identified problems seemed to fit
within the scope of the objectives established for
the Task Force.
The Executive Committee then assigned specific
tasks to individuals or subcommittees as follows:
-------
11
Assignment
Number
1
Assignment
Develop a directory of agency
personnel concerned with
hazardous wastes in Region IX
Assess types
of hazardous
Region IX:
and quantities
wstes in
Department of Defense
b. Other Federal Agencies
Survey of Existing Federal
Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities
Prepare recommendations for
environmentally sound
management of hazardous
materials:
a. Develop criteria for
selection of disposal
sites. *
b. Develop criteria for
operation and management
of hazardous materials
disposal and processing
sites.*
Person to whom Assigned
or Committee Chairman
Karl E. Kneeling, P. E. ,
Sanitary Engineer, Navy
Environmental Protection
Support Service, NESO,
Port Hueneme, CA.
LTC John P. Meade, USAF
Director of Categorical
Programs, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Health & Envi-
ronment, Washington, D.C.
Willis L. Burnham, Staff
Hydrologist, U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey, USDI, Menlo
Park, CA.
MAJ Wyatt L. McGhee, Bio-
environmental Engineer,
U.S. Air Force Clinic/-
SGB, McClellan AFB, CA.
Walter s. Weaver, Sani-
tary Engineer, U.S.
Forest Service, San Fran-
cisco, CA, Chairman of
Sub-committee
Leonard Lanni, Assistant
Director, Safe & Nuclear
Materials Division, ERDA,
San Francisco, CA, Chair-
man of Sub-committee
-------
12
Assignment
Number
c.
6
7
Assignment
Design computerized
recycling programs for
Federal agencies:
(1) DOD agencies.*
(2) Other Federal agencies
Actions to manage and to
dispose of excess stocks of
pesticides and other
hazardous materials now on
hand, DOD:
a. Pacific Islands areas*
b. Sierra Army Depot
d. DOD Pesticide Control
Programs
Coordinate Task Force
Actions with State agencies
Task Force Final Report and
Recommendat ions.
Person to Whom Assigned
or Committee Chairman
Rolland M. Hamilton,
Manager, Environmental
Branch, Western Division,
Naval Facilities Engi-
neering Command, San
Bruno, CA.
LTC John Meade, USAF,
Director, Categorical
Programs, OASD, DOD,
Washington, D.C. also,
Chairman, GSA Interagency
Task Force for Hazardous
Materials Disposal
CDR John A. Walters, CEC,
USN, Special Assistant
for Ecology, Pacific
Division, Naval Faci-
lities Engineering Com-
mand, Pearl Harbor, HI.
COL Robert C. Hawlk,
Commanding Officer,
Sierra Army Depot,
Herlong, CA. (Successor
to COL Skinner E.
Anderson)
LTC John Meade, USAF,DOD,
Washington, D.C.
Executive Steering
Committee
Charles T. Bourns, EPA,
IX, San Francisco, CA.
(Note: An asterisks(*) indicates a sub-committee assignment)
-------
13
There were several other needed actions which did
not lend themselves to a sub-committee or individual
effort. There existed a need for transfer of known
information relating to the management of hazardous
materials. It was decided that this need could be
handled by scheduling an extra day at each whole Task
Force meeting for presentation of papers as a
technology transfer function. There was also a need
for identifying or preparing a compendium and
continuous updating of Jaws and regulations
pertaining to hazardous materials management. It was
also decided to meet these needs by presentations at
Task Force meetings. How these needs were filled is
shown in appended agenda for Task Force meetings.
A major problem discussed by the Executive
Committee was that of identifying, developing,
upgrading and otherwise securing disposal sites for
use by Federal facilities. This problem seemed to be
one which was beyond the capabilities of the Task
Force to resolve completely within the timespan of
its operation; which seemed to hinge on completion of
task assigned to sub-committee action; and which
involved motivation of State or Federal agencies to
become involved in implementing. The decisions and
actions of the Task Force and its Executive Committee
on this latter problem are discussed later in this
report.
While the original scope of actions were designed
primarily for standard Region IX, some of the
activities evolved into nationwide and international
actions such as those instigated by the Department of
Defense. This came about because of two reasons:
the principal agency involved was not
administratively organized along the standard region
basis and it therefore became expedious to involve a
larger geographical area or the agency, having become
concerned and involved in a particular action, felt
the action(s) were good for the whole agency. In
fact, it was observed that the general stream of
actions undertaken by agencies participating in the Task
Force were reflected by changes in their own
operations by paralleling the Task Force effort in
their day-to-day decisions, programs, and actions
-------
14
which pertained to the management of hazardous
materials. New agency programs to tighten
management, revision of operational regulations and
institution of new programs soon began to appear in
several agencies. There is no way that the "spinoff"
improvements in hazardous materials management which
resulted directly or indirectly from the Task Force
efforts can be documented, but they now exist.
Activities and accomplishments of each of the
individual assignments are discussed in succeeding
sections of this report.
-------
15
CHAPTER 3
DIRECTORY OF FEDERAL CONTACTS
ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Work Element for WFRC Task Force for Hazardous
Materials Management;
Develop and maintain a directory of individuals
within agencies who are designated for contact
regarding management of hazardous materials and
environmental matters.
Sub-committee Chairman:
Mr. Karl E. Kneeling
Sanitary Engineer
Navy Environmental Support Office
NCBC, Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Credit for formatting and maintaining the
Directory up-to-date should go to:
Mr. Robert C. Coffin, Jr.
General Engineer
Navy Environmental Support Office
NCBC, Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Position Title: Environmental Information
Coordinator
The need for a directory of persons and agencies
with concerns of the environment and, in particular,
the management of hazardous waste was an item of
discussion at the initial meeting of the Task Force
and at the first meeting of the Executive Steering
Committee. At this meeting, Mr. Karl E. Kneeling,
Sanitary Engineer, Navy Environmental Support Office,
advised that the Navy had initiated a similar project
for internal use, had already issued a first edition
and was in the process of revising same for an
updated edition. He suggested that it would be
relatively easy to adapt and expand this ongoing
effort to serve the purpose of the Task Force. He
felt that such an action would likely be welcomed by
-------
16
the Navy since it would make the publication more
comprehensive and useful to them. Mr. Kneeling
volunteered to investigate the possibilities of Navy
cooperation, and in any event, be responsible for
this work element.
The Navy Environmental Support Office later
agreed to Mr. Kneeling1s suggestion and the Directory
of Federal Contacts on Environmental Protection,
November, 1973, was issued with the additional
information to serve the purpose of the Task Force
and was distributed to its members.
A revised edition, in loose-leaf format, was
prepared in November, 1974, and a current update of
changes was issued in January, 1976. Both revisions
were distributed to Task Force Members and the
Western Federal Regional Council.
This output has been very useful to all receiving
the publication according to comments made at Task
Force meetings and in comments to the Chairman. The
Task Force is indebted to the Navy for this
cooperation.
The various editions of the directory are not
included in this final report except by reference
because of the nature and size of the publications.
The publication is available to all Federal facility
personnel who have a need for it and can be obtained
by a request to the Navy office shown below. Since
this action is ongoing, recipients are requested to
examine the current edition and advise the office
whose address is shown below of corrections and
changes for ensuing editions. The publication is
officially known as the Directory of Federal Contacts
on Environmental Protection, NESO Report No.
20.2-001, and available from Navy Environmental
Protection Support Service, Navy Environmental
Support Office, Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Port Hueneme, CA 93043.
-------
17
CHAPTER 4
REGIONAL INVENTORY OF FEDERAL HAZARDOUS WASTES
Work Element for WFRC Task Force for Hazardous
Materials Management;
Develop and inventory or a quantitative assessment of
hazardous materials within Region IX which are in the
possession of Federal agencies and which now require
disposal.
This work element was divided into three segments:
(a) the problem with Department of Defense agencies
(b) Non-DOD Agencies, and (c) Hawaii Sub-Zone DOD
Agencies.
Sub-committee Chairman for mainland areas the
Department of Defense:
LTC John P. Meade, USAF Director for Categorical
Programs Office of the Assistance Secretary for
Defense, Health and Environment, Washington,D.C.
Sub-committee Chairman for Non-DOD agencies:
Willis L. Burnham, Staff Hydrologist, U.S.
Geological Survey, USDI, Menlo Park, CA.
Sub-committee Chairman for Hawaii Sub-Zone DOD
Agencies:
CDR J.A. Walter, CEC, USN, Special Assistant for
Ecology, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Makalapa, Hawaii 96610
A need was identified for quantification and
location identification of these materials sufficient
for planning purposes. The scope of the work
required to develop this information seemed to fall
into two broad sections (military and non-military
agency categories) because of administrative
restrictions in access to and release of
information. The work element was further divided
into two sub-elements assigned to the Department of
-------
18
Defense and one which would include all other Federal
agencies. The reports of these three working groups
describe approaches to solving this problem used by
each and their outputs, and are as follows:
(a) Pesticides and Other Hazardous Waste for Disposal
in the Department of Defense" (Department-wide in
scope). (As quoted from sub-committee summary
report):
"The sub-committee for the inventory and
assessment of Department of Defense waste hazardous
materials respectfully submits the following report.
All inventory data was furnished by the Defense
Supply Agency, Cameron Station.
"The purpose of the sub-committee was to identify
the location, condition, and quantity of waste
hazardous materials generated by DOD installations
within Region IX. In order to limit the scope of the
endeavor, the following definition of hazardous
materials was utilized:
"Those wastes that pose a substantial danger
immediately or over a period of time, to human,
plant, or animal life and as such must be handled and
disposal effected with special precautions.
"During the term of operation of the Task Force,
the Department of Defense effected an administrative
change in the assignment of responsibility for the
management of hazardous materials such that the
individual agencies were relieved of this
responsibility and the entire management program
given to the Defense Supply Agency (now, "Defense
Logistics Agency" - Editors note.) This change was
made for several reasons among them to provide
uniform systems for management, inventory, policy,
opportunities for recycling, and environmental
protection. Hazardous materials in the possession of
DOD agencies fall generally into four categories:
(1) relatively small amounts which become for one
reason or another excess to a local agency's needs.
(2) relatively large quantities, of chemicals,
primarily pesticides, which were gathered from
-------
19
diverse locations over a period of years, and which
no longer have valid registration for use or have
deteriorated, (3) retrograde materials being
returned from Pacific areas (Vietnam, Okinawa, etc.)
and (4) Herbicide "Orange". With the exception of
Herbicide "Orange" most of the retrograde chemicals
were returned to the Sierra Army Depot at Herlong,
California for the purposes of sorting, labeling,
grading, recontainering, and ultimate recycling or
disposal. Because of the sheer volume and potential
for environmental concerns, Herbicide Orange, storage
and disposal, was handled as a separate action of the
U.S. Air Force but coordinated through the Department
of Defense. Sub-actions instituted to solve the
above defined problems are discussed below:
" (1) Retrograde Commercial Chemicals at Sierra
Army Depot; Essential facts pertaining to this
stream of action, as of January 1, 1976, are as
follows:
" Sierra Army Depot (SIAD) was designated in July
1972 as the receiving point for commercial chemicals
being returned from the Pacific Area. Since this
date, SIAD has received approximately 185 line items
(1,500 tons) of retrograde commercial chemicals.
Action is taken to return usable items which have a
demand, to the Army supply system. All other items
are transferred to local Property Disposal Office
(PDO) for disposition.
"All commercial chemicals at SIAD have now been
transferred to accountability of PDO except DDT. A
current authorization to screen DDT and transfer it
to PDO is underway. Some repacking of DDT must take
place before the transfer can be accomplished.
"During the initial receipt of retrograde
materials in 1972 and 1973 problems were encountered
because of damaged containers being shipped and some
leakage occurring. Also, some containers labeled as
one chemical contained another; e.g., a drum marked
Diazinon contained paint thinner or turpentine.
"in 1972 a small quantity of chemicals were buried
in pits on the depot. This material was removed from
-------
20
the ground in May 1974 and placed in containers or
overpacked with plastic and stored in Conex's on
entrapment pits lined with impermeable mylar sheets.
Tests were performed by Environmental Hygiene Agency
(EHA) to determine leaching and other pollutants
present. All tests proved negative with no
indication that pollutants had reached the water
supply.
"Shipments to date include:
Department of Agriculture, 17,875 gallons
Malathion, June 1975.
Edgewood Arsenal, 3,300 gallons Monoethanolamine,
November, 1974 and March, 1975.
USAID: Ecuador, 64,600 Ibs. DDT powder, 17-18
September 1974.
Yemen, 6 drums DDT liquid, October 1974
Honduras, 32,680 Ibs. DDT powder, 26
December, 1974.
Philippines, 23,750 Ibs. powder, 9
January, 1975.
Additional shipments under USAID of DDT
formulations should be finalized early CY 1976.
"The most recent shipment of commercial chemicals
arrived SIAD 19 November 1975. Containers were in
good condition and overpacked. Our next scheduled
shipment is due at SIAD on or about 24 December 1975
and we should receive the remainder (approximately
1,300 tons) from Okinawa by 31 March 1976.
Coordination between Military, Federal, State and
Local agencies was made in September 1975 in
preparation for this movement.
"Related Programs:
a. SIAD's involvement in handling and disposal
of retrograde commercial chemicals has been
closely coordinated with the Environmental
Hygiene Agency, U.S. Army, at Edgewood
Arsenal and the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Program Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX.
-------
21
b. SIAD participates as Army representative in
the Federal Regional Task Force for
Hazardous Materials Management, sponsored by
the Western Federal Regional Council. SIAD
periodically furnished the Task Force with
computer listings of stocks on hand of these
materials.
"(2) Large Stocks of Old Pesticides at Specific
Locations in Region IX. and (3) smaller stocks of
various materials at other DOD locations were
inventoried by the Defense Supply Agency, Cameron
Station and a printout of the computer listing of
these materials was furnished to the Chairman of the
Task Force as a basis of planning. The stocks on
hand, of course, vary from day to day, and specific
information can only be obtained by querying the
computer accounting system for the day in question,
but the listing does provide a basis for planning.
(Management of these materials is discussed further
along in this report in Chapter 9-Editor's note.).
"(3) Herbicide "Orange" is the common designation
of an herbicide, composed of 50% 2-4-^-D and 50%
2-4-5-T, two commercial registered herbicides which
was for formulated for use in the Vietnam conflict
for defoliation of jungle areas. In the manufacture
of these particular materials, a contaminant, or
by-product Dioxin, an alleged teratogenic material,
was included. When this situation became evident,
the Administration put a "hold" on its use. At this
time the USAF had a stock of approximately 2,200,000
gallons on hand. 400,000 gallons were located at
Gulfport, Mississippi and 1,800,000 was shipped to
Johnston Island in the Pacific for storage until
arrangement could be made for its safe disposal. For
several years the DOD has explored various
alternatives for incineration, burial, chemical
decomposition, and clean-up for eventual use.
Evaluation of these various alternative
investigations and the obtaining of necessary permits
is now under way. A resolution to this problem is
expected within 1976. In the meantime, the
maintaining of these materials in safe storage is a sub-
stantive operation both at Gulfport and Johnson Island--
-------
22
the latter in Region IX — is part of the inventory in
this Region. (Editor's Note; All of the stocks of Herbi-
cide Orange were destroyed on the ship, Vulcanus, by in-
cineration during the summer of 1977.)
"Approximately thirty DOD installations within Region
IX are listed as possessing smaller quantities of excess
hazardous materials. Almost all of the material was pes-
ticides and herbicides and these items , other than DDT,
were being disposed of through contractor operations.
Therefore, the inventory will vary from day to day. The
inventory does, however, provide a basis for planning pur-
poses for continued expected "loadings".
(b) Assessment of hazardous waste quantities and locations in
Federal agencies other than the^Department of Defense:
Action and product of this sub»committee is summarized
by its Chariman as follows:
"This sub-committee was to assess the annual load and
type of non-radioactive hazardous wastes produced by Federal
agencies other than the Department of Defense. All agencies
believed to generate or have disposal responsibility for
hazardous materials responded, except one (GSA did not res-
pond). Methods and accuracy of documentation of waste loads
varied greatly among agency units, with some unable to pro-
vide quantitative reports. Narrative descriptions of oper-
ations, however, along with detailed account by most agency
units suggests the assessment was reasonably complete and
the indicated annual load reported was essentially correct,
although probably a minimum value. The forty-three units of
the twenty-six agencies responding reported more than 4,500
tons and from 250,000 to 350,000 gallons of hazardous wastes
generated, with 8,000 to 10,000 containers requiring dis-
posal. In addition to these quantities, large amounts of
hazardous materials in small-volume lots are utilized an-
nually in laboratories and in normal operations of some
agencies. These yield no reportable wastes, but there is a
large estimated additional container disposal load not
accounted for in the reports.
"Other than the large vQlume of non-radioactive waste
materials resulting from specialized -functions of the
Nevada Test Site (ERDA), the majority of wastes and con-
tainers are the result of herbicide and pesticide uses by
the land-management agencies. Minor quantities of chemical
wastes are developed through laboratory functions and en-
forcement or policy activites. The points of generation
are wide spread within the Region, and disposal through
commercial facilities, through return of unused materials
-------
23
and containers to suppliers, and modification or neu-
tralization does not appear to be a serious problem.
"In addition to the indicated volumes and locations
of waste generation, the assessment revealed a need for
more detailed and precise procedures by most agencies and
offices for the recording and documentation of hazardous
materials handling. Such procedures, if utilized by all
agencies, would most probably reveal a waste material and
container load considerable greater than that indicated
by the assessment.
'Procedure; The inventory was made through requesting letters
sent to all non-Defense agency units in Region IX thought to
maintain operations capable of generating hazardous material
wastes. It did not include contractors on federal projects.
The responses summarized in the attached table are believed
to be reasonably representative of the waste problem within
the non-Defense agencies. However, quantities estimated
probably are considerably less than those actually generated
-------
24
Forty-three offices or units of the twenty-six
agencies included in the assessment reported their
annual hazardous material handling procedures. These
units are grouped into four broad categories based on
their principal organizational function, as follows:
1. Research and Development agencies
Includes: Agricultural Research Service
(USDA)
Energy Resource and Development
Administration (ERDA)
U. S. Geological Survey (USDI)
2. Land Management agencies.
Includes: U.S. Forest Service (USDA)
Bureau of Land Management (USDI)
Bureau of Reclamation (USDI)
National Park Service (USDI)
3. Regulatory and Control agencies.
Includes: Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services (USDA)
U.S. Coast Guard (DOT)
Postmaster General (USPS)
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (DT)
U.S. Customs Service
4. Human Resource agencies.
Includes: Department of Health, Education, &
Welfare (HEW)
Department of Housing & Urban
Development (HUD)
Veterans Administration (VA)
Table 2 lists the waste quantities by type and
category. As is clearly indicated, the majority of
wastes are generated in the research and development
agencies and the large quantities are of only a few
types. However, the individual responses to the
-------
25
assessment also reported the acquisition and use of
large quantities of several material types, with no
reportable waste. From this, it must be concluded
that larger volumes of waste are actually generated,
and that the reported container-disposal volume is
far too small. This is particularly true of the agencies
of category four. Some agencies in this category main-
tain laboratory facilities and other functions requiring
use of hazardous materials. These operations are such,
however, that no repor table waste is produced and the
containers are apparently disposed of as returnable to
the supplier or through domestic solid-waste facilities.
The great majority of all non-Defense Department
federal agency hazardous waste is generated in the normal
activities of only six or the agencies, and of these one
agency produces perhaps 80 percent of the total. From
this it is apparent that even though many agency units
have need for hazardous waste disposal facilities, the
vlume involved is not large, and the majority have no
real problem of management or disposal through commercial
facilities.
-------
26
Table 2. Types of waste hazardous materials reported by
pound, gallon and number of containers by Federal agencies
other than Department of Defense.
Agency Category
Type 1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Waste Type
Acid solution
Alkaline solution
Pesticides
Paint sludge
Solvent
Lead sludge
Chemical toilet wastes
Tank bottom sediment
Oil
Drilling mud 8,
Contaminated soil
& sand
Laboratory waste
Drugs
General
TOTALS 8 ,
1
1,750
22,200
8,075
000,000
276,000
2,710
230..
154,965-378
Pounds
2 3
7,218 341
4,986
20
17,600
41,500
281
72,50.0 8
,324"42,130
TOTALS
1,750
22,200
7,559
4,986
8,075
0
20
0 ,
17,600-'
8,000,000
437,500
2,991
o
72,738— — '-'
8,575,419
-------
27
Table 2 (continued):
Gallons
Type 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Waste Type 1
Acid solution 7
Alkaline solution
Pesticides
Paint sludge 4
Solvent
Lead sludge
Chemical toilet wastes
Tank bottom sediment
Oil 2
Dilling mud
Contaminated soil & sand
Laboratory waste
Drugs
General
TOTALS 15
Containers
,346
5.13
120
,780
447
,220
74
331
,381
338
1
47
185
6,823
198
2,386
103,000
12,000
7,317
3
8,400
140,359
7,580
1
763
208
281
397
6,101
1
50
45,707
672
3
54,183
100
TOTALS
8,156
906
7,224
5,375
8,934
1
103,000
12,050 ,
55,244-7
0
0
749
°l/2
8,7341/2
210,373
8,018
Footnotes;
1. Agencies in category 1 report in addition to quantities shown, the
following:
Type 12—Trace quantities of 135 chemicals, the use of which does not
create reportable waste quantities.
Type 14—66 large sheets and 20 large rolls of asbestos.
110,000 gallons of spent epoxy, catalyst, and resin.
Approximately one million pounds of lead; as shot, sheets, am
bricks.
2. Agencies of category 2 report, in addition to that shown, large
quantities of Type 3 materials in small and large lots, but no waste.
Additional large gallonage of waste and a large quantity of containers must
be assumed disposal.
3. One agency reported 2,500,000 gallons of gasoline as waste. This
is considered a one-time disposal and not included as an annual quantity
estimate.
-------
28
(c) Assessment of hazardous waste quantities and
locations in the Department of Defense agencies
in the Hawaii Island area;
The report of the sub-zone group study was as
follows:
"Summary
"Actions of the DOD Task Force in Hawaii for
Hazardous Waste Management.
"A Study of the Disposal of Hazardous/Toxic Waste
Materials at Military Installation, Honolulu, Hawaii,
April 1975" was the result of a one-time sub-group
formed in February 1974 under the Chairmanship of CDR
J. A. Walter as part of the Hawaii Area Overseas
Coordination Group. This study group considered its
objectives to be (1) conduct an inventory of
hazardous/toxic waste materials from military
intallations on Oahu, (2) identify the specific
problem areas, and (3) recommend disposal methods or
further study areas where acceptable disposal
methods/facilities are not available.
"The five basic steps in conduct of this study
were Data Evaluation, Interpretation of Results,
General Performance, Findings by Services, and
Discussion on Correction. In Hawaii there are five
supervisory bodies with a total of fifteen
facilities, not counting local civilian facilities or
sewage treatment plants. One-third of these are
Navy-administered.
"The concluding recommendation was that
new/modified procedures/managerial systems be
instituted to assure that each service increase its
efforts to maintain an effective surveillance ard
enforcement system to eliminate practices contrary to
regulations, especially regarding any discharge into
sewers and unacceptable disposal practices on land.
Each service should fully utilize the existing
facilities by adequate notification to waste
dischargers of available services. All services
should make maximum utilization by Inter-Service
-------
29
Support Agreement (ISSA) of industrial waste
treatment plant, existing specialized treatment
facilities and services. Where facilities are not
available, wastes should be properly stored until a
feasible solution is available. Each service should
institute an educational awareness program for its
personnel. Finally, all services should cooperate
together in regional efforts to find better solutions
to the disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes."
Actions of the POD Task Force in Hawaii for Hazardous
Waste Management
The Project:
"Priority of attention in pollution abatement
matters has usually started with water, air, and noise
pollution, and then recognized solid wastes of the
more obvious types, overlooking for a time the
hazards and toxicity of certain waste materials.
This is an important area of study requiring
increased attention because proper disposal of these
materials is becoming increasingly difficult to cope
with.
"While there has been Federal legislation
regulating the disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes in
the atmosphere and surface waters, there is no
legislation pertaining to land disposal. A recent
inventory on Oahu, where Honlulu is located, and
where most of Hawaii's urban population lives, shows
that a sizeable amount and variety of hazardous/toxic
wastes are generated. The current production by
naval activities exceeds the total combined output of
the other military components.
"The establishment of the DOD study group was in
keeping with more stringent pollution standards and
the greater awareness of the hazards and toxicity of
waste materials, as well as a greater priority for
action in this study area. The Hawaii Area Overseas
Coordination Group appointed a one-time sub-group in
February 1974 to study the matter, and I was asked to
assume the Chairmanship. Our report was published
-------
30
later in April 1975, and I have in my hand a copy of
"A Study of the Disposal of Hazardous/Toxic Waste
Materials at Military Installations, Honolulu,
Hawaii."
"This study was an attempt to be comprehensive in
scope and to examine those wastes that could be
handled by existing facilities through joint
cooperation and to pinpoint suggested areas for
future investigation. The methodology involved in
the report will be of interest to those undertaking
similar projects, answering such questions as how
large the Task Force should be, how much time is
allotted for report completion, the extent of staff
support, and the limitations of such an undertaking.
"The problem/objectives can be briefly stated,
first, the technology for controlling hazardous
wastes disposal does exist for most substances. The
second problem is that adequate facilities are not
always available and, when they are available,
adequate treatment and disposal are much more
expansive than environmentally unacceptable methods.
A third problem is the lack of awareness or the
unconcerned attitude of persons disposing of these
wastes in unacceptable methods. The study group
determined their objectives to be as follows: (1)
conduct an inventory of hazardous/toxic waste
materials from military installations on Oahu, (2)
identify the specific problem area, (3) recommend
disposal methods or further study areas where
acceptable disposal methods/facilities are not
available.
"One specific result was to recommend that a new
managerial scheme be established to deal with wastes
currently lacking in proper treatment and disposal.
Specifically, inter-military sharing of facilities by
Inter-Service Support Agreements (ISSA) should be
increased to augment disposal efficiency.
"This report has been a definitive
study—definitive in the sense that it was the first
of its kind in Hawaii and one which will probably not
-------
31
be repeated again for some time. Like any study, it
is dated from the time of publication and represents
the best effort of a given number of persons on a
limited subject within the constraints of time,
money, energy, and staff support. Radio-active
wastes were not included in this report.
