UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.Q, .20460 OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TO: EPA Libraries The Office of Solid Waste held public hearings during February and March on proposed hazardous waste regulations, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We advised the public that copies of the transcripts would be available for review in the EPA libraries. Enclosed is the transcript from one of those 5 hearings, (the hearing held in St. Louis in February). As soon as I have copies of the other four (New York, Washington, D.C., Denver, and San Francisco), I will forward them. Sincerely yours, Geraldine Wyer Public Participation Officer Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) ------- 1 j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i 2 j ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY In the Matter of: Public Meeting on Improving 6 Environmental Regulations 7 Breckenridge Pavilion Hotel, One Broadway, 9 St. Louis, Missouri, Wednesday, February 14, 1979. 10 The public hearing in the above-entitled matter 11 was convened, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 o'clock a.m., 12 Dorochy A. Darrah, presiding. T? BEFORE: 14 PANEL 15 DOROTHY A. DARRAH, Office of General Counsel, 16 EPA, Washington, D. C. 17 AMY SCHAFFER, Office of Enforcement, SPA, Washington, D. C. 18 JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director, Hazardous Waste 19 Management Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, Washington, 20 D. C. 21 ALFRED LINDSEY> Chief, Implementation Branch, Hazardous Waste Management 22 Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, Washington, D. C. ALAN CORSON, Chief, Section 3001, Guide- 24 I lines Branch, Hazardous Waste Management Branch, Office of 25 . Solid Waste, EPA, Washington, D. C. ------- . CHET MC LAUGHLIN, Solid Waste Branch, EPA, Region VII, Kansas City, 2 II Missouri. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 21 22 23 24 I CONTENTS Opening Remarks Page Carl Blomgren, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Diviscn 3A Opening Remarks Tom Jorling, Assistant Administrator, Water and Waste Management 5 Opening Remarks John Lehman, Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division 1C STATEMENTS OF: Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, Dow Chemical 23 .Dr. -Barry Commoner, Washington University 40 Joe Pound, American Admixtures 57 Kay Drey ','3 Robert M. Robinson, Director of Solid Waste Management Program for Missouri Department of Natural Resources 62 Kenneth Smelcer, Executive Vice President, Industrial Association of Quincy 68 16 Brocks Becker, President ui' Residuals ^Management 17 Tecnnology, Inc. 98 18 Prank Stegbauer, Vice President of Southern Towing Company llo 19 James A. Kinsey, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency -d-r Roland C. Mar quart', Transportation Services 139 Separate Transcript for -^uestion ana answer Session Pages 151 thru i26 :] nearing .inserts: ------- 2 MR. BLOMGREN: Good morning. 3 I'm Carl Blomgren, director, Air and Hazardous 4 Materials Division, EPA, Region VII, office in Kansas City. 5 I bring you greetings from our regional adminis- 6 trator, Dr. Kathleen Camin, and welcome you to this winter 7 wonderland of the Midwest. We appreciate your interest in 8 these regulations which will shape the implementation of the 9 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's Subtitle C. I am 10 particularly interested in the issues and concerns which you 11 have with these regulations and offer to work with you in 12 developing equitable regulations which provide for adequate 13 controls of hazardous waste. 14 The states in Region VII have built an admirable 15 record of interest and success in striving to implement 16 comparable state hazardous waste management programs. Kan- 17 sas and Missouri have passed new state hazardous waste man- is agement legislation and are in the process of implementing 19 these statutes. Nebraska is developing regulatory controls 20 without additional legislation, and Iowa has introduced 21 hazardous waste management legislation to their legislature 22 which will provide them with authority to conduct the 23 national program. We are proud of this progress. According 24 to the consultants, WAPORA Study for the Office of Solid 25 Waste, the number of impacted industries in Region VII is ' I ------- ! ij 8,600 in Missouri, 2,700 in Nebraska, 5,400 in Iowa, and !j 1 3,000 in Kansas. It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to ii ij 4 ! Region VII for what I hope will be a fruitful and spirited discussion of the Section 3001, 3002, and 3004 hazardous 6 !{ waste regulations. j| 7 ii With that, I will introduce our assistant adrninis- i 8 ij trator for Water and Waste Management, Tom Jorling. Tom. MR. JORLING: Thank you, Carl, and good morning. I, too, would like to welcome you. 10 i 12 13 14 22 23 24 25 This effort is part of sort of a road show that EFA has under way in the rule-making process. We initiated the formal hearings on the R.C.R.A. hazardous waste regs in New 15 ij York last week, move back to Washington next week, and then I 16 | move back west to Denver and San Francisco in the remaining •i i jl 17 :; two weeks, and the comment period then closes, and the Task || 18 i sets out to take the proposal from its stage now into the final rules so that we can bring into being a program of reg- 19 20 21 ' are asking for. ulation which the statute calls for and the American people j i R.C.R.A. was enacted to give the Environmental Pro- tection Agency authority and the states authority in 1976 in the area of hazardous waste. The statute called for, the regulations which we ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 1 ! 3 4 5 6 7 9 are holding these hearings on, to be promulgated to be in effect by June of 1978. They have an effective date after promulgation of six months. We are obviously behind that date We were subject to several complaints in federal court be- cause we had failed a nondiscretionary duty, and the courts issued us an order which calls for these regulations to be promulgated by December of 1979. The effective date would then be 1980, 1 say that because many have said, "Gee, you're moving too fast." In fact, we are not moving too fast. We're probably moving much too slow, at least when we apply the regulations to the dimensions of the problem; but on our schedule, which is an ambitious one, we will not have these regulations into being and have their effect until July of 1980, and that requires everyone then to stick to the rules we have laid down on the rule-making process so that we can, in fact, achieve that objective. Many have asked why hazardous waste has been a problem which the government is now only responding to. In j contrast to air and water pollution, which are immedi£tely obvious to the people, to the public--they see the water, they breathe the air. Hazardous waste has been a practice which generally occurs on private property. The disposal practices have been out of sight and out of mind. Another difference from the two earlier pollution"-. ------- 7 l |! areas in which there have been aggressive action is that the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 21 22 23 i 24 I pathways of effects are often very indirect. They are down through ground waters, migrating ground waters, and then con- taminating public or private wells, so that the cause-effect relationship is opened up and spread out; and, as a result, we have not at the federal level moved in the area of hazard- ous was te. I would also like to note that the program we are holding these hearings on is the one that is directed at 10 ! present and future activities, and that certainly is an ara- 11 M bitious task of itself. We have estimates or our estimates 12 j show that some thirty to thirty-five million tons of waste 13 ; will be classified as hazardous; and of that amount, roughly 14 ! 80 to 90 per cent is at the present time being improperly 15 !j disposed of, and improperly disposed of here means by infer- 16 \\ ence that it does represent threats to public health and the i 17 .j environment. I 1 18 j We are also intersecting with this rule-making j 19 j package a business/commercial pattern which is extremely j complex, and, as a result, the rule-making is itself complex j j to match that complexity; but there should be no doubt as to the need. As we have begun investigating these efforts seriously and the events have been disclosed, such as Love Canal in Salsbury Labs in Iowa, the result is an accumula- 25 ;| tion of additional cases across the country of great taagni- ------- 8 tucie, but those kinds of problems will not be addressed specifically by these regulations. It's another dimension 3 l! of the program or the problem which our statute at present 4 | doesn't give us a great deal of authority, and we are pres- !| 5 |j ently investigating other types of statutory authority which ii <3 !! would help us and the states and local communities address ii accumulated abandon problems that exist across the country- side; but this program is very ambitious. It requires 9 |] "cradle to grave management" of hazardous wastes . There- i! 10 jj fore, it requires generators, transporters, and storers and :i •i 11 1 disposers to undertake certain duties and obligations. 12 There is a manifest system to track the movement of hazardous waste. There are requirements for issuing I 14 i| m its to both on- and off-site disposers. All of these are M 15 p very ambitious tasks that will tax and test our ability as j! 16 J government both at the federal and state level to carry out. .'i 17 ;; One of the things we're very interested in are re- ii 18 || actions with respect to the administrative capability in ij 19 ! implementing this program. The purpose of these hearings, as standard rule- :j 21 ij making hearings, is to hear from the affected public or the ij 22 i interested public on the regulations which we have proposed. ! 23 | The proposal that we are holding hearings on 24 ! covers many of the provisions in the overall hazardous waste 25 program. There are still some to come, especially in the ------- 9 administrative permit part of activity in the state activity. Those regulations will also be subject to public hearings be- ginning in approximately six weeks. I don't know whether there is any scheduled for St. Louis, but they will be held 5 jj around the country in the permit areas, but it is to hear H 6 from those who have read these regulations, evaluate how 7 Ii they apply to them if they be in the regulated community; or I 8 |j if they be in the interested community, whether or not the jl 9 |j regulations provide the degree of public health and environ- 10 jl mental protection the statute calls for, and people's re- l! 11 |i action to them with respect to their just general applica- ji 12 ij tion and whether or not they will achieve the results that || 13 il are expected. i 14 || So our purpose is in listening to the reaction of i 15 ij the proposal that we have made. We look forward to that. ,i 16 ij We find these hearings very, very helpful. Their rule- 17 ij making process is one in which there is tremendous inter- 18 :i action between our agency and the affected community, and we ii 19 Ij expect these regulations will be improved as a result of 1 20 ! this process. 21 jj So I would like to welcome you and look forward tc n 22 ji the testimony that you will be giving. I won't be able to jl 23 ! attend a great deal of the hearings, but it is something that il 24 jj you can well imagine is a very high priority in our agency. 25 ;| We hope to keep the program on schedule, and we ------- 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 ! 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 will deliver a product which the people can be proud of in the time frame we have now set forth for ourselves; namely, by December of this year, so we look forward to your partic,. pation in that. Now, Jack, you have some opening remarks that will help people put the overall set of regulations into con- text, and then we will move on. MR. LEHMAN: Thank you, Tom. My name is John Lehman. I'm the director of the 1 10 i Hazardous Waste Management Division of EPA's Office of Solid ii n Waste in Washington. •i 12 jl For a brief overview of why we are here, the EPA, 13 l| on December 18, 1978, issued proposed rules under Sections I! 14 ii 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended by the Resource Conservation and Re- covery Act of 1976, Public Law 94-580, better known by the acronym of R.C.R.A. or "Ric Ra". These proposals respectively cover, first, the criteria for identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification methods and a hazardous waste license; sec- ond, standards applicable to generators of such waste for recordkeeping, labeling, using proper containers and using a transport manifest; and, third, performance, design, and operating standards for hazardous waste management facili- ties. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 These proposals, together with those already pub- lished pursuant to Section 3003, on April 28, 1978; Section 3006, on February 1, 1978; Section 3008, on August 4, 1978; and Section 3010, on July 11, 1978; and that of the Depart- ment of Transportation pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act proposed on May 25, 1978, along with the Section 3005, permit regulations, which Tom mentioned earli- er, constitute the hazardous waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Act. |0 EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for 11 facility permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for state 12 I! hazardous waste program authorization pursuant to Section j! ij 13 ij 3006 of the Act, with similar proposals under the National it !4 |! Pollutant Discharge Elimination System required by Section ij 15 I 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Underground Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This integration of programs will appear soon as proposed rules under 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124. This hearing is being held as part of our public participation process in the development of this regulatory j program. I would like to introduce the panel members who share the rostrum with me; and from your left to right, they are: Chet McLaughlin of the Hazardous Waste Manage- ment Section, Hazardous Materials Branch, in Region VII in ------- 1 2 3 4 9 i 10 11 •i i 21 i; :i 24 25 12 Kansas City; next, Amy Schaffer with our Office of Enforce- ment, headquarters in Washington; next, Dorothy Darrah from Office of General Counsel in EPA headquarters in Washingto.,, Fred Lindsey who is chief of the Implementation Branch of 5 l| Hazardous Waste Management Division in Washington; Alan J! x ! Corson who is the chief of our Guidelines Branch in the 6 ! 7 jj Hazardous Waste Management Division, again in Washington; jj 8 ;! and, of course, Mr. Jorling whom you have met. As noted in the Federal Register, our planned agenda is to cover comments on Section 3001 today, Sections 3002 and 3003 tomorrow, and Section 3004 the next day. 12 i! Also, we have planned an evening session tomorrow night 13 '! covering all four sections, and that session is planned pr*- 14 ;i marily for those who cannot attend during the day. The comments received at this hearing and the 16 '•> other hearings, as noted in the Federal Register, together •i 17 : with the comment letters we received, will be a part of the ]g jj official docket in this rule-making process. The comment || 19 : period closes on March 16 for Sections 3001 through 3004. ! 20 ij This docket may be seen during normal working !l hours in Room 2111D, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 23 !j In addition, we expect to have transcripts of each hearing within about two weeks of the close of the hearing. These transcripts will be available for reading ------- 1 2 i 3 i 4 13 at any of the EPA libraries. A list of these locations is available at the registration table. With this as background, I would like to lay the groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing. As Tom mentioned, the focus of a public hearing is on the public's response to a regulatory proposal of an agen- c y* or, in this case, agencies, since both EPA and the De- partment of Transportation are involved. I might point out for our hearings tomorrow on Section 3003, there will be a representative of DOT present. The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the si! 12 '] April 28, May 25, and December 18 Federal Registers, is to i« »' 1 solicit comments on the proposed regs, including any back- ij ground information used to develop the comment. So this pub- 15 :i lie hearing is being held not primarily to inform the public, Sj 6 i| nor to defend a proposed regulation, but rather to obtain the !j public's response to these proposed regulations and there- 18 i! ; after revise them as may seem appropriate. ! will be addressed during preparation of the final regula- ! | tions. i ! This is not a formal adjudicatory hearing with the right to cross-examination. The members of the public are to present their views on the proposed regulation to the panel, and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting ------- 14 1 statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presenta- 2 tions. Some questions by the panel may be forwarded in 3 writing to the speakers. His or her response, if received 4 within a week of the close of this hearing, will be in- 5 eluded in the transcript. Otherwise we will include it in 6 the docket. 7 The Chairman reserves the right to limit lengthy 8 questions, discussions, or statements. If you have a copy 9 of your statement, please submit to the court reporter. 10 Written statements will be accepted at the end of 11 the hearing; and if you wish to submit a written rather than 12 an oral statement, please make sure that the court reporter 13 has a copy. The written statements will also be included i 14 their entirety in the record. 15 Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have 16 not made an advance request by telephone or in writing 17 should indicate their interest on the registration card. If 18 you have not indicated your intent to give a statement and 19 you later decide to do so, please return to the registration 20 table, fill out another card, and give it to one of the 21 staff. 22 As we call upon an individual to make a statement, 23 he or she should come up to the lee turn and identify him- 24 self or herself for the court reporter and deliver his or 25 her statement. ------- 15 1 At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson 2 will inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to enter- 3 tain questions from the panel. The speaker is under no ob- 4 ligation to do so. Although within the spirit of this 5 information-sharing hearing, it would be of great assistance 6 to the agency if questions were permitted. 7 Our day's activities, as we currently see them, 8 appear like this. We will break for lunch at about 12 o'clock 9 and reconvene at 2 p.m. Then, depending on our progress, we 10 will either conclude the day's session or break for dinner 11 at about 5 o'clock. 12 Phone calls will be posted on the registration 13 table near the entrance to the hotel, and restrooms are lo- 14 cated immediately outside of this room directly down the 15 hall on your right-hand side. 16 If you wish to be added to our mailing list for 17 future regulations, draft regulations, or proposed regula- 18 tions, please leave your business card or name and address 19 on a three by five card on the registration desk. 20 Now, the regulations under discussion at this 21 hearing are the core elements of a major regulatory program 22 to manage and control the country's hazardous waste from 23 generation to final disposal. The Congress directed this 24 action in recognizing that disposal of hazardous waste is a 25 crucial environmental and health problem which must be con- ------- 16 1 trolled. 2 In our proposal, we have outlined requirements, . 3 which set minimum norms of conduct for those who generate, 4 transport, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste. 5 These requirements, we believe, will close the circle of en- 6 vironmental control begun earlier of regulatory control of 7 emissions and discharges of contaminants to the air, to the 8 water, and to the oceans. 9 We do not underestimate the complexity and dif- 10 ficulty of our proposed regulations. Rather they reflect ; 11 the large amounts of hazardous waste generated and the com- 12 plexity of the movement of hazardous waste in our diverse 13 society. | 14 These regulations will affect a large number of 15 industries, other nonindustrial sources of hazardous waste, 16 such as laboratories and commercial pesticide applicators, 17 as well as transporters of hazardous waste will also be in- 18 eluded. 19 EPA has information on over 400 cases of the harm- 20 ful consequences of inadequate hazardous waste management. 21 These cases include incidents of surface and ground water 22 contamination, direct contact poisoning, various forms of 23 air pollution, and damage from fires and explosions. 24 Nationwide, half of all drinking water is supplied 25 from ground water sources, and in some areas contamination ------- 17 l of ground water resources currently poses a threat to pub- 2 lie health. 3 EPA studies of a number of generating industries 4 in 1975 show that approximately 90 per cent of the poten- 5 tially hazardous waste generated by those industries was 6 managed by practices which were not adequate for protection 1 of human health and environment. 8 Subtitle C of R.C.R.A. establishes a comprehen- 9 sive program to protect the public health and environment 10 from improper disposal of hazardous waste. Although the 11 program requirements are to be developed by the federal 12 government, the Act provides that states with adequate pro- 13 grams can assume responsibility for regulation of hazardous 14 waste. 15 The basic idea of Subtitle C is that the public 16 health and the environment will be protected if there is 17 careful monitoring of transportation of hazardous waste and 18 assurance that such waste is properly treated, stored, or 19 disposed of, either at the site where it is generated, 20 which we usually refer to as on-site, or after it is car- 21 ried from that site to a special facility or an off-site 22 facility in accordance with certain standards. 23 I'm going to review briefly for you the seven 24 guidelines and regulations which are being developed and 25 either have been or will be proposed under Subtitle C of ------- l 18 • C» • !& .A • 2 Subtitle C creates a management control system 3 which, for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires a 4 cradte-to-grave cognizance, including appropriate monitoring, 5 recordkeeping, and reporting throughout the system. 6 It is also important to note that the definition 7 of solid wastes in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse, 8 sludges, and other discarded materials, including liquids, 9 semisolid«s and contained gases, with a few exceptions, 10 from both municipal and industrial sources. 11 Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid 12 wastes, and which will be identified by regulations proposed 13 under Section 3001, are those which have particularly signi 14 ficant impacts on public health and the environment. 15 Section 3001 is the keystone of Subtitle C. Its 16 purpose is to provide a means for determining whether a 17 waste is hazardous for the purposes of Che Act and, there- 18 fore, whether it must be managed according to the other Sub- 19 title C regulations. 20 Section 3001(b) provides two mechanisms for deter- 21 mining whether a waste is hazardous; first, a set of charac- 22 teristics of hazardous waste and, second, a list of particu- 23 lar hazardous wastes. A waste must be managed according to 24 die Subtitle C regulations if it either exhibits any of the 25 characteristics set out in proposed regulation or if it is ------- 19 1 listed. Also, EPA is directed by Section 3001(a) of the 2 Act to develop criteria for identifying the set of charac- 3 teristics of hazardous waste and for determining which 4 wastes to list. In this proposed rule, EPA sets out these 5 criteria, identifies a set of characteristics of hazardous 6 waste, and establishes a list of particular hazardous waste 7 Also, the proposed regulation provides for demon- 8 stration of non-inclusion in the regulatory program. 9 Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to 10 generators of hazardous waste. A generator is defined as 11 any person whose act or process produces a hazardous waste. 12 Minimum amounts generated and disposed of per month are es- 13 tablished to further define a generator. These standards 14 will exclude household hazardous waste. 15 The generator standards will establish require- 16 ments for: recordkeeping, labeling and marking of con- 17 tainers used for storage, transport, or disposal of hazard- is ous waste; use of appropriate containers, furnishing infor- 19 mation on the general chemical composition of a hazardous 20 waste; use of a manifest system to assure that a hazardous 21 waste is designated to a permitted treatment, storage, or 22 disposal facility; and submitting reports to the Adminis- 23 trator, or an authorized state agency, setting out the 24 quantity generated and its disposition. 25 Section 3003 requires the development of standards ------- 20 1 applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These pro- 2 posed standards address identification codes, recordkeeping, acceptance, and transportation of hazardous wastes, compli- ance with the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous waste; spills of hazardous waste and placarding and marking 6 15 of vehicles. The Agency has coordinated closely with pro- 7 posed and current U. S. Department of Transportation regula- 8 tions. Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and 11 disposal facilities. These standards define the levels of 12 human health and environmental protection to be achieved by 13 these facilities and provide the criteria against which EPA or state officials will measure applications for permits. Facilities on a generator's property as well as off-site 16 facilities are covered by these regulations and do require 17 permits. Generators and transporters do not otherwise need 18 permits. 19 Section 3005 regulations set out the scope and 20 coverage of the actual permit-granting process for facility owners and operators. Requirements for the permit applica- tion, as well as for the issuance and revocation process, are defined by regulations to be proposed under 40 CFR Parts 24 122, 123, and 124. 25 Section 3005(e) of the statute provides for in- ------- 21 1 terim status during the time period that the Agency of the 2 states are reviewing the pending permit applications. Speci 3 al regulations under Section 3004 apply to facilities during 4 this interim status period. 5 Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines 6 under which states may seek both full and interim authoriza- 7 tion to carry out the hazardous waste program in lieu of an 8 EPA-administered program. States seeking authorization in 9 accordance with Section 3006 guidelines need to demonstrate 10 that their hazardous waste management regulations are con- 11 sistent with and equivalent, in effect, to EPA regulations 12 under Sections 3001 through 3005. 13 Last but not least, Section 3010 requires any per- l4 son who generates, transports, or owns or operates a facili- 15 ty for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste 16 to notify EPA of this activity within 90 days after promul- 17 gation or revision of regulations identifying and listing a 18 hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001. It is important 19 to note that no hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regu- 20 lation may be legally transported, treated, stored, or dis- 21 posed of after the 90-day period unless this timely notifi- 22 c ation has been given to EPA or an authorized state during 23 the above 90.-day period. Owners and operators of inactive 24 facilities are not required to notify. 25 As Tom mentioned, EPA intends to promulgate final ------- 22 1 regulations under all sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 2 1979. However, it is important for the regulated communi- 3 ties to understand that the regulations under Section 3001 4 througi 3005 do not take effect until six months after 5 promulgation. That would be approximately June of 1980. 6 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the pro- 7 posed regulations to be considered at this hearing, I re- 8 turn the meeting to our Chairperson, Dorothy Darrah. 9 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. 10 Before we get started, I would like to make a 11 couple of announcements. 12 First of all, there were some corrections to our 13 December 18 proposal. Some of you may have been looking fc | 14 a lost paragraph or two or thought that sane of the numbers 15 didn't quite jibe, and I want to let you know that in to- 16 day's Federal Register our correction notice is being pub- 17 lished which is it's just mainly typographical errors that 18 you're just going to have to go through and change. 19 Secondly, I think you probably realize that the 20 comment period does close March 16. We had announced in 21 the previous preamble for 3003 that the comment period 22 would remain open until 60 days after all the regulations 23 had been proposed. In February 7th's Federal Register 24 there was an announcement which gives you our explanation 25 for the March 16 closing date which is that we are, as Tom ------- 23 1 mentioned, under the court-ordered promulgation schedule, so 2 that the comment period of 3001, 3002, 3003, and 3004 does 3 close on March 16. 4 We do have nine speakers that I have on my list 5 who want to speak this morning. 1 think that probably most 5 of you have kept your remarks fairly limited. I will not be 7 cutting people off unless they go more than 15 minutes or 8 so, and, also,we will probably not cut off questions for the 9 panel unless there seems to be some line of discussion that 10 isn't getting resolved. ]] So with that, let me go ahead and call Dr. Stacy 12 Daniels from Dow Chemical to start off. 13 STATEMENT OF STACY L. DANIELS 14 MR. DANIELS: Good morning, Ms. Chairperson, and 15 Panel. 16 I'm Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, research specialist in 17 environmental sciences of the health and environmental 18 sciences department of Dow Chemical U.S.A. 19 As chairman of our corporate RCRA Task Group, I 20 would wish to summarize our concerns in response to the Agen- 2i cy's solicitation for a comprehensive review of all issues 22 raised by the Agency in the preamble to the Proposed Guide- 23 lines and Regulations for Hazardous Waste, the background 24 documents, and the drafts of the Environmental Impact State- 25 ment and the Economic Impact Analysis. ------- 24 ] We have worked closely with the Agency, and with various trade associations, professional societies, and 2 standard setting groups, over the past two years to help develop a consistent set of meaningful regulations for hazardous waste management that will provide adequate bene- fits in protection to public health and the environment 6 from unreasonable risks while demanding realistic expendi- tures of resources. 8 Toward this goal, we are providing comments per- taining to all major aspects of the draft regulations and 10. those previously proposed. Today we wish to summarize our major concerns and recommendations in three areas; one, the 12 schedule for promulgation; two, the interpretation of ha- zard; and, three, the general regulation of hazardous waste management facilities. 15 In regard to the schedule for promulgation, all 16 regulations for Subtitle C are scheduled for promulgation in 1979, as Jack indicated. We agree that regi lation of hazard- 18 ous waste is a time-consuming and difficult undertaking re- 19 quiring careful assessment of many complex issues. We state 20 for the record that although the regulations for Sections 21 3001, 3002, and 3004 were proposed on December 18, 1978, the 22 4,294 pages of background documents were not available for 23 review until January 8, 1979, and published copies of the 24 draft Environmental Impact Statement were not available for 25 J ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 distribution until early February. The integrated permit regulations pursuant to Section 3005 of the RCRA and the National Pollutant Dis- charge Elimination Systems and Underground Injection Con- trol Programs have yet to be proposed. Regulations for Sections 3003, 3006, 3010, and 4004 were previously proposed in mid-1978 before characteristics of hazardous waste were fully developed and will require modification. This piece- meal proposal and promulgation has made coherent overall as- sessment of the kaleidoscopic changes occurring among the individual sections of the regulations extremely difficult. We recommend, therefore, that the comments on all sections of the regulations, the EIS, and the EIA be ac- cepted until closure of the comment period for the last sec- tion of Subtitle C to be proposed. In regard to interpretations of hazard, the inter- pretation of what actually constitutes a hazardous waste is the most critical decision in the entire set of regulations. If characteristics of hazard, specific listings, and testing protocols are adopted as presently proposed, it will result in essentially all solid wastes in many industrial and muni- cipal sectors being classified as hazardous. The total volumj? of such wastes may exceed the total economically available U. S. disposal capacity. Inherent in the Agency's interpre- tation of hazard is the application of the worst possible ------- 26 1 scenario of Improper management to all discarded materials. 2 This approach does not recognize that there are varying de- 3 grees of hazard and that hazard is a function of both ef- 4 feet and exposure. The Agency has confused characteristics 5 of effect with characteristics of exposure. Certain charac- 6 teristics of effect, such as toxicity and mutagenicity, are 7 overemphasized while other characteristics of exposure, such 8 as persistence and degradability, are generally ignored. 9 We recommend that the characteristics of both ex- 10 posure and effect be restructured to recognize the degrees 11 of hazard. 12 The quantity of waste constituting generation has 13 been a major issue. The Agency has proposed a conservative 14 exclusion of 100 kilogram per month or less from these regu- 15 lations. A higher level of 1,000 kilograms per month is 16 considered within die EIS and EIA. The approach of hazard 17 because of quantity alone, however, does not recognize the 18 associated factors of concentration and chemical form; that 19 is, availability, which together quantitate.exppsure.. 20 The Agency has attempted to regulate certain 21 large-volume, low-hazard wastes by either specific exclusion 22 such as sludges from publicly-owned treatment works, POTWs, 23 or by creation of six special waste standards within RCRA. 24 We agree with the categorization based on both hazard and I ^ volume. We do not agree that sludges from non-POTWs are ------- 27 1 categorically more hazardous Chan sludges from POTWs. 2 We recommend that reasonable levels of exclusion 3 be established and the factors of concentration and chemical 4 form as well as quantity be considered. 5 The Agency has proposed a maximum of three months 6 beyond which a discarded material is allowed only in per- 7 mitted storage facilities. This limit is overly stringent 8 and does not recognize many commercial operations of reclama- 9 tion and reuse which occur further in time. The Agency has 10 moderated their original approach and now proposes to allow 11 certain used materials to be reused such as not to constitute 12 disposal. The recovery of energy values from used oils and 13 other materials, an objective of the RCRA, however, has not 14 been accepted. 15 We recommend that the storage period for materials 16 that are used for energy and/or material recovery be extended 17 to one year. 18 A dichotomy exists in the listing and delisting of 19 specific hazardous waste, sources, and processes. Testing 20 for inclusion is restricted to only four characteristics: 21 ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, and toxicity, for 22 which specific testing protocols were considered to be avail- 23 able for verification or refutation. Testing for exclusion, 24 however, includes additional characteristics: mutagericity, 25 bioaccumulation, and toxic organic substance, for which ------- 28 1 testing protocols are unavailable and which are still under 2 consideration within the ANPR. I 3 We recommend that all listings based solely on the 4 characteristics of mutagenicity, bioaccumulation, and toxic 5 organic substance be delayed pending further review. 6 And the third area, hazardous waste management 7 facilities--the Agency has recognized that many operations 8 involving storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous 9 tastes may be fully integrated within the same corporation 10 and conducted entirely at a single site. We encourage this 11 approach which reduces duplicate monitoring and reporting. 12 Sufficient latitude should be given, however, to the inter- 13 pretation of "on-site". This will avoid needless duplicatii 14 of facilities for locations in proximity but not necessarily 15 geographically contiguous. 16 We recommend that "on-site", therefore, be inter- 17 preted to mean on the same or geographically contiguous 18 property, or on adjacent property separated by rights-of-way, 19 or within reasonable proximity. 20 The adequacy of solid waste management facilities 21 (4004 facilities) does not prevent the disposal of low-hazard 22 wastes therein, but rather it is the supposed lack of con- 23 t rol over transport and the potential for mixing with de- 24 gradable, nonhazardous waste which could develop into a 25 hazardous condition. Manifesting could be required, however ------- 29 1 from the generators of all industrial wastes transported off* 2 site while providing the option for segregated disposal of 3 certain low-hazard wastes into solid waste management facili- 4 ties. 5 We recommend that disposal of low-hazard wastes be 6 allowed in segregated solid waste management facilities. 7 Another major concern is the overspecification of 8 design and operational guidelines by the Agency. We be- 9 lieve that the regulations would be greatly streamlined by 10 prescribing what performance is required and allowing flexi- 11 b ility in what procedure be used. Overspecification of pro- 12 cedural guidelines complicates the regulations, restricts 13 flexibility of choice, and demands demonstration of equi- 14 valent performance to obtain variances using alternative 15 procedures. The combined effect is the suppressed develop- 15 ment of new technologies and more cost-effective solutions. 17 Effective destruction of hazardous wastes is ob- 18 viously preferrable to perpetual care. The overly stringent 19 procedural guidelines for incineration, however, may force 20 the disposal of wastes by less desirable modes of disposal. 21 The Agency contends that solid wastes require greater manage - 22 ment than pure materials or the same wastes under existing 23 air, water, wastewater, transport, or occupational safety 24 regulations. Yet the Agency has transferred wholesale lists 25 of hazardous materials, testing protocols, and operating ------- 30 1 standards from regulations developed for pure materials for 2 different reasons. 3 We recommend that all procedural guidelines be 4 deleted and provided in a manual of recommended practices. 5 There are several examples of regulatory overlap 6 in the proposed regulations. We object to the specific in- 7 elusion of surface impoundments and basins, and other 8 facilities which are used exclusively for chemical, physi- 9 cal, or biological treatment of dilute aqueous wastes. 10 Such facilities are already adequately regulated under the Clean Water Act. We also object to the inclusion of oil 12 production brines as special waste. Such brines are speci- 13 fically cited and are to be regulated within the Under- 14 ground Injection Control program of the Safe Drinking Water 15 Act. We recommend removal of unwarranted regulatory overlaps pertaining to wastewater treatment facilities and 18 underground injection control facilities. The Agency has relied heavily on waste-specific 20 standards of management but applies industry-specific stan- 21 dards to listing of processes by Standard Industrial Code. 22 • The proposed regulations reflect standards that do not vary 23 according to the source and the contention that most hazard- 24 ous wastes require similar management techniques. The Agen- 25 Cy contends, however, that hazard is a result of improper ' * ------- 31 1 management which indeed is dependent upon site-specific 2 disposal operations. We encourage the consideration of 3 waste-specific effects and site-specific exposures. 4 We recommend that waste-specific effects and site- 5 specific exposures be considered in the regulations. 6 The Agency has considered the possible phasing of 7 the Subtitle C program within the EIS by progressively re- 8 ducing the quantity of waste constituting generation and the 9 time of storage over a period of five years, and by peri- 10 odicallyproposing additional characteristics of hazard and ]] new listings of specific wastes. We agree that hazardous 12 waste management is a dynamic situation subject to future 13 assessment of new data and technology. We do not believe, 14 however, that phased implementation of the regulations will 15 serve any useful purpose and will result only in further 15 confusion. 17 We recommend, therefore, that phased implementa- 18 tion be discouraged. 19 We will provide detailed comments on specific 20 sections of the regulations at future hearings, and thank 2i you for the opportunity. 22 This concludes the remarks. I have an attachment 23 to these comments, a bibliography of our papers, comments, 24 testimonies, and previous presentations on solid and hazard- 25 ous wastes. ------- 32 1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Or. Daniels, thank you. 2 Would you answer questions from the panel, pleas^ ^ 3 OR. DANIELS: Yes, I would. 4 MR. LINDSEY: Dr. Daniels, one of your recommenda- 5 tions which I would like to explore a little further if we 6 could, you say that we recommend that storage period for 7 materials that are used for energy and/or material recovery 8 be extended to one year. It was our intent with the whole 9 90-day storage, I guess you could call it exclusion, the 10 intent here is to allow the accumulation of economic quan- 11 tities for shipment off site without unduly burdening the 12 nation with paperwork that might not be needed. We were !3 afraid, however, that if the storage goes on too long with-, 14 out, in an uncontrolled manner; that is, without permits 15 and so forth involved, that we would begin to see the de- 16 terioration of drums and other containers in some fashion. 17 Do you think we are off base on that, that we can safely go 18 to a year in that regard? 19 DR. DANIELS: I think the original assumption is 20 flawed partly in that you are assuming that all materials 21 will be going off site for recovery. I am also considering 22 on-site recovery, particularly those plants that generate 23 materials for recovery that are block operated or operated 24 on seasonal products, and these require more extended stor- ^ i 25 age periods or, for example, the dredging of a lagoon once a ------- 33 1 year or something like this for recovery of the material, 2 something that is over a longer time period. 3 MR. CORSON: The last comment that you offered had 4 to do with your concerns about the phased implementation; 5 and in that, you indicated that we do intend to add to the 6 lists, we further intend to possibly add characteristics. 7 Are you suggesting that you think we should either hold up 8 until we have all of the characteristics of concern, all 9 the lists of concern, before we promulgate or propose, or 10 that we should take what we have gotten and quit at that 11 point? 12 DR. DANIELS: I guess that was primarily directed 13 at the phase implementation of the quantity from a million 14 kilograms per month down to 100 kilograms per month within 15 five years or the storage period from twelve months down to 16 three months within a five-year period. I think that's 17 just a target and doesn't serve the purpose. 18 With regards to the list and things like this, I 19 believe that there should be further justification for 20 quite a number of the compounds on the appendicized list 21 because, while the Agency is contending that there may be 22 160 odd processes in hazardous wastes, by the time you add 23 up all the materials in the appendices, this could be 24 several thousand. 25 With regards to the characteristics, I firmly be- ------- 34 1 lieve that there are a number of characteristics which just 2 definitely require further consideration before they are i 3 promulgated in the form presently proposed. 4 MR. CORSON: One other question area, I think 5 right at the beginning, your concerns about interpretation 6 of hazard, and you have indicated in your comments some de- 7 sire or a need you feel for categorizing certain wastes by 8 degree of hazard. As you are aware, I'm sure, in the pre- 9 amble, we did indicate at least in a discussion with regard 10 to small quantity generation that we are considering or 11 will be considering some relation of that small quantity to 12 degree of hazard. I am wondering whether you can possibly 13 furnish to us in your written comments, if not today, what 14 thoughts you might have on how we might take care of degree 15 of hazard, particularly as we consider the waste movement 16 through its normal pathways from the generator to disposal, 17 recognizing that degree can change at each of the steps 18 along the line. 19 DR. DANIELS: We have that intention, to provide 20 an alternative classification of hazard to the Agency, be- 2i cause we feel that the Agency has already recognized three 22 and possibly four different areas of hazard from the special 23 wastes under the 3004, the 4004 wastes, and also the small 24 generators already, and what we are proposing in addition, 25 that there should be a tiered approach within the 3004, and( ------- 35 l this could result in either an increase or a decrease in the 2 quantity per month that would constitute hazard, but it also 3 should recognize concentration and both effect and expo- 4 sure. 5 MR. JORLING: I have just one question on that 6 theme. Does Dow presently categorize its waste according 7 to relative hazard? 8 DR. DANIELS: Yes, we do. 9 MR. JORLING: Could you make that categorization 10 available for the record? 11 DR. DANIELS: We have already submitted a previous 12 document, about one year ago, to this effect. 13 MS. SCHAFFER: Dr. Daniels, I have a couple of 14 questions, one going back to Fred's question concerning the 15 length of time for storage. If you think we should extend 16 the storage period for energy and material to be recovered, 17 how can we or can you give us some suggestions as to how we 18 can enforce that storage versus storage of other material 19 that is just being sent off site, so that we can tell the 20 difference between what is going to be used as energy and 21 recovered material versus that which is just being gathered 22 for economic transportation? 