"Hazardous/tc?xj.c wastes can be simply defined as
those wastes whTch cannot or should not be handled or
disposed of in the same manner as the installation's
normal solid waste load and therefore require special
handling, pre-treatment and/or a specific disposal
process. These are usually categorized as:
chemical, flammable, explosive, biological, and
radioactive, taking the forms of solids, sludges,
liquids, or gases. How do you determine whether a
waste is hazardous or toxic? It is usually based on
a judgment that a significant potential exists for
causing adverse public health or environmental impact
if handled as ordinary wastes.
"The current major methods of handling and
disposing of hazardous/toxic waste materials which
are generated within the Armed Forces are comprised
of reclamation, pre-treatment, incineration,
demolition, and landfill. Each military
establishment coordinates its own responsibilities to
formulate policies and procedures through a focal
point whch either provides guidance or acts as a
directorate in the management of these waste
materials.
"In Hawaii therea are 5 supervisory bodies with a
total of 15 facilities, not counting local civilian
facilities or sewage treatment plants. One-third of
these are Navy-administered:
1. Industrial Waste Treatment Plant (Public
Works Center, P.H.) for acids, alkalies,
cyanide, and chromium wastes.
2. Oil Reclamation Facility (Naval Supply
Center, P.H.) for uncontaminated oil with
high flash point, but not for solvents or
oil contaminated solvents.
-------
32
3. Rotary Kiln Incinerator (Public Works
Center, P.H.) for oil sludges and solvents,
now under construction.
4. Pearl City Tri-Service Sanitary Landfill,
only for pre-stabilized hazardous/toxic
wastes.
5. Silver Reclamation Process or Facility, for
film and developing papers.
6. Torpedo MK 48 Solid Waste Incineration
(Naval Magazine, Oahu, West Loch Branch) for
solid wastes such as otto fuel contaminated,
generated by the MK 48 Torpedo Program.
"The Air Force administers 3 facilities:
1. Oil Separation Plant No. 1, for removal of
free floating oil from washrack effluent.
2. Oil Separation Plant No. 2, for removal of
emulsified and free floating oil from
wastewater, aircraft washrack, car wash, and
vehicle maintenance shops.
3. 548 RTG Silver Recovery Unit, provides
removal of silver from photographic fixer
solution.
"The Army has 4 facilities, mostly at Schofield
Barracks Military Reservation:
1. Pathological Waste Incinerator.
2. Makua Valley Demolition Site (For
Ammunition).
3. Sanitary Landfill, Only for Pre-Stabilized
Hazardous/Toxic Wastes.
4. Waste Petroleum Products (POL).
-------
33
"The U.S. Marine Corps administers the Kaneohe
Sanitary Landfill for pre-stabilized wastes, and the
Defense Supply Agency is for recycleable/excess
products for resale.
"In summary form, several steps are involved in
the general performance of hazardous/toxic wastes
handling and disposal which is presently undertaken
by the military activities stationed on the island of
Oahu, These steps are data evaluation,
interpretation of results, general performance,
findings by services, and discussion on correction.
These steps are discussed below.
"The first step was to obtain a general survey of
the types and quantities of wastes and an overview of
the present treatment or disposal methods. Accuracy
largely depended upon personnel filing the inventory
forms. Annual disposal quantities of the materials
reported are mostly derived from interpolation and
estimation rather than extraction from records. The
assumption is made that waste materials reported as
being shipped to a suitable place for disposal are
properly disposed of. Offshore generation of wastes
from naval ships that are disposed onshore are
reported, but there is little distinction regarding
the origin. Generally, speaking, the inventory is
satisfactory, for it establishes a definite feedback
process between the management and the operational
activities.
"The second step was a case-by-case evaluation of
the adequacy in treatment and disposal, with general
rules determining adequacy being: (1) reclamation or
recycle, (2) no discharge into storm drains, (3)
discharge into sanitary sewer with/without
pretreatment depending on the specific category of
waste, (4) ground or landfill disposal with/without
pretreatment. Also depending on the type of waste,
(5) amenable to incineration, (6) shipment to a
suitable place.
-------
34
"Acids and caustics, alkalies, petroleum
products, chromium wastes, and others could generally
be determined with great confidence regarding the
appropriateness of their final disposal modes.
However, many types of wastes found with categories
pertaining to photographic/printing solutions,
organic materials, and miscellaneous items have great
variations in their toxic and hazardous
characteristics.
"The third step was consideration of general
performance, in light of present status of federal,
state, and local legislation, the current military
practices vary in compliance with standards. The
bulk of the reported wastes (by quantity) are
petroleum products, detergents, photographic/printing
solutions, acids and caustics, solvents, and finally,
alkalies. Other categories were small by
comparison. A chart is provided to analyze category,
volume, and disposal adequacy for each.
"The fourth step was findings by services, noting
the significant difference existing in the volume of
waste produced. For example, the Marine Corps volume
is minute compared to wastes generated by Navy, but
the difference in volume does not influence the
efficiencies of proper waste disposal. First, take
Navy from which petroleum products account for the
largest single category of wastes reported (over
6,300,000 gallons annually). The Naval Supply
Center, Pearl Harbor, oil reclamation/recycling
facility and private contract services handle this
disposal. Such recycling can be an economic asset.
The Navy operates an industrial waste treatment plant
for acids, alkalies, cyanide, and chromium wastes,
not fully utilized, to be discussed in my next talk.
The discharge of solvents into storm drains was a
reported practice at certain naval activities. The
disposal of infectious medical waste (pathological
wastes) relies exclusively on landfill. This method
of disposal is acceptable provided the wastes are
first subjected to sterilization, incineration or
rendered safe prior to landfill disposal.
-------
35
"The Army reported disposal modes for petroleum
products, infectious medical wastes and explosives as
generally adequate, but small quantities of acids and
alkalies are reported to have been discharged into
storm and sanitary sewers and should be redirected to
the Navy plant.
"Photographic and infectious medical wastes make
up the largest volume of wastes generated by the Air
Force, which has begun enforcement or prescribed
pre-treatment methods for photographic chemicals
including: (1) recovery of silver from fixer
solutions, (2) adequate diultion of the remaining
photochemicals. Six thousand units of
bacteriological culture wastes were repoted by the
Air Force as part of its biological and pathological
waste category. These are sterilized prior to
leaving the facility.
"According to reported quantities, the Marine
Corps presently generates the smallest volume of
wastes, of which infectious medical wastes
constituted the largest category. 1,630,000 gallons
of reported consists of steam plant blowdown, pool
filter backwash, and engine test.
"The fifth basic step in the study involves
correction, where practices are in violation of
policy, regulations, or standards, involving: (1)
wastes which only require procedural changes from
their present means of handling and disposal. (?)
wastes which require further study and investigation
for their proper management and (3) wastes that are
currently unmanageable locally.
"Conclusions and Recommendations
"Federal legislation regulates the disposal of
these wastes in the atmosphere and surface waters but
not on land. The inventory revealed that a sizeable
amount and variety of these wastes are generated by
the military on Oahu, of which more than 90 percent
occurs in liquid form. Although treatment facilities
do exist, many activities were discharging these
wastes into storm and sanitary sewers and elsewhere
-------
36
in violation of environmental regulations. Many of
these violations can be attributed to a lack of
environmental awareness and a lack of aggressive
management and personnel actions. Much of the wastes
identified as inadequately disposed can be properly
disposed of by only procedural changes. There
remains a small list of wastes which currently remain
unmanageable locally and require interim storage or
shipment off-island for disposal. Disposal of the
majority of hazardous/toxic wastes is accomplished by
each service. However, there is currently no Class I
landfill on Oahu and the establishment of such a
landfill for disposal of these wastes does not appear
feasible without full inter-governmental
cooperation. A continuing effort is needed to
identify inadequate disposal practices and to provide
disposal facilities/services.
"The recommendation is that new/modified
procedures/managerial systems be instituted to assure
that each service increase its efforts to maintain an
effective surveillance and enforcement system to
eliminate practices contrary to regulations,
especially regarding discharge into sewers and
unacceptable disposal practices on land. Each
services should make maximum utilization by
interservice support agreement (ISSA) of industrial
waste treatment plant, existing specialized treatment
facilities and services. Where facilities are not
available, wastes should be properly stored until a
feasible solution is available. Each service should
institute an educational awareness program for its
personnel. Finally, all services should cooperate
together in regional efforts to find better solutions
to the disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes.
In conclusion, this has been a unique
undertaking, for which there are still to be many
questions to be answered."
(Editor's note; This sub-committee designed a
computer program with appropriate forms for data
gathering for this inventory which proved to be
an effective and efficient management tool. A
detailed and a summary report of results was
-------
37
provided to participant military agencies, to the
Department of Health of Hawaii, and to the
Environmental Protection Agency. Actual data or
summaries however, were not included in this report
because of a command decision to require formal
clearance from the Department of Defense before
publication. This clearance was not forthcoming in
time for this Task Force Report. Results, however,
have since been included and published in summary
form in a report. "Hazardous Waste Management
Problem Assessment and Strategy Formulation in the
Pacific Area" by Garretson, Elmendorf, zinov and
Reibin, Architects and Engineers, San Francisco,
April 1978. Copies of the latter report are
available from the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, San Francisco, California or the Hawaii
State Department of Health, Environmental Health
Division, Honolulu, HI.)
-------
38
CHAPTER 5
SURVEY OF EXISTING FEDERAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
WORK ELEMENT FOR WFRC TASK FORCE FOR
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT:
CONDUCT SURVEY OF EXISTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES »
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
Wyatt L. McGhee, Maj, USAF, BSC
Chief, Bioenvironmental Engineering Services
USAF Clinic, McClellan AFB, CA 95652
-------
39
Survey of Existing Federal Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE:
One of the objectives of the WFRC Task Force for
Hazardous Materials Management was to identify,
develop, and disseminate recommended plans of action
for environmentally safe management of hazardous
materials. In developing plans of action, a survey
of existing capabilities for hazardous waste
management facilities was needed, since such
facilities may well play a role in any future plans
of action. Where these facilities already exist with
spare capabilities for treatment and recovery or
disposal, the proposed strategy provides for
cooperative arrangements for local solutions to
Federal agency hazardous waste problems.
2. PROCEDURE:
To obtain information on existing capabilities, a
slide presentation was given at the annual meeting of
the Task Force in Reno, Nevada, 3-4 Dec 75, showing
the types of information needed. Each Task Force
member was given a handout (see Attachment 5-1) and
was requested to report on any hazardous waste
disposal or treatment capability which existed at the
member's facility, using the format provided. In
addition, letter requests were mailed to 20 federal
agency representatives and to Bioenvironmental
Engineers at 16 Air Force Bases within Region IX.
The information was requested to be provided on a
voluntary basis.
3. FINDINGS:
Only four positive responses were received
reporting some limited capability for disposal or
reclamation of hazardous wastes. These were received
from:
-------
40
Energy Research and Development Administration
(San Francisco), (See Atch 5-2).
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Pearl
Harbor), (See Atch 5-3)
Sierra Army Deport (Herlong, CA), (See Atch 5-4)
Eleven negative responses reporting no capability
were received from:
Bureau of Land Management - Arizona
Bureau of Land Management - Nevada
Agricultural Research Service, Western Region
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Vandenberg Air Force Base
Travis Air Force Base
George Air Force Base
Edwards Air Force Base
U.S. Coast Guard - 12th District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - South Pacific
Division
4. DISCUSSION:
As shown, few hazardous waste disposal
capabilities were reported in Region IX; and informal
discussion reveals that commanders and plant managers
are reluctant to reveal capabilities to receive
hazardous wastes from others for disposal. Although
other capabilities are known to exist in the Region,
an official directed survey with formal reporting
requirements on specific categories of waste
treatment capabilities would be necessary for this
information to be identified. A voluntary survey of
the type performed evidently does not achieve the
desired response, although interest is certainly
evident among those who would use hazardous waste
disposal facilities. The existence of a cooperative
disposal scheme or provision for reimbursement of
expenses would perhaps solicit a larger response.
-------
41 SAMPLE FORMAT
ATTACHMENT 5-1
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPABILITIES, REGION IX
FACILITY NAME: McClellan AFB, CA
INDIVIDUAL TO CONTACT/OFFICE SYMBOL: Nelson Chardoul/DEO
TELEPHONE (COMMERCIAL)(916)643-5004 (AUTOVON) 633-5004
MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPABILITY AND RESTRICTIONS
Metallic Mercury Contaminated liquid mercury is reclaimed
through chemical reprocessing in the
Mercury Reclamation Unit, Bldg 368.
Acids Miscellaneous acids can be used for pH
adjustment In the Industrial Waste Treatment
Plant (IWTP), Bldg 714. Containers must be
in good condition to allow for outside
storage.
Cyanide Wastes A maximum of ft/day can be treated in
the IWTP, Bldg 714. Treatment costs of
approximately $ /gal must be reimbursed.
Chrome Wastes A maximum of ///day can be treated in
the IWTP, Bldg 714. Treatment costs of
approximately $ _/gal must be reimbursed.
NOTE: This listing to be developed is intended to inform persons charged
with hazardous waste disposal within Region IX of locations where present
capabilities exist for proper disposal of specific materials through treat-
ment, neutralization, reclamation, etc. Each task force member is requested
to submit a brief listing of those materials for which adequate disposal
capability exists , showing any restrictions which would be necessary in
accepting materials from other facilities. Information submitted for this
listing will be of great practical value in developing a mutual cooperative
effort for hazardous waste disposal in Region IX, while recovery and disposal
capabilities are further developed in the future.
Submit inputs in the format shown above as early as possible but to
arrive not later than 27 Feb 1976. Send to:
Maj Wyatt L. McGhee
Chief, Bioenvironmental Engineering Svcs
USAF Clinic, McClellan/SGB
McClellan AFB, CA 95652
Copies of the completed listing will be mailed to each task forte
member. Individuals must then make their own appropriate inquiries to
determine whether disposal at the listed facility can be arranged. Arrange-
ments would include: transportation and handling, use of proper containers,
limits on quantities acceptable, reimbursement for treatment costs, etc.
In all cases, the product to be disposed must be fully and accurately
described to the satisfaction of the facility contact listed, to assure that
proper treatment capability exists.
-------
42
ATTACHMENT 5-2
UNITED STATES
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
SAN FRANCISCO OPERATIONS OFFICE
1333 BROADWAY
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
F:MHS 10-8
MftR 3
1976
Major Wyatt L. McGhee, Chief
Bioenvironmental Engineering Services
USAF Clinic, McClellen/SGB
McClellen Air Force Base, CA. 95652
Dear Wyatt:
With reference to your letter of January 9, 1976,"Hazardous Material
Disposal Capabilities" of possible interest to you and existing at
our contractor sites in Region IX are as follows:
A. Atomics International Division
Rockwell International
8900 DeSoto Avenue
Canoga Park, California 91304
Material
Combustible material
including hazardous
organic chemicals,
pesticides, herbicides,
etc.
Disposal Capability & Restrictions
1) Molten Salt Incinerator unit
accepting approximately 2 Ib/hr.
Complete, non-polluting oxidation
occurs in a non-toxic salt.
Material must be suitable for
shredding or for feeding through
about a 1 in. diameter line.
Material is converted to
innocuous salt. Location: Bldg. 4,
8900 DeSoto Ave., Canoga Park.
Costs are dependent on the
amount of material.
2) Molten Salt Incinerator unit
accepting 100 Ib/hr of material.
Location: Bldg. 5, Rockwell
preserve in Santa Susana
mountains.
-------
43
Major Wyatt L. McGhee
Material
Plating wastewaters and
other water containing
soluble forms of heavy
metals and/or cyanides.
1376
Disposal Capability & Restrictions
Electrolytic treatment in AI's
Particle Bed Electrode (PBE)
Cell will directly remove most
heavy metals* and oxidize
cyanide ions. Per pass removal
in range of 60 to 80% at 0.5 gpm
flow. Acceptable pH range about
4 to 12.
Disposal charges to be negotiated.
Located in Bldg. 4, 8900 DeSoto
Ave., Canoga Park, CA.
*Chromate removal by reduction,
hydrolysis, and filtration.
B. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL)
Post Office Box 808
Livermore, California 94550
At LLL, unique disposal capability that is available consists of
treatment of radioactive waste. LLL has facilities for removing
radioactive contamination from equipment, decontaminating radioactive
waste water, and preparing contaminated waste for off-site burial.
Outside requests for these disposal services would have to be
negotiated on an individual basis, and all aspects of such cases
would have to comply with the regulations in CFR Titles 10 and 49.
While the information is not in the format requested, I considered it
advisable to forward in this manner rather than further delaying the
action. My apologies for being late.
Sincerely,
Len Lanni
Program Coordinator
Environment and Safety Division
-------
44
ATTACHMENT 5-3
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PACIFIC DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
MAKALAPA, HI
FPO SAN FRANCISCO 96610
114 :EL:mm
24 DEC 1975
Major Wyatt L. McGhee
Chief, Bioenvironmental
Engineering Services
USAF Clinic, McClellan/SGB
McClellan AFB , CA 95652
Dear Major McGhee:
Enclosure (1) , inventory of the Navy facilities for hazardous
material disposal at Pearl Harbor, is submitted in accordance
with your request during the annual meeting of Western Federal
Regional Council Task Force for Hazardous Materials Management
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Very truly yours ,
WALTER ^--»
;DR, CEC, USN
'Special Assistant for Ecology
Encl:
(1) Hazardous Material Disposal Capabilities,
Region IX, Navy Activities, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii
-------
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPABILITIES, REGION IX
FACILITY NAME: NAVY ACTIVITIES, PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII
NAVY FACILITIES
Industrial
Treatment Plant
Oil Reclamation
Facility
Silver Reclamation
Process
Silver Reclamation
Incinerator
Rotary Kiln (*)
Incinerator
WASTE
ACCOMODATION
Acids
Alkalies
Cyanide
Chromium
Waste
oil
Fixer
solution
Paper &
plastic
containing
silver
Oil sludges
& solvents
RESTRICTIONS CAPACITY (MAX/DAY ) TREATMENT COST
4,000 Gal. $ 0.25/Gal.
None 4,000 Gal. $ 0.25/Gal.
400 Gal. $ 0.25/Gal.
2,000 Gal. $ 0.25/Gal.
Solvent & oil No
contaminated 150,000 Gal. charge
solvent
Non-Fixer
solution 12 Gal.
Liquid 600 Lbs $ 0.05/Lb
solution
Not
None 1,800 Gal. established
ADDRESS
PWC Pearl
FPO San-
Francisco
96610
NSC Pearl
FPO San-
Francisco
96610
Photo-Lab
Makalapa
Fleet Intel
ligence
Center
PWC Pearl
FPO San-
Francisco
' 96610
PWC Pearl
FPO San-
Francisco
96610
Ul
(*) Facility under construction. Operation is scheduled for April, 1976
-------
46
ATTACHMENT 5-4
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPABILITIES, REGION IX
FACILITY NAME: SIERRA ARMY DEPOT, CALIFORNIA
INDIVIDUAL TO CONTACT/OFFICE SYMBOL: CPT JOHN HARRIS/DSS
TELEPHONE: (COMMERCIAL) 916-827-9433 (AUTOVON) 830-9433
MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPABILITY AND RESTRICTIONS
Explosives Misc explosives can be blown in demolition
pits up to 10,000 Ibs explosive wt. per blow.*
Biological, Medical wastes Health Clinic has small capacity incinerator.
Limited to local use.
Commercial Chemicals STORAGE ONLY, Emergency repackiny capability.**
(6800 NSN)
* Use by other services is accomplished by inter-service contract agreement;
also use by other Federal agencies, i.e., Forest Service has been done by contract
reimbursable to Depot.
** Temporary storage only of Department of Army surplus stock.
-------
47
ATTACHMENT 5-5
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPABILITIES, REGION IX
FACILITY NAME: McClellan AFB, CA
INDIVIDUAL TO CONTACT/OFFICE SYMBOL: Nelson Chardoul/DEO
TELEPHONE (COMMERCIAL) (916)643-5004 (AUTOVON)633-5004
MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPABILITY AND RESTRICTIONS
Metallic Mercury Contaminated liquid mercury is reclaimed
through triple distillation in the
Mercury Reclamation Unit, Bldg 368.
Acids Miscellaneous acids can be used for pH
adjustment in the Industrial Waste
Treatment Plant (IWTP), Bldg 714.
Containers must be in good condition
to allow for outside storage.
Cyanide Wastes Liquid cyanide wastes can be treated
in the IWTP, Bldg 714. Treatment cost
must be reimbursed.
Chrome Wastes Liquid chrome wastes can be treated
in the IWTP, Bldg 714. Treatment costs
must be reimbursed.
-------
48
CHAPTER 6
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A SITE FOR THE LAND
DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
WORK ELEMENT FOR THE WFRC TASK FORCE FOR
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT:
DEVELOP CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A
SITE FOR THE LAND DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES.
SUB-COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
Walter S. Weaver
Sanitary Engineer
USDA Forest Service
California Region
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
-------
49
CHAPTER 6
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A SITE FOR THE LAND
DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Develop criteria for selecting a site for the land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
This work element was assigned as a sub-committee
effort. Its report was prepared in a format such
that it could be separated from the body of the Task
Force Final Report and used by member agencies as a
part of their own internal regulations or operating
manuals. The following constitutes the unedited
report of this sub-committee:
(Editor's Note; Following enactment of Public Law
94-580, October 21, 1977, by the Congress, the
Environmental Protection Agency will be preparing
regulations and guidelines covering the general area
of this report.)
-------
CHAPTER 6 50
CRITERIA TOR SELECTING A SITE FOR THE LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
CONTENTS
Abstract
Acknowledgments
,100 Introduction
101 Scope
,102 Purpose
,103 Assumptions
,200 The Site Selection Process
,201 Triggering Mechanism
,202 The Screening Process
203 Site Selection
204 Site Operation
300 Description and Application of Site Screening Factors
301 Hydrogeologic Element
302 Biological (Ecological) Element
303 Land Use/Status Element
304 Socio-Economic Element
400 Recommended Bibliography
Appendices
-------
51
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A SITE FOR THE LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
ABSTRACT
Large volumes of chemical residuals and process byproducts are found in the
Federal establishment that are irreducible and environmentally hazardous.
Presently, the only logical disposal is land burial. The sites now available
for disposal in Region IX have evolved as hazardous waste sites over the past
25 years because of their proximity to waste generators, and were not selected
for long-term environmnetal safety. A few sites must be selected that will
serve for ultimate disposal in perpetuity.
A Screening/Selection Process for disposal site selection has been developed
by the Site Selection Criteria Subcommittee based upon successive site rejection
through the proposal, screening, selection, and on-going site evaluation phases.
Four basic elements describe a potential site; hydrogeologic, biological, land
use and status, and socio-economic. A selection procedure was developed for
site evaluation. There are a number of factors that must be analyzed under each
element in each of three levels of investigation; office review, field
reconnaissance, and detailed site study. The factors primarily describe the
geographical setting of the desert southwest and would have to be modified for
use elsewhere. The selection process on the other hand has universal applicability.
These criteria provide guidance for responsible Federal officials to help select
a site specifically for Federal wastes, to evaluate a site proposed by a
commercial proponent to which Federal waste would be taken, or evaluate the
environmnetal safety of an existing site.
-------
52
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Chairman: Walter S. Weaver
Sanitary Engineer
USDA Forest Service
California Region
The "Criteria" is the product of the considerable experience of the following
specialists, who selflessly contributed their time and their energy to write
the "Criteria:"
Will Burnham
Hydrologist
USDI Geological Survey
Menlo Park, Calif.
L. Edward Horton
Ecologist
USDA Forest Service
California Region
G. Lewis Meyer
Geologist
EPA Radiation Programs
Washington, D. C.
Stuart Porter
Watershed Specialist
USDI Bureau of Land Management
California
Robert Scott
Hydrologist
EPA Water Supply Program
Region IX
The following persons who acted as a steering committee to define the scope of
the Subcommittee's work, develop the screening and selection process, and
provide helpful criticism during the writing of the "Criteria":
Myron Allen (Ret.)
Planning Coordinator
USDI Bureau of Land Management
Arizona
Kenneth Boll
Civil Engineer
USDA Forest Service
Southwestern Region
David Fishel
Industrial Hygienist
ERDA - Nevada Operations Office
Stuart Porter
Watershed Specialist
USDI Bureau of Land Management
California
Thomas George
Civil Engineer
USDA Forest Service
Intermountain Region
Raymond Jorgensen
Environmental Coordinator
USDI Bureau of Land Management
Nevada
G. Lewis Meyer
Geologist
EPA Radiation Programs
Washington, D. C.
-------
53
The Task Force acknowledges the support given these members by their
respective Agencies and supervisors. The various Agencies have perservered
through what sometimes appeared to be an interminable task.
Special accolades are directed to: Mrs. Sadie Johnson, Clerk-Typist, USDA
Forest Service, California Region, for her skillful interpretation of bad
penmanship, and for putting up with the continual redrafting of the "Criteria",
and Mrs. Charles Bourns who graciously accepted the task of copy editing the
final draft of the Criteria. Her only relationship to this Task Force activity
is an emotional one.
-------
54
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A SITE FOR THE LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
.100 Introduction
.101 Scope
.101-1 Authority
These criteria were developed as an assigned task of the Site Selection
Criteria Subcommittee, an entity of the Western Federal Regional Council's
Task Force for Hazardous Materials Management.
.101-2 Region IX
The mechanism and guidelines herein for the selection of sites for the
disposal of hazardous materials are for the use of all Federal agencies in
Standard Federal Region IX that use or generate hazardous materials. It is
not necessarily implied that sites selected will be for the sole use of the
Federal Government.
.101-3 Hazardous Waste
"Hazardous waste" means any waste material or mixture of wastes that is
toxic, pathogenic, corrosive, flammable, an irritant, a strong sensitizer,
or which generates pressure through decomposition, heat, or other means.
In addition, these wastes or mixtures of wastes can cause substantial personal
injury, serious illness or harm to man or wildlife, during or as a proximate
result of any disposal of such waste or mixture of wastes. The terms "toxic,"
"corrosive," "flammable," "irritant," and "strong sensitizers" shall be given
the same meaning as in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16, Chapter II.
However, these criteria do not apply to Class A explosives or radioactive
materials (except for low specific activity radioactive) as defined in the
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49. (The definition from S.2150 may be
substituted).
.101-4 Disposal
There will certainly be some irreducible portion of many processes that are
considered a waste (1) by virtue of their environmental danger, (2) their
resistance to being effectively changed to an innocuous state, or (3) all
reuse or recycling potential has been exhausted. Therefore, disposal is the
only alternative remaining.
The management of the site, as a waste disposal site, will be in perpetuity
because of the extreme persistence of the materials handled. Once interred, the
wastes are considered to have been disposed of. Retrievability, although
possible, was not really considered herein, but is in the Guidelines for Site
-------
55
Operation.— It is believed, however, that any site qualifying as a disposal
site under these criteria would also quality as a site for the temporary storage
and processing of hazardous wastes.
.101-5 Federal Wastes
The site(s) selected shall be the preferred disposal site(s) for all excess
hazardous materials, residues developed through use of hazardous materials,
their containers, and all process wastes generated by direct action of the
various Federal agencies or their contractors.
.102 Purpose of the Selection Criteria
.102-1 Protect Environment
These guidelines are developed to facilitate the selection of a site whose
natural characteristics will reduce the possibility of the release of hazardous
substances disposed of therein in quantities harmful to man and the environment.
.102-2 Guidance to Responsible Officials
These Criteria are for the use of Federal agencies and may serve as guidance
to other agencies or persons. They should not be confused with the "Guidelines"
developed and promulgated under the authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 3251) by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Site Selection Guidelines are being developed by the Hazardous Waste
Management Division (EPA) and will probably be promulgated as "Guidelines",
either supplementing or superseding this Chapter.
.102-3 Supplements National Environmental Policy Act
The intensity of investigations required by these guidelines will provide
the background data for subsequent environmental analyses and Statements. The
disposal of Federal hazardous waste at existing sites will be a significant
Federal action with environmental impacts, which will be discussed through a
complete environmental analysis, and subsequent Environmental Statements for
new sites. Therefore, this screening and selection process is not intended to
be nearly as detailed regarding socio-economic impacts as is called for in NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4321). Using these guidelines, existing sites may be screened before
use for "environmental safety."
.103 Assumptions
.103-1 The problem exists
All Federal agencies which generate or use hazardous materials are finding
that the locations available for disposal of surplus supplies, of by-products
or residues, and of containers are becoming less available because of limitations
— Guidelines for operation and management of hazardous waste disposal sites -
Task Force Report Chapter.
-------
56
and problems at existing authorized sites.
.103-2 Disposal site in public domain
Either Federal or State owned or acquired lands will be utilized to insure
control of ownership in perpetuity. "Private ownership" - even with sc-called
"perpetuity insurance (funds)" does not provide an adequate guarantee for
future monitoring and action should the private owner move.
.103-3 Proposals for locating specific sites will be made by an advocate;
(a) Waste owner or landowner, Federal Government, State or County agency,
(b) Commercial operator or Federal agency operator.
.103-4 Users
The Criteria are intended to be used by many different technical specialists,
their number and their mix being dictated by the intensity of the screening
process applied to the site investigation. The screening agency should assure
itself of the competence of assigned specialists to perform the various complex
hydrologic, geologic, and biologic engineering and land management assessments.
.103-5 Factors and ratings are subject to modifications during use.
(a) The Criteria are designed specifically for use in the States of
Arizona, California and Nevada, Federal Region IX, and may have to be revised
for use elsewhere.
(b) The procedures for implementing an analysis will be prepared by the
agency (Lead Agency) having ultimate jurisdiction. This will probably require
an interagency team organization.
(c) The Criteria may have to be modified to fulfill the needs of the
team using it.
.200 The Site Selection Process
A flow chart of the Process is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
-------
57
TRIGGERING
MECHANISM
PROPOSAL
DEVELOP OR
MODIFY SELECTION
PROCESS
SCREENING
AREAS OF
CONSIDERATION
OFFICE
REVIEW
PRELIM. FIELD
RE CON.
FIELD RECON.
SELECTION
SITE
SELECTED
ENVIKO.
STATEMENT
(REJECT)
OPERATIONS
. 1 FLOW OF
SELE.CTION PROCES5
-------
58
.201 Triggering Mechanism
There is an urgent need for environmentally safe disposal sites for
hazardous waste. The impetus for specific site analysis could be generated
by one of the following:
- Congressional mandate.
- EPA or WFRC commitment.
- Separate or joint agency need.
- Application for a site by a proponent other than a Federal agency.
.202 The Screening Process
After potential areas or candidate sites are identified through proposals
by an advocate, the process outlined in these guidelines provides a means for
investigating, screening and rejecting unsuitable sites. At least three
levels of investigation are visualized, namely (1) office review, (2) field
reconnaissance, and (3) detailed site study. These levels and their interactions
are shown diagramatically in Figure 1. Each level is expected to reject the
clearly unsuitable sites and pass suitable and satisfactory candidates on
to the next investigative level.
Factors to be investigated and evaluated are the same for each level of
investigation, but the intensity, detail, and cost become progressively greater
with each succeeding level. Screening leaves only the most promising sites,
which will then require detailed study. Some of the "surviving" sites may
well be more acceptable than others for factors other than those discussed
herein; cost effectiveness, acceptability, etc.
It must be reemphasized that the screening process, if carried through
Detailed Site Study, is both costly and time consuming, but is necessary
to insure the long-term safety of a selected site. The need for safe disposal
sites is so urgent that the investigator minimize repeating the process to
further refine the analysis, i.e., making a situation estimate through tasks
such as map-literature survey, preliminary reconnaissance, intermediate
reconnaissance, then turning around and going through the same phases in a more
detailed manner, leading up to an even more "detailed site analysis."
.202-1 The Elements
Four elements describe a candidate site for waste disposal in sufficient
detail to allow the decision to commit resources for a detailed investigation
of the site. They are:
-------
59
- Hydrogeologic
- Biological (Ecological)
- Land Uses and Status
- Socio-economic
The first two elements are physical descriptions of the environment that
will be affected by the commitment of a particular tract of land to the disposal
of hazardous waste. The last two elements are more transient in nature because
they can be changed through legislation, regulation, or changes in lifestyle.
Section .300 of this Chapter has a more complete description of the elements
and their major factors.
.202-2 Factor Analysis
The four elements are subject to analysis through a number of factors in
each of the three levels of investigation (office review, field reconnaissance
and detailed site study1 • Since the detailed site study will determine a site's
suitability for selection, the intensity of investigation required is greater
than in the previous two levels.
The factors and their ratings, for other than those specifically noted under
Detailed Site Analysis (II.B.2.C), are shown on Plates 1, 2, and 3.
Plates 1, 2, and 3
(a) Office Review - Includes the review of historical records, agency
inventories, research of broad area indicators, land status and use factors,
socio-economic factors, and other literature.
(b) Field Reconnaissance - Should include a validity check on the office
review as well as an analysis of many of the physical (environmental) factors
of the Hydrogeologic, and Biological Elements. The product of this level of
investigation is the arraying of indicators on the Rating Charts. See Plates
1, 2, and 3.
Two separate levels of field reconnaissance may be required for both
Hydrogeologic and Biological Elements, preliminary and intermediate reconnaissance,
to lessen impact on expenditures and resources. The former requires the time of
competent investigators; the latter requires the extensive use of instrumenta-
tion and exploration equipment.
(c) Detailed Site Analysis - If confidence in a particular site's environmental
safety has not been confirmed through the previous phases, a more intense
investigation may be necessary, especially in the Hydrogeologic and Biological
elements. It might be more appropriate to consider this phase as one of the
aspects of site selection (See Section .203) rather than screening. because
this intensity of investigation would be carried out only on a few highly
qualified candidate sites.
-------
PLATE I
RATING CHART FOR SCREENING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
RELATIVE VALUE
SCREENING/SELECTION CRITERIA
OFFICE REVIEW
PRECIPITATION (INCHES/YEAR)
NEAREST SURFACE WATER OR STREAM (MILES)
NEAREST USE (DISCHARGE POINTKMILES)
iEISMIC ACTIVITY (MILES)
PRELIMINARY FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
SLOPE (PERCENT) (]_)
GEOMORPHIC STABILITY (OUAUTATIVE)
FLOODING POTENTIAL (QUALITATIVE)
WIND EROSION POTENTIAL(QUALITATIVE)
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE (FEET)
DEPTH (DISTANCE) TO FRACTURED BEDROCK(FEET)
1 rPE OF BURIAL MEDIA (QUALITATIVE)
SUBSIDENCE (FEET)
OPTIMUM WIND DIRECTION (QUALITATIVE)
INTERMEDIATE FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
DISTANCE TO KNOWN FAULT (FEET)
BURIAL MEDIA AND UNDERLYING STRATA
SORPTION CAPACITY (ME/100 GM)
THICKNESS (FEET)
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES (QUALITATIVE)
PERMEABILITY (GAL/DAY/FT*)
EFFECTIVE POROSITY ( PERCENT)
STRUCTURE (QUALITATIVE)
A RATIO OF PAN EVAPORATION TO
PRECIPITATION MINUS RUNOFF
HYDROGEOLOGIC COMPLEXITY (QUALITATIVE)
SUITABILITY FOR CONTROL OF WATER TABLE
(QUALITATIVE)
MONITORABILITY (QUALITATIVE)
REMEDIABILITY (QUALITATIVE)
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT (FEET/MILE)
654321 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
^. , ? 7 • ? '9 '5 . >,»
^ ,, . '? ° 5 '. i ? . < 1
•s „ . '?....» . . < 2
S ? ? ? ? ? >IS
'•& 12 10 9 8 7 6
1
TOO 500 400 300 200 IOO SO 70 60
' 5OO 4OO 3OO 2OO 100
S,,TS
4000 3OOO 2OOO
1
4O 3O 20 10 5 - ,
4OO 300 200 IOO
? ? 1 ? 'P ? j < ?
0 I ((
OS O2 01 005 002
N.4 . •<> ™ 6.° » .<: 40
CA
-------
!
FACTORS
r
Factor Rating *^
Threatened and Endangered
Species:
1. Fish: Population
Critical Habitat
2. Wildlife: Population
Critical Habitat
3. Plants: Population
Critical Habitat
Areas of Unique Biological
Interest:
1. Research Natural Areas
2. Botanical Areas
3. Zoological Areas
4. Wildlife Refuges
Wild I
Burros
Vital
Wildld
^ree-Roaming Horses and
5 Territory
Habitat for Fish and
.fe.
Compatible
Does not exist
Recognized
Potential
No
6
Low
5
Hieh
4
,
X
\
3
May be mitigated or
foregone
Does not exist
Recognized
Potential
No
5
Low
4
Hi2h
3
\
ST<
2
Not Compatible
Does not exist
Recognized
Potential
No
3
Low
1
High
0
Ex
\
0
1
1
I
H-
O
O
OQ
O
O
O
OQ
(C O
o n
E?
CD 3
CO OQ
ft)
P O
o y
fD (B
Ml
O
H
a
HI
i-h
H-
O
ro
f
H-
W
N3
0=unacceptable; l=marginal; 2=below average; 3=average;
4=above average; 5=excellent; 6=ideal
-------
62
PLATE 3
Land use status factors for
proposed sites or adjacent
lands
1. Transportation System
2. Water Resource Management
3. Mining Claims and Operations
4. Permits, easements (R.O.W. *s)
and withdrawals
5. Outdoor recreation
6. Especially designated areas
and those of special interest
7 . Agricultural
8. State and local
Government's Land Use Plans
and Zoning
Does not
exist
Low
potential
land use
Existing
Compatible
with waste
disposal
Does not
exist
High
potential
for land
use
Existing
Not
compatible
with waste
disposal
(Check where appropriate)
-------
63
These analyses are complex in nature and are addressed at the prior two
levels by a professional investigator; at least, subjectively, On-site
investigations of specific items, if necessary, may entail large expenditures
of resources. Investigation may include, but not be limited to, the following
analyses:
(1) Hydrogeologic
- Streamflow Data; Streamflow data for perennial and ephemeral
streams in sufficient detail to determine base flow, maximum
flows for evaluating the flooding potential of the site, and
for constructing a stream hydrograph.
- Soil Moisture Tension; In situ measurements of soil moisture
tension of the upper 15-30 feet of the proposed burial media.
Measurements are made with a tensiometer inserted into the soil
at a desired depth to measure soil-water tension. After a site
passes the initial screening phase and is selected for more
detailed analysis, these measurements should be conducted for a
period of two or more years.
- Soil Moisture Measurements; In situ measurements of soil moisture
content of the unsaturated zone down 30-45 feet should be made in
specially constructed holes using a neutron soil moisture gauge or
an equivalent method. The measurements should be made for a period
of two or more years after a site passes the initial screening phase
and is selected for more detailed analysis.
- Water Chemistry; Chemistry of the water in the aquifers and
aquitards beneath the proposed disposal facility.
This includes the pH, Eh,
cations, anions, specific conductance, dissolved and suspended
solids, and other factors which are needed to establish original
baseline conditions in each formation, to differentiate between
waters from the different formations, and to estimate the potential
reactivity of the natural waters in the formations with leachates
and contaminated waters which might result from disposal operations.
- Stratigraphy: Composition, sequence, thickness, age, correlation
and other relationships of the stratified and non-stratified rocks
beneath and within the vicinity of a proposed site which might
affect the movement of water, stability of the rocks, site operations,
or long-term retention of wastes disposed of therein.
- Hydraulic Data on Sub-surface Formations: Permeability, porosity,
effective porosity, hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient,
hydraulic head or potential, and other hydraulic parameters of the
subsurface water-bearing formations which are required to calculate
the direction and rate of movement of groundwater beneath the site.
Pumping, bailing, or slug tests of wells and physical property
measurements of samples from these wells are usually required to make
these determinations.
-------
64
- Natural Fluctuations of Water Table; The natural fluctuations of
the regional water table and of perched water tables beneath the
proposed site should be known, particularly the expected maximum
high water levels.
- Distribution of Hydraulic Head with Depth; Definition of the
hydraulic head or potential of each aquifer and aquiclude beneath
the site, . The
hydraulic head (potential) of each individual aquifer is commonly
determined: (1) by testing each formation individually as it is
penetrated during the drilling of a test well; (2) by testing the
formations with inflatible packers after the drilling of the test
well is completed; or (3) by constructing a group of wells, each
of which is completed in a single waterbearing formation (commonly
called a piezometer nest).
- Water Table Contour Map; A map showing by contour lines the upper
surface of the water table, or zone of saturation, in the area
around the proposed site. On occasion, a similar map showing the
piezometric surface, pressure potential surface of the shallowest
or other significant confined aquifer may be required. Areas where
perched water tables occur should be shown where possible.
(2) Biological Communities
In addition to its physical characteristics, an ecosystem is composed
of plants and animals organized by dependency relationships into communities.
In order to assess the influence and importance of one element of the
ecosystem to another or to predict the effects of a new activity, it is
necessary to have inventory information concerning plant communities and
their animal associates.
- Plant communities.
- Animal associates.
(3) Ecological Relationships
The ecological integrity of an area is dependent upon an array of
processes and interactions which work to bind the various parts of the
ecosystem into a functioning whole. Predominant relationships vary from
ecosystem to ecosystem.
- Primary productivity.
- Plant successional trends.
- Stability (population and ecosystem).
- Predation (including parasite).
- Interspecific competition.
- Territoriality.
-------
65
.202-3 Screening Process Re-evaluation
The rating charts are for guidance only and it is not to be inferred that
a low ranking on any single factor, or a few factors automatically rejects a
site from further investigation. Two alternatives would be appropriate if a
site appears to be rejected based on these Guidelines:
(a) First, consider a larger number of sites and if then no viable
candidate is found, proceed to the next step, which is
(b) Reassess the most likely site from a total resource foregone basis.
The need for a "safe" disposal site may be greater than the loss of one or
more factors. See Section .304.
.203 Site Selection
Selecting a site for the disposal of wastes may be an irreversible land
use decision in that it commits a tract of land to this use to the exclusion
of other uses in perpetuity. Therefore, the same evaluation of values foregone
and other trade-off questions must be made as for any other land use decision.
Those sites not rejected by any of the three investigation levels (1) office
review, (2) field reconnaissance, and (3) detailed site study, are considered
to have physical and biological characteristics that are compatible with the
proposed use.
Sites that survive this progressive rejection system must still receive
public acceptance through the NEPA and political process. The data collected
through Factor Analysis should be easily convertible to Environmental Statement
format. Obviously the site(s) may ultimately be rejected in the political
arena, even if assessed as acceptable by the process outlined herein.
.204 Site Operation
Once waste is accepted for disposal, a site is committed in perpetuity.
Future generations will be responsible for monitoring. The data base
assembled during the Screening/Selection process, however, will become the
baseline for future monitoring procedures and requirements. The results of
the monitoring are necessary to give the site operator sufficient lead time
to take corrective action, and to mitigate unwanted effects resulting from
disposal of wastes at the site.
.300 Description and Application of Site Screening Factors
.301 Hydrogeologic Element
.301-1 Every effort is to be made to prevent or reduce contact between
water and wastes.
-------
66
.301-2 Factor scale ranges are based on the special conditions existing in
mainland Region IX, i.e.,
(a) Very large areas of unpopulated land with relatively low economic
value.
(b) Significant areas with arid or semi-arid climate.
.301-3 The screening factors are highly selective in that they force a site
into a "very low water" location (i.e., low precipitation, absence of surface
waters, and great depth of ground water).
.301-4 Although the factors are ultra conservative regarding potential
contacts of water and waste, they are somewhat liberal in other respects.
For example:
(a) Once buried, it is assumed that seismic activity will have little
effect on the wastes unless land surface rupture or displacement occurs within
the site.
(b) Fluctuation of the water table, monitorability, remediability, etc.,
are not as important in a "low water" situation as they would be in a humid
climate. In the latter, the relative impermeability of the underlying strata,
site engineering design, and construction methods become more important.
.301-5 The data collected must be sufficient to predict the waste retention
capability of a site, both in quantity and in time, as related to the type and
toxicity of the wastes.
.301-6 This screening process can be very useful for: (1) identifying sites
which have potential and are worth investigating further; (2) flagging critical
factors which could limit or prohibit use of the site, and (3) indicating the
need for specific engineering and construction. However, it has a danger
which should be clearly recognized and guarded against. The comprehensive
results obtained from each individual measurement are tabulated into a combined
value. One or two critical factors, if negative, could negate the whole. The
evaluator would then be in the position of averaging 20 excellent measurements
with one or two unacceptable values and could obtain an excellent overall rating
for a potential site which would be an inherent threat to health and the
environment. Engineering modifications to the site to correct these unsatisfactory
factors may be acceptable in some cases. However, there are some factors which
are irremediable and require total rejection of the site (i.e., high precipitation,
closeness to fracture bedrock, or shallow water table).
-------
67
.301-7 The factors chosen deal with the availability, location, and movement
of water, the properties of the burial medium and underlying strata, and
processes which could disrupt the site, introduce water to the waste, expose
the wastes or otherwise return the wastes to contact with the environment
and man. A brief description of each factor is found in Appendix B.
.301-8 Where possible, common units of measure and specific limits were
chosen for the factors. However, there are not standard units for describing
certain factors, so a "qualitative" description must be used; for example, the
geomorphic stability of a site cannot be easily quantified. For this type
of factor, a qualitative evaluation must come from professional judgement of
the site selection team. The unit of measure and range of value for each
factor is shown on Plate 1 and given in Appendix B.
.301-9 Each factor is ranked and given a weighting value based, in general,
on the estimated importance of the factor in causing the release of contaminants
from the waste, in reducing the retention capability of the site, or in hastening
contact of the waste with man and the environment. The highest ranking is
given to water and its potential to contact the wastes. Physical isolation of
the wastes by distance from man and water is ranked second. Factors which could
alter conditions at the burial site, add to the complexity of the site
hydrogeology, or affect the characteristics of the burial medium are ranked
third. Included also and ranked last are those factors which definitely should
be known about a site but are considered less important because it is presumed
that there will be very little precipitation or inflow of water at the site.
The relative importance and weight of hydrogeologic factors used in this
screening system are displayed in Appendix B.
-------
68
.301-10 This screening/selection system tries to develop a qualitative
numeric rating of the hydrogeologic factors at a potential burial site (or
area). A rating chart for screening the potential hazardous waste burial
sites is presented in Plate 1. The chart provides places to enter the raw
value for each factor graphically and numerically. After this is done, the
weighted value for each factor can be determined by 1) locating the raw
value on the graphic scale; 2) reading upward (or downward) to the relative
scale and determining its relative value; and 3) multiplying its relative
value by the weighing or ranking of the factor. A qualitative - numeric
rating of the site can be obtained at each investigative phase.
The range of weighted values corresponding to the relative values is as
follows:
Range of Numerical
Relative Value Weighted Values
Ideal 624-521
Excellent 520-417
Above average 416-313
Average 312-207
Below average 206-105
Marginal 104-1
Unacceptable 0
The ideal result shown on the screening/selection display (See Plate 1)
would be a vertical line to the left of the chart. A left leaning trend
is naturally desired.
.301-11 A hypothetical rating of the commercial radioactive waste burial
facility at Beatty, Nevada, by this screening/selection system is presented in
Example 1 as an example of how the system works. The Beatty site is located at
Example 1
the north end of the Amargosa Desert, Nevada; has low rainfall; and has
relatively good isolation from surface waters, ground waters, and use points.
Most of the factors used are real. However, some values are not known and
were estimated or put in for the purpose of presenting this example.
-------
EXAMPLE 1 69
RATING CHART FOR SCREENING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
RELATIVE VALUE
SCREENING/SELECTION CRITERIA
OFFICE REVIEW
PRECIPITATION (INCHES / YEAR )
NEAREST SURFACE WATER OR STREAM (MILES)
NEAREST USE (DISCHARGE POINTKMILES)
bCISMIC ACTIVITY (MILES)
PRELIMINARY FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
SLOPE(PERCENT)
GEOMORPHIC STABILITY (QUALITATIVE)
FLOODING POTENTIAL (QUALITATIVE)
WIND EROSION POTENTIAL(OUALITATIVE)
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE(FEET)
DEPTH (DISTANCE) TO FRACTURED BEDROCK(FEET)
TYPE OF BURIAL MEDIA (QUALITATIVE)
SUBSIDENCE (FEET)
OPTIMUM WIND DIRECTION (QUALITATIVE)
INTERMEDIATE FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
DISTANCE TO KNOWN FAULT (FEET)
BURIAL MEDIA AND UNDERLYING STRATA
SORPTION CAPACITY (ME/100 GM)
THICKNESS (FEET)
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES (QUALITATIVE)
PERMEABILITY (GAL/DAY/FT2)
EFFECTIVE POROSITY (PERCENT)
STRUCTURE (QUALITATIVE)
A RATIO OF PAN EVAPORATION TO
PRECIPITATION MINUS RUNOFF
HYDROGEOLOGIC COM PLEXITY (QUALITATIVE)
SUITABILITY FOR CONTROL OF WATER TABLE
(QUALITATIVE)
MONITORABILITY (QUALITATIVE)
REMEDIABILITY (QUALITATIVE)
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT (FEET/MILE)
-------
70
.301-12 Detailed hydrogeologic site analysis
See Section II.B.2.c.(1).
•302 Biological (ecological) Element
The factors identified represent those biotic elements needed by the
investigator to:
- Predict environmental changes occasioned by establishment and operation
of a disposal site in terms of biological (ecological) components.
- Assess potential effects (both adverse and beneficial) on each element
caused by the disposed materials in place or displaced by the disposal
activity, and by permanent protection from other uses within the site
enclosure on the site area, and on surrounding areas.
- Evaluate the relative significance of such changes and effects as an aid
in site selection.
.302-1 A factor analysis and rating scheme has been developed to display the
sensitivity of candidate sites regarding the primary biological factors. See
Plate 2. Appendix C contains descriptions of some of the Biological Screening
Factors.
The biological factor analysis and rating scheme can be applied to only a
portion of all the factors that must be investigated, but it provides a
minimum checklist for those factors that must be addressed during the Office
Review and Field Reconnaissance Phases.
The following constraints will be applied to the use of this rating scheme:
(a) Each factor will be inventoried for existence on site or nearby.
(b) Each factor will be evaluated for potential, compatibility, mitigation
or forfeiture, and relative significance of site to the whole.
(c) Tentative rejection criter ion-reJect sites with value of 2 or less
for any factors.
.302-2 Interrelationships
There are additional subtle processes and relationships that are recognizable
only by a skilled observer. These are not separable biological factors, but are
basic considerations that must be taken into account during all three levels of
investigation intensity (office review, field reconnaissance, and detailed site
study). They are present on all sites and are investigated to determine relative
significance, and to evaluate the effects of the disposal activity on them.
(a) Biological Communities
See Detailed Analysis .202-2(c)(2).
-------
71
(b) Ecological Relationships
See Detailed Site Analysis .202-2(c)(3).
.302-3 Biological Factors Critical to Waste Disposal Sites
The following are factors that would tend to directly affect the selection
of a particular site for waste disposal (as opposed to the effect of a waste
disposal operation on the indigenous biological community):
(a) Rare or unique species or ecosystems. Includes organisms or places
that have local interest or have received public attention for other special
reasons (i.e., bristle-cone pine).
(b) Poisonous, noxious, ruderal, or other undesirable plant species. A
selected site containing such species could become a sanctuary or source area
for future spread of such undesirable species.
(c) Deep-rooted plant species which have the capability of translocating
waste materials into above ground tissue where they may enter food chains
or otherwise be transported off site.
(d) Burrowing animals (See (C) above).
(e) Wildlife incursion of the site for migration, browse, or water, as
it affects the spread of contaminants.
.303 Land Use/Status Element
.303-1 Use of the factors
Man's past and present use of land and his actions regarding the sites con-
sidered for waste disposal must be fully known before a site can be selected
to incure a site free from incumberances and modification that would jeopardize
the environment safety of the site.
-------
72
Past, present, and future uses/actions on adjacent and surrounding lands
must be tested for compatability with the disposal of hazardous wastes.
Careful review and reconnaissance is necessary to ascertain the relative
compatability of a land use or status by displaying the existence of a
conflict with waste disposal. Plate 3 is a chart to highlight potential
land use conflicts. A leftward array of checks is most desirable.
.303-2 Land Use/Status Descriptors
(a) Transportation System
Roads, trails, highways, railroads, communication system lines (above and
below grade), and air strips for both public and private use.
(b) Water Resource Management
(1) Federal Power Commission licenses.