23 DR. DANIELS: Sometimes it is not easy to separate 24 energy recovery from material recovery. In some cases, you 25 are recovering both energy and material from foe same product ------- 36 1 One of the concerns that is hard for both sides really is 2 the accumulation of a material in a storage tank that is 3 constantly being depleted on the other end for resource re- 4 covery, and this inventory problem is something that should 5 be addressed within the regulations rather than a discreet 6 amount of waste that is being piled up for off-site re- 7 covery. 8 MS.SCHAFFER: One other question concerns your 9 definition of on-site rather. You said that we should ex- 10 tend the definition of on-site to include sites within rea- 11 sonable proximity. Can you give us an example of what you 12 mean by reasonable proximity? 13 DR. DANIELS: Some of the states have had probablW 14 extreme limits of upwards of 50 miles or so. I don't be- 15 lieve that that type of a number is useful; but if there 16 are plants that are across the street from each other but 17 down the road apiece, this should be considered so that you 18 don't have to build a several million dollar incinerator on 19 both sides to take care of essentially the same waste, or 20 possibly two or three plants located in the same town. 2i MS. SCHAFFER: Thank you very much. 22 MR. MC LAUGHLIN: Doctor, one further question. 23 Some of the states have been allowing surface impoundments 24 to go into operation that are designed to leak, and it is 25 my understanding that this regulation is meant as an attempt ------- 37 l to plug that hole in the regulatory programs of the states 2 that are allowing the discharge, direct discharge, of haz- 3 ardous materials into the ground water, and I don t under- 4 stand your allusion that there is an overlap here. 5 DR. DANIELS: I am thinking specifically of those 6 that are in the train of the waste water treatment plant; 7 the basins,clarifiers, large containments such as that 8 where waste is in a dilute form flowing through, sludge is 9 removed and treated effluent is discharged. This is strict- 10 ly an N.P.D.S. facility. MR. MC LAUGHLIN: But N.P.D.S. facilities do not 12 cover impoundments that do not have a discharge, and many 13 , of these impoundments are built so that they don t have a 14 discharge to avoid an N.ED.S. permit, yet they leak out the bottom, and they still avoid an N.F.D.S. permit. 16 DR. DANIELS: But that s not entirely clear by the 17 regulations. 18 MR. LEHMAN: Dr. Daniels, I'd like to clarify that 19 if I might, you alluded to the fact that the Agency had pro- 20 vided specific exclusion, for example, sludges from publicly 21 owned treatment works, and then later on you say: 22 .. Ve do not agree that sludges from non-POTWs are 23 categorically more hazardous than sludges from POTWs. 24 I would like to, just for the record, make it 25 clear that the Agency intends to regulate sludge management ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3d from POTW's under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, and, in effect, the Agency has dual authority under RCRA and under the Water Act, and we do not intend to allow POTW sludges to escape any regulatory permit. OR. DANIELS: Yes, we recognize that, Jack. It's just that we feel that sanitary sludges from non-POTWg should be in the same category, realizing that there is some difficulty in transferring those type of sludges from Sec- tion 405 of the Clean Water Act. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I just wanted to clarify one remark you made. When you I think answered Fred's question, you said that other than the four characteristics for which we give tests you didn't agree that we should be basing listings on the mutagenicityy bioaccumulation, and toxic organic, and then you later said that there were some charac- teristics that you thought weren't well developed enough. Were you referring to specifically those characteristics rather than the four? DR. DANIELS: Yes, the ones in the AKPR; muta- genicity, bioaccumulation--that one, incidentally, is the one with some merit which we will comment on later; but bio- accumulation by itself should not be a characteristic of hazard. We feel that this dichotomy of requiring testing for delisting but not testing for listing indicates that these petitions to put these compounds on lists should be re ------- 39 1 solved. We don't believe that the methods are currently 2 available for these particular characteristics that are 3 cited within the ANPR at this present time and require 4 further study. 5 MR. LINDSEY: You are referring to the protocols 6 for delisting? 7 DR. DANIELS: Yes, they are required, but yet 8 they are only offered in the ANPR. 9 MR. LINDSEY: You feel that they are not suf- 10 ficiently available or developed to do that? n DR. DANIELS: No. 12 MR. LINDSEY: As opposed to that, then what al- 13 ternative approach would you recommend for delisting, if 14 you will, if we don't use some sort of testing protocols, 15 and what other option would there be, or are you saying we 16 should not have any means of delisting? 17 DR. DANIELS: Definitely there should be a means 18 for delisting, but they should be limited to the four char- 19 acteristics for which there are tests. 20 MR. LINDSEY: In other words, the only wayto get 21 on the list is by meeting one of the characteristics that's 22 under the previous section, then, right? 23 DR. DANIELS: That has acceptable tests. 24 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. 25 (The document referred to follows: HEARING INSERT ------- RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT Hazardous Waste Management General Comments • 'by Dow Chemical U.S.A. to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Waste Management Division Office of Solid Waste Public Hearing St. Louis, Missour: ------- Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, Research Specialist in Environmental Sciences in the Health and Environmental Sciences Department of Dow Chemical U.S.A. As Chairman of our corporate RCRA Task Force, I wish to summarize our con- cerns in response to the Agency's solicitation for a compre- hensive review of all issues raised by the Agency in the pre- amble of the Proposed Guidelines and Regulations for Hazardous Waste (43 FR 58946-9, December 18, 1978), the background docu- ments, and the drafts of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). We have worked closely with the Agency, and with various trade associations, professional societies, and standard setting groups, over the past two years to help develop a consistent set of meaningful regulations for hazardous waste management that will provide adequate benefits in protection of public health and the environment from unreasonable risks while demanding realistic expenditures of resources. Toward this goal, we have provided comments pertaining to all major aspects of the draft regulations and those previously proposed. Today we wish to summarize our major concerns regarding: (1) the schedule for promulgation, (2) the interpretation of hazard, and (3) the general regulation of hazardous waste management facilities. ------- •2- (1) Schedule for Promulgation All regulations for Subtitle C are scheduled for promulgation in 1979. We agree that regulation of hazardous waste is a time consuming and difficult undertaking requiring careful assessment of many complex issues. We state for the record that although the regulations for Sections 3001, 3002, and 300M- were proposed on December 18, 1978, the 4,294- pages of background documents were not available for review until January 8, 1979, and published copies of the draft Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS) were not available for distri- bution until early February. The integrated permit regulations pursuant to Section 3005 of the RCRA and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs, have yet to be proposed. Regulations for Sections 3003, 3006, 3010, and 4-OOM- were previously proposed in mid-1978 before characteristics of hazardous waste were fully developed and will require modification. This piece-meal proposal and promulgation has made coherent overall a-ssessment of the kaleido scopic changes occurring among the individual Sections of the regulations extremely difficult. ------- -3- We recommend that comments on all Sections of the regulations, the EIS, and the ElA be accepted until closure of the comment period for the last Section of Subtitle C to be proposed. ------- (2) Interpretations of Hazard The interpretation of what actually constitutes a hazardous waste is the most critical decision in the entire set of regulations. If characteristics of hazard, specific listings, and testing protocols are adopted as presently proposed, it will result in essentially all solid wastes in many industrial and municipal sectors being classified as hazardous. The total volume of such wastes may exceed the tot-al economically available U.S. disposal capacity. . Inherent in the Agency's interpretation of hazard is' the application of the worst possible scenario of improper management to all discarded materials". This approach does not recognize that there are varying degrees of hazard and that hazard is a function of both effect and exposure. The Agency has confused characteristics of effect with character- istics of exposure. Certain characteristics of effect, such as toxicity and mutagenicity, are overemphasized while other characteristics of exposure, such as persistence and degrada- bility, are generally ignored. We recommend that the characteristics of both exposure and effect be restructured to recognize degrees of hazard. "Unsegregated disposal of hazardous and solid wastes in an unlined landfill and subject to biological degradation resulting in leachate capable of migrating with only minimal attenuation directly into an underlying aquifer which is an immediate source of drinking water. ------- -5- The quantity of waste constituting generation has been a major issue. The Agency has proposed a conservative exclusion of 100 kg/mo or less from these regulations. A higher level of 1000 kg/mo is considered within the EIS and EIA. The approach of hazard because of quantity alone, however, does not recog- nize the associated factors of concentration and chemical form (availability) which together quantitate exposure. The Agency has attempted to regulate certain large-volume, low-hazard wastes by either specific exclusion, e.g. sludges from publically owned treatment works (POTW's), or by creation of six special waste standards within RCRA. We agree with categorization based on both hazard and volume (quantity). We do not agree that slud-ges - f rom non-POTW's are categorially more hazardous than sludges from POTW's. We recommend that reasonable levels of exclusion be established and the factors of concentration and chemical form as well as quantity be considered. The Agency has proposed a maximum of three months beyond which a discarded material is allowed only in permitted storage faci- lity. This limit is overly stringent and does not recognize many commerical operations of reclamation and reuse which extend ------- -6- further in time. The Agency has -moderated their original approach and now proposes to allow certain used materials to be reused such as not to constitute disposal. The recovery of energy values from used oils and other materials (an objective of the RCRA), however, has not been accepted. We-recommend that the storage period for materials that are used for energy and/or material recovery be extended to one year. A dichotomy exists in the listing and delisting of specific hazardous wastes, sources, and processes. Testing for inclusion is restricted to only four characteristics [ignita- bility (I), corrosiveness- (C )•, reactivity (R), and toxicity (T)] for which specific testing protocols were considered to be available for verification or refutation. Testing for exclu- sion, however, includes additional characteristics [mutagenicity (M), bioaccumulation (B), and toxic organic substance (0)] for which testing protocols are unavailable and which are still under consideration within the ANPR. We recommend that all listings based solely on the character- istics of mutagenicity, bioaccumulation, and toxic organic substance (M,B,0) be delayed pending further review. ------- -7- (3) Hazardous Waste Management Facilities The Agency has recognized .that many operations involving storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes may be fully integrated within the same corporation and conducted entirely at a single site. We encourage this approach which reduces duplicate monitoring and reporting. Sufficient lati- tude should be given, however, to the interpretation of "on- site" to avoid needless duplication of facilities for locations in proximity but not necessary geographically contiguous. We recommend that "on-site" be interpreted to mean on the same or geographically contiguous property, or on adjacent property separated by rights-of-way, or within reasonable proximity. The adequacy of solid waste management facilities (M-004 .facili- ties) does not prevent the disposal of low-hazard wast'es therein, ;TT but rather/is the supposed lack of control over transport and th.e potential for mixing with degradable, non-hazardous waste which could develop into a hazardous condition. Manifesting could be required, however, from the generators of all indus- trial wastes transported off-site while providing the option for segregated disposal of certain low-hazard wastes into solid waste management facilities. We recommend that disposal of low-hazard wastes be allowed in segregated solid waste management facilities. ------- -8- Another major concern is the overspecification of design and operational guidelines by the Agency. We believe that the regulations would be greatly streamlined by prescribing what performance is required and allowing flexibility in what procedure is used. Overspecification of procedural guidelines complicates the regulations, restricts flexibility of choice, and demands demonstration of equivalent performance to obtain variances using alternative.procedures. The combined effect is the suppressed development of new technologies and more cost-effective solutions. Effective destruction of hazardous wastes is obviously pre- ferrable to perpetual care. The overly stringent procedural guidelines for incineration,"however, may force the disposal of wastes by less desirable modes of disposal. The Agency contends that solid wastes require greater management than pure materials or the same wastes under existing air, water, waste- water, transport, or occupational safety regulations. Yet the Agency has transferred wholesale lists of hazardous materials, testing protocols, and operating standards from regulations developed -for pure materials for different reasons. We recommend that all procedural guidelines be deleted and provided in a manual of recommended practices. ------- -9- There are several examples of regulatory overlap in the proposed regulations. We object to the specific inclusion of surface impoundments and basins, and other•facilites which are used exlusively for chemical, physical, or biological treatment of dilute aqueous wastes. Such facilities are already adequately regulated under the Clean Water Act. We also object to the inclusion of oil production brines as special waste. Such brines are specifically cited and are to be regulated within the Underground Injection Control (DIG) program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We recommend removal of unwarranted regulatory overlaps per- taining to wastewater treatment facilities. The Agency has relied heavily on waste-specific standards of management but applies industry-specific standards to listingof of processes by SIC". The proposed regulations reflect: (a) standards that do not vary according to the source and (b) the contention that most hazardous wastes require similar management techniques. The Agency contends, however, that hazard is a result of improper management which indeed is dependent upon site-specific disposal operations. We encourage the consideration of waste-specific effects and site-specific exposures. We recommend that waste-specific effects and - site-specific exposures be considered in the regulations. -Standard Industrial Codes ------- -10- The Agency has considered the possible phasing of the Subtitle C program within the EIS by progressively reducing the quantity of waste constituting generation (1,075,000 to 100 kg/mo) and the time of storage (12 to 3 mos) over a period of five years, and by periodically proposing additional characteristics of hazard and new listings of specific wastes. We agree that hazardous wastes management is a dynamic situation subject to future assessment of new data and technologies. We do not believe, however, that phased implementation of the regula- tions- will serve any useful purpose and will result only in further confusion. We recommend that phased implementation be discouraged. We will provide detailed comments on specific Sections of the regulations at future hearings. Thank you for the opportunity to summarize our general concerns. ATTACHMENT Bibliography of papers, comments, testimonies, and presentations on solid and hazardous wastes by Dow Chemical U.S.A. ------- BIBLIOGRAPHY Papers 1. Beale, J. S., Industrial Wastes, Hazardous Waste and Dow Chemical U.S.A., presented at a meeting of the Illinois EPA, September 6-7, 1978. 2. Beale, J. S., The Future of the RCRA - Let's Do It Right!, presented as part of a panel on Managing Hazardous Waste - What Change Is Ahead, International-Waste Equipment and Technology Exposition, sponsored by the National Solid Waste Management Association, San Francisco, California, September 21, 1978. 3. Daniels, S. L., Product Stewardship for Chemicals Used in Water and Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings of the 1974 National Conference on Control of Hazardous Materials Spills, San Francisco, AIChE, New York, 1974, pp. 31-37. 4. Daniels, S. L. , and Beale, J. S., Perspectives of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management as Impacted by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, to be presented at the Symposium on Solid Waste Disposal, AIChE 86th National Meeting, Houston, TX April 4, 1979. 5. Daniels, S. L., and Conyers, E. S., Land Disposal of Chemically Treated Waters and Sludges, in Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Complete WateReuse, Chicago, Illinois, May 4-8, 1975, pp. 697-704. ------- -2- 6. Daniels, S. L., The Role' of Producers of Chemical Waste, presented as part of a panel discussion, Sixth National Congress on Waste Management Technology and Resource & Energy Recovery, cosponsored by the National Solid Waste Management Association and the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, November 14, 1977. 7. Daniels, S. L., The Impact of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) on Hazardous Chemical Waste Management, presented at the Symposium on Land Application Technology for Industrial Wastes, AIChE 70th Annual Meeting, New York, November 17, 1977; also presented at the Fall Scientific Meeting, Midland, Michigna, October 29, 1977. 8. Daniels, S. L., Perspectives of Governmental Impact on Industry - Environmental Evaluation, presented at the 34th Fall Scientific Meeting, Midland, Michigan, November 4, 1978. 9. Daniels, S. L., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Management of Hazardous Solid Wastes, presented at the 34th Fall Scientific Meeting, Midland, Michigan, November 4, 1978. 10. Hamaker, J. W., Interpretation of Soil Leaching Experiments, in "Chemicals, Human Health, and the Environment", Vol. I, pp. 21-30, Form No. 160-592-75. ------- -3- 11. Moolenaar, R. J., Conyers, E. S., Flynn, J. P., Hyser, W. D., Matthews, R. E., and Novak, R. G., Land Disposal of Solid Wastes, in "Chemicals, Human Health and the Environment", Vol. 2, pp. 156-171, available from Dow Chemical U.S.A. Form No. 160-801-77 ------- Comments, Testimonies, and Presentations 1. Daniels, S. L., Comments on Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, letter to Alan Corson, U.S. EPA July 1, 1977. 2. Daniels, S. L., Comments on Prior Notice of Citizen Suits, letter to Jeffrey L. Lilliker, U. S. EPA, July 29, 1977. 3. Daniels, S. L., Comments on Solid Waste Planning and Dis- posal, letter to Kenneth A. Shuster, U.S. EPA, August 5, 1977. 4. Daniels, S. L., Testimony on Draft Proposed Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management, Public Meeting on PL 94-580 conducted by the U.S. EPA, Rosslyn, Virginia, October 11, 1977. 5. Daniels, S. L., Comments on RCRA Draft REgulations - Hazardous Waste Management, letter to John P. Lehman, U.S. EPA, December 23, 1977. 6. Sercu, C. L., Comments on Public Participation in Solid Waste Management, letter to Steffan Plehn, U.S. EPA, February 16, 1978. i 7. Daigre, G. W. , Testimony on State Hazardous Waste Programs Proposed Guidelines, Public Meeting on PL 94-580, Section 3006, conducted by the U.S. EPA, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 29, 19' ------- -6- 15. Daniels, S. L., Testimony on the Proposed Schedule of Regulations and Guidelines, Public Meeting on PL 94-580, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1978. ------- -5- 8. Daniels, S. L., Comments on State Hazardous Waste Programs - Proposed Guidelines, letter to Steffan Plehn, U.S. EPA, March 31, 1978. 9. Beale, J. S., Testimony on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities - Proposed Criteria for Classification, Public Meeting on PL 94-580, Sections, 1008(a) and 4004(a), conducted by the U.S. EPA, Kansas City, Missouri, April 24, 1978. 10. Daniels, S. L., and Gledhill, J. R., Dow Concerns on RCRA, presentation to staff of House Oversight Subcommittee and General Accoungting Office, May 2, 1978. 11. Daniels, S. L., Proposed Criteria for Classification - Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, letter to Kenneth A. Shuster, U.S. EPA, June 12, 1978. 12. Daniels, S. L., Comments on Draft Regulations for-Criteria, Identification Methods, and Listing of Hazardous Waste (3/24/78), letter to Alan Corson, U.S. EPA, June 19, 1978. 13. Daniels, S. L., Beale, J. S., and Fagley, R., Dow Concerns on RCRA, presentation to EPA Office of Solid Waste personnel, June 21, 1978. 14. Beemer, B., Testimony on Proposed Procedures for Prelimi- nary Notification of Hazardous Waste Activities, Public Meeting on PL 94-580, Section 3010, conducted by the U.S. EPA, San Francisco, California, August 24, 1978. ------- CD ^u? a — -4 vy £te< / // / Ccf 7 6/ / ^ *4 *ie< y / ------- , ^0«^,i •o**-rVod, £ ------- © j2^-£^^ / h' / * / (rf ------- •^£U£^1*-&^:3U~^, (>^^=^^ C^L^^ * f / -v ju-i-t' <7 / A*v^ /• O-^- '< ~ ------- I y ? / iT ^<^*~-2. >£-<2-z- /?-^'—*-£*-fc-v. l*~~i------- &j2ts^ ------- <------- \tu tL X / , CX X / f / /SVis.j -Z^szzf;'. — .. - fs^^jt* J1. irt-<. (fjf ------- ft- / /? tf •—#- ~~ #S2 ^^U_>?x--oa-Ctv^', / ^^ : C-^Kx^-^t^-t* /T------- ------- 40 1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Is Dr. Barry Commoner here? 2 STATEMENT OF BARRY COMMONER 3 DR. COMMONER: I don't have any written remarks, 4 but I will be glad to take a few minutes to share with'you' 5 some thoughts about the regulations and the problems that 6 lie behind them. 7 First, I am not particularly concerned with the de- 8 tails of the regulations, although I will make a few remarks 9 about that. I think there are general problems that the 10 regulations are going:to run into as they develop, and I 11 want to discuss those. 12 The first question I want to take up is why are. 13 these regulations needed, what is there about the industry 14 that produces these wastes that leads at this late date, be- 15 cause the industry developed very rapidly after World War II 16 why is it that now, 30 years later or more, we suddenly have 17 to have fairly stringent regulations to control the indus- 18 try. 19 For example, when the explosives industry was 20 developed, everyone knew right away that you needed regula- 21 tions. Why the lag in this case? Well, in my opinion, the 22 reason for the lag is that the industry failed to recognize 23 from the beginning that it was dealing with inherently dan- 24 geiDus substances. What I am saying quite specifically is 25 that the post-war development, particularly of the synthetic ------- 41 1 chemical industry, represented the production of very large- 2 amounts of materials, which on their face, simply by their—• 3 chemical composition, needed to be regard as inherently 4 capable of causing serious biological effects. 5 I'll be very bluntf.. Synthetic organic chemicals 6 should be regarded as probably dangerous until proved other- 7 wise, biologically. 8 Now, why do I say that? I say that because bio- 9 logical systems, which goes on in living cells, carry out 10 their basic functions by means of reactions among organic 11 chemicals generally of the type that appear in the industry. 12 There are benzene rings, et cetera, all of these things are 13 there. 14 Now, unlike the petrochemical industry, the living 15 system has had three billion years in which to correct its 16 mistakes. What I mean by that is that the living chemical 17 system has evolved over a three billion year period, and 18 those chemicals which are incompatible with the chemistry of l9 the cell are rejected during the course of evolution. To 20 put it very simply, my guess is that maybe two billion years 21 ago, some cell took it into his head to synthesize DTT and 22 hasn't been heard from since. 23 What that means practically is this, that an or- 24 ganic chemical that does not occur in living things is very 25 likely to be an evolutionary reject, and, therefore, if syn- ------- 42 1 thetically made and introduced into Che living environment, 2 may well cause trouble. Now, I think there is a good deal 3 of evidence that that is exactly what happened. In other 4 words, you take the Love Canal kind of situation, which ob- 5 viously is going to be reproduced all over the country, it's 6 clear that when that material was dumped, the industry was 7 unaware that it contained materials which would have seri- 8 ous biological effects. At that time, for example, very 9 little was known about the numbers of chemicals that caused 10 mutations and cancer. One of th e interesting things that 11 has been happening is that the numbers of chemicals that we 12 now know cause cancer has been going up year by year. In 13 other words, in the last ten years, the number of new car- 14 cinogens discovered was twice the number discovered in the 15 preceding ten years. 16 Now, there are two reasons for that. One is that 17 the industry keeps making new materials, and the other is 18 that more research is being done to detect these things. 19 So the point I am making is that you are dealing with a situ 20 ation which involves unknown hazards that are built into the 21 structure of the industry. 22 At this point I want to remark about a comment 23 made by the previous witness having to do with the detection 24 of mutagens. As I understood it, the Dow position is that 25 mutagenicity should not be used at this time as an index of ------- 43 1 degree of hazard, and I think that is a very bad idea; that 2 is, the Dow idea, because it so happens that the mutagenicit 3 is probably the easiest and most sensitive way to detect 4 biologically hazardous wastes. 5 As you probably know, there are very rapid met- 6 hods for detecting mutagens. Or I will put it to you again 7 in a very simple, operational way. In my opinion, had muta- 8 genicity; that is, tests of material in the area of Love 9 Canal been used, that area could have been detected years 10 ago. If, for example, seepage into the basements of the 11 people living in that area had simply been collected and 12 tested by the Aims Test, which is a fast way of getting muta- 13 genicity data, in a matter of weeks one would have known 14 biologically active material was leaking into the basements 15 of the people who lived there. 16 In fact, I would suggest, since we now know that 17 there are some hundreds of some similar situations all over 18 the country, I would suggest that the most rapid, effective 19 way of detecting would be the extensive use of the Aims Test 20 on water seepage, on soil. For example, soil samples can 2i very readily be--in four days you can analyze the mutagen 22 content of a soil sample. In work done in our laboratory, 23 for example, we have shown that in the area of the steel 24 mills in Chicago, which put out mutagens and carcinogens, 25 when they fall on the soil, it's very easy to analyze the ~\ ------- 44 1 soil and show that it's there. So that I am shocked to find 2 that the Dow Chemical people are proposing that the best 3 tool that you have got to monitor the hazardous waste situ- 4 ation is the one that you shouldn't use. Now, I am also 5 surprised because it is my guess that Dow makes very heavy 6 use of that technique itself, and that leads me to another 7 point because I think this type of measurement is so import- 8 ant. 9 I think it would be very important for Dow and 10 the other chemical firms to release all of the information 11 that they are getting on mutagenicity from different com- 12 pounds. Now, how do I know that they are getting that in- 13 formation? It so happens that the bacteria that are used 14 in this test all come from one place, from the Aims Labora- 15 tory, and I think if you asked Dr. Aims for a list of the 16 chemical companies who have gotten material from them, you 17 will discover, I think, that most of the chemical companies 18 in the United States are doing Aims testing. I have seen 19 very few results from those laboratories. Very often com- 20 mercial laboratories do testing of chemicals, and they do 21 it under a code name and never know the substance that they 22 have been testing. So I happened to seize on this because 23 I think that this is probably the most important way to 24 monitor the situation, and I am rather surprised that the 25 DOW witness chose that particular thing to hold off. ------- 45 1 The last thing I want to say is that it seems to 2 me you're going to run into trouble carrying out these regr . 3 ulations, and I want to talk about some of the trouble that 4 I think you're going to run into. 5 I think it's important to recognize it because of 6 the experience of OSHA, for example, in finding that its 7 attempt to put across regulations based on hazard have been 8 confronted by economic arguments, and I think you're going 9 to run into economic arguments, too. 10 The point I want to make is that since the chemi- 11 cals that are involved here are very largely inherently in- 12 volved in the chemistry of this industry, what you're really 13 talking about is a pattern of the distribution of these I 14 materials throughout the United States. Just stop and think 15 for a moment what happens to the movement of chemicals that 16 are synthesized by the chemical industry. In this room, 17 they are in the plastic soundproofing; they are undoubtedly 18 in the plastic covering of the seats; they're in the syn- 19 thetics that a lot of people are wearing; they're in the 20 frame of my eyeglasses; they're all over. Now, what you are 21 doing is asking where are they being consciously dumped, and 22 it's clear from the experience in the last few years that 23 we don't know where they have been dumped, and what I am 24 saying is that a pattern of the production, voluntary and 25 involuntary movement of these hazardous chemicals is what's ------- 46 1 behind the issue that you are trying to get at. In other 2 words, what we need is a picture of the, so to speak, of 3 the metabolism, the movement of these chemicals throughout 4 the United States. I don't think that the regulations will produce that. 6 What you have got to do, it seems to me, is to 7 develop information about the whole pattern of movement, and 8 it is going to have a very practical effect on what you are 9 trying to do. For example, one thing that is not clear to l° me from the regulations is when you ought to move something and when you ought to keep it where it is and try to deal 12 with it. The reason why I say that is that the shipment of 13 hazardous- wastes is itself hazardous. One of the reasons why we are seeing more and more 15 chemical accidents on railroads and roads is the simple fact that the rate of movement and the amount of material moved has gone up so fast because of the development of the in- 18 dustry. Now, I don't understand what effect your regula- 20 tions will have on the flow of hazardous material because, 21 for example, if you set up an authorized dump, and there are 22 going to be relatively few of them, that will mean that 23 movement of wastes will have to be carried to that dump. 24 In other words, what I am saying is you need an optimiza- 25 tion study. You have got to figure out the relative value ------- 47 1 of detoxifying or storing a hazardous waste where it exists 2 or where it has been produced and compare it with the haz- 3 ards that are involved in moving it, and I don't know that 4 that has ever been done; and I think until you do that, you 5 don't know the relative value of storage in one place or 6 another. 1 Finally, what that is going to lead to, I think, 8 is a good deal of evidence that certain wastes from certain 9 processes are going to be so difficult to handle that the 10 costs of handling them will outweigh the benefits to be de- ll rived from the material. In other words, I think you are 12 going to run into very serious cost-benefit problems, and I 13 noticed that the present administration keeps raising econ-' " 14 omic issues about the enforcement of regulations, and I 15 think that you have got to be prepared for the likelihood 16 that what you're going to require the industry to do will, 17 in effect, put certain substances off the market. 18 I want to say, though, that that isn't so bad be- 19 cause practically everything that the petrochemical industry 20 has introduced has replaced something that existed before. 21 You know, 50 years ago, these chairs (indicating) would ' 22 have been upholstered, too. They would be here. People 23 would not be sitting on hard chairs. The chairs would be up- 24 holstered in wool or leather, and it isn't as though the 25 world would end if there were no plastics. ------- 43 1 So what I am saying is that I think you are going 2 to run into a very serious economic situation which will re- 3 quire us to examine the benefits of the industry that is 4 causing all this trouble. 5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. 6 Before I see if the panel has any questions, 7 could you identify yourself for the court reporter? I 8 don't believe you did that. 9 DR. COMMONER: Yes. I'm Barry Commoner, director 10 of the Centerfor the Biology of Natural Systems at Washing- 11 ton University, St. Louis. 12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. 13 Would you answer questions for us? 14 DR. COMMONER: Yes, of course. 15 MR. CORSON: Dr. Commoner, I was just wondering 16 whether you had had a chance in your review of our regula- 17 tions to note that in the advance notice of proposed rule- 18 making where we suggest that there are other properties of 19 toxicity which should be considered to further define that 20 characteristic, that probably our major concern in that area 21 was one of the mutagenetic activity, and we are suggesting 22 in that ANPR a battery of at least three tests, one of which 23 would be the Aims Test, and I'm wondering whether you can 24 possibly, either today or in some other comment, provide to 25 us your opinion as to whether or not the battery we have ------- 49 1 suggested would be appropriate for the industries of con- 2 cern or whether you think we could stop with just the Aims A 3 Test as a for example. 4 DR. COMMONER: First let me say I have read that 5 section of the regulation. My remarks were not directed 6 towards your proposed regulations but toward the objection 7 of the previous witness to those sections of the regula- 8 tions. 9 Our group has concentrated on the Aims Test and 10 we have done a good deal of work on environmental materials. 11 I have the distinct impression that where you're interested 12 in a rapid screen; that is, rapidly picking up trouble spots 13 the most efficient way of doing it is to concentrate on the"1 14 ^lote Test. In other words, I would say that the battery 15 ought to have another characteristic; that is, which do you 16 start with. In most cases, if something has been picked up 17 by the J&SBB Test, it is going to be a biological problem of 18 some sort. It may be a carcinogen. It is certainly a mutn- 19 gen, and mutations are serious, and I think that because it 20 is so much easier to do and can give you results so fast, I 21 would prefer to see it as the immediate, in other words, I 22 would use that even if the rest of the battery, for example, 23 isn't ready to be carried through, I would get that infer- 24 mation first; and, then, on that basis, go to other tests, 25 rather than say we're not going to pay any attention to re- ------- 50 1 suits until we have looked at the entire battery. 2 MR. LINDSEY: Can I follow up on the Aims Test a 3 little bit? We have received comments from time to time on 4 the Aims Test that perhaps it's not—it's relatively new and 5 has not been sufficiently verified and may not be sufficient- 6 ly precise in terms of identifying all of the things that 7 may be mutagenic to be used in a regulatory mode and per- 8 haps to be acceptable in a court of law. Do you have any 9 comments on that? 10 DR. COMMONER: Yes, I do. In the first place, on 11 the question of its use, if you could find the legal basis 12 for requiring all laboratories that have done Aims Tests to 13 release their information, my guess is that the amount of 14 information would go up tenfold at least. So the argument 15 which usually comes from people who have been doing results 16 that they haven't reported is, shall we say, in bad taste. 17 Now, the question of what is the meaning of an 18 Aims Test result, yes, it's true that you may miss some 19 mutagens with any test; but the point is that we are ex- 20 posed probably to ten or twenty times more mutagens than we 21 are even aware of because they keep finding new ones, and I 22 fail to see any reason why the fact that a test is not com- 23 plete should be an argument against using it. What it means 24 is that we're not in perfect knowledge of our situation, but 25 that's a lot better than the situation that we're in now, ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 and, as I say, I go back to the question of the Love Canal type of situation. It seems to me that there ought to be an immediate program. 1 understand that EPA now has some ideas about where these places are. It seems to me that an immediate program of soil testing, and, as a matter of fact it might even be possible to do tests of biological materi- als as well. An immediate testing with the Aims Test would probably give you more information about where the worst situations are than any other way of going about it. Now, the other side of it is--and it's a very strange thing--mutagenicity, and by inference, carcinogen- icity, it's probably the most effective test we have for biological toxicity now, much more effective than skin tests of varios kinds and so on. In other words, it hap- pens to be, I think, that if you look at the battery of biological problems, neurotoxicity, let's say various sys- temic effects, if you take into account sensitivity, accur- acy, and the ease of carrying it out, mutagenicity tests, and particularly the Aims Test, are far and away the best tool that we have for picking up something that is bio- logically active; and I'm amazed to find that this has been singled out as the thing that we shouldn't do because it stands-out as being die one thing that will help us straight en out the situation. , It may be that some people are afraid of the inform ------- 52 1 nation because every time we use the Aims Test we keep dis- 2 covering more and more active material, and I know, you 3 know, if you're manufacturing this stuff, you worry about 4 it. 5 MR. LEHMAN: Dr. Commoner, one of your remarks 6 dealt with the, and I believe yourstatement, if I may para- 7 phrase it a little bit, was "Shipment of hazardous waste is 8 in itself hazardous," and I want to just clarify whether 9 by inference you are suggesting that the Agency should en- 10 courage on-site disposal as opposed to off-site disposal in 11 regional facilities? 12 DR. COMMONER: The point of my remark was to say 13 that there is a mathematical relationship between the choice 14 of leaving some-thing where it is and moving it, and, there- 15 fore, you cannot judge which is the least hazardous step 16 unless you take into account the hazards that will arise be- 17 cause of transportation accidents. That has never been 18 done. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been done--I want to 19 make that very clear. What you need is a total pattern of 20 where the products of the chemical industry are and how 21 they move, in what amounts where. 22 Imagine a motion picture going on showing FCB's— 23 well, we're not making them any more as of a couple years 24 ago--but let's say insecticides and the waste product, you 25 want to know where they a re being produced, where they're ------- 53 1 being shipped, in what amounts, where the residues are 2 being stored; and what I am saying is once you've got that, I 3 you then can optimize for the decision as to whether sorae- 4 thing should be kept where it originated or whether you 5 ought to move it; and that will take into account, for 6 example, the condition of the railroads. 7 You see, one of the outcomes on analysis like 8 that might be that we're going to get into deep trouble be- 9 cause the railroads are deteriorating; and you might, for 10 example, get data that would show that until the railroad 11 tracks are improved, it would be better to leave the waste 12 where it is. That's the kind of information that you're 13 going to have to have before you can make the decision as 14 to whether something should be moved or not; and I think 15 you ought to have a kind of research program attached to 16 this entire program in order to work that out. 17 MR. CORSON: One more question. I would like to 18 follow up with regard to the general area of the Aims Test. 19 To my knowledge, what little bit I know about the Aims Test, 20 most of the work that has been done in the past has essen- 21 tially been done on testing pure substances where a company 22 may be introducing a new product and is concerned about the 23 mutagenicity of that particular product, and, as you are 24 aware, in the proposal which we published on December 18, ?~^ !,.(.'•• V' 25 we are suggesting that for toxicity we would y^-r,; an ex- ------- 54 1 tracted procedure because our concerns are with the toxicant 2 that might be released from the wastes. I am wondering what 3 your feelings are about how effective the Aims Test might be 4 on these undefined mixtures and whether or not you think 5 that its use is suitable as a screen for these combinations 6 of things, taking into account the fact that we have used an 7 extraction procedure to get there with an acetic acid ex- 8 tract. 9 DR. COMMONER: Our laboratory has been doing pre- 10 cisely that, measurements on unknown mixtures for five years 11 now, and, as we have shown, the Aims Test is very effective 12 on urban air particulates. We did an entire study on dust 13 in Chicago, and it very clearly picks up mutagenic material 14 in such a mixture. We have shown that it's effective in 15 analyzing soil. We have shown that it's effective in ana- 16 lyzing foods, again a complex mixture. We have used it on 17 the effluent of a waste treatment plant in the Houston ship 18 canal which is an extraordinarily complex mixture, and we're 19 able to pick out of it two particular substances that were 20 responsible for the mutagenicity. We have used it extensive 21 ly urine of animals that are experimentally exposed to car- 22 cinogens and the urine of people who smoke cigarettes and 23 the urine of workers exposed to mutagens and carcinogens in 24 the workplace, and we can characterize, for example, in the 25 urine of cigarette smokers two characteristic mutagens that ------- 4 55 1 turn up in the urine in the midst of other materials, such 2 of which have effects on the bacteria, for example, toxicitj 3 So that at this point there is, I think, very extensive in- 4 formation on the ability of the Aims Test to deal with mix- 5 tures; and I might say, without getting too technical, one 6 of the best ways of handling this is to use separation 7 techniques together with the Aims Test. 8 What we do typically is to run the chromatogram 9 which separates out different substances. Then we take each 10 section of the chromatogram and run an Aims Test on it. In 11 that way, we can track down biologically and characterize 12 specific ingredients. I think that kind of information,for 13 example, on again soil in a Love Canal type of area would btfL 14 extraordinarily useful; and again, for example, an analysis 15 of soil of that sort, you can have that done in an ordinary 16 laboratory in a week. In other words, you take up the soil 17 sample; and in a week, you would know whether there are 13 agents in it that are active in the Aims Test and roughly 19 how many. 20 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: How much would a test of a 21 soil sample cost if done with your chromatogram? 22 DR. COMMONER: I was afraid you were going to ask 23 me that because--we're a university laboratory, and it's 24 very easy to misjudge. You know, we have to pay for the 25 mowing of the law and so on--that's overhead. I don't know.^P ------- 56 1 I would say, let's say a soil test without chromatography 2 would probably cost in the order of 100, 200 dollars in 3 terms of labor and materials, with chromatography maybe 4 another $100. You're talking about that order. 5 Now, incidentally, one of the things that ought 6 to be done is to automate some of this stuff, and then it 7 could go a lot faster and cheaper. 8 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I wanted to follow up on 9 your comments also about gathering data. We received a 10 lot of comments in Mew York, and I think Dr. Daniels 11 recommends that we characterize wastes by degree of hazard, 12 and I take it that some of the thrust of your remarks is 13 that you would want us keeping particularly hazardous sub- 14 stances on site or—you're worried about transportation. 15 Assume for a minute that we have very limited authority and 16 that the primary aim is to give people performance standards 17 or design standards for disposing of certain materials. Do 18 you have any suggestions as to how we should be, if we de- 19 cide to do it, to characterize by hazard, degree of hazard? 20 DR. COMMONER: That's an almost impossible situ- 21 ation. I think that you have to recognize that you are try- 22 ing to correct a horrendous mistake made by a huge industry 23 many years ago. I mean how are you going to characterize a 24 mixture of materials which may interact chemically, which 25 may interact biologically. For example, as you know, many ------- 57 1 carcinogens are active only in the presence of what's called 2 a promoter or a co-carcinogen. Now, what that means is that *j you may have a substance which is a carcinogen that will be 4 relatively harmless because the co-carcinogen isn't in that drum of junk; but next time it turns up in a drum with a 6 co-carcinogen, now it's become very dangerous; and I don't know how you are going to be able to do that. Q I suppose that it would be useful to develop a o kind of concept of genetic toxicants; that is, things which are capable of causing mutation, birth defects, carcinogens, 11 and I would give those extra weight because of the fact 12 15 20 that we won't see the biological effects for many years, 13 and that would require, in my opinion, at least on moral grounds, a kind of extra caution; and I, myself, would think that a high level of mutagens in a drum full of waste would 16 mark it as very hazardous and something that ought to be handled in a particularly careful way. 18 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., no more questions. 