Hydroelectric dams, reservoirs, and associated transmission lines.
(2) Watershed - domestic and other beneficial.
(3) Water source - domestic and other beneficial.
(4) Geothermal Energy Source.
(5) Power generation facilities.
(6) Water treatment facilities.
(7) Flood protection facilities.
(8) Other adverse actions by man to affect water resources.
(c) Mining Claims and Operations
(1) Location and purchase - metallic or other substance in quantity
sufficient to render the lands valuable on account of it, considering its
location: Lode - "Rock in Place"; Placer; and necessary associated millsites.
(2) Leasable minerals - coal, oil, gas, sodium phosphate, potash, sulphur, etc,
(3) Common varities - Sand, stone, gravel, pumice, cinders, and clay.
(4) In situ leaching.
(5) Heap leaching.
(d) Encumberances
-------
73
(1) Permits
Permitted occupancy and use of public lands under specific regulations
of the agency with stewardship over the subject lands, including free and
fee, covering a multitude of uses, with variable terms.
(2) Easements (R.O.W.'s)
Oil, gas (pipelines), railroads, irrigation, drainage, dams, and reservoirs,
road^, bridges, trails, water transmission, power transmission, telephone/
telegraph, radio/electronics, etc.
(3) Withdrawals
Certain public lands withdrawn from appropriation and entry and reserved
for governmental purposes under provisions of several acts of the Congress
and EO 10355, i.e., power, reclamation, military, and mineral.
(e) Outdoor Recreation
Any activity on public lands that contributes to inspiration, relaxation,
and enjoyment of the outdoors.
(f) Designated Areas and those of Special Interest
(1) Parks; National, State and local.
(2) Game refuges (See Biological; Wildlife).
(3) Significant archeological, historical, ecological, geological, or
scenic area.
(4) Wilderness - An area designated by Congress as undeveloped Federal land
retaining its primev al character and influence without permanent improvements
or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions.
(5) Primitive and Roadless Areas - Lands suitable for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
(g) Agricultural
Grazing (range allotments), timber production, cultivated lands, etc.
.304 Socio-Economic Element
These factors must be quantified or otherwise described or discussed. They
are typical of all sites to be investigated and the list is not at all exhaustive.
-------
74
.304-1 Proximity to waste source(s).
.304-2 Adequacy of transportation system for the delivery of hazardous
materials.
.304-3 Resources foregone by the commitment of land to waste disposal in
perpetuity (energy, mineral, water, etc.).
.304-4 Institutional constraints (politics at all levels).
.304-5 Population and density.
.304-6 Ownership and use pattern.
.304-7 Employment and community impact.
-------
75
.400 Recommended Bibliography
GENERAL
1. Brunner, D. R. and Keller, D. J., Sanitary Landfill Design and
Operation, Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972, 59 p.
2. Digest of Public Land Laws, Public Land Law Review Committee,
Washington, D. C., June 1968.
3. Fields, Timothy, Jr. and Lindsey, Alfred W., Landfill Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes; A Review of Literature and Known Approaches,
Cincinnati, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1975.
4. Guidelines for the Land Disposal of Solid Wastes, Federal Register
39(158)-.29333, Environmental Protection Agency, August 14, 1974.
5. Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements,
40 CFR 1500 et seq., Council on Environmental Quality, August 1973.
6. Waste Discharge Requirements for Waste Disposal to Land, Disposal Site
Design and Operation Information, California State Water Resources
Control Board, November 1975.
HYDROGEOLOGIC
1. Cherry, J. A., Grisak, G. E. and Jackson, R. E. 1973. "Hydro-
geologic Factors in Shallow Subsurface Radioactive Waste Management
in Canada," Proceedings, International Conference on Land for
Waste Management, Ottawa, Canada.
2. LeGrand, H. E. 1964. "System for Evaluation of Contamination
Potential for Some Waste Disposal Sites," American Water Works
Association Journal, Vol. 46, Denver, Colo.
3. Papadopulos, S. S. and Winograd, I. J. 1974. "Storage of Low-Level
Radioactive Wastes in the Ground: Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical
Factors." U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report,
EPA-520/3-74-009, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. 20460.
4. Swift, W.H. 1973. Feasibility Study for Development of a System
of Hazardous Waste National Disposal Sites, Battelle Northwest,
Richland, Washington.
5. Williams, Roy E. and Wallace, Alfred. 1970. Hydrogeological Aspects
of the Selection of Refuse Disposal Sites in Idaho. Pamphlet 145,
Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow, Idaho.
-------
76
BIOLOGICAL (ECOLOGICAL)
1. Allee, W. C., et. al., Principles of Animal Ecology, W. B. Saunders
Company, Philadelphia. 1949.
2. Daubenmire, Rexford, Plant Communities; A Textbook of Plant,
Synecology. Harper and Row, New York. 1968.
3. Greig-Smith, P- Quantitative Plant Ecology. Academic Press Inc.,
New York. 1957.
4. Kormondy, Edward J. Concepts of Ecology, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1969.
5. Odum, Eugene P. Fundamentals of Ecology, Second Edition, W. B.
Saunders Company, Philadelphia. 1959.
-------
77
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comparision of Hydrogeologic Screening Factors suggested
by several sources.
Appendix B Description of Hydrogeologic Screening Factors.
Appendix C Description of Biological Screening Factors.
-------
78
APPENDIX A
A COMPARISON OF SCREENING AND SELECTION FACTORS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND
DISPOSAL SITES SUGGESTED BY SEVERAL SOURCES
FACTORS
OFFICE REVIEW
- Precipitation
- Nearest Surface Water
- Nearest Use or Discharge Point
- Seismic Activity
-
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
- Slope
- Geomorphic Stability
- Flooding Potential
- Wind Erosion Potential
- Depth to Water Table
- Depth to Fractured Bedrock
- Type of Burial Media
- Subsidence
- Optimum Wind Direction
INTERMEDIATE RECONNAISSANCE
- Distance to Known Fault
- Burial Media
- Sorption Capacity
Thickness
Engineering Properties
Permeability
Effective Porosity
- Structure
- Ratio of Pan Evaporation to Precipitation
Minus Runoff
- Hydrologic Complexity
- Suitability for Control of Water
- Adequate Water Supply
-Monitorability
- Remediability
- Hydraulic Gradient
Level of
Expenditure
\
\
s
g
H
2
s
-t-
1
1
H
U
l-t
Pn
M
§
M
CO
Phase
I
o
z
1-1
25
W
3
o
CO
1
SOURCES
I/
tn
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
:s
Cu
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I/
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
i-q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I/
ffl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i/
3
^$
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1J
(J
-<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
79
APPENDIX A
cont.
A COMPARISON OF SCREENING AND SELECTION FACTORS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND
DISPOSAL SITES SUGGESTED BY SEVERAL SOURCES
FACTORS
DETAILED SITE ANALYSIS
- Three Dimensional Head Distribution
- Burial Media and Underlying Units
Including Nearest Confined Aquifer
- Water Chemistry
- Stratigraphy
- Ion Exchange Capacity
- Moisture Content of Unsaturated Zone
- Soil Moisture Tension
_2. Transmissivity
- Natural Fluctuation of Water Table
- Flow Data for Nearest Streams (Underflow)
- Water Table Contour Map
MINIMUM BASIC REQUIREMENTS
- Degree of Contact of Water with Waste
- Distance (s) Along Critical Flow Lines
- Direction and Rate of Movement of
Critical Elements
- Residence time in the Site for
Critical Elements
m cu
O M
3
i-H 4J
0) -H
i-J 01
X
W
i
CO
W
H
P
CO
0
1 1
W
C*
'
-1
0)
CO
(fl
PH
1
'
0
1 1
W
W
W
)
1
CO
0
0
1
SOURCES
I/
Fn
H
X
X
X
X
2J
jg
•*^
PM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I/
u
-•^
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(L/
,j
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5/
^
J25
M
X
X
X
X
6/
^
-x^,.
&
X
X
X
X
I/
,J
E_j
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
— Criteria identified during studies by the Task Force Sub-committee on Site Selection.
2/
—Criteria identified or implied by Winograd and Papadopulis, 1974.
3/
-Criteria identified or implied by Grizak, Cherry, et. al., 1973.
4/
—Criteria identified or implied by Legrand, 1974.
- Criteria identified or implied by Battelle Northwest, 1973.
-Criteria dientified or implied by Williams and Wallace, 1970.
— Criteria adopted from other technical literature because of its apparent need
in site selection.
-------
80
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC SCREENING FACTORS
RANGE OF VALUES
UNIT OF WEIGHT OF
FACTOR MEASURE IDEAL UNACCEPTABLE FACTOR
PRECIPITATION Inches per year 5 18 10
Total precipitation per year, including rainfall and snowfall; the less
precipitation, the better.
NEAREST SURFACE Miles 20 15
WATER OR STREAM
Distance of surface and subsurface travel path(s) along which contaminants from
site must migrate to reach nearest surface water or stream; the longer the travel path,
the better. A site conceivable could be located physically within several miles of
a stream without penalty, if it were clearly separated from the stream by topographic
and hydrologic divides, or not in the floodway of a stream, particularly in arid areas.
NEAREST USE OR Miles 20 15
DISCHARGE POINT
Distance of surface and subsurface travel paths along which contaminants from site
must migrate to reach the nearest use of discharge point, the longer the travel
path, the better. Similar exceptions as for preceding factor.
SEISMIC ACTIVITY Miles 15 22
Distance in miles of site from a seismically active zone or area; the greater the
distance, the better. It is assumed that the wastes, once buried, will be little
affected by regional seismic activity such as earthquakes. The intent is to keep
the site away from areas of high acceleration, known tectonic stress, suspected
potential locii of earthquakes, active faults, and other seismic phenomena which
could rupture or damage the disposal facilities.
SLOPE Per cent 1.5 15 (max) 4
0.5 (min)
General slope of land surface measured in per cent. Land surface which are too
steep, too flat, or too irregular present problems in construction, operation, and
long-term maintenance. In example, steeper land surfaces increase the potential
for cap maintenance, erosion, and denudation of the buried wastes; whereas, water
(precipitation) will not run off fast enough, will tend to pond, and can infiltrate
into the trenches and soak the wastes, if the land surface is too flat. Therefore,
two unacceptable values for slope, one too high and one too low, and only one ideal
intermediate value are used. Exception may be made for sites not located in stream
floodways in arid climates or where flooding will not be a problem or can be en-
gineered against.
-------
81
GEOMORPHIC Qualitative Stable Unstable 4
STABILITY
The land should be geomorphlcally stable for thousands of years; that is, the rate
of weathering and erosion should not be sufficient to affect the pos'ition and
surface of the land surface for thousands of years. Because there is no generally
accept unit of measure for geomorphic stability, relative terms were used.
FLOODING Qualitative Low and High 4
POTENTIAL Infrequent
The potential for flooding of a site should be low. A site should not be located in
the flood plain at a stream where rising flood waters can flood it. Nor should a
site be located in a drainageway where descending runoff from a flash flood
could fill an otherwise dry channel and flood it. Relative rating terms are used
for the preliminary stages of investigation. In later detailed investigations, it
might be necessary for certain sites to calculate the size of a flood event
which would flood a site.
WIND EROSION Qualitative Low High 2
POTENTIAL
Wind could possibly cause construction and maintenance problems, serious erosion
of the trench caps, and denudation of the wastes; the lower the potential, the
better.
DEPTH OF WATER Feet 1000 50 5
TABLE
Depth below land surface to regional water table; the deeper the water table,
the better. The depth to any perched aquifers; known or suspected in the area
and the shallowest confined aquifer should also be known.
DEPTH OR DISTANCE Feet 1000 50 4
TO FRACTURED BED-
ROCK
Separation between burial zone and fractured bedrock; the greater the separation,
the better. The values presented herein are for fractured bedrock which underlies
the burial zone. If fractured bedrock lies downgradient along a travel path from
site, a different set of values should be used.
-------
TYPE OF BURIAL
MEDIA
Qualitative
Very fine
sands and
silts
Clean sands
and gravel
clay
It is assumed that a granular medium such as clastic sedimentary rocks, strongly
weathered bedrock, soils, glacial deposits, and certain pyroclastic rocks would
be used as the burial medium strictly on the basis of its favorable engineering
and workability properties. A brief description of the granular character of the
deposit is desired. Strata of intermediate permeability, such as silt, siltstone,
and silty sandstone, are preferred for burial media. Trenches in strata of low
permeability may act as bathtubs which collect water during unusual precipitation
events and overflow or soak the wastes. Contrawise, strata of high premeability
allow water to pass too freely and in general, have poorer ion exchange
characteristics.
SUBSIDENCE
Feet
0
Subsidence is the net lowering of the land surface caused by man's activities
in four unrelated processes which are caused by (1) the intensive pumping of
ground water, (2) the collapse of moisture-deficient deposits when water is
first applied (hydro-compaction), (3) the oxidation of organic soils, and (4) the
local extraction of fluids from producing zones in oil fields.
OPTIMUM WIND
DIRECTION
Qualitative
Good
Bad
Wind can play an important role in the transport, resuspension, and diffusion of
particulare and gaseous contaminants in arid and semi-arid regions. This factor
is not well-defined but should be considered in locating a disposal site.
DISTANCE TO
KNOWN FAULT
Feet
5000
1500
Distance in feet of the site from a known fault; the farther from a fault, the
better. This factor is intended to include any "inactive" fault (a fault where
no recent movement is suspected) which was not included under "Seismic activity."
BURIAL MEDIA AND
UNDERLYING STRATA
SORPTION CAPACITY
Milliequivalent per
100 grams
50
The sorption capacity of the burial medium as evaluated in the laboratory by
the distribution coefficient, or K , method. The K is the ratio of activity
concentration, or mass of a sorbed nuclide per unit of mass of solids to the
activity or concentration of dissolved nuclide per unit volume of water
(Thompkins and Mayer, 1947, Kaufman, 1963). The K is usually expressed in
-------
83
milliequivalents per 1000 grams; the larger the ratio, the better. The K is
determined in the laboratory and is a function of a number of variables. At best,
it can only approximate the potential sorption and ion exchange capacity of
a burial media under limited laboratory conditions. Detailed studies in the
field, or which duplicate field conditions, will be required if the site is
selected for further evaluation. So far as practicable, the sorption capacity
of underlying strata down to the base of the shallowest confined aquifer should
also be determined.
BURIAL MEDIA
THICKNESS Feet 500 50 4
Thickness of burial medium as a relatively uniform, homogeneous, non-fractured
stratum; the thicker and more homogeneous the burial medium, the better. Fractures,
sub-strata of lower permeability, and other heterogenities which reduce the
ability to predict how and where contaminants may migrate should be subtracted
from the overall thickness of the burial medium when they are encountered. The
thickness and stratigraphy of underlying strata down to the base of the shallowest
confined aquifer should also be determined.
ENGINEERING Qualitative Good Bad 4
PROPERTIES
The ease and facility with which burial medium can be worked in landfilling and
burial operational the easier the medium can be worked, the better. This factor
relates to the economics and engineering factors of disposal. A site and burial
medium might otherwise be ideal; however, if the burial medium is too cemented
or too indurated to rip or to work, the site cannot be used. A silty sand strata
which can be easily excavated by dragline or bulldozers, and which would form
trench walls that stand vertical seems to approach the ideal (See AASHO
Classification of Soils).
PERMEABILITY Gallons/day/foot2 0.1 10 (max) 4
.001 (min)
Permeability of burial medium in gallons/day/ft^; burial media with permeabilities
in the range of 0.1 g/d/ft^ are more desirable; permeabilities significantly
higher or lower are generally less desirable. The permeability of underlying strata
down to the base of the shallowest confined aquifer should also be determined.
The use of engineered liners and/or leachate collection systems may alter this evaluation
such to provide a higher relative rating.
EFFECTIVE Per cent Intermediate Too high 4
POROSITY (No scale yet) (Max) Too
low CMin)
Effective porosity of burial medium in per cent; burial media with intermediate
effective porosites are more desirable, effective porosites which are too high or
low are undesirable. No range of acceptable values or "ideal" intermediate value
have been arrived at yet. The effective porosity of the underlying strata down
-------
84
to the base of the shallowest confined aquifer should also be determined.
STRUCTURE Qualitative Simple Complex 4
The internal structure of the burial medium, the burial medium's
relationship to the strata underlying it, and structures within these
underlying strata should be determined. They all affect the ability
to predict the movement of contaminants after they leave the trench;
the more simple the structure, the better. The use of engineered
linens and/or leachate collection systems may alter this evaluation
to provide a higher relative rating.
RATIO OF PAN Ratio 84 40
EVAPORATION
TO PRECIPITATION
MINUS RUNOFF
The ratio of pan evaporation to precipitation minus run off; the
higher the ratio, the better. (U.S. Weather Bureau Tech. Paper No.
37-1959).
HYDROGEOLOGIC Qualitative Simple Complex 5
COMPLEXITY
The hyudrogeologic complexity of the site in relation to local and
near-Regional hydrogeology, the simpler and more predictable, the
better.
SUITABILITY FOR Qualitative Easy Difficult 2
CONTROL OF THE
WATER TABLE
The degree to which the water table beneath the burial zone can be
controlled by dewatering or other engineering techniques; the easier
it can be controlled, the better. This factor is possibly of
marginal interest in Region IX because of the potential for finding
sites with deep water tables.
MONITORABILITY Qualitative Easy Difficult 3
The degree to which contaminants migrating from the site can
effectively be monitored; the easier they can be monitored, the
better.
-------
85
REMEDIABILITY Qualitative Easy Difficult 3
The degree to which hydrologic and civil engineering manipulative
actions can effectively correct the failure of, or ameleorate the
threat to, the contaminant affected by the site; the easier the
corrective manipulation actions, the better. Examples of remedial
actions might include installing additional berms to divert
unexpectedly large snow-melt runoff or installing a series of
dewatering wells to lower a water table that was threatening to rise
into the burial zone during an abnormally wet season.
HYDRAULIC
GRADIENT Feet/mile 10 100 4
The gradient of the water table from the site down gradient along the
travel path(s) which contaminants from the site would migrate. The
use of engineered systems, linens, and/or leachate collection systems
may alter this evaluation to provide a higher relative rating.
-------
86
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL SCREENING FACTORS
1. Endangered Species
PL 93-205 requires all Federal departments and agencies to insure that
actions authorized, funded or carried out by them do not significantly
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species.
Fish and their habitat including species of fresh or salt water
fishes, crustaceans, and mollusks.
Wildlife and their critical habitats including nondomesticated
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and certain groups of
insects living in their natural environment. Cautionary note:
critical habitat for most species have not yet been determined so all
habitat may be judged critical until more precise determinations
have been made.
Plants and their habitat including grasses and vascular plants
living in their natural environment. Natural units of classification
of dominant species associations and communities are identifiable
with the various climatic zones in the Western States.
2. Designated Areas of Biological Interest
An active program exists for the preservation by formal classification of
areas of unique biological interest, scientific values or educational
opportunity and for other purposes. These areas may or may not be included
in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. This factor is concerned
not only with those areas in which values have been identified and
designated, but with the potential for future designation as well.
a. Research Natural Areas (many agencies, universities, etc., have
similar programs currently coordinated in California through the
California Natural Areas Coordinating Council).
b. Botanical Areas (including areas of ecological interest).
c. Zoological Areas.
d. Wildlife Refuge.
3. Wild free-roaming Horses and Burros
PL 92-195 establishes wild free-roaming horses and burros as an integral
part of the natural system of the public lands and directs that all
management activities shall be conducted so as to achieve and maintain a
thriving natural ecological balance on these lands regarding wild horses or
burros territory and their vital habitat.
-------
87
4. Vital Habitat for Fish and Wildlife
For a wildlife species to survive and thrive, habitat needs for all stages
of its life cycle must be met. Some stages often have extremely critical
requirements, while others are much less sensitive to habitat conditions.
The welfare of the species can, in part, be accommodated by focusing
management attention on those stages most critical and assuring that required
habitat conditions are met. Since both critical life cycle stages and the
characteristics of required habitat vary from species to species, an all-
inclusive checklist of critical requirements cannot be made. Vital habitat
elements for some of the many species are presented but the list is intended
to be suggestive only.
a. Migration routes.
b. Wintering areas.
c. Water sources in areas of limited supply.
d. Spawning areas.
e. Nesting and fledging habitat.
f. Calving, fawning, kidding, etc., areas.
g. Breeding areas.
h. Competition pressures.
-------
CHAPTER 7
GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
WORK ELEMENT FOR THE WFRC TASK FORCE FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT:
DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR OPERATIONS AND
MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
SITES.
SUB-COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
Len Lanni, Program Manager
Environmental and Safety Program
San Francisco Operations Office
Energy Research and Development Office
Oakland, CA 94612
-------
89
CHAPTER 7
GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Work Element for WFRC Task Force for Hazardous Materials Management;
Develop guidelines for operations and management of hazardous
waste disposal sites.
Sub-committee Chairman:
Mr. Len Lanni, Program Manager
Environmental and Safety Program
San Francisco Operations Office
Energy Research and Development Administration
Oakland, CA 94612
Sub-committee membership:
Dr. David Storm, Research Chemist
Hazardous Waste Management Program
Vector Control Section
Environmental Services Branch
California Department of Health,
Berkeley, CA 94704
Robert C. Scott, Hydrologist and
Acting Chief, Nevada Branch,
Water Division, Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, San Francisco, CA 941.11
Don Elliott, Engineer,
Western Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, U.S. Navy,
San Bruno, CA 94066
Willis L. Burnham, Staff Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.D.I.,
Menlo Park, CA 94025
F.C. Suhrer, Chemical Engineer
Solid & Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Program, Hazardous
Materials Branch, Air & Haz-
ardous Materials Division,
Region IX, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, San Fran-
cisco, CA 94111
Terry Young, Chemist,
Water Supply Task Force,
Water Division, Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, San Francisco, 94111
Walter S. Weaver, Sanitary
Engineer, California Region
U.S. Forest Service, U.S.D.A.,
San Francisco, CA 94111
Art Toy, Environmentalist,
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Livermore, CA
-------
90
The sub-committee charged with development of
guidelines for operations and management of hazardous
waste disposal sites was formed in August, 1974, and
the first sub-committee meeting was held September
12, 1974. Additional meetings were held at about
monthly intervals to review progress on assigned
tasks.
The sub-committee discussed the concerns of
management of hazardous waste at disposal sites and
included the following as major subjects:
establishing areas requiring research and
development, identifying operation and post-opration
site monitoring needs to assure safety of public,
identifying permanent disposal versus interim storage
(for retreivability), operator certification (by
whom?), ascertaining hazardous waste disposal
capabilities and requirements of those States in
Region IX, establishing needs for operational safety
and security for site, people, and environment
protection, and development of criteria which would
be suitable for new sites or modifying old sites
(i.e., modifying existing "Class I" sites in
California). Other concerns and developments that
arose during the sub-committee deliberations dealt
with conflicts with any mineral resource area (i.e.,
geotherman), joint use of the site either present or
future (i.e., rad or non-rad, O.K. as radio beacon
station but not as mobile home site, etc.), site
ownership (Federal, State, Private?), and temporary
storage and processing for disposal. Still another
major area of concern and discussion involved the
wastes themselves: should some wastes be excluded
from the site where alternate use or other
environmentally safe disposal method exists, where
further off-site processing is suggested or
available, volume reduction, containerization, where
wastes are not compatible with site regime, etc.
Discussions in the above areas led to the topics
which the sub-committee felt should be covered in its
report, to an outline of proposed guidelines, and
specific areas for preparation of written segments of
the report and assignment of these to individuals.
These topics became the major headings or sections of
the final report of the sub-committee and are shown
in the table of contents which follows.
-------
91
The purpose of the sub-committee was to provide
substantive recommendations for guidance of whatever
entity might be charged with the responsibility for
design of operation and management procedures. It
was the consensus of the sub-committee members that
the format of the guidance documents should conform
to the outline of existing guidelines such that it
could be readily convertible to Federally published
standards with minimum alteration, new operation
manuals for individual agencies, or inclusion or
reference in revision of existing operation
instructions.
(Editor's Note; Following enactment of Public
Law 94-580, October 21, 1977 by the Congress, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be
preparing regulations and guidelines in the general
area covered by this report.)
-------
92
GUIDELINES FOR THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
CONTENTS
Part A. General Provisions
7.100 Scope
7.101 Definitions
Part B. Requirements and Recommended Procedures
7.200 Hazardous Wastes accepted
7.201 Hazardous Wastes excluded
7.202 Site selection
7.203 Site design
7.204 Water quality
7.205 Air quality
7.206 Gas control
7.207 Vector control and wildlife protection
7.208 Aesthetics
7.209 Cover material
7.210 Safety
7.211 General operations
7.212 Records
7.213 Monitoring and surveillance
7.214 Quality-assurance program
Appendix--recommended bi bliography
-------
93
Part A-General Provision
.100 Scope
(a) These guidelines* are generally applicable
to the disposal of hazardous waste materials.
However, these guidelines do not apply to Class A
explosives or radioactive materials (except for low
specific activity radioactivity) as defined in the
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 (Refs. 1,2).
(b) These guidelines are only advisory for
Federal agencies (not "regulations"1. In addition,
they are recommended to state, interstate, regional,
and local government agencies for use in their
activities (3).
(c) These guidelines are intended to provide for
environmentally acceptable disposal site operations.
*The term "guidelines",as used herein is not to
be construed in the sense of a "regulation," but is
used to denote a "criteria", "recommendation" or
"advice". These guidelines are presented in a format
such that a government agency can easily convert them
to regulations.
(1) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Chapter I,
Part 173, Subpart B, "Explosives Definitions and
Preparations."
(2) Code of Federal Regulation, Title 49, Chapter I,
Part 173, Subpart G, "Radioactive Materials,
Definitions."
(3) Editor's Note; Since this guidance document has
been written, Public Law 94-580, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act was passed by the
Congress, October 21, 1976 and signed by the
President. "Sub-title C" of this act provides
for the establishment of a hazardous waste
management program with regulations to be
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by April 21, 1978. Any recommendations in
this report should be compared to those
forthcoming from the latter action.)
-------
94
The guidelines do not establish new standards but set
forth requirements and recommended procedures to
ensure that the design, construction, and operation
of both existing and future hazardous-waste disposal
sites meet the health and environmental standards for
the area in which they are located. The guidelines
are intended to apply equally to all hazardous waste
generated by Federal agencies. Determination of
compliance to meet the requirements of these
guidelines rests with the regulatory/licensing
agencies.
(d) The requirement sections contained herein
delineate minimum levels of performance required of
any hazardous disposal site operation. The
recommended procedures sections are presented to
suggest preferred methods by which the objective of
the requirements can be realized. If techniques
other than the recommended procedures are used, it is
the obligation of the operator of the proposed
facility to demonstrate to the licensing/regulatory
agencies fin advance by means of engineering
calculations and data) that the techniques to be used
will satisfy the requirements.
(e) The hazardous-waste disposal site should
represent the ultimate in operational and
environmental safety. Only pre-engineered processes
and facilities should be utilized and these should be
described in a "site operation manual". Some
parameters of a well engineered operation are as
follows: Ideally, bulk liquid wastes should be
treated or converted to its least hazardous, or most
inoxious, form before final disposal unless such
wastes are applied directly to earth, or into a
lagoon, as part of specially designed treatment
regimen, i.e. , the "soil farming" of petroleum wastes
or lagooning for physical, chemical or biological
treatment. Great caution should be exercised to
avoid mixing incompatible types of wastes either
directly or into the same disposal pits or trenches
(even if containered). Pre-treatment to a less
noxious state reduces the potential for contamination
of air and ground water and for later incidents of
-------
95
explosion, gaseous emissions, and unsafe exposure.
Even containers rupture through corrosion. Disposal
of containered waste should be minimized and
considered a last-resort or a cost-effective solution
for liquid wastes which are small in quantity and
extremely hazardous, but stable in form. Unstable
type wastes, those which become explosive, gaseous,
or highly soluble when subjected to later oxidation
upon exposure to air, hydrolize when exposed to
moisture or may react violently when exposed to other
wastes, should be rendered as inert as possible
before disposal. All waste, whether containered or
not, such as sludges, solids, concentrates, or other
residues from pre-treatment processes, and are not to
be stored for salvage in the near future, shall be
disposed of by engineered burial utilizing a
"grid-system" of location identification with records
which are recorded with the local county Clerk. This
latter procedure is necessary to assure compatibility
of wastes, provide for inspections, provide for
future recovery and reclamation, and make for orderly
operation of the site.
(f) Disposal sites may be required to maintain
temporary storage facilities, processing facilities,
long-term storage facilities and disposal facilities
of several types, including incineration depending
upon the types and quantities of waste received.
Intermediate-term storage for purposes of eventual
reclamation of wastes will be allowed as an
operator's option.
101 Definitions.
As used in these guidelines:
(a) "Cell" means compacted solid or hazardous
wastes that are enclosed by natural soil or cover
material in a disposal site.
(b) "Cover material" means soil or other
suitable material that is used to cover solid or
hazardous wastes in a disposal site.
(c) "Disposal" means to abandon, deposit, or
otherwise discard waste as a final action after its
use has been achieved or a use is no longer intended.
-------
96
(d) "Engineered burial" means the systematic
burial and daily cover of wastes in trenches, pits,
or vaults designed by qualified engineering
personnel. The trenches, pits, or vaults may include
but are not limited to impermeable liners, access
ramps, proper sloping, leachate collection
facilities, and final cover with properly sloped,
impermeable soil.
(e) "Groundwater" means water present in a
saturated zone beneath the land surface.
(f) "Hazardous waste" means any waste materials
or mixture of wastes that is toxic, pathogenic,
corrosive, flammable, an irritant, a strong
sensitizer, or which generates pressure through
decomposition, heat, or other means. In addition,
these wastes or mixtures of wastes can cause
substantial personal injury, serious illness or harm
to man or wildlife, suring or as a proximate result
of any disposal of such waste or mixture of wastes.
The terms "toxic," "corrosive," "flammable,"
"irritant," and "strong sensitizer" shall be given
the same meaning as in the Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 16, Chapter II.
(g) "Holding" means short-term storage of
hazardous wastes.
(h) "Incompatible wastes" means any two or more
wastes that, when combined or mixed in an
uncontrolled manner, can cause or create the
potential to cause explosions, violent chemical
reactions, fires, extreme heat, toxic substance
formation, hazardous waste discharge, or any other
event that may endanger the public health or
environment.
(i) "Intermediate cover" means cover material
that must resist erosion for an indeterminate period
of time, pending terminal use and final disposition
of the site.
(j) "Intermediate-term storage" means storage of
wastes in physicall retrievable form for future
recovery.
-------
97
(k) "Leachate" means liquid that has percolated
through or from solid or hazardous waste and has
extracted dissolved or suspended materials from it.
(1) "Licensing/regulatory agencies" means the
organization elements that have the legal duty to
ensure that operators or users of disposal sites
comply with these guidelines.
(m) "Long-term storage" means storage and
control of wastes that are too hazardous to release
to the environment via known disposal technology,
e.g., wastes that might return to the biosphere
before a degradation process is completed. Such
long-term storage shouldbe prepared in an engineered
physically retrievable form for future treatment for
recovery or burial.
(n) "Municipal solid wastes" means normal
residential and commercial solid waste generated
within a community. This solid waste is composed of
garbage, refuse, sludges, and other discarded solid
materials resulting from industrial and commercial
operations and from community activities.
(o) "Processing" means to tret, detoxify,
neutralize, incinerate, bio-degrade, or otherwise
process a hazardous waste to remove its harmful
properties or characteristics for disposal.
(p) "Residue" means all materials that remain
after completion of any pretreatment.
(q) "Runoff" means the portion of precipitation
and/or applied water that drains from an area as
surface flow.
(r) "Sanitary landfill" means a disposal site
employing an engineered method of disposing of solid
wastes in a manner that minimizes environmental
hazards by spreading the solid wastes in thin layers,
compacting the solid wastes to the smallest practical
volume, and applying and compacting cover material at
the end of each operating day.
-------
98
(s) "Short-term storage" means the temporary
storage of wastes only until disposal or processing
operations can be applied.
(t) "Sludge" means the accumulated semiliquid
suspension of settled solids deposited from
wastewaters or other fluids in tanks or basins. It
does not include solids or dissolved material in
domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in
water resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended
solids in industrial wastewater effluents, dissolved
materials in irrigation return flows or other common
water pollutants.
(u) "Vector" means a carrier that is capable of
transmitting a waste from one organism to another, or
away from the disposal site.
(v) "Water table" means the upper surface of a
body of groundwater.
-------
99
Part B-Requirements and Recommended Procedures
.200 Hazardous waste accepted.
.200-1 Requirement.
The site shall be designed and equipped to
identify, accept, process, detoxify, store, and
dispose of most hazardous materials. It shall be
capable of accepting waste materials, which if
handled at an inferior facility could result in
severe hazard to human health and the environment.
The site shall be capable of long-term engineered
storage so that it can accept materials which cannot
be safely disposed of to the earth and for which
satisfactory treatment exists.
.200-2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Equipment and facilities at the disposal site
should be designed to ensure safe and convenient
acceptance and inspection of hazardous wastes at the
site.
.200-3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
(a) Special techniques of certifying the
character of waste, segregating it into classes for
handling, and moving it to processing, storage, or
disposal sites should be used.
(b) Procedures for handling especially bulky
wastes, or wastes in unusual volume or state should
be made a part of standard operating plans.
(c) There should be stringent waste
identification requirements in any acceptance plan.
All detailed analysis or characterization is the
responsibility of the site user. All potential site
users should notify the site prior to the delivery of
any new waste to the site.
(d) The site operator should evaluate each new
waste to be disposed at the site. A written
storage/disposal plan should be prepared for each new
waste prior to its acceptance at the site.
-------
100
(e) A blanket permit may be granted for up to
one year for disposal of recurring waste items as
long as the waste characteristics remain the same as
described in the original application. Recurring
waste, for which a waste permit is in effect, may be
accepted upon 24 hours' notice to the site operator.
The permit and disposal plan for a recurring waste
should be renewed at least once every 12 months.
(f) Each incoming waste load should be inspected
upon delivery to the sige to ensure proper
identification and characterization.
(g) At least one person on the site operations
staff should be involved full time in accepting,
inspecting, and sampling incoming waste loads.
(h) An analytical laboratory for screening and
inspecting should be operated on the site.
(i) All materials arriving at site shall be in
approved containers or tanks and labelled as required
in regulations of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
.201 Hazardous wastes excluded.
.201-1 Requirement
(a) The licensing/regulatory agencies and the
site owner/operator shall jointly determine specific
hazardous wastes to be excluded, shall identify them
in the plans, and shall display a description of
excluded wastes to the users and the operating
personnel.
(b) Hazardous wastes may be excluded at the
operator's discretion if:
(1) The waste is too hazardous for release to
the environment by disposal or possible escape from
storage or transports, and full or partial
detoxification technology exists.
(2) Conversion is necessary to render the wastes
suitable for storage or disposal and is not available
at the site.
(3) The waste is incompatible with site
restrictions or a more suitable hazardous waste site
is reasonably proximate.
-------
101
(c) Appeals to such discretionary decisions can
be made to the licensing/regulatory agencies, which
may then require the acceptance of the waste for
disposal.
.201-2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Provision should be made for the continuing
assessment and evaluation of both the site and new or
changing waste types to derive recommendations for
acceptance or rejection by the licensing/regulatory
agencies.
.201-3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
All users of the site should be provided with
up-to-date lists of excluded wastes. These lists
should be prominently displayed at the entrance to
the site. Exclusion rules should be rigorously
enforced for all users.
.202 Site selection
.202-1 Requirement.
Site selection and use shall be consistent with
public health and welfare, air- and water-quality
standards, and appropriate land-use plans. The
selected site shall have the maximum capability to
isolate wastes from the environment with potential
for observation, control and monitoring the wastes
and their by-products or effluents in perpetuity.
.202-2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Not applicable.
-------
102
.202-3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
"Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Site Screening/Selection
Guidelines," developed by the Hazardous Materials Management Task Force,
Western Federal Regional Council should be the preferred site-selection
tool so as to ensure that-,environmental, political, and sociological
tradeoffs are addressed. '
.203 Site Design.
.203-1 Requirement.
(a) Plans for the design, construction, and operation of new sites or
modifications to existing sites shall be prepared and approved by a registered
professional engineer and shall be submitted to the licensing/regulatory
agencies for review and approval prior to any operation. The design shall
maximize the isolation of wastes and all processing and operations from
the ground- and surface-water resources, from the public, and from wildlife.
(b) The design shall include all facilities necessary to ensure safe
and environmentally acceptable operation of the site.
(c) The site's operational design shall maximize the capacity of the
area to accept wastes.
(d) An environmental assessment shall be prepared for the licensing/
regulatory agencies before the plan and design of the site is completed.
.203—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
(a) The design should be based on a thorough survey of the types
and volumes of hazardous wastes to be handled.
(b) The design should fully recognize the requirements for segregation
of incompatible wastes, the need for separate facilities for processing,
conversion, temporary storage, and disposal of wastes, and for the long-term
monitoring of the waste and site effluents.
(c) Site development plans should include the various design factors
addressed elsewhere, as well as:
(1) Hazardous Materials Management Task Force, Western Federal Regional
Council, "Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Site Screening/Selection
Guidelines." (See Chapter 6 of this report.)
-------
103
(1) Initial and final topographies at contour intervals of 1 foot or
less.
(2) Land use and zoning within 10 miles of the site boundary, including location
of all residences, buildings, wells, water courses, mining operations,
roads, soil or rock borings, and water-supply utilities.
Location of all other utilities should be known within 500 feet of the
site boundary.
(3) Employee convenience and equipment maintenance facilities.
(4) Determination of soil excavation and compaction characteristics.
(5) Plans for construction, land removal and replacement, and building
placement.
(6) Plans for cutoff walls, impermeable barriers, and berms to
isolate or contain wastes. Also, plans for drainage ditches and diversion
structures to control runoff, spills, seepage, effluent from washdown areas,
and leakage from repackaging and processing areas.
(7) Plans for design and operation of areas for short-term storage of
wastes.
(8) Plans for retrievability of wastes that can be converted or
otherwise processed after storage.
(9) Areal extent of soil types, faults, and active and potential
landslip areas.
(10) Local wind patterns.
(11) Plans for segregation of wastes into compatible groups based on
recoverability (e.g., heavy metals, etc.) and chemical reaction prevention, etc.
(12) Plans for final grading and cleanup so as to close the site and
maintain it under surveillance.
(13) Intended points of entrance and exit.
(14) Interior roads and ramps with traffic flow patterns.
.203-3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
Not applicable.
-------
104
.204 Water quality.
.204-1 Requirement.
The location, design, construction, and operation of the site
for hazardous waste conversion, storage, or disposal shall ensure reasonable
nondegradation of water quality. If standards for particular facets of
water quality exist, the site shall conform to the most stringent of
applicable water-quality standards established in accordance with or
effective under the provisions of the amended Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, T) the Safe Drinking Water Act,^' or other applicable more stringent
standards.
.204—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
(a) The general criteria established by the California State Water
Resources Control Board for Class I sites are recommended as criteria in
selection and design of the site with regard to protection of water
quality.(3)
(b) In addition, the following topics should be addressed:
(1) Detailed determination of the groundwater and surfacewater
occurrence, natural water quality, and flow regimens within the site and
at least 1 mile beyond the site boundary.
(2) An inventory of all water uses within the potential area of
influence of the site, with projections of future potential uses.
(3) Sufficient determination of the regional groundwater and surfacewater
systems so that the effect of future land use in the immediate vicinity
can be projected in terms of site impact.
(4) Groundwater elevation and movement and the proposed separation
between the water table and any wastes in whatever mode of storage or
disposal.
(5) A thorough inventory of historical records and sources of information
on the local aquifers and surfacewaters to permit identification of
possible long-term hydrologic changes that may influence site design
and management.
(6) Description of the soil and geologic materials to a depth adequate
to allow evaluation of the water-quality protection provided by the soil
and geologic materials.
(1) PL 92-500 "Federal Water Pollution Control Act." (U.S. Code, Title 33,
Sec 1151, et. seq.)
(2) PL 93-523 "Safe Drinking Water Act."
(3) Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15, California Administrative Code,
"Waste Disposal to Land."
-------
105
(7) An evaluation of potential leachate and effluent generation, and
the proposed control system for excluding it from the hydrologic environment.
(8) A detailed analysis of the background quality of water resources
in the potential zone of influence of the site. The analysis should
include (but not be limited to) measurements of: pH; hardness; BOD; COD; the
ionic, molecular, and/or atomic composition of suspended and dissolved
material at trace levels; and the types and concentration of organisms
which may be present. The background quality should be monitored for at least
one year prior to operations.
(9) The intended water-quality monitoring program, which must include
monitoring provisions during operation of the site and afterwards until
the site is no longer a credible threat to water quality.
.204—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
(a) Surfacewater courses and runoff should be completely controlled
within the site so as to exclude all surfacewater inflow to the site,
to prevent infiltration to the greatest extent possible, and to channel
runoff from the site to treatment facilities or to other approved disposal
facilities. Site construction and grading should be such as to avoid
ponding or flooding and to avoid erosion. All effluent or surface runoff from
the site should be collected and treated to assure no discharge of
hazardous materials from the site. Hazardous wastes and leachates should
be continuously monitored to prevent contact with groundwater and surfacewater
resources.
(b) The site operator should be aware of the bases for all design
features and operating procedures so that any unforeseen circumstances
which can affect water quality may be properly evaluated.
(c) An analytical laboratory should be available for doing
routine water-quality analyses including, but not limited to, trace
elements, organic and inorganic compounds, and indicator or pathogenic
organisms.
.205 Air quality.
.205—1 Requirement.
(a) The site design, facilities, and operation shall be planned to
minimize the discharge of dangerous levels of airborne hazardous materials
into the working environment of the site or the surrounding area.
-------
106
(b) If standards for particular facets of air quality exist, the
design, construction, and operation of the facility shall conform to
applicable ambient air-quality standards and source-control regulations
established under the authority of the Clean Air Act,(u as amended, or state
or local standards effective under that Act, or other applicable, more
stringent standards.
.205—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
(a) The site should be equipped with or have available,
state-of-the-art equipment for collecting, measuring, and analyzing the
airborne emissions of materials.
(b) All unit operations at the site should be equipped to adequately
prevent the discharge of dangerous levels of airborne hazardous materials.
(c) The monitoring plan should also include periodic on-site and off-site
sampling and analysis of soils and flora in order to detect the accumulation
of deposited hazardous substances that may have been discharged through the air
(d) A detailed study of the meteorology of the site and its environs
should be performed in order to: determine the frequency and extent of
unfavorable and extreme weather; locate specific operational features
within the site; guide the planning of a monitoring program; and determine
preoperational ambient air quality.
.205—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
(a) Dust-control measures should be initiated as necessary to protect
the health and safety of facility personnel and nearby populations.
(b) A comprehensive air-quality monitoring program should be designed
to cover the period of operation of the site and until such a time that
the site is no longer a credible threat to air quality.
. 206 Gas_jnntroJL
.206—1 Requirement.
Vapors and decomposition gases generated within the disposal site
shall be controlled on site, as necessary, to avoid posing a hazard to
occupants of adjacent property.
(1) PL-604 "Clean Air Act" (U. S. Code, Title 42, Sec 1857, et. seq.)
-------
107
.206—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Plans should assess the need for vapor and gas control and indicate the location
and design of any vents, barriers, or other control measures to be
provided.
.206—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
Vapors and decomposition gases should not be allowed to migrate
laterally from the disposal site to endanger occupants of adjacent properties.
They should be vented to the atmosphere directly through the cover material,
cutoff trenches, or ventilation systems in such a way that they do not
accumulate in explosive or toxic concentrations, especially within
structures.
.207 Vector control and wildlife protection
.207—1 Requirement.
Conditions shall be maintained that discourage the incursion, harboring,
feeding, and breeding of vectors.
.207—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Plans should include contingency programs for vector control and wildlife
protection and the operator should be prepared at all times to implement those
procedures.
.207—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
Vector control or wildlife protection contingency programs should be
implemented when necessary.
.208 Aesthetics^
.208-1 Requirement.
(a) The disposal site shall be designed and operated at all times
in an aesthetically acceptable manner.
(b) The disposal-site operator shall maintain a continuing program
to ensure orderly and systematic operation of the site so as not to
create odors and other public nuisances to neighboring communities, residents,
or other persons frequenting the area.
-------
108
(c) Programs shall be implemented to cover the handling, returning,
and disposing of emptied containers.
(d) Operational noise will be minimized.
(e) An effective litter-control program shall be included.
.208—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Not applicable.
.208—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
Not applicable.
.209 Cover material.
.209—1 Requirement.
Cover material shall be applied as necessary to minimize resuspension of
soil or wastes, fire hazards, infiltration of precipitation, odors, and blowing
litter; control gas venting and vectors; and shall be compatible with the
surrounding natural environment.
.209—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Plans should specify:
(a) Cover material sources and soil classifications.
(b) Surface grades and side slopes needed to minimize infiltration and
to promote maximum runoff without excessive erosion.
(c) Procedures to promote vegetative growth as promptly as possible
to combat erosion and improve appearance of idle and completed areas.
(d) Procedures to maintain cover material integrity, e.g., regarding
recovering.
.209—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
(a) Intermediate cover should be applied on areas where additional
cells are not to be constructed for extended periods of time; normally,
one day to one year.
(b) Final cover should be applied on each area as it is completed
or if the area is to remain idle for over one year.
-------
109
.210 Safety^
.210—1 Requirement.
OSHA^ 'and health and safety working orders of state and
local governments shall be observed as they relate to the general working
environment; design, operation, and maintenance of equipment; and the
handling of hazardous substances. A vigorous and continuing accident-
prevention and safety program shall be instituted at the site.
.210—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Adequate design, facilities, and equipment should be available to
ensure the safe handling of hazardous wastes and to respond to
emergencies that may arise. Storage areas should be designated as high-
security areas. All temporary storage should be protected from contamination,
degradation, and loss.
.210—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
In preparation of the general operating plans of the site, safety
precaution and contingency procedures should be detailed. Site
personnel should know the characteristics of hazardous
wastes. They should be thoroughly trained for the proper operation and use of
equipment and safety gear, and on proper accident-prevention and emergency
procedures. They should be thoroughly familiar with chemical hazards.
.211 General operations.
.211—1 Requirements.
General operations shall be coordinated to assure that they are
compatibile with the physical characteristics of the site
and provide for the health and safety of operating personnel.
(1) PL 91-596 "Occupational Safety and Health Act." (U. S. Code, Title 29,
Sec. 651, et. seq.)
-------
110
.211—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
(a) A plan should be prepared that details all operations at the site.
It should include:
(1) Description of sequence of operations.
(2) Evaluation of waste compatibility.
(3) Periodic maintenance schedule.
(4) Emergency plans.
(5) A medical monitoring program.
(6) A safety program.
(b) The operational plan should not be confused with the planning and
design stages, which details the specific components of the site. The
plan should be kept current and contain information relating to site
operation.
(c) The operational plan should include a flow scheme indicating how
various wastes are processed, reclaimed, or disposed of, and should also
include the proposed development stages of processing systems or waste-disposal areas
.211—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
(a) Operational details that should be included in the plan are:
(1) Acceptance and analysis- of wastes.
(2) Monitoring of air and groundwater.
(3) Safety and emergency procedures.
(4) Transportation of wastes within site.
(5) Unloading of wastes.
(6) Holding and storage of waste.
(7) Processing of waste.
(8) Disposal of waste.
(9) Equipment maintenance.
(10) Personnel qualifications.
(11) Record keeping.
(12) Site security.
(b) The operational plan should be reviewed periodically by the operator
and the licensing/regulatory agencies to ensure its adequacy.
.212 Records.
.212—1 Requirement.
The owner/operator of the disposal site shall maintain and
provide records and monitoring data to the licensing/ regulatory
'
-------
Ill
.212—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
(a) Plans should prescribe methods to be used in maintaining records
which document the operations of the disposal site. Information on
recording and monitoring requirements should be obtained from the
licensing/regulatory agencies.
.212—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
(a) Records should be maintained covering at least the following:
(1) Major operational problems, complaints, or difficulties.
(2) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the environmental
impact of the disposal site, with regard to the effectiveness of gas and
leachate control, including results of: (i) leachate sampling and analyses;
(ii) gas sampling and analyses; (iii) groundwater- and surfacewater-quality
sampling and analyses upstream and downstream from the site.
(3) Vector control and wildlife protection efforts.
(4) Dust- and litter-control efforts.
(5) Inventory of waste identification and location for all wastes
on the site (in perpetuity).
(6) Major site operations, especially with respect to their effects
on the soil profile, topography, etc.
(7) Local meteorological data for a period of 10 years. These data
should include, but not be limited to, records of precipitation,
wind speed and direction, average daily temperature, and relative
humidity.
(8) Personnel health records.
.213 Monitoring and surveillance.
.213—1 Requirements.
Plans shall detail methods for detecting discharge of hazardous
materials from the site (in perpetuity), hazardous operations, hazardous
designs in the site, and creation of aesthetically unpleasing situations.
The licensing/regulatory agencies shall participate in monitoring and surveillance
activities.
.213—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
Not applicable.
.213—3 Recommended procedures.
Operation.
Not applicable.
-------
112
.214 Quality-assurance program.
.214-1 Requirement.
A quality-assurance plan shall be written to cover all structures, systems,
components, and operations whose proper function is necessary to prevent
uncontrolled release of hazardous materials to the environment.
.214—2 Recommended procedures:
Design.
The foremost objective of the quality-assurance program should be to
assure that the site operator's procedures offer maximum protection to the
environment, all commensurate with the scope, complexity, and duration
of the task being undertaken.
.214—3 Recommended procedures:
Operations.
(a) As a minimum, the plan should include the following key elements:
a definite assignment of organizational responsibility for quality; a means
of specifying the level of quality required for the job; the procedures
for implementing the quality-assurance program; and an independent system
for verifying compliance with and adequacy of quality requirements.
(b) Consideration should also be given to inclusion of the following
elements in establishing a quality-assurance program:
(1) Indoctrination, training, and qualification of personnel.
(2) Document review and approval.
(3) Document release and change control.
(4) Control of interim storage and final burial of waste materials.
(5) Inspection, examination, and testing of waste materials when delivered
to the site.
(6) Measuring- and test-equipment calibration and control.
(7) Lifting, handling, storage, and shipping control.
(8) Nonconformance reporting and analysis.
(9) Corrective-action control.
(10) Process and equipment qualification.
(11) Operations control.
(12) Records collection, storage, and maintenance.
(13) An internal audit system to assure that actions of the plan are
properly implemented and that the plan is updated when necessary.
-------
113
Appendix-Recommended Bibliography
1. Banta, J., et al. Sanitary landfill; manual of engineering practices,
No. 39, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1959.
2. Black, C. A., D. D. Evans, J. L. White, L. E. Ensminger, F. E. Clark,
and R. C. Dinauer, EDS. Methods of soil analysis, Pt. 1. Physical and
mineralogical properties, including statistics of measurement and
sampling. Madison, Wis., American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965.
3. Brashares, W. C., and R. M. Golden. Occupational Safety and
Health Act. Special bulletin. Washington, National Solid Wastes Management
Association, 1972.
4. Brunner, D. R. and D. J. Keller, Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation,
Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972, 59 p.
5. Ottinger, R. S. et al, Recommended Methods of Reduction,
Neutralization, Recovery or Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, U.S. EPA,
16 Vol, NTIS, U. S. Dept. Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia, 22161.
6. Zausner, E. R. An accounting system for sanitary landfill
operations. Public Health Service Publication No. 2007. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1969. 18 p.
7. Federal Environment Pesticides Control Act of 1972; Public Law
92-516, 92d Cong., H.R. 10729, Oct. 21, 1972. Washington, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1972.
8. -Guidelines for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities -
California Department of Health, 1973.
9. -Handbook of chemistry and physics. 54th ed., Cleveland, CRC
Press, Inc., 1973.
10. -Hazardous Waste Management, California Department of Health,
1973.
11. - The Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended; Title II of Public Law
89-272, 89th Cong., S. 306, Oct. 20, 1965; Public Law 91-512, 91st Cong.,
H.R. 11833, Oct. 26, 1970. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1971. 14 p. Reprinted 1972.
-------
114
CHAPTER 8
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND RESALE OF EXCESS CHEMICALS . DEVELOPMENT
OF A DATABANK SYSTEM
Work Element for WFRC Task Force for Hazardous Materials Management:
Develop a plan for resource recovery and sale of excess chemicals
and hazardous wastes which may still have value or which could be
converted to materials of value.