19 Thank you very much. Next speaker this morning, it would be Mr. Joe Pound of American Admixtures Corporation. 22 STATEMENT OF JOE POUND 23 MR. POUND: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Joe Pound. I'm vice president of 25 American Admixtures Corporation in Chicago. ------- 58 1 My purpose today is to present in concise form 2 the position of American Admixtures regarding RCRA and its 2 impact upon our company and industry. American Admixtures is an experienced, success- ful marketing and recycling disposal contractor for the by- 6 products of coal-burning electric power plants. For over 7 30 years, we have actively and aggressively promoted the 8 commercial use of fly ash, bar slag, and bottom ash from 9 coal into numerous commercial applications. 10 Our present staff of engineers, chemists, and 11 geologists, we utilize marketing, recycling, and ultimate 12 disposal techniques as they are required and have the capa- 13 bility to plan and design, contruct and operate our own ash 14 removal equipment and disposal sites for the coal-burning 15 utilities. 16 Presently we have marketing contracts with ten 17 different utilities in eight different states in the Mid- 18 west, including three contracts with three different utili- 19 ties for total ash removal combining, marketing, recycling, 20 and disposal. 21 During the course of the past 30 years, we esti- 22 mate we have sold over ten million tons of fly ash c crane r- 23 cially.by incorporating the fly ash into durable concrete 24 of many types, from enormous dams to highways; and during 25 the past 20 years, we have been directly responsible for ------- 59 l the disposal of approximately twenty million tons of coal by. 2 products from seven station locations. 3 Now we would like to list some of the specific 4 concerns we have with RCRA as an impact on our company and 5 the coal ash industry that we are a part of, which is best 6 represented by the National Ash Association in Washington, 7 D. C. 8 No. 1, the proposed special regulations imply by 9 association that fly ash has inherent hazardous character- 10 istics even though these products have been placed in a 11 "special category" awaiting final determination. The fact 12 that we are in the regulation at all builds a case for guilt 13 by association which we consider unfair and inappropriate 14 since the scientific evidence is not present for evaluation. 15 No. 2, the acid extraction procedure, the E.P., 15 except in cases where the product is placed as a structural 17 fill, co-disposed in a strip mine or sanitary landfill, does ig not represent in any way a condition typical of disposal 19 techniques as we know them, with which we are responsible or 20 intend to be responsible. 2i These worst case scenarios simply are not real 22 scenarios where segregated and isolated disposal operations 23 are^predetermined, executed, and monitored by a permit sys- 24 tern. We, therefore, strongly urge that acid be changed to 25 water as recommended by AST It, Committee D-1912, when acid ------- 60 1 is predetermined to be present in the segregated disposal 2 site, then use both acid and water to leach. 3 Further, we believe that a sample of less than 4 100 grams, as provided by theEvP., with fly ash, cannot be 5 representative of a large scale reality of 100,000 tons of 6 coal ash per year typical of many coal-burning utility 7 plants. 8 No. 3, the structural integrity test, the S.I.T., 9 does not offer relief where the utility or the recycling and 10 disposal contractor make the decision to stabilize the fly 11 ash or sludgp waste into a low strength, low permeability, cemented condition that can prevent it from releasing any 13 potential heavy metals that it might contain in trace 14 amounts. 15 The specifics of the present S.I.T. are best com- 16 pared with the sledge hammer test used as a preparation 17 method before checking the quality of your car windshield. 18 Our company is actively supporting major modifi- 19 cations of the present S.I.T. through efforts of ASTM Com- 20 mittee D-19 as well. 21 No. 4, we are concerned that the time frame in 22 which this act has been required be implemented does not 23 allow an orderly process of engineering technological deve- 24 lopments to speak to the potential dangers that any waste 25 can generate ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 With any waste, potential dangers are always real. if you include the possibility of being buried alive in it. Therefore, we urgently request that the Agency use maximum efforts in extending the time required to adequately develop the technology to both control the release of any potential- ly dangerous materials from our products and to recognize that 30 years of commercial application of coal ash could well be destroyed if a hasty and ill-advised approach is taken to the implementation of these proposed rules. Further, we urge that the concept of using worst case scenarios be modified to reflect reality rather than a hypothesis that has not been documented or experienced in any application with; which we are familiar concerning coal ash. We are reminded of the recent decision of EPA to back off on too stringent standards on air pollution after experi- ence indicated that the preliminary regs were too tough and unnecessary. Mo. 5, we believe fly ash, as we have known it for 30 years, can best be called a valuable natural resource as the States of Maryland and Massachusetts have declared by law. The best way to control indiscriminate disposal is to first provide every possible freedom and incentive to market it into its numerous commercial uses. Fly ash is not a hazardous waste as we sell or dispose of it and never will be unless you make it so by ------- 62 1 tests that do not reflect any reality with which we are 2 familiar. Therefore, we urge you to consider your decision 3 in the context of a valuable natural resource, of energy 4 conservation through recycling of byproducts, and land 5 reclamation and conservation. Making it hazardous "des- 6 troys" these advantages. 7 Next, we see our future task as the following: 8 Mo. 1, continue to develop meaningful, scientific 9 data to support and encourage commercial uses and recycling 10 of coal ash. 11 No. 2, continue to develop stabilization techni- 12 ques for recycling and disposal toward the goal of assuring 13 that our coal ash is never judged to be hazardous. 14 Three, continue to encourage and execute good 15 management techniques regarding coal ash collection, re- 16 cycling, and disposal operations. 17 And as a corollary, we see your challenge as foi- ls lows: 19 Strive for an optimum balance between environ- 20 mental protection and the encouragement of recycling using 21 industrial byproducts such as coal ash. 22 Two, special care in evaluating the microscopic 23 test procedures for determining toxicity of coal ash within 24 the context of the microscopic quantities of coal ash pro- 25 duced, which today in the United States amount to about 70 ------- 63 1 million tons annually, while our industry is currently mar- 2 keting about 25 per cent of that total, or 17 million tons. 3 according to recent information I obtained from John Faber 4 at National Ash Association. 5 In conclusion, we reiterate our desire to support 6 the technological developments you require. That support 7 includes full fly ash testing laboratory facilities located 8 in Chicago. Our technical staff will be pleased to advise 9 and support the ongoing educational requirements that are 10 necessary to reach an intelligent and rational solution to 11 the opportunities that exist for marketing and correct re- 12 cycling disposal of coal ash. 13 For example, our company has developed informa- 14 tion on the radioactive characteristics of most of the fly 15 ash sources with which we are familiar and work with regu- 16 larly. We are reporting on this subject as well as new 17 developments in our fly ash marketing and recycling dis- 18 posal efforts at the Fifth International Symposium of 19 National Ash Association to be held February 26 and 27 in 20 Atlanta. 21 We will mail you a copy of our remarks, along 22 with these published technical reports that we feel support 23 our arguments, and we thank you for this opportunity. 24 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. 25 Will you answer questions if there are any? ------- reoruary j.<4 , ±y / y Joe Pound, Vice Presiden American Admixtures Corp FINAL DRAFT TO: U.S.E.P.A., Office of Solid Waste Management FROM: AAC SUBJECT: Position Paper for St. Louis Hearings on Proposed RCRA Regulations, February 14, 1979 Ladies and Gentlemen, my purpose today is to present in concise form the position of American Admixtures Corporation regarding RCRA and its impact upon our company and industry. American Admixtures is an experienced and successful marketing and recycling disposal contractor for the by-products of coal burning electric power plants. For over 30 years, we have actively and aggressively promoted the commerical use of fly ash, boiler slag and bottom ash from coal into numerous commerical applications. With our present staff of sales and technical engineers, chemists and geologists, we utilize marketing, recycling and ultimate disposal techniques as they are required and have the capability to plan, design, construct and operate our own ash removal equipment and disposal sites for the coal burning utilities. Presently, we have marketing contracts with 10 different utilities in 8 different states of the midwest including 3 contracts with 3 different utilities for total ash removal, combining marketing, recycling and disposal. During the course of the past 30 years we estimate that we have sold over 10 million tons of fly ash commerically, (primarily by incorporating the fly ash into durable concrete mixes of many types from enormous dams to highways.), and during the past 20 years have been directly responsible for the disposal of approximately 20 million tons of coal by-products from 7 station locations. Now, we would like to list some of the specific concerns we have with RCRA as it can impact on our company and the coal ash industry that we are part of and is best represented by the National Ash in Washington, D.C. (1) Your proposed special regulations imply by association that fly ash has inherent hazardous characteristics, even though these products have been placed in a "special category" waiting final determination. The fact that we are in the regu- lations at all builds a case for "guilt by association" which ------- - 2 - we consider unfair and inappropriate since the scientific evidence is not present for evaluation. (2) The acid extraction procedure (EP), except in cases where the product is placed as a structural fill co-disposed in a strip mine or sanitary landfill, does not represent in any way a condition typical of disposal techniques as we know them with which we are responsible or intend to be responsible. These "worse case scenarios" simply are not "real" scenarios where segregated and isolated disposal operations are predetermined, executed and monitored by a permit system. We, therefore, t strongly urge the "acid" be changed to "water"as recommended by ASTM D 19.12. When "acid"j.s predetermined to be present in the disposal site then use both acid and water to leach. Further, we believe that a sample of less than 100 grams, as provided by the EP with fly ash, cannot be representative of the large scale reality of 100,000 tons of coal ash per year, typical of many coal burning utility plants. (3) The structural integrity test (SIT) does not offer relief where the utility or recycling/disposal contractor makes the decision to stabilize the fly ash or sludge waste into a low strength, low permeability cemented condition that can prevent it from releasing any potential heavy metals that it might contain in trace amounts. The specifics of the present SIT are best compared with-a "sledge hammer" used as a preparation method before checking the quality of your car windshield. Our company is actively supporting major modification of the present SIT through efforts of ASTM Committee D 19.12 as well. (4) We are concerned that the time frame in which this act has been required to be implemented does not allow an orderly process of engineering technological development to speak to the potential dangers that any waste can generate. With any waste the potential dangers are always real, if you include the possibility of being buried of alive in it. Therefore, we urgently request that the Agency use maximum efforts in extending the time required to adequately develop the technology ------- - 3 - to both control the release of any potential dangerous materials from our products and to recognize that 30 years of commerical application of coal ash could well be de- stroyed if a hasty and ill advised approach is taken to the implementation of these proposed rules. Further, we urge that the concept of using "worst case scenarios" be modified to reflect reality rather than a hypothesis that has not been documented or experienced in any application with which we are familiar concerning coal ash. We are reminded of the.recent decision of EPA to back off on "too stringent" standards on air pollution after experience indi- cated that preliminary conclusions wjare too tough and un- necessary. (5) We believe fly ash as we have know it for 30 years can best be called a "valuable natural resource" as the States of Maryland and Massachusettes have declared by law. The best way to control indiscriminate disposal is to first provide every possible freedom and incentive to market it into its numerous commerical uses. Fly ash is not a "hazardous waste" as we sell or dispose of it, and never will be unless you make it so by using tests that do not reflect any reality with which we are familiar. Therefore, we urge you to consider your decision in the context of a valuable natural resource of energy conservation through recycling of by-products and land reclamation and conservation. Making it "hazardous" destroys these advantages. Next we see our future taks as the following: 1. Continue to develop meaningful scientific data to support and encourage commerical uses and recycling of coal ash. 2. Continue to develop stabilization techniques for re- cycling and disposal toward the goal of assuring that our coal ash is never judged to be hazardous. 3. Continue to encourage and^execute good management techniques regarding coal ash collection, recycling and disposal operations. As a corollary, we see your challenges as follows: ------- - 4 - 1. Strive for an optimum balance between environ- mental protection and the encouragement of recycling using industrial by-products, such as coal ash. 2. Special care in evaluating the microscopic test procedures for determining toxicity of coal ash within the context of the macroscopic quantities of coal ash produced, which today in the United States amount to about 70 million tons annually while our industry is currently marketing about 25% of that total or 17 million tons, according to recent information I obtained from John Faber at National Ash Association. In conclusion, we reiterate our desire to support the techno- logical developments you require. That support includes full fly ash testing laboratory facilities located in Chicago. Our techni- cal staff will be pleased to advise and support the on-going edu- cational requirements that are necessary to reach an intelligent and rational solution to the opportunities that exist for both marketing and correct recycling/disposal of coal ash. For example, our company has developed information on the radioactive character- istics of most of the fly ash source with which we are familiar and work with regularly. We are reporting on the subject as well as new developments in our fly ash marketing and recycling/disposal efforts at the 5th International Symposium of the NAA to be held February 26th and 27th in Atlanta. We will mail you a copy of our remarks along with published technical reports that support our arguments. We thank you for the opportunity to present our case. ------- 64 1 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Pound, I wanted to explore with 2 you some of your earlier remarks. You indicated that the 3 inclusion of utility wastes as in a special waste category 4 under Section 3004, if I remember your remarks, "established 5 guilt by association", or words to that effect. First of 6 , all, I think it's important for the record, for further 7 clarification hers, to realize that nowhere in our proposal 8 do we list fly ash as a hazardous waste, and you do under- 9 stand that? 10 MR. POUND: I do. I am referring back, of coarse, 11 to the title of the document. 12 MR. LEHMAN: The situation is under Section 3004 13 that if a waste is found to be hazardous, the utility waste 14 is found to be hazardous, then it is subject not to the full !5 range of Section 3004 regulations but to somewhat more 16 limited requirements under the special waste category. Are 17 you suggesting that we remove utility wastes from the speci- 18 ai wastes category? 19 MR. POUND: No. Allan and I talked about this at 20 some length, and really you are dealing with a semantic 21 problem in part, but you are also dealing with the question 22 of who were the brilliant ones who figured out that any- 23 thing in that document ought to be called hazardous as con- 24 trasted with degree of hazard or control or nonerous other 25 words that could be used in lieu of hazard, because there's ------- 65 1 enormous implication that, just the fact that the word 2 comes out in the document, that John and Mary Q. Public 3 might feel that somehow you are a hazard; and if you want 4 to carry it to extremes, it's certainly possible. Certain- 5 ly something alive in it is a hazard. That's the problem 6 that we have, and we've heard people say that, therefore, 7 aren't you suspect before you begin, and I'd have to say 8 it depends on your reading; and the reading that most are 9 getting is that somehow we're hazardous because we all 10 breathe air. Publish this, and all of the sudden we've got 11 a labeling. It may be gray, it may be almost white, but 12 you've still got the attempt. 13 MR. LINDSEY: Let me follow up on that, then. 14 Presumably, what you are saying is that you would like to 15 have fly ash exempted in some fashion completely; and our 16 information indicates that sometimes fly ash fails the 17 characteristics test under, what is that, 250.13 of our 18 Act; and the question is then if it fails those characteris- 19 tics, and assuming, and which was our intent, that those 20 characteristics were developed so as identify the materials 21 which are hazardous, then are you saying that the charac- 22 teristics are too strict and that we ought to make those 23 more lenient in some manner so that materials like fly ash 24 and things that may be similar to that do not ever fit into 25 the picture? ------- 66 1 MR. POUND: I think the difficulty we have is the 2 fact that the scientific evidence and the scientific com- 3 munity have no basis at this time to make a judgment that 4 we're hazardous to any degree in relation to the proposed 5 standards; and I guess I would conclude that they are too 6 strict at this point if they are applied carte blanche. 7 Theoretically, the special category puts us into a special 8 determination category as well; but the implication and the 9 time frame—and remember, I'm combining the two--are that 10 we will never be able to find the adequate amount of infor- 11 mation prior to the time of implementation. So, therefore, 12 one will conclude we'll be in limbo at the very best for 13 quite some period of time. 14 MR. CORSON: 1 have a couple questions, Joe. One 15 has to do with sampling. 16 One of your comments indicated that you thought 17 that a 100-gram sample was inadequate, and 1 think what we 18 are trying to do in our regulation--and perhaps you can 19 help us with that--is to suggest that they take a repre- 20 sentative sample. We have referenced where we knew them, 2i certain ASTM sampling procedures, and obviously that in- 22 eludes all this standard business of quartering and quar- 23 taring and quartering, but eventually you end up with some 24 small size sample. Do you have a feel for what size that 25 has to be? This quartering, if you use this to represent, ------- 67 1 in essence, the equivalency of thousands or millions of 2 tons, why cannot we get down to 100-gram sample for running 3 the extraction procedure? 4 MR. FOUND: Alan, to reflect on that 100-gram 5 point, this was under the S.I.T. comments, and so I am re- 6 ferring to that sample of 1.3 inches by 2.8 inches that 7 represents a small representative sample of stabilized ash, 3 so-called, or stabilized waste, so-called, and the difficult; 9 there is you are not going to be quartering and all that 10 routine. That comes with the dust, and that is a possibili- 11 ty, but that's one of the serious questions we want to 12 raise, as the point of the test or the timing of the test 13 in the so-called pattern of flow of the product from the 14 coal in the ground to the ash in its disposal site or, hope- 15 fully, commercial application. Where you make the test and 16 when you make the test is, of course, critical, but the 17 S.I.T. does give us a theoretical advantage in that it is 18 encouraging, as the Act states, stabilization to prevent any 19 possible undefined hazard from leaking out; but when you end 20 up with a sample that weighs 100 grams to represent literal- 21 ly hundreds of thousands of tons, and nationwide millions, 22 those are the kinds of relationships that I think are poorly 23 understood, and I'm not sure that we understand it. It just 24 seems that you are dealing with a fantastically small amount 25 when you deal with thousands of tons. ------- 68 1 MR. CORSON: Following up on the S.I.T. question 2 again, the structural integrity test, what we have done, for 3 clarification of those who may not be aware of the approach 4 that we called for in the regulation, we originally looked 5 at taking a sample of waste and somehow reducing its size 6 or the pieces in size so it could go through a three- 7 eighth inch screen. The comment was given to us in our 8 development process that this was penalizing those who 9 stabilize wastes, and we felt, in our minds at least, that 10 the question of crushing to three-eighth inch size was 11 really not crushing but was allowing for the kinds of, do 12 we say degradation of the structural integrity of the waste 13 that could occur in a land disposal operation or through 14 freeze/thaw cycles of the ground, and, therefore, we tried 15 to develop something like what we call the structural in- 16 tegrity of test as an alternative to grinding, and we would 17 appreciate it if you can provide, if you are running it in 18 your lab, some data that you think is more representative, 19 recognizing again that our goal is to replicate what could 20 happen in that sort of disposal environment. 21 MR. POUND: I agree, and we certainly will try to 22 get that kind of--that's primarily why we are involved in 23 ASTM; but S.I.T., a structural integrity test, is really a 24 misnomer of first order. It's much more of a structural 25 destruction test and not structural integrity. ------- 69 1 MR. CORSON: Maybe we're victims of an acronym 2 problem. 3 MR. POUND: In more ways than six. 4 MR. CORSON: One further question I would like to 5 explore with you with regard to the extraction procedure. 6 Somewhere in your comments I think you indicated that you 7 felt that where there might be a co-disposal operation or 8 where the waste might go to a site where acid might be 9 available, that an acetic extraction might be appropriate, 10 and 1 am wondering whether you have any thoughts as to how 11 we segregate those wastes at the generator's station. 12 MR. POUND: We have two possibilities ourselves 13 right now, one of where we are proposing to co-dispose in 14 a sanitary landfill simply because of the geography, the 15 sort distance from the generator's location, of the utility 16 plant location; and because that is, you know, a thoroughly 17 approved sanitary landfill under the present environmental 18 regs, one could quickly argue that the possibility of co- 19 disposal and acid infiltration or permeation is possible, 20 that it would simply be handled in a conventional way be- 21 cause it's confined to the clay liners that are required 22 under the present regs. 23 The second location is a proposal to take coal ash 24 as a matter of disposal and put it into the very exception 25 I mentioned in my paper about strip mining areas where acid ------- 70 1 mine draining is a very serious reality. There again I 2 think you are facing two operations. One is that the 3 utility is hopeful that they can do that simply because the; 4 can moderate the acid toxicity of the acid mine drainage 5 using the very fly ash that they are attempting to dispose 6 of; but there's a serious problem in terms of interaction 7 which you're concerned about in co-disposal techniques, and 8 our conclusion is at this sitting that the co-disposal 9 element there will be the overriding consideration, and, 10 therefore, the utility may decide no, we choose not to do 11 that, simply because a marginal hazard at best, and maybe 12 nonhazard as a possibility, could be jeopardized, that 13 category could be jeopardized by going into that codisposal 14 operation because fly ash does have some acid neutralizing 15 effects potential. 16 Does that deal with your question? 17 MR. CORSON: I'm still confused a little bit as 18 to how we would develop some enforceable regulation that 19 allows us to make the distinction of those which are going 20 to Place A versus those which are going to Place B, because 21 from the point you have made, Place A is O.K. and water 22 extract might work, and Place B it will not. Now, this is 23 the flexibility that we have provided through the 3004, 24 3005 process rather than 3001. Site specific, waste speci- 25 fie interactions are accommodated in the facility permit ------- 71 l combination. We have chosen Co make a definition distinc- 2 tion at 3001 level. 1 am wondering what your thoughts are 3 as to how we might mechanize in terms of making sure we are 4 aware, transportation and what else make that distinction 5 so the ones go where they have to go. 6 MR. FOUND: It seems to me that the performance 7 standard is the way to go in general, Alan, that the ulti- 8 mate disposal must reflect particular performance require- 9 ments; but in the interim, until we get to the point we 10 understand what the performance requirements will be--and 11 I'm convinced that EPA still has only a drop of information 12 as to what those performance standards should be, that you 13 just simply say that if there is a co-disposal operation 14 proposed, that the greater hazard shall dictate. I don't 15 know any other possible way to do that, and we recognize 16 that. All I am saying is that the utility generator, or we 17 as a contractor, must make the decision that is co-disposal 18 economically and environmentally sound, and it may not be-- 19 that isolated, segregated single site, single-source waste 20 products may be the only logical answer because we are 21 jeopardizing our category by co-disposal. 22 MR. LINDSEY: You indicated sometime back that you 23 felt that our regulations, the stances that have been taken 24 in these regulations, would, in fact, prevent, would cut off 25 the use of fly ash in some fashion. Let me just indicate ------- 72 1 that it is not our intent to cut off the acceptable use, or 2 disposal for that matter, of any material; and, as Alan 3 pointed out, that's taken care of in the regulations under 4 3004 and -5. On the other hand, I guess my question is did 5 you come to that conclusion, that we were going to cut off 6 in some fashion the use of these materials in an acceptable 7 manner based on the regulations say. In other words, is 8 there something in there that you have interpreted that 9 would prevent this, or is it a matter of this guilt by 10 association kind of thing that you mentioned earlier which 11 would have the effect of cutting off the demand? 12 MR. POUND: Correct, the latter. It's the problem 13 of being just a little bit pregnant. 14 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I hate to end on that note, 15 but we'll end on that note. 16 We're going to take about a 15-minute break and 17 reconvene promptly at 10:43. 18 Off the record. 19 (A short recess was taken.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- 5' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ments. 73 CHAIRPERSON DARKAH: A couple of quick announce- First of all, we are not trying to wear you down. We are trying to make them turn down the heat in this room. Secondly, for tomorrow's meeting and for the final day's meetings, we will not be meeting in this room. We will be in the Ball Room rather than here. Lastly, the background documents were mentioned, I guess, by Dr. Stacy and, as mentioned in the Federal Register, those are available in the libraries in the Regional Offices of EPA for, and I guess you probably have loan copies as well as copies to read in the library. MR. MC LAUGHLIN: We have one copy available in our Regional Office library. The other one should be reproduced so that we have three copies available for loan and anyone wishing to borrow them, ve will be glad to talk to them and make arrangements. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Back to comments to us on-the regulations. Is Ms. Kay Drey here? STATEMENT OF KAY DREY MS. DREY: My name is Kay Drey and I live in St. Louis. When I first started reading about nuclear power, over four years ago, I was constantly amazed by the seemingly^ ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 infinite number of ways in which men and machines could func- tion contrary to plan. I was also amazed by the quantity of potentially hazardous situations for which no plan even ex- isted. The fact that no one knows yet how or where to dis- pose of the hazardous wastes from the very first successful atomic chain reaction 36 years ago, becomes all the more in- credible when we realize that this ignorance has not de- terred our nation's government or industries from bringing additional millions of tons of radioactive wastes into our planet's only biosphere. I am appearing before you today as a concerned housewife, mother and citizen to thank you for your efforts to try to find solutions to the fact that our nation is generating, according to your own EPA figures, some 35 million metric tons of hazardous wastes, plus another several hundred million tons of lower risk, but also dangerous, wastes every year. Since we cannot allow these wastes to be released into the air, onto the soil or into the irreplaceable surface or ground waters., we must have to survive, your op- tions seem to be mutually exclusive. Are we to store in- creasing amounts of these wastes in 55-gallon drums or . canisters pretending, then, that they have been isolated when we have actually merely delayed finding a solution? Perhaps the only permanent answers are to support the efforts of the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances to reduce the amount ------- 75 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of wastes we create. At the now closed Maxey Flats, Kentucky, NRC- licensed burial site a few years ago, it was found that the exceedingly hazardous substance, plutonium, had migrated not an inch in a quarter million years as expected but several hundred feet or more in a decade. I would like to submit an article from Science Magazine of June 1978, if I may, about a group of chemicals which may not themselves be hazardous but which increase the potential health impact of certain hazardous wastes. In this article geochemists from Princeton and Battelle-Columbus sub- mit that the reason -.radioactive wastes buried in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, had migrated far more rapidly than anticipated was due to the presence in the waste materials of certain chemicals which had been used to solubilize and therefore remove radioactive corrosion products and other wastes from nQclear facilities. The class of compounds is called chelating agents and has the property of tightly binding certain metallic elements, including radioactive ones. The encrusted insoluble radioactive materials become soluble by binding to the chelating agents and can thereby be removed. The resulting complex, however, consisting of radio- active metals entrapped in chelating agents, can spread. readily through ground water and be taken up by the plant and animal links in the human food chain if it leaks or is re- ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 1 leased. Furthermore, the chelating agents have been found to be surprisingly persistent in the environment. I would like to urge the EPA to consider adding a class of compounds that could perhaps be called promoters or additives which have the potential to act synergistically to Increase the hazard of environmental .contamination. While this article from Science Magazine deals with the rapid migration of radioactive sub- stances, this same synergistic action could conceivably occur with other hazardous wastes as well. I would like to suggest that consideration be given to changing the text in Section 15* Paragraph (a)(5)j in some way so that a radioactive waste not be defined as being'"non- hazardous" if it emits the amounts you presently propose, that is five picocuries per gram for solids or fifty piocuries per liter for liquids when radium 226 and radium 228 are both present or if the wastes contain a concentration of ten microcuries per, I don't know what measure, of radium 226 alone. According to the EPA's "Statement of Basis and Pur- pose" for the Safe Drinking Water Act's radioactivity regula- tions dated August 15, 1975, which, in turn, were based on the estimates of the 1972 3EIR Committee report, consumption by the population of two liters of drinking water per day contaminated with five picocuries per liter of either radium 226 or 223 "may cause between 0.7 and 3 cancers per year per ------- 77 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 J8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 million exposed persons. Almost all of these cancers would probably be fatal." That is, if America's 200 -.million citi- zens were to be exposed to radium in a concentration of five picocuries per liter or ten picocuries per day, the incidence of cancer could increase by as many as 600 per year. If we accept the EPA's linear hypothesis of an increased radiation dose leading to an increase in health efforts, a hypothesis which, by the way, I think underestimates the risk, your proposal to exclude liquids with as much as forty to fifty picocuries per liter could cause an increase of some six thousand cancer deaths per year. I believe it is absolutely misleading for the EPA to define or describe such levels as "non-hazardous" thresh- olds as you have in the proposed regulations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission gets around this problem by describing such concentrations as being "permissible" rather than "non- hazardous". Unfortunately, most radiation workers, employers and even government officials have been led to believe that the NRC's permissible levels are safe, which they are not„ Epidemiological evidence to the contrary is at last beginning to be made public. As an example of inadequate data upon which the original estimates of toxicity were based, even radium, whose radioactivity and carcinogenicity were recognized and have been studied for many more years than any other element, evenJ ------- 6 78 radium has taken scientists by surprise recently. Whereas in the 1950's, when today's radiation standards were initially recommended and published, the International Commission on Radiological Protection had assumed that radium 226 posed a far greater health risk than radium 228. Studies published in 1972, however, indicate that the opposite may well be the case. I would suggest that more than likely, no one knows, radium 228 has a half life of about six years and radium 226 has a half life of about sixteen hundred years and, personally 10 I don't want to drink either of them. ll Mistakes on estimates of the toxicity of virtually 12 permanent toxins are irreversible mistakes. At the least, I 13 believe that EPA should not tell the public and industry that 14 there is a threshold of exposure or concentration below which 15 there is no hazard. If you have decided that testing below a 16 given level would be either technologically or economically 17 infeasible, then I think you should say that and not use the 18 description "non-hazardous" . 19 While I spend my full time working toward a mora- 20 torium on the generation of man-made radioactive materials, 21 except as needed for medicine, I know that virtually every 22 one of our nation's industries and all of our personal lives 23 rely upon processes involving the creation and, therefore, 24 potential dispersal of other toxic substances, many of which 25 are as hazardous, if not as persistent or long lived, as the ------- 1 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 radioactive ones. I would urge you to listen critically to industry's well-financed campaign calling for deregulation. Americans are being overwhelmed right now by a barrage of propaganda focused on regulatory and administrative agencies like yours, but I believe that, if anything, we need more protection from the government, not less. The costs of health care, evacua- tion of carelessly contaminated communities and of trying to remove toxins released to our air and waterways, will far ex- ceed the costs of regulatory permit programs, government monitoring, and the enforcement efforts designed to detect and isolate hazardous wastes. I wish you success in your objective to regulate wisely on behalf of the health of our nation's citizens of today and of the future. Thank you. I would also like to submit an editorial cartoon, if I may, by Tom Engelhardt which appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on February 2, 1979. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: That should brighten up the record. Would you answer questions for us? MS. DREY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: And also let me remind you and Mr. Pounds that if you do have copies of your statement, if you could submit them to our court reporter before you begin ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 speaking, that would be most helpful. If you don't have more than one copy, if you could give us another copy later, that would also, be helpful. MS. DREY: I have an illegible copy. After I type it, where may I send it, where 1 wrote initially? CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Yes, you can address it to us in Washington. Any questions? MR. LEHMAN: Ms. Drey, the substance of your remarks I believe, was that our standard, proposed standard under Section250.15 (a)(5), regarding radways thresholds was basically too high in that you would recommend we either lower that threshold or make it clear why it is we're setting that threshold and not imply that something below that thresh- old is non-hazardous . Do you have any suggestions, if you believe it is too high, as to what the appropriate level should be? MS. DREY: Zero but I think that it is accepted nationwide, worldwide, there is no threshold below which an exposure to radiation is safe. And--I don't think anyone even uses that term any more, even the NRC. Everyone has accepted the fact that there is no non-hazardous level of radiation exposure. It really is unfortunate, the NRC and before it the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Council on Radiation Protection and the International Commission of ------- i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 Radiological Protection, they've all used the term permissibl maximum permissible concentrations in air and water. But in, the media and in material given to workers and everywhere, people think it's safe. Here you all aren't even saying permissible. You're saying non-hazardous. And I think that's extremely misleading. As I tried to indicate, I was using figures from the EPA which is based on the Beir Commission, the Beir Committee and those .are, I think, far too conservative of the potential risk. That's like 6,000 cancer deaths a year if you say that there's a threshold of 50 picocuries per liter. And I know, I guess, the EPA for the Safe Drinking Water Act has promulgated a level of five picocuries per liter which they say will lead to 0.3 or 7 or 6, I can't remember, cancer deaths per million people. I sort of think the public should be given the facts and told, is it O.K. if we put this amount of flop in your drinking water, you're going to have this many cancers and you agree to that. We haven't been told it in that many words, but I certainly don't think it's right to imply that the government, at.this point, is accepting a threshold level. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. (The documents referred to follow.);;; HEARING- -INSERT ------- "? ^ t'.< C o-^. 2s^a~ £•<* —-^ .«-v-w------- .Sf.Cou.es /krr—ki Technological Boomerang ------- Reports Migration of Radioactive Wastes: Radionuclide Mobilization by Complexing Agents Abstract. Ion exchange, xel filtration chromatoi;ruphy,.ajid gas chromtito^rapliv- IIKISS spectrometry analyses have demonstrated that ethylenediaminetetraacetic ticiii lEDTA), an extremely strong completing hili:.ation of these rad'ionuclides Jrom various terrestrial raditiactive waste hurial v//c.v around the country. •-— From 1951 through 1965. intermediate- level radioactive liquid waste at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was disposed of in seven different seepage pits and trenches (/). Since 1944, solid waste at ORNI. has routinely been buried in shal- low trenches in six different burial fjunds (J). Ground hurial of radioactive iste is an effective means of disposal if the radionuclide can be confined to the geologic column through geochcmieal processes. Although the Conasauga shale, the predominant bedrock of the ORNL burial grounds, has an extremely high adsorption capacity for most fission by-products, trace quantities of certain radionuelides are migrating from both solid and liquid waste disposal sites (.?). Several factors have contributed to the radionuclide mobilization. One is that Ihe atu.ual precipitation at ORNL. over 127 cm, is greater than at any other ra- dioactive waste burial site in the country (2). As a result, water infiltrates into trenches at a faster rate than it can be dissipated and mixes with the waste. In addition, ground water levels are com- paratively shallow and a high-density surface drainage network is present. There is also an abundance of fractures in the underlying rock, which diminishes the rock's sorptive capacity because the exchange sites adjacent to thQ fissures are saturated with the exchangeable ions in the waste (2). Finally, the presence in . the waste of complexing agents such as •anic chelates used in decontamina- i operations and natural organic acids from ihe soil promotes the formation of 'strong complexes with certain radio- nucliJes that reduce -the adsorption ca- •:. VOL. :oo. jo JUNK ivrx • pacity of the shale and soil for the radio- nuclide. It is this last factor that is of principal concern in this report. The isotope ""Co has been found in concentrations up to !()•"' dpm/g in the soil and up to I0:i dpm/ ml (450 pCi/ml) in the water in areas ad- jacent to seepage trench 7 and in lesser concentrations in the vicinity of trench 5 and pit 4 (Fig. I). Traces of various al- pha-emitters such as isotooos of II, Pu'. Cm. Th. and Ra have also been detected jn_wj^ej^pL sojl_ from the area around trench 1 (2-4). We show here that ''"'Co is transported in the groundwater from ihe trenches and pits as organic complexes. A portion of the migrating ""Co is ad- sorbed by oxides of Mn in the shale and soil (4-6). Additional evidence suggests that some U is migrating by the same mechanism. The following experimentally mea- sured distribution coefficients (A',,) illus- trate the pronounced effects that organic ligands have on the adsorption capacity of sediment for trace metals. We deter- mined that the A',, values for ""Co in weathered Conasauga shale at />H 6.7 and 12.0 were approximately 7.0 x K)1 and 0.12 x |(I*, respectively. In the pres- ence of ll)":'A/ ethylenediaminctctra- acetic acid (EDTA) the AT,, values were reduced to 2.9 and'O.K (7). The actual A',, values calculated from ""Co concentrations in soil and water from various wells in the ORNL burial grounds are similar (8). The A",, values for ""Co from wells in the vicinity of trench 7 range from approximately 7 to 70. aver- aging about 35 (see Table 1). The p\\ of well water ranges from 6.0 to 8.5 (4). am! the KDTA concentrations urc appro*»-,v - mately 3.4 x 10~7/W (this study). Actual A',, values for ""Co in burial ground wa- ters are therefore significantly lower than the theoretical value for neutral systems containing no EDTA and arc somewhat greater than the experimental value for neutral systems containing 10~aA-/ EDTA. The importance of sediment sorption capacity (or A'^) on radionuclide migra- tion rates within geologic substrates has been modeled by Marsily et at. (9). Us- ing variables such as A',,, rock per- meability, and hydraulic gradient, they calculated the migration rates of -:l''Pu buried at the bottom of geologic forma- tions 500 m thick. The results -show.tbatv -•'"'Pu with a A',, of 2 x 10'', typical of a chemical setting devoid of complexing agents, rock fractures, and similar fac- tors tending to reduce sediment adsorp- tion, will not migrate to ground level un- til more than 10" years after burial, the migration rates being slowest in those geologic formations with lowest per- meability. With a half-life of 24,400 years. Pu would essentially be complete- ly decayed by the time of contact with the surface environment. At the other extreme, in a chemical setting character- ised by no sorption (A,, = 0), f'u would reach the environment in 6 to 14,500 years, depending on the permeability of the geologic formation (^1. That is, in the most confining formation Pu would have decayed about only one-half of one half- life before it reached the surface. In for- mations of low to moderate permeabil- ity, migration of Pu over 500 m would have occurred in only tens to several hundreds o.' years, the movement being four to live orders of magnitude more rapid than in the situation A',, = 2 x IO'1. In the Oak Ridge setting, the adsorp- tion capacity of the Conasauga shale t'or inorganic forms of Co is very high. Hence, mobilization of this radionuclide in the absence of strong complexing agents. rockJ'rac.Uires. and other factors teiKlint; to reduce sormjon would be neg- ligible. However, in the presence of strong chelales. rock fractures, and oth- er factors tending to decrease sorption, the A',, is drastically reduced and mobili- zation rates may be accelerated by sev- eral orders of magnitude. A compilation of selected radionuclide analyses for tillered water, weathered Conasauga .shale, and soil .samples col- lected beiween June 1974 and June L975 from wells in seeps adjacent to pit 4. trench 5. and trench 7 is gi\en m Table I (/('). I ocatinns of pits trenches, itnd sampling SIICN arc \hown in Fiji. J. ., A mfntiMitg toiiiai " ~ ~ ------- made hy F. A. UondiellL was lhal ''"Co in groundwater did not readily exchange wiih cation-exchange resins (Kexyn 101. N:r-t\>rm). Data from several samples show thai only about 5 to 10 percent of the ""'Co could he adsorbed hy the resin. the other 90 to 95 percent being retained in solution as a tightly bonded complex. It seemed apparent that whatever agent was responsible for this clVect was also preventing complete adsorption ol" cer- tain radionuelides by ihe Conasauga shale and soil. Subsequent ion-exchange' analyses that we carried out demonstrated that the strength of ""Co complexes with pos- sible jjnoj^ajijejzjvundjvajej^ such as sulfatc. nitrate, bicarbonate, car- bonate, chloride, orthophosphate. and even stronger ligands such as pyrophos- phate and metaphosphale was in- suHicicnt lo produce the ion-exchange clulion behavior of ""Co observed in the samples (//). However, in the presence ol" very low concentrations (10 KM and less) of multidentate chelajing agents such as dielhylenctriaminepentaacetic acid (D'l'l'A). cyclohexanediaminetelra- acelic acid (CI)TA). HITI'A. and also natural organic* such as humic and lulvic acids. '"'Co resisted adsorption hy the resin. Table I. Selected radionuclide analyses of weathered Conasauga shale and soil and filtered water samples (0.22 jim) and corresponding H,, values from wells in the vicinity ol' pit 4. trench 5. and trench 7. Well code R.S.I KS5 KS7 T7-1IS T7-12 T7- 1-3 T7-14 T7-I5 RS9 Date 24 June 1975 25 June 1975 26 June 1974 31 July 1974 31 July 1974 S August 1974 31 Julv 1974 31 July 1974 24 June 1975 Aqueous :'H (dpm/ml) I2SO 129() 3050 3930 3450 3740 1900 2090 3 1 30 Aqueous '•"Co (dpm/ml) 90.11 39.0 669.0$ 5 IS. I) 547.0 SIM) 227.0 153.0 S0.9 Adsorbed ""Co (dpm/ml) NAt NAt 43.700 16.900 2S.6UO 24.500 6. MX) 1 .060 N.