This work element wad divided into two streams of action: (a)
resource recovery within the Department of Defense and (b) resource
recovery within the non-military agencies for industrial type chemicals
and hazardous wastes. This division was made because it became apparent
that the two types of agencies operated under differing types of
regulations and utilized two separate supply functions. The work
element was also assigned to two different persons on a volunteer
basis as follows:
(a) For DOD agencies:
Mr. Rolland M. Hamilton, Manager,
Environmental Branch, Western Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
San Bruno CA 94066
(b) For non-military agencies:
LTC John P. Meade, USAF,
Director, Catagorical Programs,
OASD (Health & Environment)
Department of Defense,
Washington DC 20301
The Executive Steering Committee originally requested that the
Regional Representative of the General Services Administration under-
take the portion of this work element for non-military agencies, but
the Regional Office of this agency declined this assignment and
resigned from the Task Force for the stated reason that the agency
has no authorities to accept or dispose of the materials under
consideration and therefore had no interest in participating in actions
of the Task Force.
A way was found to resolve this hiatus, however. About a year
after formation of the Task Force, the General Services Administration
headquarters established "The Interagency Committee on Resource
Recovery (ICORR)" which was charged among its various assignements
to make recommendations on matters of policy, needed programs and
actions, etc., pertaining to resource recovery of discarded materials
-------
115
including hazardous wastes or chemicals. A sub-working group was
formed for the latter materials with LTC John P. Meade designated
as its chariman. It was decided by the Task Force Executive Steering
Committee that utilization for the outputs of the 6SA headquarters
action would best serve the Regional purpose and LTC Meade agreed
to provide the Task Force members information on the actions of his
group. Recommendations of the ICORR are included in this report for
sake of completeness.
A. A Databank System for Recycling, Recovery, and Disposal within
DOD Agencies:
1. Scope.
Hazardous materials may well be a very real part of our national
resources. Even though a material, hazardous or otherwise, may not
be in apparent demand at a particular time by its possessor, at
another time or another place it may be of some economic value. This
portion of the study is particularly concerned with a databank system
for recycling, recovery, and disposal. Lest we investigate the potentials
out of context, let us examine the total problem to provide
a setting, a foundation on which to build.
a. Excess Hazardous materials may result from any of several
actions or sources, including:
(1) Acquisition of more product than was required due to
over-estimating; minimum quantity available for purchase greater than
requirements; or subsequent development or change of plans resulting
in lesser requirement.
(2) A by-product of some activity.
(3) Excessive time "on-shelf".
(4) Materials necessarily held for some contingency, for
which the validity has expired.
b. It is rather obvious that some of these sources may be managed
to reduce quantities of excess hazardous materials, but others are
directly related to mission and work which must be performed. Accord-
ingly , first attention should be directed to minimizing excesses of
hazardous materials wherever feasible.
c. When excess of hazardous materials cannot be avoided, some
series of actions must be determined and followed for "disposal".
Disposal in this sense includes all aspects of use and reuse, recyling,
alternative uses, detoxification, destruction, and long term storage.
-------
116
The economics of disposal must consider the potential
of the material as a valuable asset, perhaps in
relatively limited supply, as well as costs for
detoxification or destruction or storage following
determination that it Is hazardous waste without
identifiable value.
(d) Acceptble priorities for disposal methods
can follow a logical sequence, either by the owner or
someone else.
(1) Reutilization of materials, as is.
(2) Modification or alteration of materials
such that all or part can be used. (Including use as
a fuel to produce energy.)
(3) Store for future use.
(4) Permanent storage, or abandonment.
(5) Destruction.
2. Databank Potential
Desireability of identifying a local use, either
direct or of modified hazardous material, appears
elementary. However, failing to establish a local
use, some attempt to determine "another time, another
place" for reutilization seems logical and
worthwhile. Such procedures have been adopted and
practiced for many years for non-hazardous materials
pre-determined as having a ready market. So we must
conclude that if hazardous excess materials can be
readily marketed then it is feasible to attempt to
recycle or resell these materials. This is
particularly emphasized when the high cost of
destruction or storage is considered.
a. Prior to the summer of 1974, the Department
of Defense established a Defense Property Disposal
Service (DPDS) headquartered in Battle Creek,
Michigan, with a Defense Property Disposal Officer
(DPDO) at many major military activities. Included
in their mission is the responsibility for disposal
of all DOD generated excess, surplus exchange/sale
and other personal property authoried for turn-in
which is salable.
-------
117
(1) To carry out this assignment, DPDS
established a procedure for military activities to
report such salable materials to a local DPDO*- If
local sale exceeds his authority, or a buyer can not
be located, the material is referred ultimately to
the computer databank in Battle Creek for screening
by predetermined priority to locate a user.
Priorities generally include defense activities and
other government agencies, donation to specified
organizations, public sale, and abandonment.
(*Defense Property Disposal Officer)
(2) Materials are identified by numerical
designation, and minimum quantities/values are
prescribed. Material condition is coded, and
location identified.
(b) DPDS mission was modified on August 5, 1974,
to include nonsalable properties (other than refuse
and trash). Property found to have no utilization or
sales value will be disposed of by the DPDO in
landfills, by incinceration, as sewage, or other
authorized means. Accountability will be accepted by
the DPDO and recorded on disposal accounts. Physical
transfer or acceptance in place of the property will
be predicated on local circumstances and the tpes of
property involved. The ability of the DPDO to
physically accept certain property possessing unique
characteristics or required special handling will be
based on his existing resources, i.e., security,
storage, material handling and other equipment,
reclamation and demilitarization capabilities. Where
the DPDO lacks adequate/suitable resources, or the
technical expertise, to properly process property
turned in for disposal, he will arrange for such
support with the local host installation or the
generating activity on a case-by-case basis.
(Reference: DOD 4160.21M, Chapter 4, Page IV-2.
051636 August 1974).
(1) As this new DPDS function is
implemented, the computer screening process is
integrated with the salable items.
-------
118
(2) DPDS has legal and contract authority
to hire consultants to recommend potential users,
including alternations and modifications which may
make the material more usable and salable.
(3) One difficulty encountered relates to
inconsistencies in reporting condition of the
materials, in contrast to the condition of its
container. Funding responsibilities for this
screening is not fully and clearly defined. When a
DPDO accepts "accountability" for screening a
hazardous material, he normally does not have a
capability for physical custody, so particular care
must be taken to assure the material receives
appropriate storage maintenance and does not "get
lost in the system."
3. Limitations:
A workable system for complete screening to exhaust
every potential for recycling and recovery of excess
hazardous materials is currently available for
Department of Defense activities. As experience is
gained by use of the system, effectiveness can be
expected to improve and problems of the databank
resolved.
(a) This system is not available outside the
Department of Defense. Disposal of salable materials
for other than DOD activities is the responsibility
of the General Services Administration (GSA).
4. Recommendation of Sub-Committee for DOD Agencies;
a. Defense activities should continue striving
to improve development of the DPDS screening process
to determine every potential for recycling excess
hazardous materials. Only when a complete "search"
is unfruitful should consideration be given to
abandonment by permanent storage or landfill, or to
destruction (such as by incineration) , and only then
can it be appropriately labeled as "hazardous waste".
-------
119
b. A central, single, databank for
determination of potential recycling for all Federal
agencies has the obvious advantage of avoiding
duplication.
c. A joint effort by DPDS and GSA seems
appropriate, for singleness of purpose. Within their
respective charters, mutual agreement is needed for
responsibility, including funding. If a statutory
change is necessary the problems of disposal of
hazardous materials provides adequate justification
for arequest to the Congress.
B. Recommendations of The Interagency Committee on
Resource Recovery (ICORR);
LTC John P. Meade, Chairman of ICORR, reported the
following recommendation were made by that working
group in a report he made to the Task Force at its
meeting in December, 1975:
"We recognize that new legislation addressing the
hazardous waste disposal problem will be forthcoming
eventually. Based upon this premise, the following
recommendations are offered to ensure that all
hazardous wastes are disposed of in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
1. That the Environmental Protection Agency continue
its efforts to designate items/classes of items
that will require special handling and disposal
consideration.
2. DSA continue to monitor the excess listings for
materials requiring special handling and disposal,
3. All DOD incinerators and land fill operations be
surveyed to determine capabilities, capacities,
and conditions of facilities.
4. A Federal Agency be designated as lead agency to
manage the hazardous waste disposal program.
5. The Interagency Committee on Resource Recovery
(ICORR) evaluate the merits of interagency
disposal proposals vs. continuation of existing
programs of contractor disposal.
-------
120
CHAPTER 9
RETROGRADE CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Work Element for the WRFC Task Force for Hazardous
Materials Management;
Develop a program and institutional arrangements
for the management of retrograde chemicals and exces¥
pesticides arising from the operations of agencies of
the Department of Defense with emphasis on those
materials located/in or destined for Region IX.
This work element was assumed by LTC John P.
Meade, Director for Catagorical Programs, Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Installations and
Logistics, Department of Defense.
In discussions of the Executive Steering
Committee it was soon discovered that the most
pressing problems in Region IX of hazardous waste
management were under the jurisdiction of agencies of
the Department of Defense and these problems seem to
resolve into two categories: (a) retrograde
commercial and industrial type chemicals and
pesticides being returned from the Asian theater of
operations to the Sierra Army Depot (designated as
the collection point by DOD) and (b) large stocks of
DDT (primarily and other pesticides and excess
industrial-type chemicals located at several military
bases in Region IX most of which were carryover
stocks from World War II and other operations at
later dates in the Pacific area. LTC Meade suggested
that the Task Forces, as a matter of first priority,
assist his agency in solving problems related to
these two categories of materials. This suggestion
by LTC Meade was accepted by the Committee.
While the action at the Sierra Army Depot was
local in nature once the materials arrived there, the
scope of the other actions proposed exceeded the
Regional boundary and became national, if not
international, in scope, as far as the DOD was
concerned. The Task Force served more in a
motivating and advisory capacity in the extra
regional action.
-------
121
A. Retrograde Commercial Chemicals at Sierra Army
Depot
The sub-work element for the management of retrograde
commercial chemicals actually began before the
formation of the Task Force, but was incorporated as
a Task Force concern at the request of the Commanding
Officer at the time of the Sierra Army Depot, COL
Skinner E. Anderson, USA. A routine change in
command/in FY 1975 brought COL Robert C. Hawlk, USA,
into the Task Force activities. COL Hawlk continued
the same enthusiastic support in this area that his
predecessor demonstrated.* This is still an ongoing
operation for the Department of Defense and continues
to have the Task Force available for technical
assistance in solving any new problems that arise.
(*Editor's Note; COL John DeGrazia, USA replaced COL
Hawlk as Commanding Office of this depot in 1977.)
In the earlier stages of this operation through a
cooperative effort of several agencies of the Army,
DOD, and EPA, safe procedures for temporary storage
of these materials, procedures for repackaging
materials damaged in containers, and safe handling
procedures were devised.
These procedures were presented at the December,
1975, meeting of the Task Force by COL Hawlk and
illustrated with color slides. He recounted the
actions taken at the Sierra Army Depot and
distributed a "Fact Sheet" giving the essential
details of this opration which is quoted, as follows:
"1. Sierra Army Depot (SIAD) was designated in July
1972 as the receiving point for commercial chemicals
being returned from the Pacific Area. Since this
date, SIAD has received approximately 185 line items
(1,500 tons) of retrograde commercial chemicals.
Action is taken to return usable items which have a
demand, to the Army supply system. All other items
are transferred to local Property Disposal Office
(PDO) for disposition.
-------
122
"2. All commercial chemicals at SIAD have now been
transferred to accountability of PDO except DDT. A
current authorization to screen DDT and transfer it
to PDO is underway. Some repacking of DDT must take
place before the transfer can be accomplished.
"3. During the initial receipt of retrograde
materials in 1972 and 1973 problems were encountered
because of damaged containers being shipped and some
leakage occurring. Also, some containers labeled as
one chemical contained another; e.g., a drum marked
Diazinon contained paint thinner or turpentine.
"4. In 1972 a small quantity of chemicals were buried
in pits on the depot. This material was removed from
the ground in May 1974 and placed in containers or
overpacked with plastic and stored in Conexes placed on an
entrapment lined with impermeable mylar sheets.
Tests were performed by Environmental Hygiene Agency
(EHA) to determine leaching and other pollutants
present. All tests proved negative with no
indication that pollutants had reached the water
supply.
"5. Shipments to date include:
Department of Agriculture, 17,875 gallons Malathion,
June 1975
Edgewood Arsenal, 3,300 gallons Monoethanolamine,
November 1974 and March 1975.
USDID: Ecuador, 64,600 #DDT powder, 17-18 September
1974.
Yemen, 6 drums DDT liquid, October 1974.
Honduras, 32, 680 fDDT powder, 26 December
1974.
Phillipines, 23,750 # powder, 9 January 1975.
Additional shipments under USAID of DDT formulations
should be finalized early FY 1976.
"6. The most recent shipment of commercial chemicals
arrived SIAD 19 November 1975. Containers were in
good condition and overpacked. Our next scheduled
shipment is due at SIAD on or about 24 December 1975
-------
123
and we should receive the remainder (approximately
1,300 tons) from Okinawa by 31 March 1976.
Coordination between Military, Federal, State and
Local agencies was made in September 1975 in
preparation for this movement.
"7. Related Programs:
a. STAD's involvement in handling and disposal
of retrograde commercial chemicals has been closely
coordinated with the ERA at Edgewood Arsenal and the
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch of EPA,
Region IX.
b. SIAD participates as the Army representative
in the Federal Regional Task Force for Hazardous
Material Management, sponsored by the Western FEderal
Regional Council.
Significant in the operation at SIAD was the
development of a technique for temporary storage of
containered chemicals outdoors which has proved to be
both cost-effective and safe. Simply, the technique
consists of construction of earth revetments around
a relatively small storage area, lining the surface
of the area enclosed and the revetments with a
chemically inert, plastic sheet, and then covering
over the plastic sheet with 6 to 12 inches of earth.
Containers are then stacked on pallets within the
area and covered with a double thickness of heavy
tarpaulin, weighed down around the edges with
pallets. Chemicals have been safely stored in the
arid climate of Herlong, California, using this
technique for up to three years now with only a
minimum of routine inspection and maintenance. A
more detailed decription of the technique and
photographs are available from the facility."
B. The POD Problems of Excess Pesticides and Other
Industrial Chemicals^
LTC Meade assumed direction of this portion of this
task, assigning sub-tasks to persons and agencies
within the DOD for completion. The work was
generally sub-divided into the following streams of
action:
-------
124
1. Develop a program of control of hazardous
materials;
2. Conduct a survey of stocks of excess
hazardous materials;
3. Identification of DOD toxic wastes; and
4. Modification of DOD training and
certification program to meet the Federal
Working Group Pest Management Standards.
The first step in the development of a program of
control of hazardous materials was to review all
Department of Defense Pest Control Programs. The
Armed Forces Pest Control Board, under charter of the
Council of Environmental Quality, proceeded to review
all DOD pest control programs for (1) use of
registered pesticides, (2) use of pesticides in
accordance with labeling, (3) where the use is
inconsistent with labeling, then evaluate alternative
pesticides and newer methods of application, and (4)
on minor use pesticides, where the manufacturer could
not or would not register the item for minor use, the
Department of Defense sought to act as its own
registrant, following the EPA procedures, or induced
the manufacturer to seek registration and labeling
adequate to the Department's uses.
The Defense Supply A
-------
125
instructions to be concerned with leachates, sludges,
viruses, and pathogens. The first phase of this
sub-action, of course, is that of identification
which has now been substantially accomplished and
reported on. The next phase will be to develop
control techniques and technology for safe disposal
of these materials and this work is proceeding.
Modification of/the DOD training and
certification program to meet pesticide application
certification requirements as stipulated by the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act/
(FIFRA), as amended, Public Law 92-516, was
coordinated through the Federal Working Group for
Pest Management, a multi-agency group established
under the auspices of the Council on Environmental
Quality. The goals of this group were to incorporate
common elements of agency certification plans into
one unit to insure comparability and consistency of
agency plans, to meet the most stringent of state
standards and those of FIFRA. The Federal Working
Group completed its mission and has since been
dissolved. The Department of Defense Pesticide
Applicator Certification Program developed under this
concerted action has been finalized, submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency and was approved in
December, 1976. The next steps for the Department
now is to submit this plan to the various STate and
Territories for their acceptance so that the
applicators in the Department may be certified in
those areas. This latter action is now in progress.
C. Action on Significant and Special Interest
Hazardous Materials Disposal Problems.
Well over a million pounds of DDT in various
strengths and formulations were stored in Region IX,
most of which were excess materials returned from
overseas following World War II, and the Korean and
Vietnam conflicts. Since the shelf life of some of
these materials had expired or their potentcy
reduced, since there was not a continuing need for
them in military operations, and since their use had
been severely restricted by the Environmental
Protection Agency within the United States, they
constituted a problem for disposal. Incineration
would have created air pollution problems which are
-------
126
not easily solvable. Another alternative was disposal
in a sanitary landfill designated for receipt of
hazardous materials. Obviously the expired, unusable
materials would and >tfe" had this fate. Through
negotiations of the State Department of the U.S. AID
program some of the high strength wettable powders
were transferred to countries in the tropic areas for
mosquito control. Considerable effort went into
arrangements for transfer of the larger portion of
this material to Mexico for similar use, but these
negotiations failed at the diplomatic levels and no
materials were shipped to Mexico. The remaining
usable stocks were then advertised through Defense
Supply Agency procedures for sale for "export or
remanufacture only" (since use in this country is
unlawful except for certain specified uses). As a
result of the latter action most of the concentrated
materials were returned to the manufacture, but the
diluted materials will have to be landfilled or
otherwise destroyed. As a result of these actions
the past stocks are being reduced to quantities
required for stock for overseas military operations.
Another item of interest is a defoliant composed
of a 50-50 misture called "Herbicide Orange" (HO) of
2-4-5T and 2-4-D. During the Vietnam conflict it was
discovered that the stocks on hand contained an
impurity, Dioxin, a purported birth mutant. The use
of the material was immediately ordered stopped and
the materials collected for storage until its
disposal could be arranged. 1,800,000 gallons of HQ_
was stored at Johnston Island in the Pacific and
480,000 gallons at Gulfport, Mississippi. Research
and studies were immediately initiated to find a safe
method to destroy the materials and it was discovered
it could be incinerated safely under special
conditions of temperature and dwell time, but no
commercial scale facilities exist, particularly at
locations land based where air pollution standards
could be met to incincerate the material. Simulated
tests were run on two Dutch incinerator ships to see
if the material could safely be destroyed at sea with
results which were debated at public hearings held by
the EPA in connection with an application by the Air
Force for an ocean dumping permit. In the course of
these hearings it was developed that there was a
possibility of salvaging the herebicide by
reprocessing so as to filter out the offending dioxin.
-------
127
This latter concept was then tested in 1976 in a
pilot plant constructed at Gulfport and proved
successful. It now appears that the reprocessing
alternative will be chosen and the material
reprocessed as soon as details of destruction or
disposal of the charcoal filter material which
remains can be safely resolved (*See Editor's Note
below).
Still another interesting problem situated in
Region IX was large stocks of residual test, and
sometimes exotic, rocket fuels left over from
experimental work on rocket propulsion at Edwards Air
Force Base, California. This problem is on the way
to solution now with the design of a sophisticated
incineration plant, complete with air scrubbing
equipment, to burn the material. Construction is now
underway. A report on this facility was presented to
the Task Force.
Demilitarization of ammunition for the armed
forces will soon be handled by a new and
sophisticated plant being constructed at the Naval
Ammunition Depot at Hawthorne, Nevada. This plant
may have capability to handle hazardous waste other
than ammunition once the backlog of the latter is
worked off. The design of the facility was presented
at one of the Task Force meetings.
Several military facilities had limited hazardous
waste treating facilities even before the Task Force
was formed, i.e., Naval Station, Pearl Harbor;
McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, and others.
These facilities have recently been improved and
expanded. Reports on these were also presented at
Task Force meetings.
(*Editor's Note; The disposal of the Dixin
contaminated charcoal filter material became an
insurmountable problem in that no State would permit
landfilling or incineration. The entire stock of
Herebicide Orange was subsequently incinerated on the
shi, Vulcanus, in special hazardous waste
incinerators at sea in the vicinity of Johnson Island
in the central Pacific Ocean in the summer of 1977.)
-------
128
CHAPTER 10
TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION TRANSFER
Work Element for WRCB Task Force for Hazardous
Materials Management!
Presentation of information at regular meetings
of the Task Force pertaining to environmental laws
and regulations, methology and technology relating to
Hazardous waste management, and changes in local
regulation sin this subject matter area.
The accomplishment of the work element was
assumed by the Executive Steering Committee by
planning for presentations to be made at each of the
meetings of the whole Task Force. Subject matter
chosen for each meeting was on the basis of
availability of speakers and materials which seemed
to be appropriate at the time. A summary of subjects
and speakers is as follows:
August 3 and 4, 1973 Meetings;
"Resume of Federal laws and regulations pertaining to
NPDES, NESHAPS, and Ocean Disposal-Wi11iam
Pierce, Permits Branch, EPA, Region IX.
"New Pesticide Legislation -Dr, Jake MacKenzie,
Pesticide Branch, EPA, Region IX.
"Proposed Hazardous Waste Act of 1973"-Charles T.
Bourns, Solid and Hazardous Branch, EPA, Region IX
February 27 and 28, 1974 Meetings;
"The EPA Program in Hazardous Waste Management"—John
P. Lehman, Director, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, EPA, Washington, D.C.
"The Impact of Executive Order 11752 on Federal Waste
Management Actions"-Irving M. Terzich,
Coordinator Federal Activities, EPA, Region IX.
"Hazardous Waste Management Regulation in the State
of California"-Dr. Harvey Collins, California
Department of Health.
"EPA Guidelines for Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management"-Carl Kohnert, Wolid & Hazardous Waste
Management Branch, EPA, Region IX.
"EPA Recommended Procedures for Pesticide and
Pesticide Container Disposal"-Harry Trask,
Agronomist, Office of Solid Waste Management
-------
129
Programs, EPA, Washington, D.C.
"State of the Art Presentations: Five EPA Contracted
Studies Relating to Hazardous Waste Management:
(1) "A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials,
Hazardous Effects and Disposal Methods"-3
volume report by Booz-Allen Applied
Research, Inc.-Harry Trask, Agronomist,
OSWMP, EPA, Washington, D. C.
(2) "Public Attitudes Toward Hazardous Waste
Disposal Facilities"-report by Human
Resources Organization -Harry Trask,
Agonomist, OSWMP, EPA, Washington, D.C.
(3) "Recommended Methods of Reduction,
Neutralization, Recovery or Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes"-16 volume report by TRW,
Inc.,-summary by Robert S. Ottinger, Ph.D.
(4) "A Program for the Management of Hazardous
Wastes"-2 volume report-Battelle Memorial
Institute, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories-Summary by Ward H. Swift.
(5) "Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous
Wastes at National Disposal Sites"-2 volume
report-Summary by J. T. Funkhouser, Ph.D.
"Toxic Wastes Disposal, Air Force Rocket Propulsion
Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base"-Dou9 Haas,
Chief, Fabrication Branch.
"Storage and Handling of Pesticides and Other
Hazardous Wastes at the Sierra Army Depot"-COL
Skinner E. Anderson, Commanding Officer.
"A New Commercial Venture to Recycle Hazardous
Wastes"-Chemical Buyers Service, Berkeley,
CA.-Dr. Paul Palmer, President.
"A Commercial Service for Conversion and Disposal of
Some Types of Large Volume Hazardous
Wastes"-Victor R. Johnson, President, Pacific
Disposal Company, Martinez, CA.
November 12 and 13, 1974 Meetings;
"NEPA and Procedures for Preparing Environmental
Impact Statements"-LTC John P. Meade, USAF,
Director, Catagorical programs, DOD.
"The EPA Point of View on EIS"-Ed Merra, Regional
Coordinator for EIS, EPA, Region IX.
"EPA 'Package #2" Regulations for Disposal of
Pesticides and Containers"-Harry Trask,
Agronomist, OSWMP, EPA, Washington.
-------
130
"Hazardous Waste Management at the $25 Million Derail
Facility Being Built at NAD, Hawthorne, NV-Bill
Moore, Project Engineer, Civil Design Branch,
NAVFAC, Western Division.
"Deep Well Disposal of Hazardous Wastes"-Robert
Scott, Geologist, EPA Region IX.
"Long Term Storage and Ultimate Disposal of
Radioactive Wastews"-Dr. Alex Page, Deputy
Director, Division of Waste Management and
Transportation, Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington D.C.
"New California Hazardous Waste Regulations"-Dr.
Harvey Collins, California Department of Health.
"Public Land Law and Its Relation to Possible Use of
Public Lands as Sites for Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes"-Stuart Porter, Land Use Specialist,
Bureau of Land Management, California, USDI.
"Proposed Federal Legislation for Hazardous Waste
Management"-John P. Lehman, Director Hazardous
Waste Division, Office of Solid Wastes, EPA,
Washington, D.C.
"Federal Facilities and Compliance with Regulations
for Prevention of Spills of Oil & Hazardous
Materials"-Allyn M. Davis, Chief, Technical
Support Branch, EPA, Region IX.
"Hazardous Waste Management Within the U.S. Army
Hygiene Agency"-LTC Robert G. Grodt, MSC, USA,
Chief, Solid Waste Management, U.S. Army Hygiene
AGency, Aberdeen, Maryland.
December 3 and 4, 1975 Meeting;
"Safety Requirements of Motor Carriers in
Transportation of Hazardous Materials"-Michael D.
Sullivan, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety, Federal highway Administration, San
Francisco.
"An Overview of the Sierra Army Depot Industrial
Chemical Management Program"-COL Robert C. Hawlk,
USA, Commanding Officer, Sierra Army Depot.
"Actions of the DOD Task Force in Hawaii for Hazardous
Waste Management"-CDR John A. Walter, USN,
Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command.
-------
131
"The Small-Batch Plant Approach for Treatment of
Hazardous and Oil Wastes"-CDR John A. Walter,
USN, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command.
"Present Status of Federal Legislation for Hazardous
Waste Managemenf'-Donald B. Mausshardt, Chief,
Implementation Branch, Hazardous Wastes
Management Division, OSWMP, EPA, Washington, D.C.