-\T /v',, ('•"Col* 65.3 32.6 52.3 30.0 29.1 6.9 *See I* I. *Nol analyzed, i Water from KS7 also contains 7.5 parts per billion ol" U ("W..1 percent 'a"(J and 0.7 percent -:':'U). SWells T7-I.I through T7-I5 are not depicted in Hiy. 1. These nulls are located within approximately .10 feel (V ml of well KS7 (•/. 3). l:ig. 1. Location of small seeps associated with pits 1. 2. 3. and 4 and trenches 5. 6. and 7. Contours are in feel |IYom (4)\. (Courtesy of Oak Kidge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge. "I en- In order to differentiate between the ny]i>nm^d^rn^i]|/.ing_ej]"ect2>_ of .iyjv_ ihelic chelaies of low molecular weight anil those of humic substances of higher molecular weight. we fractionated groundwater samples, using gel filtration chromatography (GFC). a process which separates solutes according to size (12). Since most weak inorganic, metallic complexes are sorhed during the GFC process, ihe presence of trace metals in a given fraction of an elution profile dem- onstrates an association helween the trace metal and a ligand in that fraction (/.?. 14). Hlution profiles of a concentrated groundwater sample from location RS7 near trench 7 for Sephadex gels G-H). G- 15. and G-25 arc illustrated in Fig. 2. F.ach of these elution profiles coniains three fractions decreasing in molecular weight to the right. The blue dextran peak coincides with the fraction of the sample having molecular weights above 700. Metween 90 and 95 percent of the ""Co and 70 percent of the U present in the sample are correlated with the middle fraction, which represents a group of organic* with molecular weights less ihan 700 plus the Na'-salts of sever- al polyvalent anions. Between 5 and 10 percent of the ''"Co and 30 percent of the V are associated with the fraction having molecular weights above 7(X). and no j;"Co or U are observed with the smallest molecular weight peak, \\hich through infrared spectrophotometry was deter- mined to be comprised principally of NaNO, and NaCI. Reliable Pu analyses of the GFC fractions could not he ob- tained. Infrared spectrophotometric data in- dicate that the large molecular weight tractions associated with minor''"Co and U transport are humic substances, lie- cause groundwater in and very close to the trenches is typically low in humic content, we believe that humics are not major contributors to radionuclide trans- port from the trenches. On the contrary, we believe that humics become associat- ed with radionuelides some distance from the trenches, particularly in the seeps, \\heiv groundwater humic con- centrations are the greatest. After we had completed the GFC frac- tionations. the identities of complexing agents in ihe major radionuclide-bearing fractions were still unknown. We sus- pected lhal these materials werc^y-ntbel- ie chelales, hut humic substances of lower molecular weight could not be completely ruled out, particularly in view of iheir greater acidity and rnetal- complexing capaciiy relative to the spe- .SCIKNCK. VOL. :<»>• ------- .:cs ol mailer molecular weight (/.5). We extracted the middle (iF'C frac- tion, which contained the largest radio- nuclide concentrations, with chloroform to remove compounds that would inter- fere in tiie .subsequent analysis. All the radiumiclide remained in the aqueous Ria.se after the chloroform extraction. ie aqueous layers were then evapo- rated to dryness and methylated to facili- tate j^as chroinalouraphy-iTiajia—ipoci jjXimelrv (CiC-MS) analysis (16). The GC profile for the methylated fraction is illustrated in Fig. 3. We used MS to demonstrate that the" dominant peak represents the tetramethy! ester of KD I' A. an extremely strong clielale commonly used in deciiniammalij.)n_op- eraliuns at nuclear facilities (17). Through use of an internal COT A stan- dard, the HDTA concentration of this sample has heen calculated to be ap- proximately .1.4 x 10 ~~M; EDTA has also been detected in samples KS3 obtained near pit 4 and RS9 near trench 5 (18). Other constituents detected in trench Sample CS-1 Jeavhales include palmitic acid, phthalic acid (IV). and other mono- and dicarbox- >lic acids, which are much weaker com- plexing agents than EDTA. The concen- "trations of strong clielates similar to KDTA. such as nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) and DTPA, are below the detec- hon limit of this analysis, which is ap- ly.vl) x |()-!'A/. Hecause NTA_ adable. it would not be ex- Nil) pected in significant concentrations in the groundwater even if it had been origi- nally present in the waste (20). Moth DTPA and other multidentate chelates were used only sparingly in decontami- nation at ORNL during the I950's and 1%0's and consequently do not appear to be significant in the radionuclide mo- bilisation at this site. We thus reasoned that JIDTA is the dominajiL-mobilJ7.ini; agent in samples R.S7. K.S3. and RS9. A minor portion of the migrating ""Co and U is associated with natural organics. Ligands such as phthalic. palmitic, and other carboxylic acids may also be contributing to ""Co and U mobilisation to a small extent. The identification of EOT A as a radio- nuclide mohili/er in the OKNI. disposal area raises a question about Llic_Miit-. ability of this clieiale in decontamination operations. Although 1-DTA is used in decontamination because of its powerful -t-U--T.^U^— metal-l:Mnum£j£ron££tjes_. this same char- acteristic also leads to radionuclide mo: bilix.ation. The radionuclide mobilisation caused by KDTA'in the OKNL. burial u^Bds probably does not at present im- pose a health hazard. However. itN con- JUNh I9'X . • A . / \ ' i. •' . ~ / r™ 'JJrl T \ ~" v V _ . ^ x > ,"x Organic carbon / \ G.IQ ' v Blue dextran / t / \ ' \ ~~ V^ ' ^ 1 T4TTTTT=>T=-rx %"~ / 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ' . \ \ G-15 1 \ ' \ / \ v^ """>._ -^ N • A \ - / \ : ./' \ " ' ' N V — j t \ 1 \ \ \ ^ ,'"- ' \ ^ i ^ / \ / \ ' \ \ \ \ 40 50 60 90 100 110 70 80 v Elution volume (ml) Fijj. 2. The GFC elution profiles of groiiiulwater from KS7. a small seep cast of trench 7 (trom . (Courtesy of Limitolnxy tiiul ()cci;riii>liy. Scatllel Tetramethyl ester of EDTA Tetramethyl ester of CDTA added as internal standard Unknown, probably the dimethyl ester of a dicarboxylic acid Methyl ester of small- molecular-weight car- boxylic acid Methyl ester of palmitic acid \ 24 21 18 -f- Time (minutes) 15 12 9 —I 1 f- 290 260 230 110 80 200 170 140 Temperature (°C) Fig. 3. The GC profile of GFC-purilieJ and methylated uroundwater .sample RS7. i-179 50 ------- . tinncJ use in dccontaminalion opera- tions around the country, and therefore ils presence in low- and intermediale- |evcl waste, consliuilcs a putcnlial for the release of undesirable amounts of ra_- dionuclides. Because EDTA is resistant to decomposition by radiation (21). ther- mally very stable (22), and only slowly biodegradable (2.?). it is extremely per- _ sistent in the natural environment. In- deed, the presence of significant concen- trations of EDTA in waste 12 to 15 years ojd attests to its persistence. Therefore. wherever EDTA and similar compounds have been introduced into terrestrial dis- posal sites_. the 'jqiieousininsporj of. transition metals, rare earths, and trans- uranics. which characteristically form the most stable complexes with chelales. may be augmented. There can be no question about the strong complexing capacity of EDTA and similar chelales for certain radio- nuclides including the rare earths and ac- tinides. For example, all of the trivalenl rare earths along with Am:'^, Cnr'1*. Pir"", Pu". Pu"+, and Th'* possess at least as high or higher complexity constants. A',. for KDTA as CV (24). Both EDTA and DTPA are used in the tjTej^igeiUK: remov- al of transuranics ingested by humans because of the strong complexes formed with these elements (25). Our evidence suggests hut does not prove that EDT A is also contributing to t.he migration of trace levels of Pu. Am. Cm, Th. and Ra. which have been detected in the soil from seep RS7 approximately 100 yards (90 m) east of trench 7.'For example; ac- tinides were found in concentrations of 43 - 8 dpm/g of--''"Pu. 110 ± 7 dpm/g of j"'Am. and 495 ± 20 dpm/g of-"Cm in a weathered shale sample collected at a depth of 71 cm in well T7-12, which is adjacent to well RS7 (4. 5). In addition. chejatcs increase Jhe uptake of numer- _ou.s fpice elements bv__plants_ Con- of certain radionuclides such as 'n!'Pu and -•"Am. and therefore' the possibility of' their entering human J'ood chains^, in- creases in the presence of complexing agents (26). " ' — . ... In the' United States, there are sis commercial and fiv_e. Eneruv Research and Development Administration terres- maj. radioactive waste htiri;tLsiles which have in the past received or are currently rec£ixjni; low- andjnlermediale-level ra- dioactive wastes (27). Varying levels of radionuclide migration from original dis- posal sites haveTieijn observedja j'yur of these wasie burial sites othej- 'NIU) ORNI.. including ihe Savannah River Laboratory. South Carolina (2iS'): ihe • 1480 ? Hanford, Washington, facilities (29); - West Valley. New York (JO. .?/): and Maxey Flats. Kenlucky (31). The Chalk • River facility in Canada has experienced • similar migration problems (J2). Actual • migration of Pu. the presence of Pu in the dissolved fraction of leachates, and the existence of mobile Pu-contaminated leachates in waste pits have been report- ed at the Hanford. West Valley, and .' Maxey Flats facilities, respectively (29- 31). Complexing agents arc either pres- ent or suspected to be present in waste at Chalk River. West Valley, and Maxey Flats (31732). The use of EDTA and similar com- • pounds in decontamination operaiions. and therefore their presence in low- and intermediate-level waste in the United States and the rest of the world, is wide- spread (2/). Throughout the world, low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste is being buried along with chemicals that are likely to cause the migration of hazardous isotopes such as Pu over the long term. Indeed, Jl".;ice_l£vejs of ra- _d i on uclides are being released by uroundwaler transport al many radior active waste disposal sites in' this coun- try, and migration of radioactive transi- tion metals, rare earths, and transuranics . is probably being ajded_bv_chelaU;s such as EDTA. Consequently, if the use of EDTA and similar compounds is to con- . tinue, waste solutions should be treated for the removal or destruction of the che- lyj.es f>rioi- to fjnal disposal in the {-round. • Another alternative would be lo use stiit- able substitutes, compounds that are ef- fective in decontamination but do not fa- cilitate radionuclide mobili/ation. One such useful substitute may he NTA. which is a potential replacement for phosphates in detergents. This com- pound is rapidly biodegradable (20) and • is a strong ligand. although slightly . weaker in complexing capacity than • EDTA. The^_{^^jinAdj]_bilijv of other chelates • such as trieihyleneietraaminehexaaceiie acid (TTHA), hydroxyeih) lenediamine- triacelic acid (HHDTA). ,V-(2-hydro\y- ethyD-ethylenediaminetriacetic acid (HEEDTA), ethylenediaminc di-((Miy- droxyphenylacetate) (KI)DHA). and DTPA is apparently not well known. -•• »_—— *-,i—^_—-_ -\_-~. —.,.-— . —.. - - •- --* •• '- — Some of these compounds are stronger ligands than KDTA and therefore would be more effective in decontamination. However, the use of such compounds, if • nonbiodegradable. could Jead lo e.yeq moi'e mi'-M~iiioa from disposal sites than that caused by EDTA. Numerous other alternatives to Ihe use of EDTA and related compounds are available. Hoi cells, nuclear equipment. and reactors have been decontaminated by means of a wide variety of reagents including strong acids, bases, or oxidiz- ing agents, which can be neutralized^ fore final burial, or relatively mild plexing agents such as citrate, tartrale, oxalate. gluconate, phosphate, bisulfate, and fluoride, which will contribute to ra- dionuclide mobility in the environment to a much lesser extent than EDTA. Excellent reviews, of different decon- tamination solutions and techniques arc available (21). Many of these reagents used either alone, in combination, or in successive treatments have been shown to be extremely effective alternatives to EDTA. JEFFREY L. Mr-lANS DAVID A. CRI-:RAR Department ofCieolo^icul and (ieopliysicul Sciences, Princeton University. Princeton. Ne \\- Jersey 08540 JAMES O. DUGUID Energy and Environmental Systems Axxexxineiit Section. Haiii'lle-Coliimhiix Laboratory, Columbus. Ohio 43201 References and Notes I. I-:. Ci. Siruxnexs. Oak Hiilite Null. l.uh. Rep. ORNl.-IM-.<2.< (1%:); W. de Laguna, (.'ow-icr. K. I.. I'arker. St-iimd UN C4 Conf. \,-sv. C-21 /'/.'.«.?/ (I95»), p. 101. 2. I). A. Wchsicr. C..V. (.icul. Sun: Open File Rep. 7A-7J7 (IS»7hl. .1. I'. I-'. l.tuiK-niirk. Health l'h\-\. ». 8J5 (I%1V. .- . 15. Ci. Jacobs, h. ti. Struxnos. ihiJ. U. XV7 11967); A. S. Rii(!tiwski anJ T. Tamura. ihiJ. IN. 4<>7 (19701: T. K. Lomcnick anJ D. A. (Jardi- ncr. ihiit. II. 5h7 (ISKi.S); I. H. Luinenick and I'. '[ amura. Mail \ci. .Voc. .-\m. I'ntc. 29. .1K111%5|; I'. H. farnj;.in. Jr., 1/..V. Gcol. Sun-. I'rnf. /'»/'. I; R. J. Pickering. C/..V. liriil. Surr. VtWl; f.'..V. C.ext. Sun-, f'r,,/'. ... . P. H.Carrigan. Jr.. f. 'I'amura. ti. H. AK-e.J. H. Hi-vcraj;i:. K. W. An- drew, Jr.. in />i'.v<».v. OK.\l.-MI7 (1975); Oak KiJ>;e Null. l.uh. «.•/'. OK.\l.-fHI (I97M. 4. J. I . Means. I). A. Crerai. J. IV Dusuid. Oak Kiilge \\iil. l.,,h. K,-;.. ORSI.ITM-U48 (197M. 5. J. I.. Means. II. A. (.'reiar. M. P. Uoresik. J. (>. Ou^uid. in prep.iration. 6. K. \. Jennc and. J. S. Wahlbcrg. Trans. Am. /iv<. L'niim 46. 170(1*51. 7. A'i - l""l'o (dpm t;) in xcdimcnl] •< [*"Co (dpm/ mil in 0.22-nm tillered aqueous phasel"'. l.aho- ral»r\ K,, values were delermined hy (he "Kiieh" process. Unirealed soil and weathered shale samples \veie shaken \\ith sululiitns ofap- pn»pi'iale chenncal composition until equilihn- um between adsorbed and dissolved ""Co had been reached. 8. We cakulaied Ihe actual \', values from envi- ronmental soil and associated interstitial water samples, usinc [he same delinilion as m (7|. 9. Ci. dcM.usily. I-;. I.edtiux. A. Uaibieau.J. Mar- (;al. \i-irnci- 197. M9 (1977). 10. (innindw.iier s.unples weiecollecled in polyelh- \leue boides and (hen immediately tittered ihiouch a^hless Whatman fillei paper of moder- aie leientiun and then thri^uyh 0."-pm Milli- pore membranes. *"•*. ., It. In the ion-..-\chanj;e analyses we eluled hundred nnlliliiei's ol the desired sample thil _ a column 2 by 50 em filled to 25 em with Rexyn lot. Na'-lorm cation-c.xchangc resin, at a How r.ite ot' approximately 5 ml nun, 12. 'Ihe ^cnciat Cd'i. procedure is described else- where (/.'I. In the present application, we mon- SCIENCE. VOL. 2U> ------- n» i -i -r£~^-£^2j£g?^£:~- i. \ J \_ iiored the eluted fractions for radionuclidc con- tent and absorhanee ;it 254 nm. using an in-line ultraviolet spectrophotomeler. We analy/cd ""Co using a multichannel analyzer, and U was determined by MS, with isotope dilution. 13. J. L. Means. D. A. Crerar. J. L. Amstcr, Um- nnl. Oceanogr. 22. 957 (1977). 14. H. R. Plumb and G. F. Lee. Water Res. 7. 581 (1973). 15. K. C. Beck. J. H. Keuter. E. M. Perdue. C.eo- iliim. Cosinvchim. Acln 38. 341 (1974); M. A. Kashid. Snil .SYi. III. 298 (1971). 16. We methylated organic acids in GFC fractions using 10 percent HP, in methanol. as proposed hy L. R. Rudling (Water Res. 6. 871 (I972>|. 17. J. A. Ayres. Decontamination o) Nuclear Hear- tors and Equipment (Konald. New York. 1970). 18. H. A. Bondietti of OKNL was the first to suggest that ""Co was transported as a complex with EDTA (4). His suggestion was based largely on ion exchange, dialysis, and paper chromatogra- phy analyses, and the knowledge that HDI'A was commonly used in decontamination opera- tions at the laboratory. 19. The dimethyl ester of phthalic acid (probably mem or para) appears in the GC profile of a dif- ferent sample from seep RS7. 20. R. D. Swisner. T. A. Taulli. F.. J. Maiec. in Trace Metals and Meiul-Orniino Interactions in Natural Waters. P. C. Singer, F.d. (Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor. 1974), pp. 237-264; C. B. Warren, in Survival in 7V>.riV Environments I Ac- ademic Press, New York. 1975), pp. 473-4%; M. K. Firestone and J. M. Tiedje, Appl. Micro- hinl. 29. 758(1975). 21. J. A. Ayres, Baltelle-Northvest Hep. BNWL-B- W (1971); A. B. Meservey. Proa. Hud. Knew Ser. 4 4. 377(1961). '22. A. E. Marteil. R. J. Molekaitis. A. R. Fried. J. S. Wilson. D. T. MacMillan. Can. J. Chem. S3. 3471 (1975). 23. T. M. Tiedje, Appl. Microhiol. 30. 327 (1975): J. Environ. Qual. 6, 21 (1977). 24. L. U. Sillcn and A. E. Marteil. Stabilirv Can- slants of Metal-Ion Complexes (Special Pub- lication No. 17. Chemical Society, London, 1964). 25. A. C. James and D. M. Taylor. Health Phys. 21. 31 H97I): V. H. Smith./M. 22.765(1972). 26. A. Wallace. /«rs and Po.\t-h'is\itm Opertttionx in the l.WH IU,vht-Watrr Heactiir/ l-'uel Cycle (Publication 76-43. Energy Research and IJevelopmcnt Ad- ministration, Washington, D.C.. 1976). vol. 4, section 24.1. 28. S. (). Kcichert. J. Geonhrs. Res. 67, 4363 (1%2). 29. S. M. Price and I.. I.. Ames, in Transuranium Nudities in the Environment (Publication SM- 199/87, International Atomic F.nergy Agency, Vienna. 1976). p. 191. 30. R. Deer and P. Biskind..SVr<-n Days 1.3 (1977). 31. (i. 1.. Myycr, in Transuranium Nudities in the Environment (Publication SM-199/105. Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. 1976). P. 231. 32. P. J. Parsons, in Second Conf. Proc. Chalk Kiv- cr. Canada TID-762/i (1962). p. 16; Health Phys. 9. 33 (19631. 33. This project was funded by F.nergy Research and Development Administration subcontract S- 4228 We thank O. M. Sealand of ORNI. who was of invaluable assistance in Ihe collection and analysis of samples. We thank B. F. Jones and I. A. Breger of the U.S. Geological Survey. Reston. Va.. and T. Tamuraand E. A. Hondictli of OKNL. who offered constructive suggestions. The GC and MS analyses were done with the assistance of W. T. Kaincy.-C.'A. 1'rilchard. and D. C. Canada of ORNI.. We thank R. 1.. Walker of ORNI. who did the U analyses, and T. G. Scott of ORNL who did the I'll. Am. and Cu analyses. 8 December 1977: revised 8 March 1978 ^-''*- ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The next person on the list thi morning is a representative from the St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association. Hearing no answer, Mr. Robert Robinson, Director, Missouri Solid Waste Management, STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. ROBINSON MR. ROBINSON: I'm Robert M. Robinson, Director of the Solid Waste Management Program for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. We want to commend EPA for moving towards develop- ment and implementation of these hazardous waste regulations. We also want to commend EPA for the outstanding effort they are making 'to obtain public comment on the regulations. The Department has a few comments to make regard- ing the regulations and will provide written comments and details at a later date. The regulations exclude sewage sludge from these regulations on the basis of public ownership of the generating facilities. It is our opinion that this is contrary to EPA's defined criteria for identifying the-characteristics of hazardous-waste, the-, criteria for listing hazardous waste, the integrated permit approach under Section 3006 of the Act and the others, which they are incorporating, and is dis- criminatory towards privately owned treatment works. We recommend that EPA drop this special exclusion ------- 10 11 12 13 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 and return to defining hazardous waste on the basis of characteristics of the waste or exclude all sewage sludge, except for industrial treatment plant sludges. The waste from health care facilities have require- ments under these regulations for segregating,containerizing and handling infectious waste from their facilities which take into account its infectious nature. Yet household solid waste will contain infectious agents comparable to these listed in this section from health care facilities. Therefore, we recommend, that EPA provide a broader exemption for health care facilities than the practices of autoclaving and incineration such as special packaging for the disposal in a sanitary landfill in readily identifiable bags for the' facility to enable immediate identification and covering. Another alternative which we would.prefer would be to delay the effective date of the implementation of the infectious criteria for health care facility in order to give such facilities more time to install necessary incinerators and autoclaves and, therefore, not interfere with implement- ing controls of the more serious waste types. These health care facilities are already under some type of state regu- latory control that addresses waste storage and disposal, and we do not believe present a serious problem at this time. The background-document for-,this regulation states that EPA has determined it has no legal basis for issuing any ------- 84 state authority to receive notification from persons Identified by this identification and listing as they are required to notify EPA within 90 days of promulgation of Sub-part (a). It is our opinion that EPA is instructed under the Act to make every effort to issue states., at least interim authori- zation, if not full authorization. If the EPA meets its court order for implementing Section 3005 and 3006 by October 31, 1979, then states such as Missouri, with statutory author! ty, a manifest system, a 10 permit process and a comparable identification and listing 11 of hazardous waste, could be issued interim authorization and 12 be authorized to receive the notification. This would 13 eliminate confusion, duplication and efforts on the part of 14 persons affected. We recommend that EPA make every effort 15 to concentrate on issuing states, at least interim authoriza- 16 tion, so that they may receive the notification required by 17 the Act. Otherwise, generators of hazardous waste will be 18 required to comply with notification twice, both EPA and the 19 state. I have serious doubt that EPA can implement these 20 hazardous waste regulations in a timely manner. Therefore, 2i the state should be included in the implementation process 22 such as the notification and not confuse the generator and the 23 public relative to what agency, state or federal, is re- 24 sponsible in an individual state for implementing the regu- 25 lations. ------- 13 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 Relative to an earlier concern about the hazards of transporting hazardous waste,. I would point out that with few exceptions the railroad and truck spills we read about, all are involved with the transportation of hazardous materials and not hazardous waste. I recall of only one situation in the state of Missouri where a spill..-.actually involved a hazardous waste. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank'you. MR. LINDSEY; One of the.points which you made, Mr. Robinson, regarded health care facilities, as I recall, and urged that there be some sort of special consideration, either in terms of the time for implementing regulations, which refer then to something more similar to that. I think it was indicated a little earlier that, I guess Jack Lehman mentioned it in his opening remarks, that the regulations for Section 3005, which is the regulations which set out the procedural requirements for receiving a permit, are not yet proposed and they will be proposed within the next four to six weeks, we hope should be. I should point out I think we're going to make you happy there in that regard. If a hospital's facilities are covered now by a rather intensive or a state regulatory pro- gram which addresses the waste from that hospital, even in states where EFA may be running the program, there will be a ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 special, rather less burdensome, I guess is the word which I'm being coached on here, set of controls which will recog- nize the degree of state controls that are involved. In other words, it will be relatively, administratively more easy to get a R.C.R.A permit. And I think, if I'm not mis- taken, thatfs the kind of thing you were getting at, is that right? Would that solve your problems? MR. ROBINSON: Well, I'm not sure that they need a permit. But one thing that concerns me, there are so many of these facilities, and you so broadly defined the amount of waste that's included in these facilities, that we could essentially bog down the state program or the federal pro- gram, whichever it might be, just in taking care of those facilities. I don't think that we've seen the incidents of hazard although in some cases they may not be handled in quite a completely satisfactory manner that you and I might like to see. V/e have talked to some of these people and I don't think they fully realize as to how much waste that you brought under this regulation,and many of them already have incinerators or they have autoclaves and they think they're covered so that they're going to take care of it. But their facilities are relatively small and they're really handling the real bad waste which they are more able to identify, I think, than EPA or the state and they're properly handling ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 those which you're bringing such a volume of waste under these regulations, that they're going to be overwhelmed and going to have to install much larger facilitie is the view that we have. MR. LINDSEY: So your problem then goes to Section 250.l4(b)(l) which is the health care facilities and is basically, then, a list of sources of materials which,if waste comes from that source, then it's presumed to be hazardous, and you think that that's too extensive and should be modified in some manner? MR. ROBINSON: I've made that point in several other meetings, in fact, recommended the whole section be dropped on previous occasions to EPA. MR. LINDSEY-. You think we should drop this whole section relative to health care waste? MR. ROBINSON: I would for a couple of years until we know what we're doing and are able to implement a hazardous waste management program on what I consider to be really a serious waste element. MR. LINDSEY: Following on, then, from your comment, would there be any benefit, in your mind, to considering these kinds of wastes which are listed in Section 3001, that's Section 250.1^(b)(l), considering the disposal of them as special waste while we presumably gather more information on to specify how they should be controlled? ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 P.. ROBINSON: I think that will be very helpful, but I would reserve my approval of that approach until I see the regulations. MR. CORSON: I think following up on that, I do want to point out that in"the 3004 regulations, the preamble does indicate that we have received some information along that line from the U. A. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency and that we are considering and will be in-house studies but you have the possibility of creating a special waste category for these wastes. MR. ROBINSON: Very good. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I guess we have no more ques- tions. Thank you very much. The next speaker this morning should be Robert Plank from City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri. No answer. Is Kenneth Smelcer from Quincy, Illinois, here? MR. SMELCER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We'll wait for you. MR. SMELCER: I'm not sure I'm off to a good start, They told us they didn't have a room ready and I'm on already STATEMENT OP KENNETH SMELCER MR. SMELCER: My name is Kenneth Smelcer. I'm the Executive Vice-President, Industrial Association of Quincy. Quincy is about 45,000 people,/about 100 miles ------- 17 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 north of St. Louis, 100 miles west of Springfield, Illinois, and 100 miles south of Peoria. Sometimes we're called Forgotonie in Illinois. But in some ways it does help, when we try to make a statement of this nature, that we're some- tiling of an isolated area and some of the things that happen to us are the same that happen to many of the other areas but it's so much easier for us to see because there is a hundred miles between us and anywhere else. The association that I represent has about 50 member and they run everywhere from the small assembly kind of operation to the large metal working. We have livestock, feed type operations and this sort of thing. And we have a new $37 million sewage treatment plant that we refer to as the white elephant. And now we have a new Adams County landfill that's brand new, we thought was going to be a real answer and last year,we've been waiting for about a year to be able to dump some of our industrial waste in, nothing very hazardous in our opinion, and we've had troubles getting our permits and so on which is really an, argument with the state o: Illinois rather than federal. But not knowing what was going to happen at the federal level, we've been kept waiting. Nov; we do get a chance to see it and we're quite concerned because we feel that we've been put in a box, and I won't try to be too technical in this. If we get technical, I'm going to have to call on a couple of my cohorts back there. ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 Basically one of our problems boils down to paint sludge. A lot of our companies are doing painting and when i they're through, they have a paint sludge. They're using the water pipe boots and so on, but we're not allowed to take these materials and it looks like under the regulations, we're not going to be allowed to take them out to our new landfill-. site-either. Now, for us, in our particular area, this seems to be a real injustice because our landfill is really a clay type landfill and very little is going to escape from the site We will have people here on Friday talking about the landfill situation from Quincy. But it is an excellent landfill. But we're having trouble with this paint sludge, and it's not unusual for our companies to have a hundred barrels, a hundred and fifty barrels stacked some place waiting to try to get in. We knoxv we're going to get a little relief for a year. But the way the regulations are written, it doesn't appear we're going to be able to make it after that. There are some things that may be in the generator portion but exactly what we're at is about, it says 200,000 but my secretary made a mistake, that's about 150,000 gallons per year of industrial sludges .that "are being classified as hazardous. One of the remedies that we see for things like the paint sludges is break this down, most hazardous, very little hazardous or whatever you want to call it, mildly hazardous, ------- 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' 91 so that some of these things can go into the type of landfill we have. Our landfill people feel they have no problem what-' soever handling it. We do know that we have solvent problems from our machining areas and so on that we're going to have to talk about recycling and doing these things and most of them are already doing Our big problem right now is what are we going to do with things like the paint sludge which comes in volume but yet do not really qualify as very hazardous material. We understand that we're going to get caught in a further box with this in that, due to the air standards, we understand we may have to get rid of the water, well, not necessarily the water but the solvent based paints and go to the water based paints, and our.people are telling us once we do that we're going to really be in trouble because then when we try to take that to the landfill site, leachability of this is going to be quite high and we could be in-worse trouble. So we're going to be dead whichevervay we go. This is the Catch 22 part that we're hoping that you will listen to and do something about. I think the other thing i s • taking a look at some of the landfills and what they are like. For example, if it .. was sand, I could see a different story. But with the clay, we really don't have a problem. And, in our case, again we're not asking for the very hazardous material. ------- 92 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 One of the things that we have in our statement is raising the amount that you could put into the landfill. We're raising it from the hundred, we felt, to a thousand but that may be a topic for tomorrow. This is basically the problem we're having, the economic problem is going to be, frankly, some of the people in our smaller companies are going to take the lav; in their . own hands and they're going to send it home with their employees, and I'm not sure it's beingdone now, but at some point it's going to happen. It's been pointed out to us by some of our people with 150 barrels, in 90 days they're going to be in violation of another standard. They proposed to us that maybe we can cheat, maybe we can out some emulsifiers i in it and hold some water or something and we can get it out that way. But I don't think that's going to fool anybody for very long. These are the kinds of problems we're having. There's going to be an economic problem to us because again we are so far from anywhere, although I think that with these regulations, we're going to find very few sites in the country that are going to be eligible for these things, it is going to be a large transportation problem. Our people are saying, maybe you're trying to tell us we're going to have to set up burning sites or furnaces to get rid of it this way. Recycling the paint sludge, for example, is not ------- 93 going to work for us because we have no place to put it. We've been able to do things -with some of our sawdust, things like this, trying to use from our airniture people, but we can't see where we can get rid of the recycled paint sludge. For primary paint too much of it is left over. So our recommendations are that you take a careful look at the classification that everything is not just classified hazardous. That you have maybe most hazardous, least hazardous kind of thing and that some of these things 10 can be handled in a Class Cllandfill. 11 I think that's probably the extent of remarks !• 12 want to make now. They are different than the written 13 comments, but we tried to be specific there. I tried to tell 14 you about the situation we 're facing in a small town without 15 the real answer to us that is going to be readily available 16 other than long-distance hauling or setting up burning sites, 17 it's going to be very expensive for us when we could see a 18 little more leniency on the standards in some areas as far as 19 hazardous could eliminate a lot of our problems. 20 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. 2i Any questions? 22 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Smelcer, I think you've hit on 23 one of the dilemmas that we had to:face or trying to face in 24 developing these regulations and that is if the regulations 25 become too stringent, then we, in effect, encourage illicit ------- disposal. I think that's one of the points you made. The other side of that dilemma is the fact that if the public is going to accept facilities which receive these kinds of waste, then they need to be assured that their safety is adequately protected and so we-, end up with: sort of a dilemma, in that situation. Let me ask you a question if I could. You indicated that your new landfill with its fortunate location and probably good design is satisfactory for handling a great 10 many wastes as far as you can tell. What is it, then, about 11 the regulations which would cause that facility not to be 12 permitted, permittable? I understand that maybe there are 13 some things in the regulations which would require some, per- 14 haps, modifications in operation or something of that nature, 15 but if it's a well designed, well located operation, maybe 16 it would fit the bill. 17 MR. SMELCER: Again we're speaking to this on 18 Friday with the people..from the city and county being here. 19 But it's the cost of qualifying as a hazardous 20 landfill that's going to really drive us out because we don't 2i have that many industries. We're an industrial town, about 22 45,000, and this is the part, we really aren't saying we 23 want to put everything we've got coming out of our companies 24 there, it's clay, it won't make any difference, we're not 25 saying that. Really our engineers are saying some of these ( ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 things like the paint sludge are so close that something like making a separate classification for something that's mildly hazardous, if you didn't handle it right, it could probably be a problem, but willing to handle it right and our landfill is willing to handle it and they see no problem with it at all and it's not going anywhere, it's in barrels and so on and, frankly, a lot of the stuff, we've even thought about this, just let it harden, get solid like a rock and then take it out. But, again, these things seem to be trying to get around the rules when we really should be speaking to the rule and if it's a little excessive, then trying to back off from it. That's going to be our problem. If we try to qualify as a hazardous landfill and that's one of the things that our engineers are saying is there really isn't any difference between something that they wouldn't want in there either, they wouldn't want to live there if you put it there,versus something like paint sludge which really is not going to make any difference. And, frankly, the amount of our hazardous material which we tried to count up and the way we're handling it right now for this year, they put a barrel here, they put another barrel there. They're so far away from each other, that it really doesn't make any difference.' .In some of the cases, you're talking about hauling things out there like whey almost, you know, grain derivatives that dump ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 a little more water in it and it meets the pH factors. But again we don't feel that's the way to handle it. Number one,. it's going to cost you money when you dump that water irK.there when we're talking about something that's really not what this should probably be designed for. MR. CORSON: I guess I just want to focus a little bit on the point that Fred made, Mr. Smelcer, and even though I do know you are making comments on Friday, I think it's important to note at this time that the 3004 regulations really provide for an infinite amount of flexibility in terms of the specifics which a land disposal site might be used. So that if you are only putting paint sludges in and our toxicity definition is based on what would be leached from those sludges, not the content of the waste itself, if you could show that that specific waste disposed in -that site would not present a problem, we see no readon why there would be any difficulty in getting a permit. Looking at the comments in your letter which was presented to me, you point out one of"the case examples, I believe, that someone has in their sludge 120 milligrams per liter of chromium where our standard is 5* and I guess we don't see how that leach, the mere fact it comes from paint sludge, would be reason to exclude it. Similarly you point out in one of your earlier comments in the letter that there may be facilities that don'1 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 •: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97' want to take on the record, keeping and monitoring and so on, and I think that our problem has been we're net sure how we provide for the requisite protection of public health in-the environment without getting that kind of data from facilities that are used to dispose of waste which many have these toxicants ifi-them. And if you're not going to provide that kind, that's exactly the reason why we need the permanent facilities to assure that we can get that.data so that if for any reason in the future we find, as a result of monitor- ing, that something has gone wrong, we can try to take the necessary corrective action without having to wait for the groundwork perhaps to be so contaminated that it's beyond reclamation. MR. SMELCER: Some of my comments are coming from small companies, on the back here where I say "here are some of our comments", but the companies are worried about the record keeping because of the small amount of people they have and we're talking about the hauling and a lot of other things that enter into it. But I think basically they're not objecting, most of our companies are not objecting to saying what's going out there. We're willing to say and do what we have to to get it out there. But it is some of the things like the testing facilities, I'm not that well acquainted with it, but our testing now versus what it would have to be in the hazardous ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 98 waste of digging underneath and make the monitoring areas for 20 years out and so on, they're just going to make it abso- lutely prohibitive for us if we have to go that far. I'm sure our county and city are just not going to go for that kind of reconstruction at this point almost to be able to take it. We don't have a lot and I'm sure they're not going to want to spend these huge amounts of monies to us to be able to do that . But really in some of these things, we know we're going to have problems with but whenothey are hazardous, we know we're going to have to deal with them, and cur really big problem right now is these barrels and barrels sitting in back of the plant that they can't do anything with filled wit| paint sludge and this sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: No more questions. Thank you very much. Dr. Robert Poston, Carmel Energy, Incorporated. (No response.) CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Dr. Brooks Becker, Residuals Management Technology. 21 STATEMENT OF BROOKS BECKER MR. BECKER: My name is Brooks Becker. I am presi- dent of Residuals Management Technology,Incorporated. We're a solid waste management, hazardous waste consulting firm in 25 24 Madison, Wisconsin. I want to tell you a little bit about t ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 background because, my background particularly because I think it applies to talking about .some of the regulations. I hold a Ph.D. in chemistry and:.for the last eight years prior to starting consulting firm, I was director of Wisconsin's Air and Solid Waste Management Programs and helped initiate those regulations up there. Our consulting firm has, as the two other principals, John Reinhardt and Tom Kunes, who may be in the audience and you have met and know. As chief of the Wisconsin regulatory program in waste manage- ment, I had the job of not only developing the state regula- tions but implementing them also in the field. One of the things 1 learned is if you want to have a regulatory program succeed, you have to pay very close attention to how it works in practice. I think that's a lesson that we have to pay attention to here for these regulations being proposed. One can over-regulate and by doing that minimize the amount of implementation that is accomplished in the field. I am going to talk today about just some very narrow areas in the regulations and not try to cover the whole thing. As consultants, we have had a good deal of practical experience in industrial hazardous waste problems and working with leaching tests in particular. .In fact, we're going to be presenting a paper on the subject shortly based on some of the data we've collected,, ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 I would just like to share with you some of our experiences and focus on a couple of points as they apply to the regulations. First, I think SPA should seriously con- sider an alternative approach to their single acid leach test for defining toxicity and thus hazard of a waste. We believe an alternative approach is needed, not just a differ- ent test. Second, the definition of "waste stream" needs considerably more thought in order to avoid much expensive but useless testing by affected industries. We believe EPA should consider an alternate leach test protocol with more steps which begins with a neutral leach test. There are several reasons for this. Clearly a single acid leach test,as proposed, will define many low risk wastes as hazardous primarily because of the heavy metal content . Other speakers this morning have alluded to that. These low risk wastes do not justify the strict criteria called for under Subtitle C. In their introductory discussion, EPA points out that there are mechanisms for getting .approval for disposal of these low risk wastes under Subtitle D criteria or special disposal criteria under Subtitle C in Sections 3004 and 3005 that have been referred to. The only new requirement, be- cause of their definition as a hazardous waste, would be the transoortation manifest system to define where - the waste g «i ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 While, in theory, this is the case, and although the mechanism is cumbersome, I would have,to-say in practice it's more than that, the mechanism simply will not work. I would submit that once a waste has been classified as hazardous, no amount of further assurances or technical data or discussion is going to change that classification in the minds of the public. And in establishing a place to dispose of waste, you have to deal with'the local public emotional situation. EPA has a clear example of that within 15 miles of here, the Wilsonville situation, where SPA came in on the side of the Wilsonville site to try to keep it open as a hazardous waste site and was unable to do so because of the emotional, political, social connotations of being a hazardous waste site. We feel, from our experience..as regulators and our experience as consultants, that once a waste, is-classified as hazardous, the public will demand, in fact, that full Sub- title C disposal protection be given to the waste regardless of any data that we produced to the contrary. Remember, I'm talking here about low risk wastes, things like the power plant ash that was referred to this morning, f oundry vaste, some paper'mill sludges, a lot of high volume, low risk waste that exists around the countryside. I'm not'-talking about the ones that are clearly high risk, high hazard waste. I might just cite one case we had in.Wisconsin, to ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 emphasize the point, some years ago. At one of our landfill sites people were disposing of a low level nuclear waste from dismantling of an experimental reactor. What it was was con- crete from the surrounding building, not the reactor shell, but the surrounding building that contained.the facility. The radioactivity'was hardly detectable above background but because it was labeled as radioactive waste, there was great hue and cry and finally the waste had to be removed from the facility and taken to an AEG approved site, even though, in any technical sense, there was, in-'fact, no hazard associated with it. As a result of defining almost everything hazardous through an acid leach test, now I'm again thinking of heavy i metal, the central purpose of controlling disposal of the major hazardous wastes whichu-create the environmental or health problems that the Act was intended to solve, we think will be lost and dissipated. Instead much effort andmoney will be spent both by industry and government in trying to solve the problem that we create ourselves by defining too many things as hazardous, which really has nothing to do with protecting the environment and health. The problem of how to dispose of low risk, often high volume waste, defined as hazardous is the one we have to face. Fortunately, a different protocol may be able to solve this problem. If one begins with a, and I'd like to ------- 31 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 suggest that one might begin with the neutral leach test, if one does that, somevaste will be classified as hazardous any- way and we would suggest that those are the more hazardous materials and should proceed on through the Subtitle C con- trols. Those wastes producing no hazardous leachates from the neutral test will then be addressed by the disposal techniques to be used. If the waste rare destined for a municipal site, or another acid environmentilike is created in a municipal site of the acid test is supposed to simulate, then an acid leach test could be applied and if the waste is found to be hazardous for that disposal environment would be treated under Subtitle C. On the other,hand, if the waste passed the neutral test andvwas scheduled for disposal in a segregated site for that waste only, approval would proceed according to the requirements under Subtitle D and that waste would not be designated as hazardous and would not carry the stigma of the hazardous regulations. This approach solves the problem of disposal of high volume, low riskvastes in an en- vironmentally safe manner while avoiding most of the problems cited earlier. We think it is a practical alternative based on our experience. It appears to be the next best thing to defining levels of hazard, which .has been suggested by a number of people and would probably be a good idea but EPA has chosen not to follow except in a few exceptions. One subsidiary question should be dealt with. EPA ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 states that since they have no way of knowing if a waste actually goes to an approved .facility without bringing it under themanifest system, therefore, low risk wastes should be defined as hazardous that come under the manifest system and be handled under exceptions under 3004 and 3005 as has been pointed out earlier. On the other hand, they propose rules to exclude waste from coverage that go to reprocessors or for, I guess, we feel combustion also. I would submit in the real world that those wastes, many of-.them,can be hazardous also and there is no way of knowing if those wastes ever go to reprocessors or, in fact, are even processed by reprocessors. We had a case some years ago, again I'll refer to a Wisconsin experience, where a reprocessor took in' several barrels of PCB's and, of course, he'didn't reprocess them, he Just got rid of them and there was a problem, first of all, they should never have gone there and, second of all, he should never have disposed of them that way. So this seems to be, to me, to be an inconsistency in EPA's approach. They are willing to over- look the control of the transportation and so forth of v/aste that go for reprocessing, but they say that they have to do it from, have to control the low risk waste that are going to a segregated disposal facility or whatever in order not to miss something. I would suggest to you that any regulation cannot cover everything no matter how desirable that might be. The ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 real world situation is that there is not enough regulatory staff in the state, there is not enough regulatory staff in EPA to physically do it even if .it's desirable. What we would prefer to do, what I think makes a lot more sense is to focus on the real health and environmental hazards, the major ones, and write the regulations focusing on those through some sort of a screening process that we suggest. I would like to turn Just for.a minute before clos- ing to the need for defining the term "waste stream" and clarifying the question of sampling procedures. Here I simply want to raise some questions that I think EPA need to answer. For example, where wastes from several collection systems from the plant feed into the same hopper, does one sample each collection system, does one sample the hopper, or the mixed load as it goes to the disposal? That is not de- fined anywhere in the regulations. I think our experience shows in our work with, industry that this is going to happen in man?/, many places where you have, because most industries do not segregate their waste streams and it's going to be a question of what do you define as a waste, where do you sample it. As it goes further down the line, you get more and more dilution* in effect, if you are only generating one small segment of waste that is "defined as hazardous",by itself it may not be hazardous later on. In most industries small amounts of many wastes are ------- 106 1 put into containers of one sort or another. 3y the time they 2 get out of the plant, mixture is very heterogeneous. What 3 is the waste stream here and how is that kind of a hetero- 4 geneous waste to be sampled? 5 Is the waste stream to be defined within a plant 6 or as it comes out of the plant? These are all questions, I 7 think, that need answering. Practical experience dictates 8 to us that the place to start sampling is where the waste 9 leaves the property or enters the disposal area, not back in 10 the plant looking at individual streams from each individual 11 collector or whatever. 12 Those are all the comments I want tonake. I would 13 be happy to answer any questions the panel may have. We wil^ 14 be submitting a more detailed written exhibit later. 15 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you, Dr. Becker. 16 MR. LINDSEY: Getting back-to your concept, Dr. 17 Becker, of the neutral-.leach test as opposed to the acid 18 leach test, presumably, then, I gather from what you're saying 19 that those materials which, let's say, pass the neutral leach 20 test but would have failed the acid leach test would then go 2i to a Subtitle C facility. In your opinion, then, I guess 22 what we're saying is that, what you're saying is that the 23 Subtitle 3 facilities and the designed criteria under which 24 those have been proposed, at least at this point, and the 25 controls under them, which_-really are relatively limited, ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i 25 10? they're limited only to EPA developing a list of which ones.-. pass and fail are sufficient for these wastes? DR. BECKER: Yes, I think that's true. But you're not quite correct in your assumption, those that v/oald pass the neutral leach test, if they are to go to a segregated dis- posal site for that waste only would then go under Subtitle D as opposed to those who might be putting that waste in a municipal facility, it would still then have to follow the acid leach test. MR. LINDSEY: Oh, I see, if a waste which would fail the neutral test, no, fail the acid test,pass the neutral test, if it were to go 'to a municipal landfill or seme other landfill presumably which had an acid environment, then that would be subject to the Subtitle C operation, right? DR. BECKER: Right. MR. LINDSEY: Let me ask you this, then, with re- gard to that. Do you have any idea, an estimate or anything, on the volume of wastes which would exit the detail controls • under Subtitle C if that change were made? Are' we talking about a big percentage of the wastes which are in the system new that would not be in the Subtitle C system later, in your opinion? DR. BECKER: In my opinion, I think, it depends on how you define big percentage. I think you would find tonnage wise a fairly large percentage, yes, because you're talking ------- 108 about things like plant ash and some paper mill sludges and a variety of very large quantity, low hazard waste. On the other hand, if you're talking about the amount based on a hazard factor of some sort,I would say: it would not miss very much because you will catch many, in fact, most of the hazard waste through a neutral leach test. MR. CORSON: I guess.'just following up again for a moment on Fred's question, this kind of implies that you have some data available that indicates the amount of waste that 10 would, after extraction and analysis, would flunk the present 11 EP with the acid?. 12 DR. BECKER: I have no data available that repre- 13 sents a survey of one or more industries and detailed tonnages 14 or all that sort of thing. We were just talking about the 15 impression I have from our knowledge of the various types of 16 waste and with waste, many of them that we're dealing with, 17 have very large volume, high tonnage waste, but relatively low 18 risk or no risk waste. 19 • MR. CORSON: The main reason I was asking is we 20 have done so far, we have sampled some paper sludges, some 21 fly ashes, not many yet, and some foundry sands and found none 22 of these yet to fail the test after we run the EP. So I was 23 just wondering. 24 DR. BECKER: You mean fail the acid test. 25 MR. CORSON: That's correct. ------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 DR. BECKER: Our experience, we have some data that we would be happyvto share with you and we will be putting in our written comments that show that there are, indeed, some of these wastes that will flunk an acid test. MR. CORSON: I'm sure there are. I was also wondering from your comments,you raised the point which I think was sort of reflected by one of the earlier speakers this morning. It would appear that you're probably at least as much concerned by the, what I call, the red fjlag word hazardous as you are by anything else. You do recognize that there are some wastes that may require some- thing other than the routine care of a Subtitle D facility which does not involve any record keeping, any monitoring by way of a requirement, but yet the concerns you've expressed, once we use this word, then we run into the community problem regardless of how good the site may be. DR. BECKER: I think that can't be overemphasized at all because that is an extremely important thing in this whole hazardous waste question, as you undoubtedly know better than I, because having dealt" with' many of the facilities like Wilsonville. My practical experience, both from the regu- latory standpoint and as a consultant, shows that that often becomes the overriding concern rather than actual data on the way the actual site specifications and all of that. It's just so critical in this program, I think that the whole thing ------- 110 1 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if you don't recognize that early on and take account of it in the regulations, the whole program is going to falter be- cause there is no place to take all the stuff defined as hazardous. MR. CORSON: Let me just follow up a little bit, if I may. Do I interpret that your definition of low risk would be based on using the neutral extraction procedure and then some analysis from constituents and things which did not fail, would they be considered either low or no risk or what is your evaluation of low risk? DR. BECKER: Basically the neutral extraction pro- cedure . MR. CORSON: ,Are you— DR. BECKER.(interrupting): I would not sugges that something that flunks the neutral extraction procedure and would be defined as hazardous under that should be de- fined as non-hazardous or whatever. But I would suggest that anything that flunks that procedure, if you want, to look at it that way, would follow through Subtitle C procedure and be declared as a hazardous waste. Now, this still doesn't get you away from the need to look at levels of hazard,if you will, that other people have alluded to, but this is a way of at least skimming off some of the low, the really low hazard waste without going to a full system of levels of hazardous. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 MR. CORSON: You also made a distinction, I believe, in your comments that if the waste were going to be mixed with municipal waste, then we shouB use the acid extract. I am wondering whether there might be other industrial waste with which it might be mixed that would also suggest that we should use an acid extract. DR. BECKER: Yes, that's right, and I suggested that municipal waste or a similar environment such as the acid leach test would apply to it. In other words, all I'm saying is that the differ- ence in approaching, you have to consider the disposal alternative that's going to be used. If it does not flunk the neutral leach test, now you go to look at the disposal scenario that's going to be used on waste' and exclude it, if you can, based on that. Now, the thing that this doesn't do for you that you are trying to do in the"current regulations is follow every single waste that has any very slight poten- tial of being hazardous. But Irsubmit, as I pointed out, that you don't do that anyhow because,..of the process or exemption, so forth. Nor probably do you want to because you simply aren't going to have the mechanism' to do that. I could submit another example from EPA programs, if you're familiar with the pesticide program and the vast amount of material they collected early on in the regulatory process, which for all I know is still sitting in the basement ------- 112 of Waterside Mall and has never been looked at since. All I'm saying is you don't want to get into a paper program that is meaningless because you have:too much material to worry about . MR. LINDSEY: O.K., I guess I.have one last thing. You discussed at some length the apparent paradox between the fact that we say we need to use the manifest system to con- trol the movement of what you term low-risk kind of hazardous waste in order to be sure they get from A to B. Yet, on the 10 other hand, the other part of this.paradox, that we do not 11 require the manifest to move with- waste which are going to 12 reprocessors 13 I have one comment on that and then I've got one 14 question. Basically our rationale with regard to that is 15 that the materials which are moving to these processors by and 16 large have a, our thinking is that they have an economic 17 value and are less likely to be simply dumped. On the other 18 hand, that's not true of the low-risk materials. On the 19 other hand, you did point out, and.this, I guess, is my ques- 20 tion that you knew of some problem areas that had occurred 21 with waste which were moving to reprocessors and then for 22 some reason got dumped and maybe your argument here is more 23 an argument that we require the manifest for waste, moving 24 to reprocessors rather than eliminating the manifest for low 25 risk. If you have information like that in your written ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 comments, examples or things like that,it might be helpf.ul to us in making final determination along these lines. DR. BECKER: I'm really not trying to make that argument. MR. LIND3EY: I'm sorry if I read that in. But I could maybe make that argument from'..what you said. DR. BECKER: You could make that argument, but I think it's contrary to—what I'm trying to get at is that you don't want to take on too much. I think-that's not what you have proposed for reprocessors. It's not unreasonable at all even though it's quite true that, I believe, you will lose some of the waste that never gets to-reprocessors. But I think that's a risk you have to take because you simply can't be 100 per cent sure of things and I'm saying the similar things should hold for a low risk waste, too, so it's not, I think that's a little different. MR. LINDSEY: Nevertheless., either way, any prob- lems that you have specific cognizance of that have occurred because of this would be halpful to us in making a decision one way or the other. DR. BECKER: I certainly would be glad to provide that. MR. CORSON: Dr. Becker, you asked where the sampling should be done. I think you ended up with the way you're disposing, actually it's an off-site, you're shipping ------- 114 off, that's the waste that you sample. You don't consistently go back into the process and-pick it up from each line. The trouble will occur, we see from our own point of vie?/ and probably from an enforcement point of view, and the real problem is that if you should have one of the listed waste streams, you now mix that with everything else coming out of the plant, what I think you have done is you've created a larger set of hazardous waste because we probably wouldn't include all of it as the listed waste. What we think will 10 happen and we think should happen probably as a result of 11 the listing of waste streams, is that plants should begin to 12 segregate some of their waste so they're not by nature mixing 13 causing a larger volume to be in total hazardous waste and 14 only manage the hazardous waste in the right fashion, then 15 the non-hazardous portion^- There is nothing that says by our 16 regulations all the wast in a'specific plant must go to a 17 single facility. You can send the office waste one place, 18 the hazardous waste some place else. Even though that may not 19 sound practical, we think that makes eminently good sense. 20 We also think the segregation of waste may, segre- 2i gation and concentration may, also lead to enhance the re- 22 source recovery Just by nature of the segregation and con- 23 cent rat ion. 24 But the other thing it does bring to mind is another 25 question as to your comments for low-risk waste, and that is ------- 115 the problem that the more stuff you mix, the more difficult it becomes to define a representative sample from that plant to make the determination as to what you're going to do with it, whether it belongs in the system or not as opposed to single waste stream. DR. BECKER: Let me comment that I think your points are well made that this will lead to more segregation of waste streams. On the other hand, there is a great deal-df uncertainty, I believe, from our experience from industrial 10 clients right now as to the fact that that is going to be ll EP&IS position that you don't have to look at each stream. 12 In many of those cases, you have a very, very heterogeneous 13 mixture coming out and sampling is going to be a representa- 14 tive sampling. It's going to be very, very difficult because 15 you have some floor sweepings in this load and none in the 16 next load and you have air pollution control equipment, dust 17 in one load and you have water treatment sludge in.another 18 load all; mixed with various things. So the representative 19 sampling will be very difficult. The farther from the 20 source of the waste you get, the harder it is to find a repre- 21 sentative sampling procedure that does what you want it to do 22 and clearly you don't want to sample every load that goes 23 out. 0. MR. CORSON: Just one last comment. I would 24 25 appreciate, based on the industrial experience you have had, ------- • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 anything you could provide to us to help us define a repre- sentative sample. It will greatly help. As you are aware, w did try, in the regulations, to suggest methods,calling from ASTM those we thought might be appropriate. We will probably in the final promulgation be adding more ASTM methods that are appropriate for sampling. Vie do reference a document which we had produced under study to-Cincinnati which does talk about how we sample things out of a tank"truck in the middle of a lagoon and we'll start with a bulldozer. But we would appreciate it if you can give us any thoughts on what makes a representative sample and particularly if you have any idea as to how we might solve the problem of a representative sample every time. It would be greatly appre- ciated. DR. BECKER: I think just one comment on that. The difficult balance here is between really an economic one, that the cost versus the need for your information. Obviously you can sample every load. That's the most costly approach and the most costly extreme and that's not acceptable 'to anyone On the other hand, making a sample once every five years probably doesn't tell you much. I would just say we. have some ideas and it's a very difficult problem and I don't think there's any clear cut one answer. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I guess we have no more questions Thank you. ------- 117 We'll break for lunch now and reconvene the hearing at 1:30 in this room. 3 (Whereupon, at 12:10 o'clock p.m., the hearing was 4 recessed to reconvene at 1:30 o'clock p.m, the same day.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 118 AFTERNOON SESSION 1:30 p.m CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We would like to reconvene, please. I do have the names of additional people who weren't on our original list who do want to speak-and I'm going to go ahead and ask them to give us their comments and then we'll go back to the people who weren't here this morning and if there is anyone else who would like to offer comments on the record on 3001, you can indicate to the people at the regis- tration desk and they will bring up your name to us. The next person I have is Frank Stegbauer from Southern Towing Company. STATEMENT OF FRANK STEGBAUER MR. STEGBAUER:• Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the panel. My name is Frank Stegbauer, I'm vice-president of Southern Towing Company of Memphis, Tennessee. I operate boats on the navigable'. waters ofv-the U.S. I'm also representing American Waterways Operators, which is a trade association of shallow draft towing in- dustry with some 232 members in the towing industry. I think our basic concern over these regulations is how to comply with them and where we fit in the scheme of your system to collect hazardous waste. It seems like with so many regulations that we get drawn into that seern to be to us basically oriented to industrial plants and not oriented to the parameters or constraints we found ourselves operating ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 under in the marine environment. The one thing that particularly concerns us is the determination of used lubricating oil as a hazardous waste. The thousands, and if you include the pleasure boat owners it probably gets up into maybe millions, I don't know, of people that will generate used lube oil. We probably, in the marine boat, are different from the land modes in that people in the automobiles drop their used lube oil drippings in the street which, in turn, go down the storm sewers into our navigable waters and the railroads,and trucks drop it on the highways and the railroads probably on the roadbeds, I guess. We can't drop it even if we wanted".to. We're forbidden by the Clean Water Act. So many of us have installed oil separators on cur vessels and separate our bilge slops or bilge accumu- lation, water from oil of which probably 95 per cent of it is water, and then the used lube oil we transfer to our fuel bunker tanks and use it for fuel. This arrangement has met with approval of the Coast Guard on the philosophy that that's better than trying to pump it ashore'.because every time you go into a transfer operation, you increase the risk of probabl a spill of some of these oily materials. Of course we have no trouble in determining where - . we stand on the Clean Water Act. It's very clear .as to our obligations not to put oil and soon it will' tee, as scon as you put out your new hazardous material regulations, it will be ------- 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 very clear what new obligations we have under that provision of Section 311 of the Public.Law 92-500. But we do have som concerns in the fact that we don't generate a lot of used lube oil. I'm sure that, I know our vessels in my own company, we would generate far less than 220 pounds of used lube oil per month, except every two years when we overhaul our engines and change oil in them, we will be faced with the disposition of probably four to five drums cf used lube oil. Ordinarily we will not be. I would say the majority of the people on the river are separating their slops and putting the used oil in their bunkers and using it for fuel. We are concerned about some comments in here where there is some detrimental effect on the incineration.of used lube oil. We are concerned when the regulation says persons may not generate over 220 pounds and, still be exempt. When you say persons, does that mean the whole corporation as a whole or does that mean each vessel that we operate? My company operates fourteen vessels and it is strung out from one end of the river system to the other end of the river system. Collectively with those 14 vessels, we probably will generate more than 220 pounds. Singly.we would be considerably below that. We are wondering what definition you apply on that. We are wondering whether, because of the fact that we mio-.ht accumulate some used lube oil aboard, do we then b ------- 121 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 come a generator and since we are moving from, say, Houston to Pittsburgh, do we then'-become a transporter? I guess what we're really looking for is some clarification and if you people have any of these answers, a number of our people are here today and we would be most interested in hearing what - your proposal means when it comes to U.S. documented vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States. MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Stegbauer, I think your comments are well made. The basic thrust of'the regulatory program is toward land transport. You're pointing out some aspects of the regulations which I think perhaps we have not adequately considered as to what the impact of these regulations would be for barge traffic or any type of river traffic. We did consider the interaction between this law and the ocean disposal law. So we*ve got a pretty good inter- face between those two laws. But I must say some of the points that you raised here Just now are new to us, and I think we*re going to have to think about what you've brought up here and see which way we can go.on some of these points. I think I could reply to one of the points that you brought up, an interpretation of the word person with respect to a vessel such as yourself or a corporation or each vessel. The basic intent there of what we were trying to do was to have that conditional exemption apply to each facili- tv within a corporation, assuming they were land based. The ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 analogy, in your case, I think would be that it would apply to each vessel as opposed to the total corporation. But 1 can see where you had some trouble interpreting this. MR. STEGBAUSR: If that be true, it would be a much more livable situation with us. I. don't think that we have a problem with disposing .of the waste unless you have some objection to us using at as fuel. Our position is that in the spirit of the law for recovery of energy, we are recovering this as energy form by using it as fuel and: it does very well in our engines. It doesn't have a detrimental effect on t hem. Probably 220 pounds is not a lot of oil. I think at lunch we were figuring that and, incidentally, we will have comments to file before the March deadline, but I think if .a service station services and changes oil at approximately 17 automobiles a month, he is over the 220-pound limit. So I don't know whether you all have considered how many people are going to be affected by this, individuals, people with particularly inboard pleasure boats, which there are thousands, many more of those than there are tow boats, mariners of all kinds. When you say used lube oil, you've just about got everybody that drives an automobile or anything else. It's going to be pretty wide spread. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We thank you 'for your comments and we'll certainly consider them. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 Next this afternoon, Harold Muth from the American Waterways Operations. MR. MUTH: Mr. Stegbauer covered all. my points with the exception of the fact that under these rules, I think the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard would, be considered generators of waste every time they changed oil in their engines also. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. MR. STEGBAUER: Could I ask you one more thing? CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: If you will come to the micro- phone. We will probably at the end of this time for comments take written questions which will be off •the"-record so if it's a question, you might prefer to.hold it until then. MR. STEGBAUER: Well, I've just got one question. What is the philosophy on declaring used lubricating oil a hazardous material? The reason I ask this is because we were jprobably sitting back fat, dumb and happy and thinking that we were so regulated by the Coast Guard and all, thinking these regulations wouldn't bother us and .then you threw this used lubricating oil in there and we find ourselves in the soup. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Would you mind if we deferred that ~o the question and answer period? MR. STEGBAUER: O.K. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K. You can be first in the ------- 4 5 124 Qiaestion and answer period. All right, James Kinsey from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. STATEMENT OF JAMES KINSEY MR. KINSEY: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Kinsey. I'm with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I'm chief of the Hazardous Waste Management Section in Minnesota. In 197^ the Minnesota legislature passed some en- abling legislation in the Minnesota Hazardous Waste Act which 10 parallels in many ways the U. S. Conservation Recovery Act. 11 We have been developing rules in Minnesota since^then and 12 still are trying to get them on the books. 13 A lot of our work-was shared with the SPA when they_ 14 began developing their rules and have been involved in 15 watching the drafts as they come through and. I have been most 16 pleased with how they've been improving. 17 There are a number- of things about this particular 18 proposal that I think are finally beginning to take shape. 19 You have got some clear criteria for establishing characteris- 20 tics and for adding materials on to the lists and concurring 2i with those and I'm glad to see that kind of a process actually 22 in the rules themselves. 23 We heard a number of comments today from people who 24 would like to—we disagree with the approach that the EPA is 25 taking with respect to classifying wastes as to the degree ol ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 hazard. I concur with the approach whereby./ 3001 criteria are used kind of as a tool or as a screening mechanism to get wastes into the system and then the degree of hazard is taken into account in the 3004, 3005 portion of the rules with re- spect to matching it up with the proper management. The thing most of the comments against that particu- lar scenario seem to have in common or at their case is sort of a basic distrust or basic belief, perhaps, that environ- mentalists tend to be fanatical and general public tends to be irrational when comes to hazardous waste and their way of wanting to deal with that situation seems to be to not to bring things out in front of the public, to keep things, to find ways of not calling things hazardous, to zero in on the definition of hazardous and not so much on the nature of the relationship they've got with the environmentalists and the general public, and I think that the long range solution to that kind of an issue lies more in trying to address the re- lationship the industry has got with the general public and with the environmentalists by starting out to recognize that both of them do have valid concerns and in attending various conferences and such, I hear an awful lot of woe is me type stories where, gee, everything was technically O.K. but it was the irrationality of the system or the lack of some sort of mechanism which meant that we couldn't use this ideal facility, some little lady in the corner with her dog and she ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 stopped us all and bringing it.to a standstill. And I don't see a recognition or a willingness on the part of industry to recognize the validity of a lot of the concerns that are being raised there. And I would rather see public information type programs. I would rather see efforts made to make the facilities more attractive to the public. For instance, we recently had the rather disastrous experience in attempting to cite a hazardous waste demon- stration project in Minnesota. One of the reasons why we were having so much difficulty was that there really wasn't a demonstratable advantage to having the particular.-facility located in any one person's backyard or in their area. The local residents got nothing at all except for an increased risk, and often the land is taken off the tax rolls. There is no money' coming in from that type of facility. Those types of concerns aren't being dealt with. I do have some problems, though, with other portions of 3001, in particular the toxicity characteristics. One comment has to do with the extraction procedure. I really don't understand what it is. I don't know where it came from. I don't know what it's going to do. I don't know what wastes will be hazardous and what wastes.won't be hazardous. The equipment that it takes to run the extraction procedure, my understanding, it is not available or if it is available, it has just recently been made available. I'm not aware of any ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12? work that's been done to look at the, at exactly how this test is going to go about and what kinds of wastes are going to be classified as hazardous as a result of its use and what kinds aren't. It is, from my point of view, an unproven, untried test that is being used in preference to a system of. de- termining toxicity within waste that is used by state govern- ments for many years now, that of utilizing direct toxicity data, either the testing or the use of existing literature. . data. I also have difficulty, with the ten times the drinking water standards that you're applying it to as was discussed earlier today, the maximum permissible levels of radioactive materials don't necessarily mean that you've got a safe level, and I think much the same controversy spills over on to the drinking water standards. Many of them have their origin and levels of detection. In other words, at the time when they came up with them were looked at as being al- most zero. Ten times zero is still zero. I don't see as to where you end up with any sort of validity based upon them trying to make an approach through the EP.'.as, I don't see as to where you can say that it follows, bears on any reality, let's put it that way. I guess the final comment with respect to the toxicity characteristic is that it's very limited in its ------- 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 scope. Toxicity is a very broad term and yet the EPA looks at it from an extremely limited view that attempts to evalu- ate the risk of exposure through ground water contamination routes. You're not taking into account the fact that a lot of the wastes which are going to be called not hazardous are going to be picked up by commercial haulers and they will end up in packer trucks, they'll end up being compacted, they'll end up—transportation personnel in our area, ' it*s-not-.at--, all uncommon for them to get a face full of mist or dust or gasses from the truck itself, and the toxicity characteristic doesn't take into account the broader range of possible ex- posures during routine waste management. My final comment has to do with the way that the term discarded is being interpreted. I understand that it would greatly simplify the administration of the program by not taking into account all materials that are being destined for recovery. But we have examples in our own state of re- source recovery firms that are operated in many ways like a treatment facility which are coverecV.-under the rules, and where we've had a great deal of difficulty in terms of how they store the material on site, ground water contamination as a result of that facility being in existence, and the use of poor operational standards in both their operation and in their storage. I would oppose a categorical kind of an ex- emption for recycled materials. I think at a minimum we wou ------- 3 4 5 129 at least want to get the commercial recycling facilities and that would include the barrel reclaimers also. us? CHAIRPERSON DARK AH: Would you answer questions for MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Kinsey, you mentioned that with respect to the toxicity characteristics that you believe we should use a direct toxicity data as you implied many states do . Could you amplify and -expand on that as to what- do you mean by that in a little more detail? 10 MR. KINSEY: Well, most states that have an ongoing 11 hazardous waste or solid waste management program make de- 12 terminations as to the kinds of management that's appropriate 13 for a waste by looking at the characteristics of the waste 14 itself. They want to have information on the waste. I've 15 been with the Minnesota Pollution Control. Agency for the last 16 three years and people that have" been there before me say 17 that they have been looking at toxicity data as an important 18 step in determining what's appropriate management for a given 19 waste. The acute toxicity data, the direct tcxicity data is 20 used because it's available. There is a lot of it cut there. 21 It's kind of an approach, in my view, it is sort of a standard 22 for the regulatory industry right now, the regulatory people, 23 the regulatory program. It makes mere sense to me. to try and 24 bring the states up to a common, standard or common level in 25 terms of how it is they address hazardous waste and kinds of ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 tools that they use than it does to establish a test that has no background, that has no experience with it, that we don't know how it's going to handle, try to:.take us to an imaginary point which is several steps beyond which most of the regu- latory agencies are now. MR. LEHMAN: If I understood your remarks correctly, you're basically suggesting that we go back to acute toxicity information on pure substances that you find in waste. In other words, there is no such thing, to my knowledg^, at least, on waste by waste basis of toxicity of waste. You're talking in terms of a toxicity of components of that waste for which there may or may not be data. So going one step further from that, the implication, if I'm correct, I want you to comment, if you would, the implication is that if you were going to draw, then, a line between hazardous and non-hazardous based on these toxicity characteristics is that you would not only have to draw a line with respect to, say, LD-50 or some other toxological number, but you would also have to draw a line with respect to concentration of that particular constituent in the waste, is that not true? MR. KINSEY: I think that if you were to try to relate that standard to the characteristics of waste and not to the characteristics of the individuals-components, that that would not be true. What you're trying to evaluate is the characteristiJ ------- 131 1 of the waste. You could utilize purer component toxicity 2 data in doing that evaluation, but that wouldn't be the point 3 at which you could regulate it. You would be regulating it 4 from the point of view of the characteristic of the waste. 5 MR. LINDSEY: That would require in every individual 6 case that the toxological characteristics of each waste be 7 determined on the case by case basis, right, specifically if 8 you're going to regulate that way? 9 MR. KINSEY: If you mean tested, no, I don't think 10 that means tested. I think that the listing that you've got 11 of hazardous wastes, according to hazardous properties, a good 12 deal of those processes have been identified as a result of 13 acute toxicity data and that data was used, I think, pretty 14 extensively in coming up with the list of hazardous materials 15 that you have. If it was good enough for that, I submit that 16 it is good enough to try and formalize that process through 17 the criteria to provide a minimum evaluation of each individual 18 waste. 19 MR. CORSON: I guess I'm still a little bit con- 20 fused, Jim. I wonder if you could go through for me one more 2i time how you. would evaluate specifically the hazards or the 22 toxicity of a waste. Can you have a sample of the way you 23 assess its toxicity? 24 MR. KINSEY: What you're attempting to do is 25 evaluate the toxological, the toxicity properties of a given ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 waste, you've got three different ways in which you can do that. You can test the waste itself. You can take a look at the existing .data either on the pure compounds that are in the waste or on the existing data of similar types of waste, or you could use some sort of experiential type of data re- lating exposures to some descriptive standard, CHAIRPERSON DARRAK: Let me try.and clarify one thing. You complimented us on having these four characteris- tics but what you're essentially saying is get rid of the toxicity characteristic and Just put things on the list? MR. KINSEY: No, I complimented you on having criteria for coming up with your characteristics:..and your lists. The compliment kind of fell off there, how you apply those criteria to toxicity. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I Just..wanted to clarify that. MR. KINSEY: I think you kind of fell apart there a little. MR. CORSON: Let me follow up a little if I may, Jim. If we were to go back, let me again Just try to do this to get a further amplification of this approach that you're referring to, if I were, for the moment, to leave out the extraction procedure, I had some technique which would allow me to analyze the waste, reevaluate the waste, and that technique would allow me to include the things that we now have in the proposal, which is" the drinking water metals regu. ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 lated, I would include in it the ANPR which again uses all the toxicity data that exists, that we're aware of, is that':the kind of approach you're recommending, just evaluate the toxicity of components as one approach? One you have a specific incident from :that waste, which we know has caused damage,which is another approach. And the third one, I think if I heard you correctly, would be to draw the analogy be- tween this waste and another waste which is very similar. Do you feel that would be a proper thing? MR. KINSEY: From what I understand of what you're saying, yes. Similarly my analogy there was, my comment there was referring to the possibility of industries, for instance, the metal plating industry being able to collectively address the types of waste that they offer and to be able to do a study of the waste industry wide as opposed to each individual industry studying its own individual waste. What I'm looking for is more flexibility in in- terpretation of what is hazardous. MR. CORSON: . Let me ask another question. We try-- at least part of our approach with using an EP, forgetting for the moment the specifics of the individual EP,was to show concern for contaminants that might be released from the waste as opposed to those contaminants which might be bound up. I'm wondering whether in your system you would have some con- ceot; t which would allow out those things which while analysis ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 might show that there's arsenic there, we still want to give credit to the fact that it's bound up and not released from that waste in the present form of the waste. MR. KINSEY: well, first of all, the biological tests], to some extent, account for that type of thing in that in order for a chemical which is in a waste, say arsenic, to come in to exert its toxic property, it has to come into con- tact with the, it has to actually be absorbed into the organism and there you're taking into account some not only acquatic solubilities but also liquid solubilities. So the test animal itself does, to some extent, account for some of that. But beyond that point, I would like to see that be able to be part of the thing, part of the evaluation. . But i other than on a case by case basis,I'm not sure how you're going to establish standards,to do that. The thing that bothers me most about the way that you've gone is that I would rather see you wait on that type of a standard where you're looking at that kind of an issue because you don't even have the piece of equipment that it takes to do the test,available. We haven't done that much in the way of trying to determine what waste will or will not be hazardous as a result of that test, and I'm kind of at a loss as to how to really comment about that EP without knowing what it's going to do. I understand that a year from now, you may have an awful lot of testing done utilising the SP, but ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 that doesn't help me today. MR. CORSON: I guess one of the things that I find here is a problem for me, at least, our extractor is a very sirrple piece of equipment, which I guess we think ought to be made in any garage shop. From the drawing that's available in the proposal itself, someone could make it. I think that all the industry has is that they are concerned if they make one themselves, will we consider that to be an equivalent piece of equipment. I think that's a different valid ques- tion. It has nothing to do with whether or; not we can make an extractor. MR. KINSEY: My issue isn't whether or not they can make it. But my issue is that the extractor itself just showed up in the Federal Register in December, and I myself haven't seen any picture of it prior to that. And even if I wanted to make it and even if I had the money and the re- sources to start testing to find out how this extractor works and how this particular procedure with the specified dilution . and under the specified acidic conditions, if I knew what waste would and would not be hazardous under that type of a system, but there's been no, virtually, testing done. And yet it's being proposed as a standard. It would seem to me that what we would want to do at this point is put that off for a year or so until you come up with a standard. In the meantime look at toxicity from a point of ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 view where it is being looked at today by regulatory agencies that are actually doing it. .In other words, they are taking into account existing toxological data and they're doing it in a number of different mechanisms. They do it either by requiring testing on particular wastes. They do it by uti- lizing j?inney»s equations and similar types of things or calculating the toxicity of a given waste, or they utilize some sort of a, there's actually been a problem, some kind of experience with the waste that demonstrates that toxiGolbgieal property or the lack of it. MR. CORSON: One last one if 1 may. Would you estimate, if you can, whether you thinkve have mere wastes currently that would come into the system if we used the approach that you're suggesting as opposed .to whatever estimate you may have on what would come, in using the tcxicity defini- tion as included in the regulation? MR. KINSEY: I wish I could, but that's my comment, I can't. I have no idea. The approach that I'm suggesting is the continuation of the one that's being used today with re- spect to toxlcdlogLcal evaluation in those states that have got ongoing programs . And it would seem to me to make, more sense to upgrade the nation to those minimal standards and to at a later date introduce the leachate test or the extraction pro- cedure when we've got a better idea as to how that really re- lates to the hazard we're trying to control. } ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 MR. LINDSEY: To change the subject a little bit to one of your other comments, you had some problem', with our definition of discarded materials which would let wastes which are being recovered in some manner into products which don't constitute disposal,would let them, would identify them as non-hazardous waste or non 'waste, I guess. The problem which we come into here, one of the problems associated with that whole area is that we have trouble identifying where a material is a legitimate by-product which is manufactured .Qr the myriad by-products which come out of the manufacturing industries today which are used as intermediate and as final products all over the country and the entire economy. And those things which seem to worry you and which worry us, to some extent, that may be presented as being recovered but in actuality are not recovered and we have trouble drawing that line. The way in which we haveochosen to do it is to say that, look, anything which has a value and which is going to a resource recovery facility is not as likely to get lost. But, on the other hand, it was pointed out to us earlier that occasionally something will get lost, somebody will simply foul up the law and that will happen in. any event I suspect. But assuming you don't like our approach.to the thing, how else would we draw that line between what we'll call legitimate byproducts and things which are waste which ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 138 would be in the system? I don't think it's practical to get all byproducts into the system. MR. KINSEY: In Minnesota, we have the same problem because our definition of what waste is is also tied to the word discarded, and I recognize that as a problem. I think my understanding of the, situation is that because it is a, in our case, a.Megislative definition, the court may be the only ones :that are going to be able to de- termine whether or not that particular facility is handling waste or if it is handling some kind of a raw material. A byproduct is not a waste and, to me, there are situations out there that are under the guise, there are resource recovery situations out there that are definitely recovery of waste. And I would think that rather than closing the door to the possibility of your taking some action against that kind of a situation, you would want to go and keep that open. You're not going to resolve that difference, I don't think. I don't think you can because the difficulty, the lack of clarity comes from the Congress itself when ;they said something was discarded. But in your interpretation of that, I don't 'under- stand why you want to preclude some action in an area where you're actually needed. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We don't have any more ques- tions. Thank you. Back to our original list. Is the representative ( ------- 69 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 from the St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association here? MR. MARQUART:. Yes. STATEMENT OF ROLAND C. MARQUART MR. MARQUART: Thank you. I'm not a technical person per se. I have a peripheral knowledge of environmental matters so I can.'.t tell you anything here that Chet wouldn't—Chet knows how much I don't know. I am Roland C. Marquart, manager of Transportation Services and secretary of the Environmental Committee of the St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association. The St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association is an organization of over 3.,000 members., repre- senting businesses and labor, in an area having a population of over two and a half million on both, sides of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Our organization,also known as RCGA, has its focus on the bi-state, metropolitan St. Louis region. Our primary emphasis is the economic development of that entire area. .The basic statement I'm presenting here was pre- pared by a subcommittee of our Environmental Committee. The St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association--!'m skipping a couple of paragraphs there that aren't pertinent per se or pertinent but not essential. The many tragic in- ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 cidents ' associated with the improper handling and disposal of hazardous wastes have emphasized the need to develop con- trol measures. Hopefully, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Hazardous Waste Regulations coupled with the Toxic Substances Control "Act and the Clean Water Act Pre- treatment Regulations will enable our society to preserve human health and the environment for ourselves and our de- scendants . The St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Associa- tion does not take issue with the intent of the proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations„ We do, however, wish to em- phasize the need for moderation during development of such regulations to insure against over-regulation. So often we i are witness to growth stagnation from policies that jeopar- dize the very existence of businesses which! have been the building blocks of our great nation, providing our people with the products and services we demand, and are the life- blood of our free enterprise system. We are particularly concerned with the impact of hazardous waste and other sister regulations on small and medium sized businesses. Large corporations have been forced to develop staffs specifically assigned to handle increased administrative burdens, but the smaller company has been pushed to the limit of motivation and lacks the resources necessary to handle the numerous and voluminous federal regulations promulgated within the past tgM ------- 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 years. We are concerned also that portions of the proposed hazardous waste regulations relating to intrastate controls on transportation, handling, and storing may be unconstitutionally intruding on state sovereign functions. We trust that ade- quate importance will be given to this possibility and that the implication of such deviation from the basic rights of local and state governments will be thoroughly evaluated. As the time allows, we wish to address specific provisions and requirements presented in the proposed hazardous waste regulations as follows: Section 250.13(d), we consider the definition of a toxic waste as related to the extraction procedure to be arbitrary and a fantastic notion. The EPA has taken an ex- tremely ultraconservative position in considering a waste hazardous if its EP extract shows more than ten times the levels of contaminants allowed by the National-.Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. Using such criteria, every- thing but drinking water will be considered hazardous. The main purpose of hazardous waste regulations is to control the entry of truly hazardous substances into the environment and thereby protect the public health. The leaching of hazardous wastes into ground water should be prevented. The assumption, therefore, that hazardous wastes will enter the ground water and receive a tenfold dilution does not appear valid and ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 142 certainly should not be used as the" basis for establishing the toxicity of all hazardous waste components. Section 250.14(b)(ill), we do; not understand the reasoning underlying the separation of publicly-owned and )rivately-owned treatment works which would, if treating lomestic sewage, produce essentially identical sludges. If the purpose of such a provision is to control industrial treatment >lant sludges, the intent could be better stated so as not to )lace an undue burden upon those private companies producing and treating municipal sludge under contract as a business enture. The intent and expanse of this provision is unclear. Section 250.15(f), authority is given to the Ad- inistrator to approve or disapprove a demonstration and also the power to grant or not grant a public hearing if he solely considers there are or are not genuine and relevant factual issues to be resolved by such a hearing. We consider a provi- sion such as this gives too much power arid authority to one individual who may or may not be qualified to make such deci- sions and rulings. Section 250.22, we agree wholeheartedly with the concept of the manifest system as long as sufficient care is taken in defining hazardous waste and the administrative burden is minimized. The manifest system, if adhered to, will enable tracking of hazardous waste from its conception to dis- posal and insure adequate protection for the public and the ------- 143 environment. We recommend, however, that each load of hazard- ous waste, meaning each economically transportable quantity, have a separate manifest accompanying it on its journey. If several separate shipments are -covered under one manifest, the potential for the probability of..error exists and keeping track of each shipment becomes more difficult. Section 250.29(a), we do not consider a waste, if truly hazardous and the> degree of: hazard being adequately 9 defined, should be allowed to be discharged into a facility 10 not specifically designed and...operated to handle and contain 11 hazardous waste no matter what the weight or volume. 12 Numerous generators of small "quantities of hazardous wastes 13 using the same facility for disposal can, by their aggregate 14 contributions, create the potential for a public health or 15 environmental hazard. More emphasis should' be placed on de- 16 fining what is actually hazardous rather than arbitrarily 17 selecting a 100 kilograms per month or even a thousand 18 kilograms per month exemption. The degree of toxicity is the 19 most important consideration and should be specified. 20 Section 250.43-9, we are cognizant of the financial 21 problems associated with assuring proper closure and post- 22 closure of hazardous waste facilities and ascribe to the need 23 for such procedures. Monies earmarked for closure.and post- 24 closure operations deposited initially in a trust fund is one 25 way of providing future funds for- proper closure and post- ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 closure of existing hazardous facilities. Such a requirement may, however, place a burden on the smaller operator who wishes to comply with hazardous waste facility regulations but does not have adequate capital. We are encouraged to see a provision included in the regulations which would allow the Regional Administrator to consider the financial status of the facility and provide for partial compliance and relief for the financial responsibility associated with closure and post-closure. For new facilities placed in operation after the effective date of the hazardous waste regulations, a schedule of charges, based on. hazard category and weight or volume, could be developed which would enable the operator of a hazardous disposal facility to allocate a certain percentag of his disposal fee for closure and post-closure costs. The portion of the disposal fee allocated for such closure operations could be placed in a controlled interest-bearing fund. The administration of the fund could be.similar to sales tax collections with any left-over portion after satisfactory closure assigned to the state government for use in other environmental protection activities associated with the con- trol and disposal of hazardous wastes or to establish a disaster fund. We are concerned that only the large companies with extensive capital reserves will be able to construct and operate hazardous waste disposal facilities if initial de- ------- 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 posits for closure and post-closure operations are required. The potential for price fixing becomes apparent. Whatever system is ultimately chosen to insure, proper closure, we trust that some means will be employed to prevent exorbitant dis- posal charges being assessed on those companies who must com- ply with hazardous waste regulations and dispose of their wastes at such facilities. We have selected for comment today those concepts and requirements which wecconsider have the greatest impact on the various commercial and industrial establishments we represent. A more detailed evaluation of ;the various tech- nical aspects of the regulations by qualified individuals within our organization will be prepared and submitted at a later date. We thank you for^the opportunity to voice our con- cerns and comments and trust that great care will be exercised in preparing the final;.hazardous waste regulations which we deem to have greater impact on our nation's business community than the Clean 'Water Act, and respectfully submit it. CHAIRPERSON DARKAH: Thank you. I realize you did tell us that this was written by one of your subcommittees. I wonder if we. might ask you some questions. MR. MARQUART: Certainly. MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Marquart, one of the problems you ------- 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 addressed in the last set of points had to do with the small facilities meeting the financial requirement. Was the thrust of that that they would not be able to meet the upfront— MR. MARQUART (interrupting): Essentially, yes. MR. LINDSEY: Therefore, I gather you would—let me make one point. The provision which you alluded to that allows the Regional Administrator to make a determination if a facility couldn't meet that has only to do with the position of that requirement during the interim status period? MR. MARQUART: Not starting the new one. MR. LINDSEY: And not after the facility has re- ceived a full permit. In other words, when he receives the full permit, he will have to have it all upfront. MR. MARQUART: Yes. MR. LINDSEY: Then are you saying that we should, as an alternative, then, that we should, in some way, expand that so that the Regional Administrator could take such problems, financial problems* into account? MR. MARQUART: A part of it, of course, was in this, providing for the charges that',.would be used to pay this off, I think. MR. LINDSEY: In other words, over a period of time- MR. MARQUART (interrupting): Yes. You said it would be upfront. It's a question of accumulating the money over a period of time is what our recommendation is aimed at ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 MR. LINDSEY: Let me just raise one of the problems that we considered that as an approach at one point and, as a matter of fact, if you've seen some of the preliminary drafts which have been floating around, you. probably would have seen that provision in there. But', the trouble is with regard to closure requirements, which is^the only thing, if I'm not mistaken, it is the only thing that requires up-front money is that we have too. many instances of facilities, new facilities, if you will, or existing facilities which simply go under. If they go under before that money is built up over a number of years, as I think your suggestion would be, then there is no money available or insufficient amount of money available to close the facility out properly which is the most important thing when a facility is abandoned. MR. MARQUART: I recognize that problem and realize there must be a provision for proper closure, you can't get away from that. MR. LINDSEY: Then I would submit that your approach of allowing this money to be built.up over a period of years might not adequately provide that protection, there wouldn't be funds available. MR. MARQUART: Well, if you're talking about for one single unit or whether you're talking about units as a group. MR. LINDSEY: Well, the regulations, as they're ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 written now, apply to each specific — MR. MARQUART (interrupting): When you're talking about trust funds, you're talking about something, like you hav< highway trust fund and other things like that where monies are collected and put into a trust fund which is used over a variety of things and allocated. As you.say, the practicality of that for an individual thing would be questionable but an overall industry wide trust fund is really what we're talking about, the possibility should be considered. We're not attempting to say here today that that absolutely is what should be done. It's just a suggestion as a possibility that we would present for your consideration. MR. LIMDSEY: So as another option, we would perhaps thenr-let!s see if I understand what you're saying, as another option, then, we would then perhaps consider requiring a state- wide or perhaps even nation-wide trust fund to be built up for closure? MR. MARQUART: Yes, I think on a state basis, yes. MR. CORSON: I have,-a couple of points, Mr. Marquart. One is a'"question. Earlier in your testimony you indicated that you felt that we were being ultraconservative with our ten times standard for defining hazardous waste due to toxicity and later on you indicated you do not feel we should allow any hazardous waste to leach at all or leach into the system. I'm wondering whether your technical people may hav « ------- 79 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some guidance or advice to us as to— MR. MARQUART (interrupting): That would be a question I would ask them to present additional material before the March deadline in writing on that. MR. CORSON: Two other points I'd like just for clarification. In your point two that, you raised with regard • our separation of POT// sludge and others, that category is what was raised this morning, all POTW sludge will be managed under Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act and the reason we are excluding it is because there is overlapping coverage. We don't have the authority under that section of the Act to regulate or to let out nor.-POTW sludge because that Act does not cover non-POTW sludge. MR. MARQUART: O.K., sir, thank you. MR. CORSON: The next clarifying point, and I'm just wondering which direction you're coming from, that was in your point three, Paragraph 215(f), which relates to a test that someone might do to demonstrate that their waste does not oelong in the system and the purpose of that particular sec- tion is essentially to avoid what I call nuisance type public hearings where someone felt that that', was the case. In other vords, this is a case where an industry can submit data to show their waste does not belong in the system. If an in- terested person, let me just say somebody that probably be- lieves that industry is trying to get- away with bloody murder ------- 30 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 149-A here, they just can't demand a public hearing on the basis they want to hear the record. They've got to have, as it indicates there, genuine and relevant factual information to indicate that should come to a public hearing. ,If, on the other hand, the demonstration has been turned down, the data provided in the demonstration has been turned down by the Administrator, then the person submitting it may request that public hearing. MR. MARQUART: I think, maybe there was a misinter- pretation of the language there it sounds to me like. Thank you very much. MR. CORSON: I felt'that just from what you said there was. MR. MARQUART: I would presume because I think what you're saying is really what it was directed to. MR. MC LAUGHLIN: Roland,I'm kind of curious. You alluded to the possibility of potential price fixing. How would you suggest that we might approach .this? MR. MARQUART: Well, I think that was all tied in with this question of the trust fund type of thing and all. In other words, having provisions that would permit smaller companies to get in business. So there was no thought that the EPA should be a Federal Trade Commission at any place along the line but rather that the concern with these regulations as they might prevent some smaller companies.from getting into, ------- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 150 competition, that was the only thought there. Marquart. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:. Thank you very much, Mr. Is Robert Plank from Springfield, Missouri, here or someone else from City Utilities of Springfield? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Is Dr. Robert Poston here? (No response.) - CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., that's the end of my list of people who asked to g±.ve us their comments. Is there someone else who would like to speak on Section 3001? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K. We will officially close the hearing record now on 3001 and we will, I believe, pass out three-by-five cards and if any of you would like to give us written questions, if you could keep it to 3001, we would certainly prefer that because we are going to be discussing two, three and four in the next couple of days,we will attempt to answer your questions. I guess we already have one from Mr. Stegbauer and we'll start off with that. We'll take five minutes.' (A short recess was taken.) (See separate transcript for Question and Answer Session.) 25 ------- SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT FOR QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION St. Louis, Missouri February 14, 1979 ------- 151 :l:jp 1 MR, LEHMAN: I'll start off the question and 2 answer session of our meeting. 3 Mr. Stegbauer asked the question, basically 4 why was waste oil considered to be not a—well, I guess 5 the gist of it was why was it singled out for special 6 treatment under the regulations, 7 The answer is that we know that the use of 8 waste oils for suppression purposes, road oiling, use 9 of the incineration of these oils has been known to cause 10 serious environmental effects. A very famous case occurred 11 right here in Missouri, Verona, Missouri, for example 12 where a waste oil collector collected not only waste oil 13 but other things and sprayed a horse arena with that 14 material and a lot of other roads in the area, and 15 there were some very severe environmental effects in- 16 volving the health of children and the death of animals 17 in that area, 18 With respect to the incineration of waste oils, 19 we are particularly concerned with the heavy metal con- 20 tent of lubricating, in particular automotive lubricating 2i oils. We have some data that indicates it's as high 22 as about 8,000 parts of lead in certain automotive oils 23 as a result of capture of the lead from leaded gasoline 24 in the crankcase oil. We feel that the incineration of 25 such oils could very easily, if it was done in uncontrol- led manner, result in some serious environmental problems. ------- 5:2:jp l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 152 So, for all of these reasons, we have tended to believe that waste oils, in particular automotive crankcase oils, but also I might add certain other types of cutting oils, industrial cutting oils and so on, which do include among them heavy metal shavings and so forth, do deserve some special treatment under these regula- tions o That's the basic rationale behind treating waste oil as we have0 Now, I have another question here relating to waste oil0 It says, "Waste oils which are generated within a facility and then burned on site for fuel, heat value, why are these considered hazardous and fall under Subtitle C regulations?" Well, here again the waste oils that we are talking about here, depending on what kind of oils you're referring to, we are specific in Section 250,10-(b) when it's saying, "Using lubricating hydraulic, trans- former, transmission or cutting oil"; if it's those types of oils then they do fall into our definition of discarded materials. Other types of oils would not necessarily, I might comment on transformer oils,that the obvious problem we foresee there is the possibility that transformer oils might contain PCB's, or even if they were substituted into any kind of transformer oper- ation which was drained of PCBfe and and then substituted ------- 153 i other mineral oils could pick up other contamination 2 with PCBfeo So, we're concerned about those particular ^ 3 types of waste oil, and so it's a little difficult to 4 answer this question without knowing explicitly what type 5 of waste oil is being discussed here; but I think the 6 basic point is that while we recognize that we want to 7 encourage energy conservation where possible, that's 8 also one of the goals of the Resource Conservation 9 Recovery Act, it's not only public health and environ- 10 mental protection but it is also recovery and reuse of 11 materials for energy. We recognize that, but we're 12 in essence trading off these two goals at this point 13 with respect to waste oil0 14 I might also point out that it does not, these 15 regulations do not preclude the use of waste oil as 16 a fuel, heat value source,. All we're saying is that 17 if the type of waste oil that I've just discussed is to 18 be used for fuel purposes then it requires a permit,, 19 In other words, we want to know about it and we want 20 to have some control over the type of oil that goes in, 2i the burning conditions under which it Is burned, and so 22 forth. So, that's that0 23 All right, let's go on to some other questions, 24 MR, LINDSEY: I have a couple here: 25 "Will the EPA and the states be able to process ------- 5:4:jp 154 1 disposable facility permit applications fast enough to 2 accommodate the thousands of newly-designated genera- 3 tors of hazardous waste as a result of these proposals?" 4 First of all, the first point I want to bring 5 out is the generators do not need permits, unless they 6 treat, store and dispose on site0 Now, Congress recog- 7 nized the fact that it would take some time for EPA 8 and the states to process- permit applications, and that's 9 why the provision in the Act for interim status is 10 there. If someone has notified us under Section 3010, 11 and has applied for a permit—in this case we1!! have 12 a two-part permit—has submitted Fart A, then they are 13 considered as having a permit for purposes of continuing 14 to operate until EPA acts on the permit, 15 There are two reasons for that: Number ore is 16 because Congress realizes it takes time to go through 17 a backlog of permits, and another reason is because-- 18 it has been mentioned earlier here today I think-that 19 there is a problem with the capacity of facilities, 20 That is, there is not now sufficient acceptable capacity 2i available for permitting right off the top. We expect 22 to use this mechanism of interim status to help us time 23 the permitting activity to correspond insofar as we're 24 able with the availability of acceptable capacity, 25 . The second question is: "Is it the Agency's ------- 5:5:jp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 155 intent to include normal silvicultural management in harvesting wastes which are usually left in the forest as erosion control and game management aids under the agricultural exemption, and if not, why not?" First of all, I doubt that those "materials would be hazardous under the definition of 3001; however, insomuch as timber is a crop, I'll have to admit that it rs not something which I personally have thought about and I don't know whether the rest of our staff has thought about it. Should those kinds of materials turn out to be hazardous, I would think that we xvould look favorably upon them in the sense that they might be covered in the same way as farm waste insofar as they ara a crop, but I can't imagine them being hazardous» If somebody has information that indicates they are hazardous, where it would fail our definition here, maybe we would want to rethink that, MR, CORSON: I have a couple of questions here: "In the seminar in Houston last year, a re- presentative Hawaii Conversion Incorporated reported that the company used EPA's proposed construction pro= cedure on a sample of concrete,containing a level of .12 parts per million of cadmium. Two questions: One, do you know about this and if yes, how valid is the claim; Number two, if the claim is valid this sample would ------- 5:6:jp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 make the weigh station hazardous waste, and do we want that?" I guess I have heard thac same report and I cannot assess the validity of the claima I'm sure if they recorded it, than in their conduct of the test that's what they found„ There have been changes made to the extraction procedure since that time. At that point we were using a buffered—a method of continuously adding acid to maintain a pH of 5 at the end of two 24- --.. hour period, so in 48 hours it always had enough acid in it with a final pH of five0 As a result of comcients we got at that point in time we have modified the extraction procedure so we now have a maximum amount of acid that we add for the given sample, and I'm confident that at this point in time concrete would not fail—let me change the wording—that analyzing the extract from subjecting concrete to the extraction procedures in the analysis, that would not fai!0 Just as a matter of semantics, you don't fail or pass an E.P. The E.Po is a method for extracting releasable contaminants through a solubility test for the waste and we then do evaluate it according to the standard shown for toxicity under the proposal. Another question related to "When does a waste become a waste? 3y way of description presently ------- 5: 1 used, sodium hydroxide to chemically metal aluminum. 2 We discard it now, but in the future we will recover 3 some of the spent hydroxide and reuse it. What cannot 4 be recovered will be disposed of. Will then this 5 sodium hydroxide solution be considered a waste before 6 or after recovery?" The answer is it will be considered 7 waste when you get rid of it. The recovered part is 8 not a waste0 When you're through with the spent part 9 and you're not using it anymore, then it is a waste 10 and subject to evaluation according to our character- ll istics, 12 Question: "With regard to the ignitable waste 13 definition as now written, any waste which ignites at 14 140F, or burns air, burns vigorously or persistently 15 when ignited, is ignitable regardless of ignition 16 temperatures. Was this the intent of this section 17 or should the word 'or1 really be 'and'?" 18 By way of explanation we're using 130 degree 19 flash point for liquids. We share with the rest of the 20 people out there the difficulty for determining a de- 21 finitive test for solids in terms of ignitability. So, 22 we have tried to describe those things which might 23 cause, or which could define an ignitable solid. One 24 of them is something which will burn vigorously when 25 ignitedo The major reason for including it—and it is ------- 158 5:8:jp 1 meant to be 'or1 as it now reads—is we would like to 2 make sure, and 3004 deems it so, that those kinds of 3 materials are kept out of the landfill environment 4 where fires are more likely to occur. We really 5 recommend that some other method of disposal or final 6 disposition be used for ignitables. 7 A question: "How are the compounds listed 8 in the priority pollutants list to be used in clas- 9 sifying a waste as hazardous?" 10 That gives me a chance to offer an explanation 11 for three of the appendices that are listed. These are 12 the appendices which have the selected cancelled and 13 Arfar pesticides, the D.00T0 Poison A, Poison B, A 14 list and the selected list of priority pollutantsa 15 Because of the limited definition we have for hazar- 16 dous waste, we felt there were certain of these, to 17 use the word, pure materials, which if the material were 18 disposed of does require some special attention,, And 19 there are four categories that we mentioned, material 20 which is a discarded material but if it were shipped 21 would be defined by any of the names listed on any of 22 those three appendices, the pesticides, the D,O.T, 23 priority pollutant, spill cleanup residues from those 24 same materials, off-spec materials if it's a discarded 25 material, and containers which are going to disposition, ------- 5:S:jp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 159 unless they have been triple-rinsed. So, a container— just let me amplify the last one—container which is going to a reclaimer is not another discarded material, it is not a solid waste, it is out of the system in total. Now, a container from one of these materials which has been emptied, the container is going to disposition, you're going to bury it or whatever, that container has not been triple-rinsed, it is a hazardous waste. The other point that I should indicate at this time, though, is that there is nothing about—even though it's part of tomorrow's discussion—you may still ship those empty containers using a manifest, or a shipping paper, rather, because they may still fit in the D.O.T. standards as a hazardous material, even the ones that we have left out of the system. Another question: "Are hazardous washes destined for recovery or reclamation which do not have a value to the generator, are they considered hazardous and subject to 3001; the generator pays to have it hauled off, it does not have a value, it's a reclaimer?" After many discussions and deliberations we took out of our definition of discarded material any association with value, because itrs been very difficult to say how much this had to be worth, trying to put an economic value on it. We really are looking at it only ------- 5:10:jp l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 160 if it is being reused in a manner which does not con- stitute disposal, and is not a used oil as defined, In chose cases it is not a waste, it's going to a re- claimer which is out of the system.* Now, as indicated earlier as a result of one of our comments, we have made some of these decisions leaning in the direction of fostering and sponsoring resources, recovery of resources utilization, while at the same time providing what we feel is an adequate amount of protection of public health and the environ- ment. And we've left the door open, for example, we've only listed certain waste oils as being always a dis- carded material,, We may add other things to that same list if we find that there are other that deserve that distinction of always being considered a waste because the tendency to use them in an improper manner is too high, or the things usually are frequently con- taminated enough that they deserve and have the atten- tion of this regulation. MR0 LINDSEY: I've got one here that's kind of complex and I'll see if I can wind my way through it here. "I would like to know, or I'd like EPA to ad- dress the question of what is considered, 'significant reduction of odors, volatiles, and pathogenic micro- ------- <5 - 1 1 • •! T J. -i.J-.jp 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 .17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 161 organisms', and how the wastes from holding pens at packing houses be addressed by EPA. Due to present definitions and interpretations it would appear that those waste and sludge from activated sludge plants used by that industry, could not be applied to crop Iand0" Well now, that gets into some, gets in depth in the identification here under one of the lists, and if the person who asked this question happens to have a copy of the regs they will probably want to look at 250.14-(b), which is where this particular quote comes from. It says: "Hazardous waste sources and processors, sources generating hazardous wates. The following sources generate hazardous waste unless the waste from these sources does not contain micro-organisms or elements of CoD0Co classes 2 through 5 of the etiologic agents listed in Appendix 6," Well, first of all, off the top, I don't really know whether these kinds of waste have those kinds of micro-organisms or elements in them. Assuming that they do, we'll go on to the next piece, which shows up under little iii down at the bottom of the lefthand corner of that page which says: "Sewage treatment plants, with the exception ------- 5:12:jp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 162 of publicly owned treatment works, unless sludge'gener- ated by such a plant has been stabilized by means of chemical, physical, thermal or biological treatment pro- cesses that result in significant reduction of odors, volatile organics and pathogenic micro-organisms." That specifically is the quote that the gentleman is interested in. And these processes are discussed then in a document which we have referenced herec It's an EPA document, a process design manual for sludge treatment and disposal. Well, to address that partioiar point, first of all we come to the question is manure from feed lots, is that sewage? And there is at least question in my mind as to whether it is or not. Now, I don't think we've arrived at that. Maybe we need to look at the definition and determine whether it should or shodd not be sewagee If it's not sewage, then it wouldn't be covered here, and I'm not sure I have the answer for that right now0 We'll have to take that into ac- count and address that point. Second of all, if the gentleman treats it in an activated sludge plant as he indicates is done by the industry, then it's also not covered, because that's one of the process designs which is in this manual, So, by and large, through one of the given situations ------- 163 1 which he's discussing here, through one of those three 2 possibilities that particular material is probably not 3 listed in the sense that 250.14-(b) identifies waste, 4 and thus it could be disposed of on cropland, I would 5 assume,, We will have to take a look at if the one point 6 which is brought up here which I don't think we fully 7 thought through, or if we have, I'm not aware of it, 8 whether or not feedlot waste constitutes sewage. When 9 we talk about sewage we normally are talking about human 10 waste0 11 In any event, I guess the bottom line of all 12 that is that the material's almost certainly not covered, 13 given the situation which he gave us. 14 MRO LEHMAN: I have a number of people con- 15 cerned about waste oil and I haven't gotten through all 16 of these questions, but I can answer one of them: 17 "Waste oil, I did not understand your response. 18 if you have waste oil from motors, hydraulic appli- 19 cations, et cetera, can you use it in boilers, in- 20 cinerators, liquid, as fuel; if not, what exactly do you 21 do with it?" 22 The answer is, yes, you can use it in boilers 23 and incinerators as fuel, I indicated that these regu- 24 lations did not preclude the use of waste oil in those 25 or for those purposes, vfliai: you do need, though, is a ------- 164 permit to do it» In other words, you can do it if you 2 have a permit. Here's another one related to some extent to 4 this, but not really; it says: "With the current shortage of oil, namely 6 12 15 gasoline, do you not feel that these broad hazardous waste regulations will cause further shortage due to hauling hazardous waste long distances to permitted 9 facilities?" 1 Well, this is not a simple question to answer, because our information is that there likely to be move- ment in both directions. In certain industries it ap- 13 pears that there will be a shift from on-site disposal 14 to off-site disposal, which would imply further use of gasoline to haul it. On the other hand, we have infor- 16 mation that there are certain industrial sectors where 17 the opposite is true, where current off-site disposal 18 will shift to on-site disposal, because of the generating 19 industry wanting to have better control over the dis- 20 posal of waste it generates * So, at this time it is 21 not—we are net able to say with any assurance which of 22 those two is going to predominate0 The best information 23 we have right now is it looks like it might be a wash; in other words, there will be about equal amounts shif- 25 ting from one type of disposal to the other, therefore, ------- 165 1 we don't anticipate any impact on the shortage of 2 gasoline. 3 Another question, different subject: 4 "What medical advisory support does EPA have 5 to aid you in medical-related concerns related to these 6 regulations?" 7 Well, the working groups developing these 8 regulations include, among others, members not only from 9 the office of Solid Waste,but-SPA biologists and toxico- 10 legists from the Office of Pesticides Programs, Office 11 o£ Toxic Substances, the Carcinogenic Assessment Groups, 12 and so fc^rth, and also biologists and toxicologists / 13 from the National Institute of Health. 14 ; MR. LINDSEY: I've got one more here. This 15 is anotht.r rather new question for me anyway: \ 1($ "Under what conditions can containers which 17 cannot physically be triple rinsed—paper bags, for 18 example—can they be considered non-hazardous? What 19 procedures similar to triple rinsing can be used so that 20 this large volume of empty cleaned containers can be 2l disposed of in sanitary landfill?" 22 Well, the answer that I have here from the 23 staff is that basically now triple rinse does not 24 refer to anything except things which can be triple 25 rinsed in accordance with the definition, under 250021, ------- 166 1 so that that definition would not now apply to empty 2 paper bags, for example, because as this particular 3 person points out you can't triple rinse them. So, 4 there is no procedure. If in fact they flunk the charac- 5 teristics, then they're hazardous and would have to be 6 disposed of accordingly,, On the other hand, staff 7 indicates to me—and I'll throw this out—that there 8 are—that they are considering and have considered 9 some sort of a procedure which would be equivalent 10 and perhaps adding "or the equivalent" to the triple 11 rinsing definition, and that might include something 12 like shaken, tapped, air-blasted, or some sort of 13 technique like that. 14 I guess the person who asked this question 15 might have some ideas along those lines, and we would 16 not be averse to hearing them. If someone wants to 17 make comments along the lines for containers which cannot 18 be triple-rinsed physically in accordance with the 19 definition here, what other alternative cleaning ap- 20 preaches for other kinds of containers would be equivalent 21 to triple rinsing? If someone wants to make those 22 kinds of comments to us and get them in before March 16, 23 it might be helpfulo 24 Another note here that I have from the staff 25 is chat the real test here might be what the Department ------- 167 of Transportation considers to be empty, and if the 2 question or intent here of the person's question is to 3 dispose of large numbers of bags off-site, they may also require D.O.T0 shipping papers, irregardless of any regulations which we may have0 6 Here's another one, and I think this person may be misinterpreting something: p "The February 5 issue of the Oil and Gas Journal reported that EPA would require 300 days ad- vance notice of intention to drill, which would allow 11 15 time for I.S."—this is environmental statement—"and 12 public hearing before a permit is issued. Could you 13 clarify this requirement on permits to drill, along with the need for permits for creating surface pits, ponds, et cetera, for drilling mud or wastes of that 16 nature?" 17 R.C.R.Ao doesn't require anybody to get a permit to drill for oil or gas, which I assume is what this is, 19 However, under the Underground Injection Control Program, 20 injection of wastes, from the drilling perhaps, brines, 21 et cetera, injection into subsurface, there is a set 22 of regulations which was proposed some time ago and 23 will be re-proposed soon, which would address that. We 24 are not versed well enough in that area to really take 25 detailed questions on that, and someone wants to see oie ------- 168 1 after the meeting, I can put you in touch with the people 2 who you should talk to. 3 On the other hand, the question did go a little 4 bit further and talk about surface pits and ponds for 5 drilling mud and perhaps for storage of brines and so 6 forth. If hazardous, those naterials would be covered 7 by the Special Waste section, under Section 3005, That's 8 included as one of the special wastes, and if I can 9 find it here I'll tall you what section that is—3004, 10 excuse me—regulations under 250,46-(6), the last thing 11 in the regulations, in which those materials are con- 12 sidered to be special wastes until we have time to 13 collect additional information and decide how or whether 14 these materials should be regulated in the broad sense. 15 It gives me a chance to explain a little bit the special 16 waste categorieso 17 The special waste categories are there because 18 by and large these are very large volume kinds of 19 materials which, according to the limited information 20 we have thus far, appear to in some cases fail the 21 characteristics or some portion of them does in many 22 cases. Very large volumes, relatively low on the 23 hazard scale; and appear not to be particularly amenable 24 to the kinds of controls that we've placed on other 25 hazardous wastes under this Section 3004 regulation. ------- 169 1 We just don't have enough information to 2 adequately decide how to regulate these particular 3 things at the moment, and thus we will be collecting 4 that information over the next period of years and 5 will then propose some substantive regulations, probably, 6 for those that fall out as hazardous, 7 There are, however, in special waste standards 8 here, some limited regulations which apply now to these 9 kinds of facilities0 They have to do with waste analysis 10 and some site selection criteria, security criteria, 11 keeping records and doing monitoring activities so that 12 we can gather information on these particular wastes. 