"Non-Nuclear Waste and Environmental Problems
Management in the ERDA Energy Program"-Donald E.
Reardon, Deputy Manager, San Francisco Operations
Office, ERDA.
"Passivation and Encapsulation of Hazardous Wastes"-
Dr. Robert Ottinger, TRW Company, McLean, VA.
"Pollution Potential Asociated with Leaching of Raw
and Chemical Fixed Hazardous Industrial Waste
Sludges"-Dr. Jerry Mahloch, Environmental Effects
Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
"Movement of Pollutants in Soils"-K. Jack Kooyomjian,
Environmental Engineer, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, OSWMP, EPA, Washington, D.C.
"The Retrograde of Chemicals by the Army"-MAJ Gordon
Goff, Headquarters, Army Material Command,
Alexandria, VA.
-------
132
CHAPTER 11
COORDINATION WITH STATE AGENCIES
Work Element for WFRC Task Force for Hazardous
Materials Management:
Coordination final dTsposition actions with
appropriate State agencies.
The Executive Steering Committee retained the
responsibility for accomplishment of this work
element. Actions were channeled along three paths:
(1) State agencies with program responsibilities for
hazardous waste management were invited to become
members or participate in several of the Task Force
activities and to attend its meetings; (2) The
Executive Steering Committee scheduled briefing
sessions for several agencies in the States of Nevada
and Arizona; and (3) The Task Force decided to
request WFRC endorsement of its outputs to States
with an offer of the Task Force to provide technical
assistance to the States in implementing hazardous
waste management locally.
State agency personnel representing the Vector
and Waste Management Section, Environmental Health
Service Division, California State Department of
Health (the designated hazardous waste management
agency of the State); the California State Solid
Waste Management Board; the Bureau of Sanitation,
Division of Environmental Health Services, Arizona
State Department of Health (the designated hazardous
waste management agency of the State); and the
Environmental Protection Services, Nevada Department
of Human Resources have attended the Task Force
Meetings and participated in its discussions. These
agencies are therefore well acquainted with the
development and actions which have taken place by the
Task Force.
Dr. Harvey Collins, Ph.D., Supervisory Waste
Management Engineer and Dr. David L. STorm, Ph.D.,
Research Chemist, both of the California State
Department of Health have worked with the
sub-committees which developed that criteria for site
selection and for site management and have made
extensive and valuable input to the output documents
of these two sub-committees.
-------
133
The Task Force was invited to make local briefing
presentations on its activities both in Nevada and
Arizona for the benefit of various State and local
Federal agencies there. Two briefing seminars were
held in Nevada. The Chairman and several members of
the Executive Steering Committee journyed to Carson
City and Reno to conduct these sessions on December 3
and 4 of 1974. Personnel of several State agencies
and the U.S. Geological Survey attended the session
in Carson City on December 3rd. The session in Reno
on December 4th was attended by personnel of the
Bureau of Land Management and the State Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources. We were received
cordially at both sessions and received promises of
future cooperation in attaining our goals. Several
of the State agencies and the BLM have called on the
Task Force for assistance and preferred their
assistance since those dates. Mr. Walt Weaver,
Deputy Chairman of the Task Force and Sanitary
Engineer for Region V of the USFS, Mr. Leonard Lanni,
Safety Engineer for ERDA San Francisco Office, and
Mr. Robert Scott, Geologist for Region IX of EPA
journeyed to Phoenix, Arizona on October 2, 1975 to
make similar presentations for State agencies and
local Federal ones. The response was equally well
received and with similar response. Several agencies
sent representatives to subsequent Task Force
meetings.
On August 19, 1976, Mr. John H. Beck, Chief of
the Bureau of Sanitation, Division of Environmental
Health Services, Arizona State Department of Health,
by letter, requested Task Force technical assistance
in establishing hazardous waste disposal sites and a
regulatory program in that State. A similar requrest
was made by Dr. Suzanne Dandoy, Director of the
Department of Health to the Regional Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency. The Regional
Administrator responded by promising the requested
assistance, within limits of resources, and the EPA
initiated action to this end. Task Force members
have participated on call to review draft regulations
and actions leading to establishment of hazardous
waste disposal sites. At the time of printing of
this report, the State is conducting hearings to
-------
134
adopt hazardous waste regulations and proceeding with
final steps in putting into operation a large
hazardous waste reclamation and disposal site.
The Chairman has had several discussions since
the briefing seminar with various agency personnel in
the State of Nevada. Considerable interest and
verbal requests for assistance have been received for
the establishment of sites and programs in that
State. The State is proceeding at the date of
printing of this report with development and adoption
of new regulations and of additional siting of
facilities for treatment and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
The State Department of Health of California
requested assistance and participation of the Task
Force in staging a national hazardous Waste
symposium. The Task Force voted to undertake this
assignment. "A National Conference About Hazardous
Waste Management" has now been announced for February
1-4, 1977, at the Holiday Inn, San Francisco,
California. A very informative program has been
formulated which includes field trips to view
hazardous waste reclamation and disposal facilities
in the vicinity. It appears that attendance will
exceed the seven hundred mark at the time this was
written. This conference will provide a forum for
disclosing the products of the Task Force. The State
has also revised, in final form, its existing
hazardous waste regulations and has augmented it
regulatory staff to mount a comprehensive management
program in this area.
Funded by a planning grant from the Environmental
Protection A9ency, and by a contract with a
consulting firm, the State of Hawaii and the
Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust
Territory Islands of the Pacific are preparing
aproblem assessment, proposed regulations, strategy
for a regulatory program, and recommendations for
facilities and procedures for disposing of hazardous
wastes. The Task Force criteria are being utilized
by the consultant as a basis of doing this work.
-------
135
CHAPTER 12
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Actions to date;
Definition of work elements for the TAsk Force
was designed along the lines of objectives
established by the Western Regional Council for the
Task Force. This report documents actions taken and
results achieved on those work elements. In addition
to the specific objectives and work element
assignments, there have been other accomplishments,
actions, policy decisions, and programs established
which were either direct "spin-offs" or motivated by
the ongoing activities of the Task Force which are
probably as important, if not more so, than the
direct products. Some of these have been discussed
in the body of the report, i.e., the construction of
facilities at certain Federal agency locations, and
establishment of hazardous waste management programs
by various agencies.
In summary, the direct outputs of the Task Force
effort have been in the form of working documents or
criteria, directories and files and inventories.
The directory of Federal personnel concerned in
environmental management has now been through two
editions and one revision. The Naval Environmental
Support Office of the Naval Environmental Protection
Service, PortHueneme, who have been responsible for
this output, promise to continue updating the
directory in the future and furnishing it to the
concerned agencies in the Region. This Directory
serves a continuing need to provide personnel working
in the environmental protection areas with a
ready-reference to persons who can provide advice and
technical assistance in the many facets of hazardous
waste management.
Criteria have been developed both for
establishing and managing hazardous waste treatment
and disposal facilities. Several agencies have
indicated that they intend, not only to use these
for the intended purposes, but to reprint and/or
incorporate these recommendations into their
operational procedures and instruction manuals.
-------
136
Identification of existing and newly constructed
facilities have resulted in multi-use by several
agencies. Several large facilities in the planning
stages or under construction for location in the
region with the consensus of planning behind the
design that, once they have satisfied an immediate
need of the constructing agency, the facility will
have multi-agency use (i.e., the Naval De-mil
Facility at Hawthorne, NV, and the sophisticated
incincerator at Edwards Air Force Base). The Sierra
Army Depot at Herlong is now identified as a
temporary repository and transfer point for all of
DOD retrograde industrial chemicals. From this
depot, the Defense Logistics Agency makes materials
available to any Defense agency and some civilian
agencies for reuse or for eventual resale or disposal,
The inventories which were conducted have
provided a basis, not only for internal planning by
Federal agencies, but also for State agencies who are
embarking on regulatory programs and in guiding the
establishment of treatment and disposal facilities
which the Federal establishment may use. The
inventories also served an immediate purpose of
problem definition for each agency. Many of the
accumulated materials which formerly were under no
program for disposal, have notbeen recycled, treated,
sold, or disposed of in acceptable manner (i.e., the
millions of pounds of powdered DDT lying in storage
in the REgion have been reduced to levels of current
and authorized-use needs^.
The development of a program for resource
recovery and resale for excess industrial chemicals
within the Department of Defense and the
establishment of a computerized data-bank for the
continuing advice of availability of such materials
to the various DOD agencies has and will continue to
result in considerable cost-savings to the
Government. This activity is now assigned to the
Defense Logistics AGency who furnishes DOD agencies
with periodic listings of available materials which
they may requisition. Those materials which are not
moved by this procedure are then made available to
-------
137
civilian agencies or for eventual sale to the public
or disposal (depending on the condition and use
restrictions on the particular material). It is
hoped that this program will serve as a model for a
similar program for the use of civilian agencies
through the General Services Administration who now
have such a recommendation under consideration from
its own Interagency Committee on Resource Recovery.
The Department of Defense agencies within Region
IX had the most pressing of hazardous materials
management problems at the time of initiation of the
Task Force. At the time of this report, however, the
Department has mounted programs to resolve most of
its problems in this area. Undoubtedly the Task
Force has been instrumental in providing incentive
and guidance for these actions. Much credit, however
is due to the Director of Categorical Program of the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health and Environment for the active participation
in the Task Force and the direction his office has
given agencies with the Department for this program.
The Environmental Protection Agency has benefited
directly from the opportunity that meetings of the
Task Force provided for keeping the environmental
managers of the various agencies informed of new
regulations and laws and changes in these relating to
environmental protection and the opportunity for
discussion of actions to be taken comply with
requirements. This action has also established a
degree of rapport for all/interagency Federal
environmental program that would not have been so
easily accomplished otherwise.
The technology transfer presentations have served
as valuable training for all who attended the
meetings and have established a common base of
knowledge from which loci actions could derive.
There have been frequent expression sof appreciation
of this activity from attendees. Perhaps one of the
most valuable outputs of Task Force has been the
opportunity for environmental managers of many
different Federal agencies to get acquainted, discuss
mutual problems, and develop mechanisms for for
mutual technical assistance in hazardous waste
management-and this was not one of the stated
objectives.
-------
138
Involvement of State agency personnel in this
program area has resulted in assistance in those
States in which hazardous waste management programs
are being formulated. Specific technical assistance
by the Task Force has been received in two states
which are now undertaking the establishment of
regulatory programs and of disposal sites. Once the
States have established such programs and have taken
actions that result in disposal sites for hazardous
wastes, Federal agencies will be the benefactors.
An action of the Task Force at its most recent
meeting has been to express to the Western Regional
Council the appreciation of all participants for the
opportunity to engage in the actions of the Task
Force. It is the consensus of opinion that the
effort has been most beneficial to all who
participated. This action has served to demonstrate
that a large number of agencies with many differeing
missions and that a large number of people of many
different disciplines can work together to accomplish
a common set of objectives and do this in an
efficient and effective manner. To borrow a current
slang expression, "It has been a good trip" for all
concerned.
Recommendations for Future Actions;
In March of 1976 the Task Force proposed the
following recommendations and made a request of the
Western Federal Regional Council for future actions
as shown below:
(1) It was requested that the Council ask the
Environmental Protection Agency to continue
Regional meetings of agency personnel whose
program assignment or interests lie toward
the area of hazardous waste management on at
least a once-a-year basis for the purposes
of updating program requirements and for
technology transfer.
(2) It was requested that the Task Force be
continued for at least an additional year to
accomplish the following objectives:
-------
139
(a) Assist the California State Department of
Health in presenting a national symposium
about hazardous waste management. The Task
Force has received a request to this end
from the California Department of Health.*
(See Editor's Note below)
(b) Provide technical assistance as requested
and needed to State and Federal agencies in
establishing regulatory programs and
facilities for hazardous waste management.
(3) It was requested that the Western Federal
Regional Council give permission for the
printing and distribution of this report to
all who request a copy. The Environmental
Protection Agency has agreed to bear the
cost of the original printing.
(4) It is further requested that the Council,
through its Chairman, commend the final-
report to the Governors in Region IX or
their designated agency heads, for their
consideration in establishing regulatory
programs and facilities for hazardous waste
management and proffer the technical
assistance by the members of the Task Force
within reasonable limits of recources.
The Western Federal Regional Council granted the
above requests and the Task Force has accomplished or
is continuing action along the outlined objectives
even at the time of printing of this report. The
Work Plan for fiscal year 1977 is intended as Apendix
IV.
(*Editor's Note: The symposium was conducted
February 1-4, 1977, Holiday Inn, San Francisco.
Approximately 500 person attended with representation
covering whole of the United STates and from several
foreign countries. "Proceedings" covering this
symposium was printed and distributed by one of the
Co-sponsors, the California Department of Health,
Vector and Waste Management Section, Sacramento,
California).
-------
140
Aj pe.-idix I - i
WESTERN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
REGION IX
Aho intludn AMERICAN SAMOA. GUAM t
At TRUST TERRITORY al O» Pic.l* liU
50 FULTON STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
(415) 556-1970
APR 2 6 1974
Chairman
FERNANDO E C DeBACA
Regional Director
Dept of Health
Education and Welfare
Vice Chairman
ROBERT H BAIOA
Regional Administrator
Dept of Housing
and Urban Development
CORNELIUS M COOPER
Regional Administrator
Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration
PAUL De FALCO
Regional Administrator
Environmental
Protection Agency
LAWRENCE H DUNN
Secretary's Representative
Dept of Transportation
EUGENE GONZALES
Regional Director
Office of Economic
Opportunity
VERN F HIGHLEY
Regional Representative
Dept of Agriculture
WEBSTER OTIS
Special Assistant
to The Secretary
Dept of the Interior
GEORGE W SMITH
Regional Director
Dept of Labor
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM
SUBJECT
Members of Federal Regional Task Force
for Hazardous Was/fc.e Management
Western Federal Regional Council
Task Force Charge
The Western Federal Regional Council has formed an
inter-agency task force for hazardous waste management to
accomplish the objectives listed below.
OBJECTIVES
1. Provide a mechanism for technology and information
transfer relating to the management of hazardous materials
in an environmentally safe manner for personnel within
agencies who have assigned responsibilities in this area;
2. Develop and maintain a directory of individuals
within agencies who are designated for contact regarding
management of hazardous materials and environmental matters;
3. Develop an inventory of excess hazardous materials
and wastes (including related information pertaining to
these) which are in the perview of these Federal agencies;
4. Identify, develop and disseminate recommended plans
of action for environmentally safe management (transporta-
tion, storage, resale, recycling, re-use, modification, and
ultimate disposal) of these materials;
5. Explore, develop, and recommend courses of action to
the Council to safely manage hazardous materials where prob-
lems are identified. This may involve either recommending
action to the individual agencies concerned, or, implementing
a multi-agency cooperative approach;
-------
141
Appendix I - ii
6. Coordinate inter-agency actions relating to hazardous waste
management when requested by the agencies concerned; and
7. Coordinate final disposition actions with appropriate State
agencies.
BACKGROUND
This action group has been in existence for eight months on an "ad-hoc"
basis. It evolved from a discussion meeting of Federal agencies called
on August 1 and 2, 1973, by EPA in Region IX. At that meeting, an
ad-hoc Task Force was formed to investigate possibilities of joint
Federal agency action for management of hazardous waste and to provide
for transfer of technology relating to the subject. An executive
Steering Committee was elected to handle the affairs of the Task Force,
decide on courses of action, and develop recommendations for individual
or joint-agency programs and actions to be presented to the Task Force
for decisions. Synopses of previous meetings of both the Task Force
and the Steering Committee have been furnished to the Western Federal
Regional Council together with lists of attendees and participating
agencies. A list of current projects is attached which outlines
objectives, actions undertaken and status of actions to date. As other
agencies learn of this action, more are asking to be included. Already
some significant actions and results have ensued (as shown in the
synopsis of Task Force Meeting of February 27 and 28, 1974).
At the February meeting of the groups it was generally agreed that this
activity must have official recognition in order to be identified as a
program element for continued resource allocation by the respective
agency administrators; to receive policy direction and assistance in
establishing itself as a regional inter-agency mechanism; to lend
creditability to its actions; and to secure the level of action
necessary to implement its recommendations. It was also agreed that
a logical sponsor for this activity was the Western Federal Regional
Council and that the Environmental Protection Agency should be the
lead agency. The Task Force understands that non-member agencies can
be included on FRC Task Forces. The Steering Committee was instructed
to request sponsorship of the WFRC at the earliest possible date.
LEAD AGENCY AND COUNCIL MEMBER INVOLVEMENT
The Environmental Protection Agency is designated as the lead agency
with Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr., EPA Regional Administrator, responsible to
the Council for accomplishment of actions indicated above. The Council
Secretariat liaison is Mr. William G. Walker (415/556-6695).
-------
142 Appendix I - iii
CHAIRMAN
At its February, 1974 meeting the Task Force elected as its Chairman,
Mr. Charles T. Bourns, Chief, Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch,
Hazardous Materials Control Division, Region IX, Environmental Protection
Agency (Address: 100 California Street, San Francisco, California 94111;
Telephone: 415/556-4604).
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
The attached list describes the individuals of the elected Steering
Committee and agencies currently included in the Task Force and the
individuals currently representing those agencies.
MEETING DATES
The Task Force as a whole shall meet at intervals of at least each six
months on dates and at places determined by the Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee will meet as often as necessary. The next
Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m., April 23, 1974,
Room 501, on 100 California Street, San Francisco. Each Steering
Committee meeting is called by the Chairman.
TIMEFRAME
The Task Force will submit reports (or minutes) of its meetings and on
specific accomplishments as they occur. The Task Force shall complete
its work and submit a final report by June 30, 1976. The term of the
Task Force may be extended to implement ongoing strategy if need be.
FUNDING
Each participating agency will provide resources of the time of its
designated staff, and travel expenses to attend Task Force meetings and
Steering Committee Meetings and to accomplish the necessary work related
to these. The lead agency will provide clerical staff for routing needs
and arrange meeting places. If and when special projects or investiga-
tions develop to the stage of requiring additional resources commitment,
the Steering Committee and/or Task Force shall recommend appropriate
funding mechanism through the responsible Council member to the Chairman
of the WFRC for Council approval and action.
QUESTIONS
Any questions you may have concerning participation in this effort
should be made to the Chairman of the Task Force or taken up with the
Steering Committee for resolution.
Attachments
-------
143
Date
Initiated
8/1/73
9/20/73
8/1/73
9/20/73
9/20/73
9/20/73
3/19/74
9/20/73
2/29/74
3/19/74
Federal Regional Task Force
For Hazardous Waste Management
List of Projects
Project Description
Briefing and updating on Federal and State
laws and regulations relating to hazardous
waste management. This is a continuing
activity with a presentation at each Task
Force meeting.
Identification of source of information on
applicable laws, Federal and State.
DOD Sub-Committee on Actions and Plans for
Disposal of Excess Stocks of Pesticide. This
is a continuing activity with first emphasis
on DDT. Reports are made at each Task Force
meeting.
Recycling of Usable Hazardous Materials:
Step 1: Establishing of Databand for
interchange of information on
available materials.
Establishment of Directory of Agencies and
Individuals Concerned with Hazardous Waste
Management. Directory to be updated
annually.
Land Disposal Alternatives:
Step 1: Development of Criteria for Site
Selection.
Step 2: Preliminary Evaluation of Sites,
using criteria.
Step 3: Publication of Criteria
Step 4: Development of Proposal(s) for
Establishment and Management of
site(s).
Presentations of "State of the Art"
(Technology Transfer) relating to hazardous
waste management. This is a continuing
activity.
Securing of official recognition as an
inter-agency action.
Definition of the Scope of the Hazardous Waste
and Excess Chemical Disposal Problem within
the Federal establishment in Region IX—an
inventory.
Appendix I - iv
Date Completed or Status
Continuing
2/28/74
2/28/74 (1st Report)
Continuing
2/28/74 (1st Report)
Continuing
2/28/74 (1st Report)
Continuing
2/28/74 (1st Report)
Continuing
2/29/74 (1st Reports)
Continuing
4/2/74
To be initiated
-------
Date adopted: 7-23-74 New ( ): Continuing (x); Amended (x)
WESTERN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
FY 1975 OBJECTIVE AND OPERATING PLAN
FRC GOAL #IV ACTIVITY # IV-B: Hazardous Materials Management
TASK FORCE GOAL: To provide a coordinated overview and proper mechanism for technology and informational
transfer relating to the management of hazardous materials in an environmentally safe manner within the
Federal Establishment throughout Region IX.
BACKGROUND/APPROACH; This is a continuation of FY 1974 activity. The Council serves primarily as parent
to an interagency group including many non-WFRC member agencies which came together to coordinate and
rationalize their individual efforts in the area of hazardous waste management.
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:
Hazardous Waste Management
Task Force
LEAD AGENCY:
EPA OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY: Natural
Resources Standing Committee (NR3C)
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
AGENCY STAFF INVOLVED:
DOD, EPA, ERDA, DOT,
FEA, GSA, USDA, USDI
PROGRAM FUNDS INVOLVED
YES ( ) NO (X)
OBJECTIVES
ACTION BY
TARGET DATE
1. Develop directory of agency personnel working in
hazardous waste materials in region (2nd edition)
2. Develop an assessment of types and quantities of
hazardous materials which may become non-nuclear
wastes to be stored in, transported through, des-
tined for, or to be disposed of by the Federal Es-
tablishment of Region IX: (For planning purposes)
a. DOD agencies
b. Other Federal Agencies
3. Design and promote adoption of action plans as
follows for environmentally sound management of
hazardous materials:
Task Force
12/31/74
DOD
Task Force
6/30/75
3/30/76
(15
3
I
<;
-------
2.
OBJECTIVES
a. Develop selection criteria for disposal sites
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Design computerized recycling programs to in-
clude all Federal Agencies:
(l) DOD Agencies, in operation for
(2) Inclusion of Other Federal Agencies
Develop operation criteria for hazardous
waste disposal sites
Identify, develop, upgrade or otherwise secure
disposal sites and operations meeting above
criteria for use of the Federal Establishment
Prepare a conpendium of laws and regulations
and critieria pertaining to the transporta-
tion of hazardous wastes
Provide for disposal of excess stocks of
pesticides and other hazardous materials
in possession of the Department of Defense:
l) Pacific Islands Areas
2) Sierra Army Depot Stocks
[3) Review of all DOD Pest Control Programs
) Survey excess DOD hazardous materials
(5) Identify DOD toxic wastes
4. Transfer of information relating to the manage-
ment and disposal of hazardous materials
5- Coordinate final disposition actions with ap-
propriate state and local agencies
6. Final Task Force Report
(a) Draft
(b) Final printed report
ACTION BY
Task Force
Task Force
Task Force
Task Force
DOT/USCG
DOD/Pacific
Sierra Army Depot
DOD/OASD/H&E
DOD/OASD/H&E
DOD/OASD/H&E
Task Force
Task Force
Task Force
TARGET DATE
8/1/75
6/30/75
12/30/75
3/30/76
4 /30/76
6/30/75
9/30/75
9/30/75
11/30/74
1/30/75
5/30/75
Each Task Force
Meeting
As appropriate and
timely
1/30/76
Date adopted; 7-23-74
New ( ); Continuing (XX); Amended (X) 3-13-75 (date)
-------
146
Appendix II - i
Alto .ntltfdttAUlfllCAN SAMOA GUAM i
its. THUS 1 rtftRITOHY ot IfePKiU lilin
WESTERN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
REGION IX
P. O. BOX 36098
450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102
(415) 556-1970
August 6, 1975
Chairman
WEBSTER OTIS
Special Assistant
t'> the Secretary
Dept of the Interior
Vice Chairman
WILLIAM C. ARNT2
Regional Administrator
Federal Energy
Administration
ROBERT H. BAIDA
Regional Administrator
Dept of Housing and
Urban Development
M. THOMAS CLARK
Regional Administrator
Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration
PAUL DE FALCO
Regional Administrator
Environmental
Protection Agency
LAWRENCE H. DUNN
Secretary's Representative
Dept of Transportation
EUGENE GONZALES
Regional Director
Community Services
Administration
DOUGLAS R. LEISZ
FRC Liaison Representative
Dept of Agriculture
JOE P. MALDONADO
Regional Director
Dept of Health
Education and Welfare
GEORGE W. SMITH
Regional Director
Dept of Labor
Associate Member
BG RICHARD M. CONNELL
Division Engineer, SPD
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Memorandum
To:
From:
Subject:
Charles T. Bourns, EPA
Chairperson, Hazardous Materials Management
Task Force
Chairman, Western Federal Regional Council
Task Force Charge
Purpose; The Western Federal Regional Council hereby
continues this interagency task force for hazardous
waste management to accomplish the following broad
objective: to provide a coordinated overview and
proper mechanisms for technology and informational
transfer relating to the management of hazardous
materials in an environmentally safe manner within
the Federal establishments throughout Region IX.
Background: This Task Force is a continuation of an
activity which came under the sponsorship of the WFRC
in April 1974. The group has met all of the approved
milestones of the work plan in the past and is currently
on target for its scheduled activities. The work of
the group has been recognized nationally as an example
of interagency coordination.
Organization: The Environmental Protection Agency is
designated as the lead agency for this effort. Other
participating departments and agencies include ERDA,
GSA, USDA, DOT, DOI, and Department of Defense com-
ponents. A member of the Council Secretariat will be
designated as liaison to the Task Force.
While the main Task Force will continue to consist of
some 125 designated representatives of local facilities
for a large number of Federal agencies, its actions
-------
Aj.penuix II - ii
147
are to be carried out primarily by an Executive Steering Committee
of approximately 15 members and by sub-committees. The Task Force
as a whole shall meet at appropriate intervals, but not less than
annually. The Executive Steering Committee will meet as often as
necessary to conduct the interim business of the Task Force.
Approach; In addressing its overall objective, the Task Force
will be expected to include the following work elements in its
implementation plan:
1) Provide a mechanism for technology and information transfer
relating to the management of hazardous materials in an
environmentally safe manner for personnel within agencies
who have assigned responsibilities in this area;
2) Develop and maintain a directory of individuals within
agencies who are designated for contact regarding manage-
ment of hazardous materials and environmental matters;
3) Develop an inventory of excess hazardous materials and
wastes (including related information pertaining to these)
which are in the purview of these Federal agencies;
4) Identify, develop, and disseminate recommended plans of
action for environmentally safe management (transportation,
storage, resale, recycling, re-use, modification, and
ultimate disposal) of these materials;
5) Explore, develop, and recommend courses of action to the
Council to manage hazardous materials safely where problems
are identified. This may involve either recommending action
to the individual agencies concerned, or implementing a
multi-agency cooperative approach;
6) Coordinate inter-agency actions relating to hazardous waste
management when requested by the agencies concerned; and
7) Coordinate final disposition actions with appropriate State
agencies.