13 Incidentally, under Section 3005, which has 14 not, as we pointed out earlier, been proposed yet—it 15 will be within the next four to six weeks—we will be, 16 or I expect we will be proposing, I'm not so sure until 17 they show up, but I expect we will be proposing that 18 these specific special wastes, while during this period 19 while we're considering them to be special wastes, that 20 they will receive what we call permit by rule. In other 21 words, if they meet these limited set of standards here 22 they will be considered as having a permit for purposes 23 of R,C,R0A0 If they do not comply with these set of 24 standards, then they will be in violation of all of 25 the requirements. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 170 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: One announcement: There is an urgent message for Paul Williams someone brought up to me, if he wants to pick that up0 I also have a question here: "Is the question of raising the exemption limit from 100 kilograms to 1,000 kilograms still open?" The answer to that is yes» If you look at page 58947, we positively solicit proposals on waste to treat waste between 100 and 1,000 kilograms, whether there may be other alternatives. The second part of this question is: "If so, if it is still open, how do you see the chances of raising the limit?" And the answer to that is, we don't see the chances until we see all the comments and supporting data that we get during the comment period and we have a chance to analyze that. We have to base our decision on our rule-making record, and there is really no way we can assess that sort of issue until we see what the comments are. MR0 LEHMAN: I have a question here. I'll read the question first and then cotrinent onit, because part of the question is—really makes a statement, whidi is incorrect, but I'll read it as submitted: "If a company accumulates waste oil for reclama- ------- 171 1 tion for more chan 90 days and then has it reclaimed, 2 the company would net be a generator of hazardous waste, 3 but if after 90 days the company had to dispose of part 4 of the used oil, would it then be a generator and storer; 5 would it thus become a violator of R.C.R.A. regulations?" 6 Well, first of all, in the case that was dis- 7 cussed in that first sentence, I'm assuming this accu- 8 mulation is going on on-site. If the company accumulates 9 waste oil for reclamation on site for more than 90 days, 10 the statement says the company would not be a generator 11 of hazardous waste,. This is not correct. The genera- 12 tion of any waste oil makes you, assuming it's listed 13 in our hazardous waste list, maices you a hazardous 14 waste generator. You would also be a storer of hazar- 15 dous waste oil if you stored for more than 90 days, !6 which requires a permit, under R«,C0R,A. !7 Now, as to the second part of that, if you 18 disposed of this would it then be a generator-storer? 19 Yes. In other words, whether you dispose of it or whether 20 yousend it to a reclamation thing, if you kept the oil 2l for more than 90 days on site, you're both a generator 22 and a storer anyway,, 23 Then the last part of it: "Would the company 24 thus become a violator of R0C.R0A0 regulations?" Well, 25 hopefully not. Hopefully they will get the necessary ------- 172 1 permits and do it righta I niean, it's not a prior 2 violation of R.C.R.A. regulations to store oil for 90 3 days, just have to have the right permits to do it, 4 Waste oil again; I don't know how we got 5 started on waste oi!0 6 "How will the performance standards for 7 incinerators alleviate the heavy metals problem?" 8 Well, we have evidence that properly designed 9 scrubbers can capture at least some of these heavy metals 10 that we're worried about,, This may lead, though, to 11 the fact that the ash or the scur water may also be a 12 hazardous waste. This is discussed to some extent in 13 our Section 250045-(1) (e) regulations, where we 14 discuss the scrubber requirements for hazardous waste 15 incinerators. Basically, though, what we're really 16 driving at here is the use of waste oil in an uncon- 17 troller power boiler, such as used in apartment houses, 18 schools—you name it—where the burning of many types 19 of waste oil can lead to what we consider to be a public 20 health problem,, 21 MR. CORSON: One easy one because I'm going to 22 defer it to tomorrow; someone asks: 23 "Are Class C explosives regulated as reactive 24 or ignitable wastes? Can anything be said about Class C 25 explosives as a group?" ------- 173 Class C explosives is a definition used by the Department of Transportation, and I don't know 2 enough about their definition to answer the question,. Somebody suggested the questioner save it for tomorrow afternoon and we will have a D.O.T0 representative here, 6 Another question: 7 "For materials of marginal reclaiming value 8 for which a generator and/or a hauler must pay a re- Q claimer to take, what is to keep the material from being dumped illegally under the present definition of 11 3001 and 3003?" 12 I guess there's nothing that's going to prevent 13 somebody from doing something illegal if they want to 14 do it, other than whatever penalties we assess when they 15 get caught,, If somebody sets out to beat the system, 16 I guess they're going to try until that time occurs, 17 I only use it as an analogy: The 10R»S» has besiwriting 1 ft tax instructions for some number of years now, and every 19 year there are some people that are taken to court 20 who are doing things improperly. The only thing that 21 will happen I think, as a part of our intent at laast, 22 is if we find some of these things we are doing to 23 encourage resource recovery, resource utilization, are 24 leading to a widespread practice of trying to drive through 25 the loopholes, then we are likely to clamp down and ------- 174 1 essentially remove all of those encouragements and make everybody suffer for the few. 3 Question: "Have all the waste streams listed in 4 the process description undergone the E.P., and if so 5 what results—that is, have 100 per cent failed the 6 E0Po test?" 7 There are only a few of the wastes—and I can't 8 name them—who are not listed and have undergone the E.?. 9 The data on most of the, or behind most of the listings— 10 and I encourage any of you whose wastes are listed to 11 look at the background document. There is a separate 12 one- to three-page writeup for each of the wastes that 13 is listed. It gives the source of the data which iden- 14 tifies that waste as hazardous. In many cases this 15 includes data from industry studies which EPA conducted, 16 data from studies and samplings done by the Effluent 17 Guidelines Division and some of their effluent guidelines 18 work, and in many cases of those on the list, data 19 coming off of manifests used in the State of California 20 which is data supplied by the generator when he sent 21 the waste to the hazardous waste facility, coming from 22 those same industries,, 23 Another question: "What about wastes such 24 as asbestos? I don't see where 3001 catches it." 25 We did quite a bit of looking at asbestos as ------- 175 1 a problem waste. Our analysis of the situation was 2 that it appeared to us that asbestos is adequately, 3 or is managed adequately under the Air Act,, as a 4 hazardous air pollutant. The Act does provide that—I 5 " guess the only thing I thought I saw that might be missing 6 covering asbestos might have been brake shoes coming off 7 of cars, but any manufacturing operation, any renovation 8 program, I think they set some minimum definition on 9 number of apartments pulling down the piping and looking 10 at the asbestos insulation on pipes. But that does 11 provide for adequate management, we felt, of asbestos 12 from those sources; therefore, we did not include asbestos 13 in any of our lists. 14 Question: "Under what legislative authority 15 are sliines, tailings and over-burns from phosphate 16 mining included in 3001 when R.C0R«A. specifically 17 addresses those as not being hazardous wastes since 18 this is return to the mine for reclamation?" 19 I think what the Act is referring to, and I 20 don't believe that R.C.R.A. makes that distinction but 21 I believe that the legislative history of the House 22 Report indicates that those wastes going to the mine for 23 reclamation are not to be included in terms of other 24 discarded material as defined in the act, but the -yery 25 next sentence in that legislative history indicates ------- 176 1 that this is not to stop us from naming certain of 2 those •wasts as a hazardous waste if we feel they present 3 a problem. It is on that basis we presented these 4 phosphate mining wastes, because we felt their radio- 5 activity is one that required some of these special 6 management techniques that we've called for0 7 "Why are nitrates and flourides that are listed 8 in the Drinking Water Act toxic list, why have these 9 been eliminated from the toxic list?" 10 The second question: "Do you think cyanide 11 should also be on the toxic list?" 12 What we do when we look at the Drinking Water 13 Standards, we selected those we felt were the key ones 14 that we should deal with in terms of their release in !5 the environmento We did not—we felt that the flourides 16 were taken care of through the Drinking Water problem 17 and the nitrates were too frequently used in the fer- 18 tilizer business, we were unable to get a good handle 19 on what we should do with it, 20 I do want to call your attention though to the 21 fact that cyanides are listed. We do have, for example, 22 on page 58557, which is in the 250.14 (a) section, we 23 do specifically list spent or waste cyanide solutions 24 or sludges as being both reactive and toxic, 25 Under 250.12 (c), which relates to petitions ------- 177 1 for listing hazardous wastes, is it the intention of 2 the Agency to require all petitions requesting additions 3 to the list to supply the same information of others 4 for demonstration of non-inclusion?" 5 I guess I'd better go back and read what we 6 said. We didn't specifically state. What we do indicate 7 in 250012 (c), is we do expect a petitioner to show us 8 how it meets the criteria that we have given for either 9 identifying a characteristic, if the petitioner wishes 10 to add a characteristic, or how it meets the criteria 11 for listing given that that is the reason for which the 12 petitioner is requesting the addition. So, we do expect 13 data to come with it, the petition, not just a request 14 to put something on the list. 15 MRS. SCHAFFER: O.K., I have a couple of ques- 16 tions, the first two concerning the 100 kilogram limit, 17 The first one says: 18 "Does the 100 kilogram limit apply to the 19 total body of waste or just the active ingredients?" 20 It's the total body of waste, unless that 21 waste is separated out, and as we have discussed before, 22 it is treated as a separate waste stream and can't go 23 to a hazardous waste management facility versus the rest 24 of the waste which is not hazardous can go to a Subtitle 25 D facility. So, if you combine all your waste together, ------- 178 1 it's the total body of waste that are considered 2 hazardous. 3 00Ko, second question on 100 kilograms is: 4 "Is a person who generates less than 100 kilo- 5 grams a month of a listed waste a genera tor ?rt 6 No, not if he also dispcs es of that amount 7 per month0 So, he can generate 99 kilograms and get 8 rid of that 99 kilograms per month without coming under 9 the RoCoR.A. system0 10 My last question is: 11 "How do you plan to enforce the 90 day 12 storage limit of the hazardous waste on site by a 13 generator?" 14 It's kind of a two-part answer: First of all, 15 if the generator plans to send his waste off site he 16 must, and he does not want to come—ha wants to be in- 17 eluded in this 90 day exemption for storage—he's got 18 to place his waste in D000To containers,, If he places 19 them in D0O.T. containers they must be properly labeled 20 and on that lable is the manifest number, and that manifest 21 number is a serially increasing number and by using 22 normal business records we can check to see when that 23 waste was generated and if we can find out then we'll know 24 when it's being held for more than 90 Jays, 25 Now, if it's an on-site—if the generator dis- ------- 179 poses of his waste on site he wiU have a permit per se, 2 and will most likely that type of storage will come under 3 one of the permit conditions, will just be part of the 4 whole R.CoR.A. permit,, 5 MR. LEHMAN: We're still back on waste oi!0 I'm the waste oil person today. Question: "Would wasta lubricating oil burned 8 in a gasoline or diesel engine mixed with proper fuel 9 be allowed or prohibited?" Well, as I discussed earlier, our primary concern was the use of waste oil as a fuel in power 12 boilers. To be quite honest with you, I never even 13 thought about the use of lube oil in a gasoline or 14 diesel engine mixed with fue!0 I believe the answer to the basic question, though, is no, I don't think we would prohibit that,, In other words, we would allow that, and it wouldn't be our intention to deal with that use under 18 our regulations. But it does point out, however, that 19 we may need to carefully reword that definition so that 20 we take into account a lot of these cases that are being 21 brought out here. 22 Question, and this is a three-part question: 23 "Are oil re-refiners subject to the 3004 per- 94 mitting requirement?" 25 Question two: "If not, is a manifest required ------- 130 1 to deliver waste oils to the facility?" 2 Question three: "Assuming re-refiners need 3 a 3004 permit, why don't solvent recovery operations 4 need one? After all, in one case waste oils are re- 5 refined and in the other solvents are re-refined," 6 Let's go back to question one: MAre oil re- 7 refiners subject to the 3004 permitting requirements?" 8 The answer is not formally0 Now, this gets back to 9 the definition of discarded materials and Section 250,10, 10 where we have attempted, as we discussed earlier, to n draw a line between materials that are waste and materials 12 that are not waste. And what we're really saying here 13 is that a waste oil which is reused after re-refining 14 as a lubricating oil, which is the basic purpose of re- 15 refining waste oil, then that is not prohibited, it does 16 not need a permit, and so on. In other words, we want 17 to encourage re-refining of lubricating oil, re-refining 18 of waste oil to make lubricating oil out of it. So, the 19 answer to the first question then is that oil re-refiners 20 would not normally need a permit, if the output or 2i the product they re-refine is used as a used lubricating 22 °ilo 23 I want Co draw a distinction here between oil 24 re-refiners and oil re-processers. Oil re-processing 25 does not necessarily result in a product v/nich can be ------- 181 1 used as a lubricating oil , particularly in automotive 2 engines, 3 The second question was: "If not"—and the 4 answer is probably not—"is a manifest required to 5 deliver waste oils to the facility?" 6 Here again the question is no, if the output 7 is used as a lube oi!0 If the output is used in these 8 cases that we cited here, namely if the output is used, 9 if it constitutes disposal, in other words land disposal, 10 dust suppression and that sort of thing, or if it is 11 incinerated as fuel in boilers, then the answer is yes0 12 We want to keep that use under control, or those uses 13 under control. 14 So, the answer to the third question is 15 somewhat moot now in the sense that they were basically 16 trying to say why do re-refiners need a permit if solvent 17 recovery operations donft» Basically what we're saying 18 is I think we've got a consistent practice here; that 19 we want to encourage solvent recovery and we want to 20 encourage re-refining of oi!0 So, neither one of them 21 would need a permit under those circumstances,, 22 Well, let me answer another one, I think 23 I've finally got one that doesn't deal with waste oil, 24 This goes back to the 1974 report to Congress 25 on hazardous waste management. It says: ------- 182 "Several issues were presented and then later f\ aborted,, Can you explain why, or their current status? 3 "One: A relative toxicity index was presented; 4 why was this abandoned?" 5 Well, I draw a blank on that. Members of 6 my staff draw a blank on that0 Whoever wrote this ques- 7 tion, if he would come up and see us after this session 8 is over we'll have to discuss that some more, because 9 we don't recall a relative toxicity—I don't have a copy 10 of the '74 report here with me, but I don't recall 11 that being in the re „ 12 Second point: "A concept of government-owned 13 treatment sites for treatment of wastes; where is this 14 now?" 15 That's a reference to what was known as 16 the National Disposal Site Concept, and the thrust of the 17 1974 report to Congress was that if you had a set of 18 government-owned treatment sites but you did not have a 19 regulatory program to make it mandatory that the waste 20 be sent to such a site, that you would end up with 21 an ultimate billion dollar set of white elephants. 22 In- other words, the cost of operating those facilities 23 would be considerably higher than current practice, and 24 so we recommended that rather than set up a series of 25 government-owned treatment sites that what was really ------- 183 1 needed was a regulatory program—at least first you 2 needed a regulatory program, which the Congress subse- 3 quently took care of with R.C0R.A. 4 And then the concept went further and said 5 if you had a regulatory program then there was a great 6 deal of incentive for the private sector to build 7 and operate—in other words, the capital would come for- 8 ward to build and operate hazardous waste disposals of 9 various kinds„ And through the regulatory pressures 10 you are basically providing a lot of customers for ll such facilities; therefore, you probably don't need 12 a set of government-owned treatment sites0 13 So, that's where it is now. In other words, 14 the basic philosophy of R.C.R.A, follows what I've 15 just describedo The Congress in essence agreed with the 16 EPA philosophy in that 1974 report. R,CoR<>A0 basically 17 sets up a regulatory program, it does not have any 18 provisions within it for the setting up of govemment- 19 owned treatment sites; however, there have recently 20 been seme proposals to get close to that sort of thing, 21 Congressman Finley of Illinois, who I understand will 22 be with us tomorrow, introduced a bill last August, I 23 believe which among other things would require that all 24 hazardous waste facilities would be sited on federal 25 land. Now, thst's different than the federal government ------- 184 1 owning and operating facilities there, I think the 2 concept there was not necessarily the government putting 3 up the capital for such site or for such facilities, but 4 rather that all of these—in Congressman Findlay's 5 amendment it would have meant that all of the facil- 6 ities would have to be located on federal land but not 7 necessarily owned or operated by them. But at any rate, 8 there are at the present time, there is no provision 9 within R.CoRoA. for this sort of series of government- 10 owned treatment centers. ll A third point: "An estimate of $65 per ton 12 for hazardous waste treatment was presented in 1973 dollars. 13 Is that a good figure?" 14 I think that is a good figure;if you take that 15 1973 dollars and give 1979 dollars, you're probably 16 talking somewhere around$80-$90 a ton, and I think 17 that's about in the range that we anticipate for treat- 18 ment. It is also consistent with the costs that I know 19 are charged in Europe for this type of treatment. 20 MR. LINDSEY: "If you are a disposer of hazar- 21 dous waste and the method of disposal is deep well 22 would you clarify the R.C.RoA. position? The main 23 concern is the definition and permitting areaa" 24 Well disposal is covered under the Safe Drinking 25 Water Act, under the underground injection or what we ------- 185 1 call UIC program. It will not be covered by R.C0R.A. 2 There is an overlapping authority here, but 3 we have chosen to cover that under the underground 4 injection control program. Surface facilities, however, 5 that an operation has that also may have a well would 6 be covered if they're handling wastes, for example 7 waste was trucked in, goes through some sort of a treat- 8 ment mechanism perhaps or maybe there is some wastes 9 are treated in one way and others are well-disposed, 10 those would be covered, or could be covered under 11 RoCoR«A0 if the waste involved is hazardous,, 12 I should also point out that under the permit- 13 ting regulations, under Section 30005 of R.C.RoA,, we 14 are currently integrating those procedural regulations 15 for getting a permit with similar regulations under 16 MPDES and under the underground injection control program, 17 so it will be possible for those people who have a deep 18 well disposing of hazardous waste which would be covered 19 by the underground injection control program, and those 20 people who also have the need for a R.C.R.A. program 21 because of other treatment or disposal activities, to 22 make their application all at once, if you will, and the 23 processing of that application would be conducted to- 24 gether0 We're even going so far at this moment as trying 25 to come up with a single permit application form and ------- 136 1 things of that nature in order to speed this up. 2 So, there is an integration activity going on there, 3 Here's something that I should have given 4 Mr0 Lehman here because it has something to do with 5 oils. Anyway, I'll handle this one: 6 "Are recycled transformer oils, cleaned and 7 put in central receptacles for use in other transformers 8 to be classed as hazardous, and would a permit be 9 required?" 10 And there's a little footnote here which ll says: "Assume the absence o£P.C.B.", so that really 12 makes a change because P.C.B. is covered under phosphate 13 regulations o 14 The answer to that is no; if you look under 15 250.10, which is essentially the scope section of 16 the 3001, you can see how oils are handled, and I think 17 we addressed this before, but at the risk of being 18 repetitious I'll go over it again, 19 A waste which is reused is not part, is not 20 coveredo Now, on the other hand, there is one minor 21 change to that and that is if the material is a waste 22 oil and is reused, and this would be a waste oil at this 23 particular instance, and that reuse is through incinera- 24 tion or burning—we're talking about plain combustion 25 here—then it would be covered,, But this is not plain ------- 137 1 combustion, they're putting it back into transformers, 2 so it's simply a recycling method and the material 3 would not be considered a hazardous waste for purposes 4 of the definition under this Act. 5 On the other hand, if you have waste oils and 6 you either reuse them in such a way as use constitutes 7 disposal, meaning - spread them on the ground in some 8 fashion, or if you burn them through plain incineration, 9 then they are covered; otherwise, they are not0 10 Hopefully, that clarifies that a little more. 11 "Is any concentration of a selected priority 12 pollutant considered hazardous under conditions outlined 13 in 250ol4 (a)"—that's the hazardous waste list—"To 14 qualify, must the waste be shipped, stowed, or exist 15 as a residue in a container? There seems to be much room 16 for interpretation here," 17 The intent here is that any material in chose 18 big long lists, under—of chemicals, if you will, in 19 Appendix 3, 4, and 5, which are lists of chemicals—if 20 those constitute a waste in themselves; in other words, 21 you have a waste which contains—I don't offhand have 22 in mind what one of those chemicals is—here's a good 23 one—phenylanom-if you have phanylanom as a chemical 24 and you want to throw it away in a technical grade or 25 souie reasonable concentration which is normally c. product ------- 1G3 1 and you want to throw it away, it will become a waste, 2 a hazardous waste, and will be listed,, On the other hand, 3 a waste which incidentally has a small amount, a few 4 parts per million or whatever, of phenylamon in it, in 5 other words it is not phenylamon as a product, then 6 it would not be considered phenylamon0 It would not 7 be covered unless it failed or met ona of those 8 characteristics which are back in 3001, If the material 9 is spilled, a product is spilled and that spill-cleaned 10 material is then cleaned up and it is phenylamon that 11 is spilled, then that would be covered. So, it's not 12 every material which contains some minute concentration 13 of a chemical which is listed that's covered, list's 14 not the pointo The point is if a product gets spilled or 15 somebody wants to throw it suay because it's a bad batch 16 or they no longer need it, then that would be covered. 17 "Will POTW's"—publicly owned treatment works 18 for those of you who aren't into acronyms—"face the 19 same financial responsibilities, reporting requirements 20 and record-keeping requirements under 405 of the Clean 2i Water Act as hazardous waste disposal facilities managing 22 sludge from privately-owned sewage treatment works?" 23 I don't know the answer to that for sure. A 24 different group of people are working on those particular 25 regs. I can say, however, that the concept is that the ------- 189 degree of control, the degree of protection which would 2 4 be provided under those regulations is to be equivalent in the broad sense to our regulations0 I would seriously doubt that the same mechanisms for providing that pro- tection would be adopted under those regulations because 6 of the difference in the nature of the materials that 7 are being involved. But the degree of—the concept 8 of equivalent control and equivalent protection is 9 what's being put into those regulations. 10 "If a manufacturer has not previously analyzed his wastes, would they automatically be hazardous 12 since it appears most waste would be under the extraction 13 method?" 14 Well, our information which we've got so far 15 on the tasting we've done with the extraction procedure 16 against the regs which are here indicate that maybe 17 10 to 15 per cent of industrial waste is going to be 18 hazardous. On the other hand, the answer to that would 19 be I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't simply, unless it was a 20 very small volume, I wouldn't simply assume that it was 21 hazardous„ On the other hand, one could do that; one 22 could just make the assumption, particularly if he has 23 a small volume of waste and doesn't care to test it or 24 have it tested, he may simply assume that it's hazardous 25 and treat it accordingly, enter it into the system, mani- ------- 190 1 fest it if he's shipping it and so forth. 2 We should also point out that small volumes, 3 if you get down to the 100 kilograms or below, are not 4 covered either, the generation of those wastes is not 5 covered, 6 I should also point out one complication here: 7 While anyone can consider their waste hazardous and enter 8 it into the system, there are some problems with doing 9 that under the D.O.T. regulations, under the Hazardous 10 Materials Transportation Act. They have very specific ll requirements with regard to placarding and things like 12 that, and if I understand their regulations correctly, 13 they don't like for people to put placards on the sides 14 of the truck and say "Poison A" or Poison B, or whatever 15 the definitions they use are, if in fact the material 16 doesn't meet those characteristics,, So, for shipping 17 purposes you might have problems with placarding, but 18 otherwise, you can assume it is hazardous as far as 19 RoC.R.A. is concerned, if that's what you want to do, 20 "How will EPA determine what causes an NPES.: 21 facility to be included under RoCoR0A0 regulations?" 22 Well, the only NPDS facilities which would be 23 covered under the R.C.R0A0 regulations are those which 24 contain a lagoon basically,, which could Isach, and in 25 that case one simply tests the contents of the lagoon ------- 191 l and if it's leaching, or has the potential to leach, 2 then it would be covered if it meets the criteria of the 3 hazardous waste; otherwise not. 4 I should also point out that NPDS facilities 5 as a result of clarification and other processes which 6 are used there, might generate a hazardous waste, that 7 is the sludge coming out of the clarifier for example, 8 if it meets the criteria could be a hazardous waste and 9 thus if shipped off site would need a manifest or 10 if disposed on site, would need a permit,, ll This is the last one I've got, and I'll turn 12 it over, because this is a rather complex one: 13 "If a manufacturer produces a saiall amount of 14 sludge with a low pH"—Irm assuming from this that it's 15 over the 100 kilogram limit,00K,? Because if it's 16 not then he wouldn't be covered. —"can that generator 17 mix this sludge with pa neutralizing waste as an 18 acceptable method of treatment for the trcxivity 19 characteristics? If so, at what point would this be 20 considered treatment and would heed to be licensed?" 21 The answer to that is yes, you can mix waste 22 together in order to i:synergistically reduce the hazard 23 level of them, there's no problem with that, 24 The second part of the question is: "When 25 would it become a treatment process for purposes of ------- 192 R.C.R.A, and does need a permit?" 2 00Ko, this gets to a problem we've had all along, 3 and that problem is trying to draw the line on where a 4 waste becomes a waste and is not part of the process. As a means—and I'll admit it's got some problems with 6 it—but as a means of identifying that, we have been using what we call a pipeline concept in which we're saying Q that any treatment process which is hooked directly to 9 a production process, be it a continuous pipe or conveyor operation, and from which materials can escape to the ground presumably, that those would not be covered 12 and this waste would not become a waste until it exits 13 that system, if you will. Now, this is only for treat- 14 ment processes. It has nothing to do with disposal,, 15 Anything that ends up on the ground or anything of 16 that nature is, by definition, disposal and not treatment, So, any treacment process which is hooked directly to a production manufacturing product production, manufac- 19 turing process, via direct, continuous pipe or conveyor 20 operation, would not be covered as a treatment process 21 . for purposes of this. Now, there may be some gray 22 areas here and as that occurs we'll have to make deci- sions on those on a case by case basis, 24 MRS, SCHAFFER: Two more questions: 25 "If distinct areas within a given plant generate ------- 193 less than 100 ilos per month, can they be isolated?" 2 A good example: A lab facility which may have a distinct 3 waste requiring totally different handling than the process areas," I think the real issue here is what is the definition of a person, and we've been kind of going 7 over this in EPA and we'll try to clarify it in the final regulations. I think our intent is that a facility is 9 a person—or the person would be one facility—and if the two wastes that are being generated at the lab and in 11 the process are both hazardous and they total more than 12 100 kilograms a month, then the facility is in fact a 12 generator and must comply with the regs. The second question is: 15 "Section 250.10 (d) (1) (4), which requires 16 that generators of solid wastes which are listed under 17 250.14 who have demonstrated that their wastes are not hazardous, must"—the requirement is that they repeat 19 the testing annually—and the question is: "Why does 20 the generator have to repeat the necessary testing 21 24 annually if there is no change in the feed material? 22 It's a precaution to make sure that there is 23 also no change in the waste. There may be a process change even though the feed material is the same, or there may have been testing inaccuracies in the original ------- 194 1 testing,, And I think it's a precaution on both tha 2 generator's side and on the EPA side to make sure 3 that any hazardous wastes are being handled.properly. 4 CHAIRPERSON DARRA1I: "Under the integrated per- 5 mit system being considered for NPEDS, UIC and Px.C.H.A, 6 under 3005, would violation of one permit jeopardize 7 the permit in another in any way0 For example, an 8 NPEDS violation affecting R.C.R.A. or UIC?" 9 Now, IJm answering this without benefit of 10 the proposed regulation, but as of right new the answer 11 is no, these are separate permits and unless the Act 12 that puts the permit holder in violation of one permit 13 is also an Act that puts you in violation of your other 14 permit, then you wouldn't—there isn't a connection just 15 because there's an integrated system, as they are 16 separate permits0 17 We're going to take a 10-minute break now, 18 We'll come back at 4:00 o'clock and we'll go until 19 5:00. I think we probably have enough questions to do 20 that. 21 (Whereupon, a short recess was ':taken,) 22 MR. CORSON: We're going to try to start again, 23 and I'll get rid of a couple of easy ones first. Someone 24 questioned—without embarrassing me too much—apparently 25 we have picked a bad number or bad ASTM spec for sampling ------- 195 1 soil like Material, Evidently, at least according to 2 this comment,they say methods for sampling to determine o ground water levels—well then obviously we picked a bad 4 onec You caught our boo boo, and cur intent there is to offer where we can sampling protocols that other people 6 are using, and when we proinulgatewe will have additional 7 ASTM methods listed. 8 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Let me just interject something here: If anybody—I realize there's an overlap between comment and questions—if the answers to ques- 11 tions lead you to think that we ought to change the 12 regulations it would really be helpful if you would 13 submit something in writing. You ccn do tha t either 14 with your over-all comment March 16, or you could also 15 do it orally the next two days, or you can just write 16 something up, attach your card or sign your name, and 17 submit it to the court reporter for the record, because 18 this is a comment for the record; because we are off 19 the record as we're answering your questions, and cer- 20 tainly we're going to be taking things into account, but 21 it's very helpful if we do get things in writing or in 22 the formal hearing that we're conducting here. So, just 23 try and keep that in mind, if you would„ 24 MR. CORSON: This next one fits in the same 25 category,, In our definition of reactive waste we us a ------- 196 1 the word, "mildly acidical base condition". I'd like to get that back in the way of a corument0 We will better 3 define that when we promulgate0 We will define the limits on piHx^e're talking about in terms of mildly basic or mildly acidic„ 6 This is a question—let ma answer an easier 7 one first—one that Fred answered this morning or this 8 afternoon, which talks about the dilution of hazardous o waste with an inert substance, and that's fine. We are worrying about the waste as disposed and we then look only 11 at the resultant ways to see whether or not it met our 12 hazardous characteristics. 13 This is another question with regard to priority pollutants and how they are covered by the Act* As a 15 result of discussions I've had during our short break, 16 let me make a couple of clarifying statements so every- 17 body understands where we're coming fromc As the regulations are now proposed in toxicity 19 when you do the extraction procedure the only thing you 20 are evaluating for are the eight listed metals and six 21 listed pesticides, that's all0 Correct definition of 22 toxicity includes only those things, it does nou include 23 any list of priority pollutants or any list of D.O.T. 24 hazard items, just the listed metals and pesticides, 25 We have, however, in the ANPR indicated an intent ------- 197 downstream in time to modify th2 toxicity definitions by 2 including other properties of toxicity. That is likely 3 then to include many of the organic toxicants that occur on the priority pollutant list. We ara only looking at priority pollutants in the fashion they are 6 defined in the listing. That is, if you were shipping the material, and in shipping it you would have to use a name that is in that priority pollutant list, the 9 D.O.T. list, or the cancelled or selected pesticides list, then—and it's a described material—then it is a hazar- 11 dous waste. We are not analyzing wastes to look at 12 21 parts per million or things that are in the priority 13 pollutant list. 4 This is a Jack Lehman question, but I'll answer 15 it anyhow: "We are presently purchasing non PCE filled 17 capacitors. The oil is produced by General Electric 1 ft who has done many toxicity bio-accumulation, et cetera, 19 tests, and found no evidence of any sort of hazard. Will 20 these capacitors when disposed of be considered a hazar- dous waste? Can adequate information on lack of hazard allow us to dispose of these in a landfill permanent 23 under Sub-title D?" 24 The answer certainly to the second half is 25 7-s, you don't necessarily have to generate new data ------- 198 1 to be responsive to us. If you already have that data 2 that describes all the properties that we are using in 3 our proposed regulation to define a hazardous waste, you 4 don't have to generate it again, I think that answers 5 that one. 6 Another good comment, I think it's a comment 7 with a question: 8 "There have bean several comments today recom- 9 mending that EPA establish regulations based on the 10 degree of hazard. What.are the major stumbling blocks 11 to this approach?" 12 Well, that depends really on what someone means 13 by degree of hazards in these regulations. We thought 14 when we wrote the regulations the way we did that we 15 would accommodate this problem by using the 3001"regu- 16 lation as a go-no-go gauge to determine those wastes 17 which require something other than very routine manage- !8 ment, which is what we define in Sub-title D0 And we 19 allowed for what we consider to be almost infinite 20 flexibility in 3004. 21 Now, apparently some people are having a little 22 difficulty with the notes approach that we us<2d in 3004; 23 under many of the requirements of 3004, we've indicated 24 a note which indicates that there can be a deviation 25 from the standard, given that you can show that this ------- 199 1 accomplishes the objective of that particular approach, 2 So, we think we have a degree of flexibility in which 3 provides for a degree of hazard„ 4 If you are referring—and I think many people 5 have been—that we should define degree of hazard in 3001, 6 then we solicit your comments in writing supported by 7 data if you can, to help us do that. Now, we recognize 8 that we may also say in our officiality under 3002, 9 which uses some thresholds for establishing quantities ™' with regard to degree of hazard, again based on some 11 artificial basis, because we indicated that we would 12 look at that, and we willa We offer that option by 13 stipulating it in the preamble. But we do find that we 14 have some problems with degree of hazard0 We think that 15 we've got to make the association with where the waste 16 is in its management cycle. Certain characteristics are 17 a different hazard in transfer, during the transportation 18 load, for example; we're more concerned about ignitability 19 and possibly reactivity than we are when something is 20 buried 30 feet under the ground, whereas in the ground 21 we are very concerned about the toxicity0 22 We similarly have concerns, we looked at one 23 point, the point that Jim Kinsey made this morning of 24 using Finney's Additive Law which comes up with a tech- 25 nique for adding plant toxicity to marine toxicity to ------- 200 1 fish toxicity and coming up with an over-all toxicity 2 rating and that presents some problems because we do 3 have some cases, some people can get very unhappy because 4 the waste might not fall under any individual constituent 5 toxicity but might fail if we added them upa Similarly 6 we have the problem of, do we raise the case new 7 where by putting a lot of low toxicity items into a single 8 land disposal environment, at some point along the line 9 that land disposal environment now becomes a high tox- 10 icity environment because it has crossed some threshold 11 by nature of the quantity of low-toxicity items that it 12 has accepted,, So, we recognize that we have a very 13 complicated problem there, looking at the degree of 14 hazard. We do solicit any information you can provide 15 to help us define that. We are noi: opposed, if we can 16 come up with a way of doing it which doesn't make the 30C4 17 ragulation even more complicated than we feel they ara 18 today. 19 I've got another one of—this is Fred's ques- 20 uion: 2i "Would sawdust be considered hazardous, wcod- 22 chips, bark; has the TEP been tried on these materials? 23 If these are hazardous, could, thesa wastes be considered 24 a special waste like utility fly ash7" 25 I guess I can't conceive of sawdust, woodchips ------- 201 or bark flunking the extraction procedure. I guess it 2 is conceivable in my mind that sawdust at a given 3 constituency, degree of fineness, might be explosive. 4 But I would defer that to my D0O.T0 counterpart tomorrow who has much more experience with it0 But in the event that these things did fail, and it could happen, obviously we've opened the door on special wastes,, I think we would want to see data provided to us to show that these 9 things fit the same sort of category as we did with the other wastes which are listed as special wastes, 11 "Do the SIC's listed in 250,14 (b) imply that all manufacturing processes listed under a specific 13 SIC coda"—SIC code—"are covered by Section 3C01, Sub- title C, or just specific process associated with 15 spec JLi j_c I guess that's one we thought we had explained specific SIC come under the 3001 sub-title?" 16 and obviously we didn'ta What we are trying to indicate 18 there is the SIC number is there as advisory only. Any 19 industry that has the specific listed waste stream, that 50 is a hazardous waste. But in regard to specific questions, 21 for example, if I pick up 2865, we are not trying to imply that all waste streams produced by anyone that is covered 23 by 2365 has a hazardous waste. It is only the specific listed waste streams under 2865 that are hazardous,, 25 Question: "Is the intent of the EP to find ------- 202 out what is teachable or what may happen to a particular 2 waste in a landfill, or was EP designed uo simulate 3 landfill conditions?" I guess the answer is part of all the above and not any of all of the above. 6 What we did do with the EP, if you go back, 7 for example, to—we were faced with a problem defining 8 a hazardous waste with the problems presented to us by 9 both the requirements under Section 3001, which told us 10 to define the criteria for and characteristics and list 11 of hazardous wastes, as well as the definition of hazar- 12 dous waste in Section 1004. And Section 1004 (27), if I'm 13 correct— (5), rather, which defines a hazardous waste, 14 does indicate that it can be a waste without using all 15 of their words, which present some problems if improperly 16 managed. So, as we explained in the preamble, and we a 17 further detailed explanation of it in the toxicicy 18 background document—again, that's available for reading 19 and possibly copying at regional office libraries or 20 the headquarters reading room—what we were trying to do 21 was to essentially model improper management. And our 22 modeled improper management was the co-mixture of the 23 waste with waste that was similar to municipal waste 24 in a land environment such that there was ready access 25 of the leaching to the ground water,. And that's all we ------- 203 1 were trying to do0 So, it is in essence a solubility 2 test, it is not meanc to replicate any existing or any 3 proposed or any specific land disposal environment. And 4 as we have tried to say, the site specific, waste specific 5 interactions, your waste might interact in a specific 6 land environment that is a 3004-3005 problem. We think 7 it appropriate, we believe the notes cover that you could 8 produce site-specific leaching data to show how that 9 waste would operate in that site and use it in applying 10 for the permit. 11 MR. LEHMAN: There's a question here concerning 12 the notification regulations, Section 3010, I'm not 13 going to answer—maybe we should have mede this clear 14 at the beginning of the proceeding. It is really not 15 appropriate for us to discuss Section 3010 regulations 16 because the comment period on Section 3010 las closed 17 and we are really not at liberty to discuss that now, 18 This is another question similar to the one 19 that Al just answered, but I'll do it again: 20 "Under processes generating hazardous waste, 21 is SIC 2911 API separator sludge specific to the petro- 22 leura refining industry? API separators are used in 23 numerous industries and the sludge may or may not be 24 hazardous." 25 Well, let's go back to what Alan just said. ------- 204 1 You've got to see a note which is associated with 2 Section 251.14„ Let me just read it. It says: 3 "Process waste streams are listed by standard 4 industrial classification or SIC codes for ease of 5 reference only. SIC classification of the indus try 6 generating the waste has no effect on the listing of 7 that process waste as hazardous," 8 Therefore, API separator sludge, which is 9 listed under 2911 is a hazardous waste, regardless of 10 what industry sector it happens to be in,, 11 It says, "The commercial product section 12 provides a suggestion that if a recycled product does 13 not pose a greater threat to the environment than the 14 virgin product it replaces, it would no longer be 15 subject to Sub-title C0" Question: "How does EPA 16 propose to determine the environmental impact of this 17 recycled material?" 18 First of all, the commercial product section 19 that this question is aimed at, I believe, unless I'm 20 reading an old draft, is not in the regulations, it's 21 in the preamble,, Aside from some very explicit require- 22 ments for certain radioactive waste products in the 23 special waste section, there is no commercial products 24 section in the regulations. As we stated in the preamble 25 we did consider having commercial product regulations at ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 205 one point. But we decided not to for the proposed rule making; however, we did—the gist of this Cards statement ** is from the preamble in which we said this is one possible way to get at this whole issue, and we requested comment on that,, So, rather than for me to say how does EPA pro- pose to determine the relative environmental impact of this recycled material, I would just alert you to the fact that we have flagged that issue and are requesting comments or suggestions as to how to do it, so I'll throw that ball back in the court. This question has to do with aerial applicators of pesticides. It says: "If an aerial applicator of pesticides triple rinses his pesticide containers would he be considered a generator of hazardous waste?" The answer to that is no, probably, in the sense that if he triple rinses the containers, the containers are no longer hazardous because of Section 250«>14 (a), the last listing there. It says, "Containers" —this is saying what is hazardous, and it says, "Con- tainers, unless triple rinsed, which have contained materials normally shipped using names listed in Appendix 2, 3, 4, or 5." And so, basically what we're saying is if you do triple rinse a container that has contained ------- 206 1 of those materials, then the container is no longer 2 a hazardous place; however, the rinse agent that you rinse 3 it with, unless you put it back in the spray tank, could... 