The Task Force is expected to develop its own detailed work plan
for carrying out this charge and to return to the Council as needed
for clarification of WFRC intent and procedures, proposed amendments
to this charge and to the initial work plan, resolution of major
policy or procedural issues, requests for special staff or financial
resources, and periodic reporting.
Operating Procedures; Each participating agency on the Task Force
will absorb the travel costs for its members to attend Executive
Steering Committee and/or Task Force meetings and is expected to
-------
--, -en ix IT - j. L i
148
make available staff time for the accomplishment of Task Force work.
The Council's "Policies and Procedures for Task Forces" should be
used as a guide for Task Force operations and the responsibilities
of members.
Reports: The WFRC may call for periodic or special reports from
the Task. Force as it deems necessary and appropriate. It is suggested
that the Task Force also schedule reports to the Council to coin-
cide with the completion of major milestones in its work plan. As
provided for in the WFRC Task Force Procedures, written minutes of
each Task Force and Executive Steering Committee meeting must also
be submitted to this office. The Task Force is expected to complete
its work and submit a final report no later than June 30, 1976.
Please feel free to call upon your Secretariat Liaison, the Council
Staff Director, or myself whenever you feel we can be of assistance
to the Task Force in carrying out this charge.
Webster Otis
Chairman
-------
WFRC GOAL * IV
WESTERN FEUEUAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
FY 1976 OBJECTIVE AND OPERATING PLAN
ACTIVITY # IV-A: Hazardous Materials Management
25
OBJECTIVE: To provide a coordinated overview and proper mechanism for technology and information transfer relating
to the management of hazardous materials in an environmentally safe manner within the Federal establishment through-
out Region IX.
BACKGROUND/APPROACH; This activity is a continuation of the work of the Hazardous Waste Management Task Force in
FY 1975. Most of the Task Force's work will be carried out through a variety of sub-committees, with ongoing direction
provided by an Executive Steering Committee.
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM: Hazardous Materials Management Task Force PROGRAM FUNDS INVOLVED: Yes f~J No
LEAD AGENCY: £PA OTHER PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: DOI, DOT, USDA, GSA, ERDA, DoD components
MAJOR WORK ELEMENTS/PRODUCTS
RESPONSIBILITY
A
0
N
D
M' A
M
1. Develop site selection criteria
2. DoD disposal of excess stocks of pesticides and
hazardous materials.
3. Design computerized recycling program.
4. Develop inventory of hazardous materials, based on
task force agency inputs.
5. Develop operational criteria for hazardous
material disposal sites.
6. Identify disposal sites.
7. Prepare and circulate draft task force report.
Task Force Subcommittee
(USDA lead)
DoD Washington
USN, San Bruno
Task Force Subcommittee
(DOI/GS lead)
Task Force Subcommittee
(ERDA lead)
Task Force Subcommittee
(EPA lead)
EPA
A
—L±
A
A
i i
Date adopted: 6-4-75 New/V? Continui:
Amended/""/
(date)
(date)
-------
WESTERN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
FY 1976 OBJECTIVE AND OPERATING PLAN
ACTIVITY # IV-A: Hazardous Materials Management (continued)
MAJOR WORK ELEMENTS/PRODUCTS
RESPONSIBILITY
J
0
N
D
F1
M
M
8. Complete final report and submit to WFRC
9. Review and act on final task force report.
10. Carry out technology transfer relating to the task
force activity.
Task Force
WFRC
Task Force agencies
Ln
O
-------
Members of Western Regional Council Task Force
for Hazardous Materials Management --APPENDIX III - i
151
Ms. Pauline Aberbach
DPDS, Defense Supply Agency
DOD, Federal Center
Battle Creek MI 49017
Dr. Andrew L. Adams
USDA-APHIS
620 Central Avenue, Bldg.
Alameda CA 94501
2B
COL Jarnes E. Anderson
Ccmmanding Officer
Environmental Hygiene Agency, USA.
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 21010
Mr. William Arntz, Administrator
Federal Energy Administration
111 Pine Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. Robert Baida
USDI, Box 36098
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
M. D. Begley
DPDS, Defense Supply Agency
DOD, Federal Center
Battle Creek MI 49017
Mr. Duane M. Benton
DAEN-ZCE
Army Environmental Office
Washington DC 20310
Mr. Ottey M. Bishop
Bureau of Mines
Bldg. 20, Denver Federal Center
Denver CO 80225
Mr. Robert L. Boardman
US Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park CA 94025
Mr. Jack Bonkoski
Dept. of Housing & Urban Devel.
2500 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles CA 90057
Mr. Barry Abbott
Bureau of Sanitation/Deot. of Health
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix: AZ 85007
Mr. Myron H. Allen
Bureau of Land Management
4855 East Pinchot
Phoenix AZ 85018
COL Skinner E. Anderson (KOVED"!
Sierra Army Deceit
Herlong CA 96113
Mr. John H. Artichoker
Bureau of Indian Affairs
PO Box 7007
Phoenix A7, 85011
Mr. John H. Beck
Bureau of Sanitation/Dent. of Health
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix AZ 85007
COL Herbert Bell
Chief, Environmental Protection Groun
HO, US Air Force
Washington DC 20330
Mr. George Benz
Defense Supply Agency
500 West 12th Street
Ogden UT 84407
Mr. Charles Blatnick, A-3
Environmental Protection Agencv
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111
LCDR Jack C. Bolander
USALMC
Environmental Trainina
Ft. Lee ^ 23801
Mr. Charles rn. Bourns, A-3
Environmental detection Aaencv
100 California Street
San Francisco CA
-------
Appendix III - ii 152
Mr. Jim Boynton
U.S. Forest Service, Region 5
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 9^111
Mr. John Brown
USD I, Box 360£8
^50 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 9^102
Mr. Willis L. Burnham (RETIRED)
US Geological Survey
3^5 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 9^025
Dr. Harry Camp
USFS PSW Forest & Range Exp.
P.O. Box 245
Berkeley, CA 9^701
Dr. James K. Channel 1 , A-3,
Environmental Protection Agency
100 Cal i form'a Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Mr0 Howard H. Chapman
National Park Service
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36036
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dr. Harvey F. Collins
State Department of Health
714 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mr. Ralph B. Cowles (RESIGNED)
General Services Administration
525 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Ms. Sally Dahler
US Department of the Interior
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36098
San Francisco, CA 94102
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr., Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
LT R.W. Brandes
11th US Coast Guard District
19 Pine Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90802
Mr. Robert W. Buffington
Bureau of Land Management
2400 Valley Bank Center
Phoenix, AZ 85073
Mr. Carl R. Cahill
Washoe County District Health Dept.
Box 11130
Reno, NV 89510
Mr. David Caul kins
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
LTC Lynn R. Channel 1
Environmental Health Services
USAF Hospital, Vandenberg/SGPM
Vandenberg AFB, CA 93437
LTC Paul P. Chapman
Installation Services
US Army Defense Depot
Tracy, CA 93576
Brig. Gen. Richard Connel1
Army Corps of Engineers
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Mr. Carl E. Crisp
USFS, PSW Forest & Range Exp.
I960 Addison Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
CPT Douglas J. Davis
US Air Force, SAMSO/SGX
Air Force Unit P.O. Box 92960
Los Angeles AFS, CA 90009
Mr. Elmo J. DeRicco
Nevada Dept. of Conservation
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, NV 89701
-------
Apper.dix HI - iii
153
CPT Richard L. Dyne
Array Environmental Hygiene Agency
Ft. Baker CA 94965
Mr. Henry C. Eichhorn
Water Quality Engineering Division
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 21010
Mr. Donald A. Elliott
NAVEAC, Western Division
PO Box 727
San Bruno CA 94066
Mr. Joseph T. Fallini
Bureau of Land Management
230 North First Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85025
Mr. William E. Finale
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento CA 95825
Ms. Gail Barbarini (MOVED)
Energy Research & Development Agency
1333 Broadway
Oakland CA 94612
Mr. Thomas A. George
US Forest Service, Region 4
324 Federal Office Bldg., 25th Street
Ogden UT 84401
Mr. Bill B. Gillespie
NAVFAC, Western Division
PO Box 727
San Bruno CA 94066
MAJ Gordon Goff
HQ Army Materiel Canmand
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria VA 22333
W. E. Goode
NAVFACHQ
206 Stovall
Alexandria VA 22332
Mr. Sigmund R. Eckhaus
Office of Technical Director
Edgewood Arsenal
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 21010
Mr. Clyde Eller . S-l.
Environmental Protection Agencv
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. David A. Falck
Demil/DisrxDsal Office
Edgewood Arsenal
Aberdeen proving Ground MT> 21010
Mr. William Fallen
Department of Transportation
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36133
San Francisco CA 94102
Mr. Lawrence P. Gazda , A&HM,
Environmental Protection Agencv
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver CO 80232
Mr. James Giles III
NAVFAC
ESA-733, Washington Naw
Washington DC 20374
CPT Michael S. Gilmer
Cmdr, 62nd Ord. Det. (EOD)
62nd Ordnance Det.
Ft. Douglas UT 84113
Mr. Alan Goodban
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
800 Buchanan Street
Berkeley CA 94710
MAJ Robert A. Grodt
Environmental Quality Division
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 21010
-------
Mr. Douglas H. Haas
USAF Rocket Laboratory
AFRPL/TEF
Edwards AFB CA 93523
Mr. Norman Hall
Nevada Dept. of Conservation
201 South Fall Street
Carson City NV 89701
Mr. Vern Hamre
US Forest Service, Region 4
324 Federal Office Bldg., 25th Street
Ogden UT 84401
MAJ Bob Hansen
Demilitarization of Chemical Materials
AMC/OPM
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 21010
CPT John K. Harris
Ordnance Supply Officer
Sierra Army Depot
Herlong CA 96113
Mr. Edward L. Hastey
Bureau of Land Management
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento CA 95825
Mr. Al Hessez
Staff Engineer
USDA Forest Service
Washington DC 20250
Mr. H. E. Horton
Bureau of Reclamation
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento CA 95825
Mr. Hubbell
NAVFAC
ESA-733, Washington Navy Yard
Washington DC 20374
Mr. Kenneth Jew
Energy Research & Development Agency
1333 Broadway
Oakland CA 94612
154
Appendix III - iv
CPT Jarrell R. Hagan
Bioenvironmental Engineer
AFFTC/SGPB
Edwards AFB CA 93523
Mr. Rolland M. Hamilton
NAVFAC, Western Division
PO Box 727
San Bruno CA 94066
Mr. T. E. Harmon (RESIGNED)
General Services Administration
525 Market Street
San Francisco CA 94105
CPT Donald Harris
DCASR-SF(DOD)/DCRC-PP
866 Malcolm Road
Burlingame CA 94010
Mr. Virgil L. Hart
Bureau of Land Management
2400 Valley Bank Center
Phoenix AZ 85073
COL Robert C. Hawlk
Commanding Officer
Sierra Army Depot
Herlong CA 96113
Mr. William Hill
Attn: AFEN-EQ
HO, FORSCOM
Ft. McPherson GA 30330
Mr. Larry Houk
Dept. of Housing/Urban Development
2500 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles CA 90057
Ms. H. Ann Inouye (RESIGNED)
General Services Administration(PMDS)
525 Market Street
San Francisco CA 94105
Mr. Joel M. Johanson
US Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park CA 94025
-------
Appendix III - v
155
Mr. C. Thorne Johnston
NAVFAC, Western Division
PO Box 727
San Bruno CA 94066
Mr. James J. Jordan
Engineering and Construction
Code 2852/ABW/DEE
McClellan AFB CA 95652
Mr. Jonathan T. Kajiwara
CINC-PACAF (DCEMU)
APO San Francisco 96553
Mr. Hugh B. Kaufman
AW 462, M2711
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
LT Robert Kinney (>iOVED)
Sierra Army Depot
Herlong CA 96113
Mr. Carl Kohnert, S-2,
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111
LTC William 0. Lamb (MOVED)
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 21010
Mr. Edward F. C. Lau
NAYFAC, Pacific Division
FPO San Francisco 96610
Diane Jean C lardy, A- J>,
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. Douglas R. Leisz
US Forest Service, Region 5
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco CA 94111
LTC L. Johnston
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center
Denver CO 80240
Mr. Raymond Jorgensen
Bureau of Land Management
300 Booth Street, Room 3008
Reno NV 89502
Mr. Gerald Katz, E-3-1,
Environmental Protection Agencv
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. Michael Killeen
Environmental Research Assistant
General Services Administration(FWR)
Washington DC 20406
Mr. Karl E. Kneeling
Code 2512
Navy Environmental Support Office
Port Hueneme CA 93043
Mr. Ray Krueger, OPP,
WH 570, E451
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
Mr. Leonard Lanni
Energy Research and Development
1333 Broadway
Oakland CA 94612
Mr. George E. Lavezzola
USAF Western Region, A^TOS, WR
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. John P. Lehman
AW 462, M2111
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
Dr. Daniel Lillian
Environmental Hvgiene Agency , USA,
Edgewood Arsenal MD 21010
-------
Appendix iii - vi
156
Mr. Anthony Lincoln
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Navajo Area Office
Window Rock AZ 86515
MAJ Thomas E. Lollis
US Army Defense Depot
Tracy CA 95376
Mr. H. R. Lubowitz
TRW Systems
One Space Park
Redondo Beach CA 90278
Mr. Edward A. Lundberg
Bureau of Reclamation
PO Box 427
Boulder City NV 89005
Ms. Irene L. Malbin
US Food & Drug Administration
50 Fulton Street
San Francisco CA 94102
COL David J. Marquis
Defense Supply Agency
500 West 12th Street
Ogden UT 84407
Mr. Jerome Mahloch
Waterways Experiment Station
PO Box 631
Vicksburg MS 39180
MAJ Wyatt L. McGhee
Bioenvironmental Engineer
USAF Clinic/SGB
McClellan AFB CA 95652
Ms. Paula McLain
DSAH-SME, HQ
Defense Supply Agency
Cameron Station VA 22314
LTC John P. Meade
Categorical Programs, OASD
DOD, Pentagon, Room 5B-252
Washington DC 20301
Mr. Rodney S. Lind
Logistics Specialist
Edwards AFB CA 93523
MAJ Karl E. Longley
Academy of Health Sciences
US Army Health Services Command
Ft. Sam Houston TX 78234
Mr. Edward Lukjanowicz
NAVFAC, Western Division
7500 Sandpoint Way
Seattle WA 98115
Mr. Donald W. Lynch
USFS PSW Forest & Range Experiment
PO Box 245
Berkeley CA 94701
Mr. Albert A. Marino
State Solid Waste Management Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento CA 95814
Dr. Jake MacKenzie
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. Donald Mausshardt, OHIO,
A-101, W-1137,
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
Mr. David G. Mclntosh
Atomic Energy Commission
1333 Broadway
Oakland CA 94612
Mr. John W. McVicar
Defense Supply Agency
2155 Webster Street, Bldg. 6
Alameda CA 94501
Mr. G. Lewis Meyer
AW 459, E647-B
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
-------
•'. t penrtix III - vii
157
Mr. Harry Miwa
Bureau of Land Management
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento CA 95825
Mr. W. J. Moore
NAVFAC, Western Division
PO Box 727
San Bruno CA 94066
CDR Clayton D. Morrison
llth US Coast Guard District
19 Pine Avenue
Long Beach CA 90802
LTC R. J. Murphy
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Air Pollution Engineering Division
Edgewood Arsenal MD 21010
CPT Larry L. Nelson
US Army Medical Laboratory
Ft. Baker CA 94965
L. E. Newcomb
US Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park CA 94025
CDR Edward G. O'Keefe
12th US Coast Guard District
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. Paul O'Meara
DCASR
11099 South La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles CA 90045
Mr. Fred M. Oswald
US Army Medical Laboratory
Ft. Baker CA 94965
CDR B. F. Montoya
NAWAC
200 Stoval Street
Alexandria VA 22332
Dr. A. I. Morgan
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
800 Buchanan Street
Berkeley CA 94710
Mr. Lee Mullaney
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
2850 Telegraph Avenue
Berkeley CA 94705
Mr. William E. Murohv
DOT, Motor Carrier Sa^etv
106 East Adams Street
Carson City NV 89701
Mr. W. 0. Nelson, Jr.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries/wildlife
PO Box 1306
Albuquerque MM 87103
Mr. .Murray Newton
AW462, M2610
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
Mr. Walter 0. Olson
Bureau of Indian Affairs
PO Box 8327
Albuquerque NM R7108
Ms. Lois Fischler Payne,
Bureau of Land Kanagement
2800 Cottage Way,
Sacramento, CA
Mr. Webster Otis
USDI, Box 36098
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
-------
Appendix Ill-viii
CDR Phillip J. Parisius
NAWAC, Western Division
PO Box 727
San Bruno CA 94066
Mr. Christopher P. Peck
State Solid Waste Management Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento CA 95814
Dr. L. Edward Perry
Bureau of Sport Fisheries/tVildlife
PO Box 3737
Portland OR 97208
Mr. Frank Plasencia
Defense Supply Agency
2155 Webster Street, Bldg. 6
Alameda CA 94501
Mr. Stuart Porter (MOVED;
Bureau of Land Management
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento CA 95825
Mr. Allen Raznick
Western Federal Regional Council
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36098
San Francisco CA 94102
Mr. Charles Renda
US Department of the Interior
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento CA 95825
S. M. Richardson
Management Analyst
US Army Defense Depot
Tracy CA 95376
Mr. George E. Robinson
US Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park CA 94025
Mr. H. LaVerne Rosse
Bureau of Environmental Health
1209 Johnson Street
Carson City NV 89701
Mr. James A. Parsons
PDO Sierra
Sierra Army Depot
Herlong CA 96113
Mr. J. Russell Penny (RETIRED)
Bureau of Land Management
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento CA 95825
Mr. Eugene Piazza
US Army Defense Depot
Tracy CA 95376
MAJ Kenneth R. Porter
Air Force Weapons Lab/DEE
Kirtland AFB MM 87115
.Mr. Roland Raymond
US Bureau of Customs
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
Mr. Jan Reitman
Environment & Occupational Health
DSA-H-WS
Cameron Station VA 22314
Mr. Price Rice
US Bureau of Customs
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
LTC G. W. Risinger
12th US Coast Guard District
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Mr. Raphael 0. Roig
US Air' Force/SAMSO/SGX
Air Force Unit PO Box 92960
Los Angeles AFB CA 90009
Mr. Ed Rowinski
DOD-DSA-H/WS
Defense Supply Agency
Cameron Station VA "" 22314
-------
Appendix HI - ix
159
Mr. E.I. Rowlan^
Bureau of Land Management
300 Booth Street, Room 3008
Reno, NV 89502
LCDR John Sammons
Navy Industrial Health Center
3333 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45220
Mr. Paul T. Schoenenmann
Arthur D. Little, Inc
One Maritime PIaza
San Francisco, CA 94111
Mr. Robert C. Scott (RETIRED)
Environmental Protection Agency
2495 Bantry Lane,
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dr. Richard C. Sill
Professor of Physics
University of Nevada
Reno, NV 89507
Mr. E. Graydon Snyder
Lawrence Livertnore Laboratory, L518
722 Sunset
Livermore, CA 94550
Mr. Benjamin Spada
USFS, PSN Forest & Range Exp.
P.O. Box 245
Berkeley, CA 94701
Mr. John L. Spiers
NAVFAC, Western Division
P.O. Box 727
San Bruno, CA 94066
CPT John B. Starr
548th ORD-DEP (EDDCC)
Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94126
Mr. John Stetter
DC ASR, SF
866 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Mr. James Russel1
Federal Energy Administration
111 Pine Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Mr. William Sanjour
AW 462, M 2414
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Norbert B. Schomaker
Environmental Protection Agency
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Mr. Richard J. Shukle
US Department of the Interior
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
Mr. Ronald E. Ski 11 ings
Corps of Engineers, So. Pacific Div,
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Jas. Soong
DC ASR, SF
866 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Mru Lloyd L. Spangler
SWMD
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Edgewood Arsenal, MD 21010
Mr. James L. Stahler
State Department of Health
714 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dr. Robert Stephens
California Department of Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94707
Dr. John I. Stevens
SAREA-CL-D
Edgewood Arsenal, MD 21010
-------
Appendix III- x
160
Dr. David L. Storm
California Department of Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
Mr. Jon J. Sugrue
HQ Army Material Command
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333
Mr. Michael D. Sullivan
Federal Highway Administration
^50 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36096
San Francisco, CA 94102
W.H. Swift
Batelle-Northwest
P.O. Box 999
Rich]and, WA 99352
Dr. Rex Thomas
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
2850 Telegraph Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
Mr. Arthur Toy
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
722 Sunset
Livermore, CA 94550
Mr. Joseph W. Urbanek
HO. Defense Supply Agency
DSAH-SME
Cameron Station, VA 22314
Mr. Stan Wagner
Bureau of Land Management
2400 Valley Bank Center
Phoenix, AZ 85073
CDR John A. Walter
NAVFAC, Pacific Division
FPO San Francisco, CA 96610
Mr. James Stratta
US AEHA-WEST
Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center
Denver, CO 80240
Mr. F.C. Suhrer
c/o California Department of Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
CPT Robert J. Sutay
Rocket Propulsion Laboratory
Bioenvironmental Engineering Branch
Edwards AFB, CA 93523
Mr. Frank W. Sylvester
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36062
San Francisco, CA 94102
Mr. Ronald K. Tew
U.S. Forest Service
324 - 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
Col. J.P. Thompson
Chief, Hazardous Waste Management
Ha, US Air Force
Washington, DC 20330
Mr. Harry W. Trask
AW 462, M 2632
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Alfred J. Vandenberg
Bureau of Environmental Health
1209 Johnson Street
Carson City, NV 89701
MAJ James D. Wallace
AFRPL/DOF
Edwards AFB, CA 93523
Mr. Walter Weaver
US Forest Service, Region 5
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
-------
LTC Kenneth E. Weiss
Rocket Propulsion Laboratory
Test and Support Division
Edwards AFB, CA 93523
Ms. Gale B. White
NAVFAC, Western Division
7500 Sand Point Way
Seattle, WA 98115
Mr. John L. Wilson
USDA, Farmers Hone Administration
459 Cleveland Street
Woodland, CA 95695
Mr. James A. Wolfe
US Forest Service, Region 3
517 Gold Avenue,SW
Albuquerque, NM 87101
Mr. Jack A. Yamauchi
Directorate of Facilities Engineering
Ft. Ord, CA 93941
Apnor/Jix III - xi
Dr. Billy E. Welch
Pentagon, Rocn 4D873
Secretary of the Air Force
Washington, DC 20330
ILT David R. Williams
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Ft. Baker, CA 94965
LT John Paul Wilson
US Army Medical Laboratory
Ft. Baker, CA 94965
Mr. Will Worthington
US Army Corps of Engineers
2721 No. Central, Ste. 800
Phoenix, AZ 85004
MAJ J.L. Young
Environmental Quality Division
Environmental Hygiene Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
161
-------
WORK ACTIVITY TITLE: Hazardous Materials Management Task Force
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: The Hazardous Materials Management Task Force originated as an "ad hoc" group
evolving from a discussion meeting of Federal agencies on August 1-2, 1973. This meeting, sponsored by
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, investigated the possibility of joint Federal agency
action for the management of hazardous wastes in an environmentally safe manner.
At subsequent meetings, 1t became evident this activity must have official recognition in order to assure
continued resource allocation by the participating agencies. The logical sponsor was the Western Federal
Regional Council; on April 23, 1974, the official charge and assignment of Task Force status was made.
The Task Force was continued by Council action during FY 1976.
The activities of the Task Force have attracted national attention. At least one other region has sent
an observer to learn how the Task Force operates and to assess its accomplishments.
OBJECTIVES:
1. During the FY 1976 work year the Task Force developed operational and site selection criteria
for hazardous material disposal sites. It 1s now appropriate, by working through the States,
to utilize these criteria for actual site selection and operation.
2. To jointly sponsor, with the California State Dept. of Health, a symposium on hazardous waste
material management. This would be a technology transfer activity available to a national
audience.
APPROACH:
Contacts with various Governor's offices to establish a work plan for each State. Reviewing the site §
selection and site operational criteria with the appropriate State agencies. Work with the States to w
establish enabling legislation and regulations for the control of hazardous waste disposal. The Task 3
Force has already been contacted by the State of Arizona for major assistance in this field of activity. x
Work with the State of California to conclude a successful symposium. M
EVALUATION: Log the number of conferences, meetings, etc., with State/local officials in establishing H-
work plans, site selection, operational criteria, enabling legislation and regulations and concurrently
assessing the relative success of these efforts. Successful conclusion of the proposed symposium
Including the printing of the Proceedings.
28
en
NJ
-------
WORK ACTIVITY TITLE: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE LEAD AGENCY: EPA
MECHANISM: Task Force Other Participating Agencies: ERDA, USDA, DOI,
DOT, C/E and DOD; California, Arizona, Nevada,
Hawaii, _Guam, Trust Territory and American Samoa.
Annual Objectives
1) During the FY 1976 work
year, the Task Force
developed operational and
site selection criteria.
Now appropriate to utilize
these criteria for actual
site selection and operation
2) Jointly sponsor, with
the California State Dept.
of Health, a symposium on
hazardous waste material
management. A technology
transfer activity.
i
Major Milestones
a) Contact various Governor's offices, to
establish a work plan for the Individual
State.
b) Review the site selection and site
operational criteria with the appropriate
State agency.
c) Work with State to establish enabling.
legislation, regulations and site
selection and operation.
a) Establish location, time and program for
the symposium with the State of California.
b) Support logistics and administration for
the actual symposium.
c) Assist in the preparation of the procedings
for the symposium.
Responsibility
Task Force
Task Force
Task Force
Chairman and
Select Committee.
Chairman/Select
Commi ttee .
Chairman/Select
Committee.
1st
ptr.
X
X
X
2nd
Qtr.
X
X
X
$>
3rd
ptr.
X
X
&
4th
Otr.
X
X
td
H
X
H-
0>
Date Adooted: October 5, 1976
Date Revised:
OJ
------- |