4 easily be a hazardous waste, and therefore, an aerial 5 applicator could be a generator of hazardous waste in 6 that sense. You would not be a generator if he put the 7 rinse agent back into the mixing tank, however,, 8 Another question, same card: 9 "Anaerial or custom applicator doesn't appear 10 to meet the farmer definition, therefore is not eligible 11 for exemption." 12 That is true. Aerial applicators are not eligible 13 for the farmer exemption,, We are reserving that for 14 those whose principal occupation is farming. 15 Third part of this question says: 16 "How does EPA approvedpesticide label fit with 17 this—fit in with this proposal?" 18 Well, EPA-approved labels are legally binding 19 on the users, and therefore, the users must follow them. 20 The R.CoRoA. regs basically provide only that triple 21 rinse—that the rinse agent, triple rinsing, be added— 22 excuse me—that we will be adding to the label require- 23 cients a requirement for triple rinsing in order to get 24 out of the hazardous-based category,, This has not yet 25 bean posed, but it is our intention, we are working with ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 207 the Office of Pesticide Programs, that we will add onto the label requirement a requirement for triple rinsing. So, basically we feel that the regulatory scheme under the FIFRA will be adequate to handle the disposal problem for farmers and their pesticide containers. Here's some quickie answers: Question: "Is a vessel that holds its sewage on board in conformance with the Clean Water Act a generator of hazardous waste?" No, "Is used oil which is to be re-refined, that is, returned to new condition, not a hazardous wasta?" True, it is not, as we discussed earlier. "Does a crude oil refinery which recovers slop oil from waste water treatment, then adds the oil back into the fractJonation system to redistribute it into its proper place in the refinery product, does it need a permit, do you need a perrait to put the oil back into the system?" No, lube oil additives, et cetera, would have been added 0 The answer is no, we have no intention of— we consider that to be really basically part of the re- fining process itselfa I think that we've answered most of this, but I'll go over it once again: ------- 205 "What prompted EPA to classify used lube oil 2 as a hazardous material?" 3 I think we've gone through that. I won't go 4 through that one againa "It is common practice for a towing vessel to use used lube oil as a fuel for its vessel propulsion engines and electrical generators. Do you see any prob- g lem in continuing this practice?" 9 No. We mentioned earlier that was not our intent to get at the usa of lube oil or used lube oil in that type of application. 12 Question: "If we can continue to use used 13 lube oil for fuel in our vessels, does this procedure 14 make us a generator of hazardous waste with the attendant paperwork associated with its designation?" !6 XT No<, Question: "Will this disposal method require 18 governmental approval as a disposal facility with atten- 19 dant paperwork?" 20 „ No0 21 00K., 3001: "You stated that a material is not 22 considered a waste until it is gotten rid of, but you 23 also state the intent of including lube oil as hazardous *)A is to prevent errors, such as the horse track incident„ 25 If a generator has intent to use waste lube oil as dust ------- 209 1 control on roads, is the waste oil a hazardous waste 2 while being stored before use?" 3 The answer to that is yes. 4 MR. LINDSEY: "If material from a chlorinated 5 solvent plant is incinerated to produce salable grade 6 hydrochloric acid, would that incinerator need a permit?" 7 Noc normally; normally that would be a reused, 8 a product which is being reused and would not then be a 9 waste under Section 250.10. On the other hand, I should 10 point out that if we find some of these things that do 11 cause problems the way in which we would handle those—I'm 12 not sure this does create an environmental situation 13 that we need to worry about, but if it should, we could 14 make the decision under 250.10 (b) (2) (ii), which is 15 under the scope of this regulation, which lists waste 16 oil, the thing we've been talking about all afternoon; 17 that is, where waste oil is listed as a material—where 13 it is listed as hazardous waste regardless of the reason. 19 If we have the same problems with something else what 20 we can do is take Piece 3, where it says "reserved" 2i and add on to the list and thus then include it, and 22 we can do that at a later date. If you will notice 23 there is a note which says "other materials" in there, 24 and it will be included to an amendment on this list 25 that upon a finding by the EPA it is necessary to con- ------- 210 1 trol such practices. So, that's the way we work it. 2 "I understood you to say that a treatment o facility which comprises part of a continuous process 4 system would not require a permit. Would this en- 5 compass an incinerator which is tied into a process 6 system or would that also require a permit?" 7 That gets back to the pipeline concept thac 8 we worked on before, and as I indicated our problem 9 here is trying to decide where the process ends and the 10 waste treatment starts. What we're trying to do is to 11 get into the system in some way which is reasonably 12 clear, most of those things that we need to control and 13 get out of the system those things that we don't need to 14 controlo The best way"we've found so far is the pipe- !5 line concept, 16 Under this question, if there is an incinerator 17 I suppose you call it a boiler which is tied directly to 18 tha process system—by process system, we're talking about 19 production line, production line under the way we in- 20 terpret this—now, this would not be covered,, 21 I guess I should point out that we don't think 22 this has very much—as a matter of fact, I don't know 23 of anyplace whera it happens. If it does, however, and 24 we find it becomes very widespread, then I suspect we 25 would probably change the regulations, because incinera- ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 211 tion of hazardous waste is one of the things which Congress intended that we control. I did give an answer, which was not wrong whan I gave it, but maybe a little bit misleading: That has to do with the paper bag and triple rinsing, if you can remember back to that0 And I said there really was no way, equivalent way, to handle paper bags, at least under the regs, and I should point out, however, that under 250029 (b) (1), if the material, if that bag contained pesticide and if the person wanting to dispose of it is a farmer, if he follows the regulations which are, the regulations—if you read that little paragraph you'll see what I'm talking about—if he follows the 250 regu- lation and the information that's on the label, then he can dispose of it in accordance with those,. In addition, he has to be a farmer, it has to be a pesticide, "Many industries will generate greater than IOC kilograms a month of hazardous waste from one pro- cess and will be subject to all the regulatory require- ments under R.C,R0A0, but the same generator will generate less than 1GO kilograms per month of ether hazardous waste from support facilities such as mainten- ance generated waste solvent,, Is there some thought toward a categorization by major and minor generators to exempt industry from all the record keeping, et cetera, ------- 212 1 required for limited small quantities of numerous 2 waste materials?" 3 Some thought, yes; I think the intention in 4 these regs is no. The intent for getting the small 5 generator, and by that the small volume generator, 6 those who generate only a small volume out of the system, 7 is because we have found that by and large they are 8 handled in conjunction with the routine municipal waste 9 kind of activity and they don't have information that 10 indicates that creates a problem, plus the fact that 11 tryfag to apply the control procedures to all of this 12 additional large quantity of.generators that would be 13 included if we included only those small people, the 14 total number of generators that would be in the system 15 would swamp it with paperwork,, Those are the two 16 considerations that went into the snail generator exclu- 17 sion0 18 What we have here is the same plant who is 19 already in the system because he's got one or more large 20 volume wastes, and he also happens to have a couple of 21 small ones; well, that doesn't enter any significant 22 additional paperwork that we can see, and normally 23 large generators of waste don't handle the waste in the 24 same way that small generators do that, along with muni- 25 cipal trash and garbage,, ------- 213 1 Someone may want to make some comments on 2 that because, as I say, we have thought about such an 3 approach from time to tine, and this person may want 4 to address that in some comments. 5 "Section 250.14 (a) and (b)K--this looks like 6 the same person, writes very small, gets a lot on the 7 card--"includes certain wastes"--no, excuse me. 8 "Section 250.14 (a) and (b) includes certain 9 industries under R.C.R.A."- -let me address that first: 10 It doesn't include certain industries; it includes certain wastes which may come from industries. It doesn«t include an industry as such and all the waste from an industry. It only includes the waste which is IO ,. listed there. 14 . ."By so doing this will place a double burden ., on these industries. They must categorize and report 16 all hazardous waste under R.C.R.A. requirements and they will have the additional burden of testing an 18 application for exemption under 250.15 for those wastes, products or streams that are not hazardous." 20 Well, I'm not sure we don't have a misinter- pretation here. Just because one waste stream from 22 * an industrial category, SIC category, is listed does not mean that all the wastes from that industry are listed. 24 OnV the ones specifically lined out there are con- ------- 214 1 sidered by the Agency to be hazardous. Thus, if the 2 satae plant or industry has a variety of other wastes 3 which are not listed, they're not necessarily hazardous 4 and would not have to go through this whole business of 5 getting an exemption to the list, 6 From the tone of the question I gather that 7 there might have been a misinterpretation. 8 "Since the penalties for not reporting are 9 stringent and EPA must rely on generator's initial 10 assessments of his sampling and waste categorization, 11 why are the regulations proposed in this matter?" 12 I guess when we get right down to it we're 13 talking about why do we have tnese lists? First of all, 14 let me address that: We give these SIC codas here, 15 four-digit SIC codes, for example, and we don't—I guess 16 we don't think it's difficult to determine whether or not 17 you're in that category or not, for the most part. In 18 some of the other lists which don't have SIC codes, 19 things like surgery departments and wards and things 20 like that, we don't think that it's going to be terribly 21 difficult to determine whether or not a plant fits those 22 categories. But to get to the broader question, why 23 do we have lists? Well, the lists were designed as a 24 means for those wastes which we find are always hazar- 25 dous, or almost always hazardous, of making it easier for ------- 215 1 the regulated community to knew whecher they are in this 2 system or not in the system,, 3 Theother alternative is just to go with an 4 expanded set of criteria or characteristics and have 5 everybody then pretty much having to run tests to 6 determine whecher they're in or out, unless they know an 7 awful lot about their wasta. 8 There's another very good point which is 9 the statute says we have to have lists; that's another 10 good reason. Of cdurse, the question is to what extent 11 do you have them, and the reasons why that I addressed 12 had to do with why the lists are this extensive. 13 "Do you interpret the regulations to mean 14 that an industry" — this is the same person here—"Do 15 you interpret the regulations to mean that an industry 16 which treats a waste stream prior to discharge"—in 17 other words by neutralizing—"to be a generator and a 18 hazardous waste treatment facility?" 19 Well, I've got a lot of questions I'll pump 20 back to this person,, Discharge to where? Where is he 21 discharging? If he's discharging this as an effluent to 22 the stream then he's not covered under R.CaR0A. unless 23 he does his neutralization in a leaching lagoon, in 24 which case he would be covered0 25 Another question: Is the resulting waste ------- 216 1 hazardous, this waste that he discharges, assuming he 2 discharges it to land, is that hazardous? And if th e 3 answer is no, that's not hazardous, then he wouldn't 4 need a permit to discharge it. If the material going 5 into the process were hazardous, we come back to that 6 whole business of the pipeline that we've talked about 7 before. If the process, the neutralization prcces— 8 and this frequently is the case—is simply attached to 9 the production process in a continuous manner, then no, 10 that wouldn't be covered. A lot of industries and plants 11 have neutralization facilities that are virtually 12 integrally incorporated into the exit of the process 13 waste from the production process. 14 Ninety-day storage.limit: "Are items which are 15 being stored for the purpose of going to a waste ex- 16 change subject to the 90-day storage limit?" 17 Yes; for example, if it takes six months to 18 accumulate, say, one ton or three or four barrels, enough 19 to justify transport, if it's beyond 90 days he would have 20 to get a permit to store it0 There is, of course, this 21 100 kilogram limit, and that could enter in if it's 22 small enough volume. This gets to the whole problem, 23 though, of people that said, "Well, look, if it's going 24 to go to recycle or recover, you're not going to cover it 25 anyway downstream, so why have them subject to the 90-day ------- 217 1 storage limit? 2 Well, the problem here is that we have trouble 3 with companies, or we understand there are problems with 4 companies, who simply pile stuff or dump it in the lagoon, 5 et cetera, and when asked say, "Well, I'm going to 6 recover that some day when the economics gets better 7 or next year or five years fmn now, or whatever", and 8 maybe their intent is to that and mayba it isn't,, So, 9 what we're saying here is if youTre going to store stuff 10 for more than 90 days and it's the kind of thing which 11 is normally a waste, you're going to have to get a per- 12 mit for that, because we don't know whether you're really 13 storing it or not storing it—I mean, if you're really 14 going to recycle it or not recycle it, and your options 15 along those lines might change as economics change, 16 If then later, at the end of a year—you have 17 a storage permit and at the end of a year you decide you're 18 actually going to sell it, well, then when you do that 19 that's the end of it, you're out of the system, 20 "In the iron and steel industry mill scale, 21 blast furnace scrubber sludge and iron-bearing wastes 22 are processed in a cinder plant and used as a raw 23 material in a blast furnace» Will this cinder plant 24 be considered a treatment facility?" 25 That would be a recycling operation as I would ------- 21C 1 interpret it and under 250.10 (b), it would be reused, 2 and thus would not be considered a hazardous waste. 3 "If Section 1004-24 of the Act addressed con- 4 verting solid waste to energy, why do the proposed regu- 5 lations exclude oils burned for recovery of BTU value 6 from the less stringent resource recovery regulations?"— 7 in other words, the other discarded material definition. 8 The reason why is because of two reasons, really; 9 First of all the heavy metals and other materials which 10 are in the waste oil, which if widely burned—and they 11 are widely burned—indiscriminately in school boilers 12 and the like, are admitted directly in the air. The 13 second reason is because it has been common practice and 14 probably still is at this point to slip other goodies 15 into the waste oil and thus get rid of all kinds of 16 stuff with the waste oil, and we're not saying that you 17 can't do either one of these things; all we're saying is 18 it's going to have to be in a controlled manner in con- 19 junction with these regulations, which means you have to 20 get a permit to do itc 21 MR, LEHMAN: I'd like to just take £ minute and 22 amplify the previous question about waste exchange, 23 we like waste exchange, we want to foster waste 24 exchange. What we don't want to foster, as Fred pointed 25 out, is an intent for waste exchange which may or may not ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 219 come about* In other words, when you're storing materials the environment doesn't really know whether you're storing them for waste exchange or whether you're storing for disposal, or what you're doing. So, what we're saying basically is that if you are in the act of waste exchange, then you're out of the system. In other words, you have a contract, the material is flowing, then you're out of the system,, If you're just storing the material and hopeful to arrange a waste exchange, you've got the stuff listed in some waste ex- change brochure or something, that commendable and we encourage that, but until you actually have a waste exchange contract in being, you are still part of the system, presuming that material is hazardous waste. I hope that clarifies that point a little bit. MR. CORSON: I have a couple: "In the EP, no alkaline material is specified to raise pH to five plus, minus point 2, which is required test range„" And the answer to that question is again, as I explained earlier, we developed an area which talked about improper management, we come up with the approach we did. If people feel we should have an- alternate test for some wastes which require the additional of alkaline material, then we'd certainly like to see that data. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 220 "Toxic organics, how can milligrams per kilogram of body weight be compared to milligrams per liter in waste water and what is the basis for the ,35 factor?" This relates to the definition that is used, I believe, to get some materials off the list, as well as the one that we are suggesting in our ANPR, and in that case we have a scenario which again is described in the toxrity background document which relates to the location of ground water wells to land disposal sites, the dilutions of material going from the disposal site to the ground water well, the ingestion of two liters of water a day by a 70 kilogram person, you multiply all those numbers out you get 035, and that's how we come up with that number0 A question in a similar area: "In the toxic organic, we use a calculated human LD-50 based on the footnoted procedure which indicated we can use rabbit- mouse data or LD-50 as listed in the NIOSH registry,, We can use that without validation; the other data must be supported by specific and verified laboratory reports", and they want to know why we chose that ap- proach „ As we understand the NIOSH Registry, two sets of data come in through that Registry to NIOSH on the same substance, they use the more stringent data, the love: ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 221 value0 Therefore, we're suggesting in our validation note that your data you are suggesting is that the substance is not as toxic as NIOSH indicates it to be and we feel for that deviation we would like the valida- tion0 If it is for a substance which is not listed in NIOSH Registry, we suggest you send it in to NIOSII, have it accepted, which they will do, and then you won't have to verify it. "How is waste activated sludge frora a food processing plant, for example, a com wet milling plant, viewed if this sludge is typically land applied, con- sidering first of all the restricted definition in 250,14 (b) (iii)M—and that's the one that lets out POTW's— "and two, that its heavy aietal content is considerably below that for POTW land applied sludges?" Again, this gets back to the same answer which I think we've given before, but I think it's worth bringing out again with respect to this specific ques- tion POTW sludges are going to be managed in accor- dance with regulations and guidelines developed under Setion 405-D of the Clean Water Act0 It will be our attempt in developing those guidances and regulations— which are incidentally being developed in the Office of Solid Waste—to make them consistent with R0C,R0A0 R.C.R.A. does not have the authority—well, let me get ------- 222 back—the Clean Watar Act does not have the authority 2 to regulate non POTW sludges. So, while there may be 2 a permit required under 405 to land apply thosa sludges, in the case of coming from an industrial sludge, plants produced by industrial plants, it would be a R.C.R.A. 6 permit for that land application. There is nothing 7 about that sludge which will necessarily deny land p' application. It may be that you will require a permit 9 to do it. The last question I have: 11 "If a hazardous material is spilled and a hazardous waste generated, is a manifest required from 13 the spill site or does the waste enter the system at the 14 hazardous waste treatment storage or disposal facility, 15 and is the clean up contracted to the generator or is 16 it the spiller?" 17 Well, the general answer to that question is 18 the spiller is the generator of that waste. That may 19 be £ trucking firm, could be a train, but it is the per- 20 son who spills it that is the generator. If he wants 21 to, and this frequently does occur, that the generator 22 calls in clean up specialists, contractors, he can use 23 them to provide the technical expertise he needs to 0 A provide the data., If there is no emergency to get that 25 spill cleaned up, then a manifest is required and the ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 223 spiller being the generator will have to fill out that manifest. If it is an emergency, then the spill clean up and delivery to an adequate facility takes the dominant control and a manifest is not required. In any case, a D000T. report would be required with regard to the spill, EPA will get a copy of that rsport, and you obviously have to clean it up, because if you don't that will probably fit the definition we have for open dumping, which will be illegal. MR. LINDSEY: "What provisions are being proposed to assure that bulk trailers and other reusable con= tainers are completely emptied and cleaned?" I think this more appropriately has to do with the Hazardous Material transportation Act, and DOT regu- lations which have come out under that» I should point out that I believe Allan Roberts from D.O.T. is going to be here tomorrow and the person who generated this question might want to generate it again tomorrow for Allan. "If waste is stored in a storage tank prior to on-site incineration and the tank turnover is less than 90 days would this storage tank require permit even though it is never emptied?" I think the best—as far as the 90-day exclu- sion business goes, the best place to look at the explana- ------- 224 1 tion there is probably on page 53971, which is part 2 of the preamble. Basically, the 90-day exclusion limit applies to storage prior to shipment off site, and net to treatment on site, and thus the answer to that would be, yes, it would have to have a permit, but 6 it would have to have a permit for incineration anyway, 7 so, it's simply an extension of that, 8 MR0 LEHMAN: Question: "Will waste oil haulers o have to get a manifest from every service station, 10 garage, truck terminalfcr any small generator or crankcase 11 drainings, or will the hauler have to do this paper- 12 work? Please go into detail on waste oil hauler re- 13 sponsibility on all pickups." 14 Well, this whole issue is addressed again in 15 the preamble to Section 3002 on page 53974, and I think 16 I'll just read the applicable portions of that, because 17 it directly answers this question. 18 "Problems have resulted from the indiscriminate 19 disposal of waste oil. In an effort to lessen the re- 20 gulatory burden ai the large number of generators of 21 waste oil, as well to promote resource recovery, these 22 regulations provide for a procedure whereby any trans- 23 port regulated under Sub-title C or a treater, storer 24 or disposer regulated under Sub-part D, may assume a 25 generator's responsibility for all obligations imposed by ------- 225 1 this regulation, except the duty to apply for a generator 2 ID code under Section 220..24." 3 In other words, if a waste oil hauler enters 4 into a contract with a number of service stations, truck 5 terminals and so on and so forth, the waste oil hauler 6 then assumes the generator's responsibility, and it is 7 the hauler who originates the manifest, paperwork, and 8 so on, 9 Now, in Section 250,28 of the regulation, again 10 reading from the preamble, outlines the requirements 11 for a contractual agreement which must be formed between 12 the generator and the transporter or treater, storer 13 or disposer, assuming the generator's responsibilities, 14 "Once that contract is in place, a transporter or treater 15 storer or disposer becomes liable to properly perform 16 the applicable duties therein; although the generator 17 cannot completely transfer his own liability under the 18 Act for failura to perform, EPA enforcement actions will 19 focus on the transporter or treater, storer, disposer, 20 rather than on the generator if the proper contractual 21 agreement is in.force," 22 So, I think those statements pretty much spell 23 out in detail whai the responsibilities of the waste oil 24 hauler are. If you want to go into that in more depth, 25 we'll be glad to respond. ------- 226 1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAK: Well, we're a whole five 2 minutes early ending today. 3 I want to thank you all for your attention. 4 We will reconvene our public hearing tomorrow morning 5 at 8:30 in the Pavilion Ballroom« 6 (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 7 o'clock p0m0, Wednesday, February 14, 19790) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- 1 2 CERTIFICA 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 4 before: Environmental Protection Agency In the Matter of: 6 7 Public Meeting on Improving 8 Environmental Regulations 9 Place: St. Louis, Missouri 10 Date: February 14, 1979 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the 12 Original Transcript thereof for the files of the !3 Department. " 14 Bernice M. Jackson Reporting Co. 15 1139 Olive Street Suite 310 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- 227 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In re: Public Meeting on Improving Environmental Regulations Breckenridge Pavilion Hotel One Broadway St. Louis, Missouri Thursday, February 15, 1979 The public hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 8:30 o'clock a.m., Dorothy A. Darrah, presiding. BEFORE : DOROTHY A. DARRAH AMY SCHAFFER JOHN Po LEHMAN ALFRED LINDSEY ALAN CORSON Office of General Counsel, EPA, Washington, D.Ca, Chairperson. Office of Enforcement, EPA, Washington, D.C. Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, Washington, D.C. Chief, Implementation Branch, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, Washington, D0C. Chief, Section 3001, Guidelines Branch, Hazardous Waste Manage- ment Branch, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, Washington, D.C. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHET MC LAUGHLIN HARRY TRASK TIM FIELDS ALAN ROBERTS 228 Solid Waste Branch, EPA, Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri. Program Manager, Sections 300J and 3003, Guidelines Branch, Hazardous Waste Management Branch, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. Program Manager Assessment and Technology Branch of the Hazardous Waste Management Division in Washington, D.C. D.O.T., Washington, D.C. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 9 Robert M. Robinson, Missouri Department of Natural Resources 281 12 Kenneth Smelcer, Industrial Association of 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 229 CONTENTS Page Opening Statement John P. Lehman 230 STATEMENTS: R. David Plank, City Utilities, Springfield, Missouri 237 Robert S. Poston, Carmel Energy 251 Mera.iii Horn, Solid Waste Activities Group Wisconsin Power & Light - Edison Electric Institute • 266 Terry Freeze, Mississippi Chemical Corporation 287 Quincy 294 Russell Smith, Salsbury Laboratories . ,. r 307 Mlrko Popovich, Human Rights Survival Group 322 Gwen Molinair, Human Rights Survival Group 332 Father Casirair Gierut, Survival Group of Wilsonvile 361 Congressman Findley as given by Mr. Don Norton 383 Mildred Hendricks 400 G. L. Jessee, Director, Environmental Processes, Monsanto Company 442 Gilbert W. Fuller, The Empire District Electric Company, Joplin, Missouri 456 Betty Wilson, League of Women Voters of Missouri 467 Richard Meunier 477 ------- 229 A 1 CONTENTS 2 STATEMENTS: PAGE 3 James P. Parker, M.D. 500 4 5 Separate transcript for question and answer session Pages 335 through 360 6 Pages 401 through 439 Pages 479 through 499 7 8 Inserts: PP. 250, 255, 280, 293, 330, 400, 455, 466, 4?4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- Pad 7 Sides 13-14 ah 7:1 230 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. LEHMAN: We would like to begin the hearing. 3 Take your seats, please. 4 Good morning. My name is John P» Lehman„ I am 5 Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division of EPA*s 6 Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C. 7 On behalf of EPA, I would like to welcome you to the 8 public hearing, which is being held to discuss the proposed 9 regulations for the management of hazardous wastes. 10 We appreciate your taking the time to participate 11 in the development of these regulations, which are being 12 issued under the authority of the Resource Conservation and 13 Recovery Act, better known as RCRA. 14 The Environmental Protection Agency on December 18, 15 1978, issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 16 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as substantially amended by 17 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580. 18 These proposals respectively cover, first, criteria 19 for identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification 20 methods and a hazardous waste list. 21 Second, standards applicable to generators of such 22 waste for record keeping, labeling, using proper containers 23 and using a transport manifest. 24 Third, performance, design and operating standards 25 for hazardous waste management facilities. ------- 231 1 These proposals, together with those already pub- 2 lished, pursuant to Section 3003, on April 28, 1978, Sectio^ 3 3006 on February 1, 1978, Section 3008 on August 4, 1978 and 4 Section 3010 on July 11, 1978, and that of the Department of 5 Transportation, pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transpor- 6 tation Act on May 25, 1978, along with Section 3005 regula- 7 tions for facility permitting, constitute the Hazardous Waste 8 Regulatory Program under Subtitle C of the Act. 9 EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for 10 facility permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for state haz- 11 ardous waste program authorization, pursuant to Section 3006 12 of the Act, with proposals under the National Pollutant Dis- 13 charge Elimination System required by Section 402 of the 14 Clean Water Act, and the Underground Injection Control Pro- 15 gram of the Safe Drinking Water Act* 16 This integration of programs will appear soon as 17 proposed rules under 40-CFR, Parts 122, 123 and 124. 18 This hearing is being held as part of our public 19 participation process in the development of this regulatory 20 program e 21 The panel members who share the rostrum with me to- 22 day are Chet McLaughlin of the Hazardous Waste Material—or, 23 excuse me, the Hazardous Waste Management Section of the 24 Hazardous Materials Branch of Region VII office in Kansas 25 City. ------- 232 1 Amy Schaffer of our Office of Enforcement in Wash- 2 ington, D.C.; Dorothy Darrah, of the Office of General Coun- 3 sel of EPA's headquarters in Washington; Fred Lindsey, Chief 4 of the Implementation Branch in the Hazardous Waste Manage- 5 ment Division, EPA, in Washington and Harry Trask, who is 6 the Program Manager for the Section 3002 and 3003 regulations 7 in the Guidelines Branch of the Hazardous Waste Management 8 Division in Washington. 9 As noted, in the Federal Register, our planned 10 agenda is to cover Sections 3002 and 3003 today, and 3004 11 tomorrow. 12 Also, we have planned an evening session tonight 13 covering all four sections. 14 This session is planned, primarily, for those who 15 cannot attend during the day. 15 The comments received at this hearing and the other 17 hearings, as noted in the Federal Register, together with the 18 comment letters we receive, will be a part of the official 19 docket dn this rule-making process. The comment period 20 closes on March 16 for Sections 3001 through 3004. 2i This docket may be seen during normal working hours 22 in Room 2111-B, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, Southwest, 23 Washington, D.C. In addition, we expect to have transcripts 24 of each hearing within about two weeks of the close of the 25 hearing. These transcripts will be available for reading at ------- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 233 any of the EPA libraries. A list of these locations is avail- able at the registration table outside. With that as the background, I would like to lay the groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing. The focus of a public hearing is on the public*s response to a regulatory proposal of an agency, or in this case, agencies, since both the EPA and the Department of Transportation are involved. The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the April 28th, May 25th and December 18, 1978, Federal Registers is to solicit comments on the proposed regulations, including any background information used to develop the comment. This public hearing is being held not primarily to inform the public, nor to defend a proposed regulation, but rather to obtain the public's response to these proposed regulations and thereafter revise them as may seem appropriate All major substantive comments made at the hearing will be addressed during preparation of the final regulation. This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with the right to cross-examination. Members of the public are to present their views on the proposed regulation to the panel and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presentation„ Some questions by the panel may be forwarded to the speaker, in writing. His response, if received within a ------- 234 1 week of the close of this hearing will be included in the 2 transcript. Otherwise, we will include it in the docket. 3 The Chairman reserves the right to limit lengthy 4 questions, discussions or statements. If you have a copy 5 of your statement, please submit it to the Court Reporter0 6 Written statements will be accepted at the end of 7 the hearing. If you wish to submit a written, rather than 8 oral statement, please make sure the Court Reporter has a 9 copye The written statements will also be included, in theiz 10 entirety, in the record. 11 Persons wishing to make an oral statement, who have 12 not made an advance request by telephone or in writing, 13 should indicate their interest on the registration card. If 14 you have not indicated your intent to give a statement and 15 you decide to do so, please return to the registration table, 16 fill out another card and give it to one of the staff. 17 As we call upon an individual to make a statement, 18 he or she should come up to the lecturn after identifying him- 19 self or herself to the Court Reporter and deliver his or her 20 statement. 2i At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson 22 will inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to enter- 23 tain questions from the panel. The speaker is under no ob- 24 ligation to do so, although within the spirit of this infor- 25 mation sharing hearing, it will be of great assistance to the ------- 7:6 235 1 Agencies if questions were permitted. 2 Our day*s activities, as we currently see them, 3 appear like this. We will break for lunch at the end of the 4 comments on Section 3002 and reconvene at 2 p.m. for comments 5 on Section 3003. 6 Then, depending on our progress, we will either 7 conclude the day's session or break for dinner and reconvene 8 at 7 p.m. for the evening session. 9 Phone calls will be posted on the registration 10 table at the entrance and restrooms are located outside on 11 the promenade. 12 If you wish to be added to our mailing list for 13 future regulations, draft regulations or proposed regulations 14 please leave your business card of name and address on a 15 three by five card at the registration desko 16 Section 3002: addresses standards applicable to 17 generators of hazardous wastes. A generator is defined as 18 any person whose act or process produces a hazardous waste. 19 Minimum amounts generated and disposed per month 20 are established to further define a generator. These stand- 21 ards will exclude household hazardous wastes. 22 The generator standards will establish requirements 23 for record keeping, labeling and marking of containers used 24 for storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes, use 25 of appropriate containers, furnishing information on the ------- 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 236 general chemical composition of hazardous waste; ui»« of a manifest system to assure that a hazardous waste is designated to a permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility and submitting reports to the Administrator or authorized state agency, setting out the quantity generated and its disposi- tion. Section 3003 requires the development of standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These proposed standards address identification codes, record keeping, ac- ceptance and transportation of hazardous waste, compliance with the manifest system, delivery of hazardous waste, spills of hazardous waste and placarding and marking of vehicles. The Agency has coordinated closely with the proposed and current U.S. Department of Transportation regulations0 EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all sections of Subtitle C, by December 31, 1979. However, it is important for the regulative communities to understand that the regulations under Section 3001, through 3005, do not take effect until six months after promulgation. That would be approximately June of 1980. Thus, there will be a time period after final promul- gation during which time public understanding of the regula- tions can be increased. During this same period, notifications required under ections 3010 are to be submitted and facility permit applica- ------- 7:8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 237 tions required tinder 3005 will be distributed for completion by applicants. Now, I want to also note that Mr. Alan Roberts of the Department of Transportation may join our panel here later in the morning or during the day. I presume he was on his way here and was held up, due to fog at the airport. He was scheduled to be with us. He may arrive later on in the day. With that as a summary of Subtitle C of the proposed regulations to be considered at this hearing, I return this meeting to the Chairperson, Dorothy Darrah. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Good morning and welcome back. We have two people who weren't able to get here yesterday because of the weather and I am going to ask them to speak first. I assume they are primarily going to be ad- dressing 3001 and then we will go through the list of people who want to offer comments on Section 3002. So, first of all, is Robert Flank here, from City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri? MR. PLANK: Thank you. I am R0 David Plank. I am manager of the Engineering Department of City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri. I am speaking as a generator or poten- tial generator. I am representing the Board of Public Utili- ties of Springfield, We are a p»,fcliiAiy-owned utility. STATEMENT OF R. DAVID PLANK ------- 238 1 MR. PLANK: We have two power generating stations, 2 Southwest Power Plant and James River Power Plant. These 3 stations both generate utility wastes, but according to re- 4 cent testing, do not meet the criteria of the Hazardous Waste 5 Act. 6 We do feel the current state and federal laws now 7 being enforced are adequate for the control of the disposal 8 of these wastes. 9 There have been no problems encountered under the 10 present system for disposal of our utility wastes. However, 11 if our wastes did meet the criteria of the Act, the cost 12 incurred by City Utilities to meet the proposed standards 13 would be cost prohibitive to our 59,000 customers. 14 We do have a position I would like to go through, 15 some data. 16 We are a municipally-owned public utility operated 17 as a division of the City of Springfield, Missouri, under the 18 City Charter. The electric distribution system of City 19 Utilities presently covers approximately 119 square miles 20 with 1,156 miles of distribution lines serving approximately 21 59,000 customers. 22 Our revenues for fiscal «79-180 are estimated at 23$40,000,000o Power production facilities include a five-unit 24 coal-fired generating plant located near the James River on 25 the southeastern edge of the city and a single unit coal-fired ------- 239 1 generating plant located on the southwestern edge of the city. 2 The James River Power Plant has nameplate generat 3 capacity of 259 megawatts„ The nameplate capacity of the 4 Southwest Power Station is 194 megawatts« In addition to 5 these facilities, there is a 30 megawatt oil-fired peaking 6 turbine located at the Main Street Station, near the center 7 of the city» 8 The James River Power Plant consumes an average of 9 150,000 tons of coal per year. The Southwest Power Station 10 utilizes an average of 434,000 tons of coal per year and 54, 11 000 tons of limestone, the latter being used in the flue-gas 12 desulfurization system. 13 By-products produced in the form of fly ash, bott 14 ash and scrubber sludge from the flue-gas desulfurization 15 total 85,000 tons per year for the two facilities. 16 Of this total, 9,000 tons of fly ash and bottom ash 17 are produced at the James River Power Plant and 76,000 tons 18 of fly ash and bottom ash and scrubber sludge are produced at 19 the Southwest Power Station. 20 Present disposal of these wastes at James River 21 involves the use of an ash sluicing system that discharges 22 into an ash holding and settling basin. This ash pond is 23 operated under the N.P,D.E0S. permit No. MO-1961 and the 24 effluent is continuously monitored for the parameters out- 25 lined in the permit, according to the Federal Water Pollution^ ------- 7:11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 240 Control Act and the Missouri Clean Water Law. The Southwest Power Station utilizes a two-cell settling pond for bottom ash. The cells are periodically cleaned and the settled ash is removed and deposited in a landfill along with a fixated mixture of fly ash and scrubber sludge. The ash pond is operated under N0P.D.E.S. Permit No. MO-399340, as is the settling pond for the coal ash and scrubber sludge landfill. Effluents from these facilities are continuously monitored for the parameters outlined in the permits. The coal ash and scrubber sludge landfill was built and is operated as a state-approved landfill in accord- ance with the regulations set forth in the Missouri Solid Waste Management Law, Permit No0 707701. In addition to the monitoring and testing conduc- ted as prescribed by these permits, City Utilities conducts regular monitoring schedules with respect to the environment surrounding these facilities„ These include twice weekly monitoring of the leach- ate collection system within the Southwest Power Station Land- fill, monthly sampling of the landfill settling pond, periodic testing of the springs in the vicinity of the James River ash pond and frequent monitoring of the springs around the South- west Power Station and Wilson Creek above and below the outfall ------- 7:12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 241 from the permitted Southwest Power Station facility. We have a testing program and the results of this is that we have been engaged in a testing program involving the discharges of these facilities for the past few years. To date, the analyses performed by independent laboratories and by our own laboratories have shown that none of these discharges meet the criteria set forth to be desig- nated hazardous wastes0 Recent investigations using the Toxicant Extraction Procedure show that wastes treated according to the protocol set forth in this test do not come under the criteria for toxic wastes. These tests were performed on coal ash and scrubber sludge. We feel that since our own testing does not show any results of a hazardous nature and since no definitive environmental risks have been demonstrated to be directly or indirectly attributable to coal ash and scrubber sludge, that these wastes should not be included for management under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act0 We also feel that existing statutes under the Feder- al Water Pollution Act, the Missouri Clean Water Law and the Missouri Solid Waste Management Law provide sound and adequate management practices for handling the disposal of these wasteso The fact that we produce over 85,000 tons of this ' ------- 7:13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 waste per year and that over 66,000,000 tons of this waste per year is produced throughput the country presents a de- finite problem when considering disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. The capacity of acceptable sites in relation to the quantities involved preclude sufficient management when compared to the successful way in which these wastes are presently being handled. Existing management practices have proved to be satisfactory in preventing pollution problems„ We see no reason to change to an unwieldy, expensive process that will achieve the same end result. The inclusion of utility wastes in the Hazardous Waste Management Act of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976 could have a staggering economic impact upon City Utilities and its customers through capital investment, in- crease in personnel and operating expenses. Existing landfill operations would cease, due to reasons cited below and we would be forced to either relocate our landfill operations or ship our waste to approved land- fills in other parts of the state, and perhaps even out of state. The geologic conditions at our existing sites are unsuitable for development and operation of hazardous waste landfillo The Springfield area is underlain by a highly ------- 243 1 soluble jointed limestone in which karst development has 2 resulted in an extensive, well-integrated subsurface drainag 3 system. 4 Groundwater migration does not proceed through the rock mass but, rather, is confined to joints, fractures and 6 solution channels in which movement is rapid and filtration 7 is minimal. Utilization of monitoring wells to detect leach- 8 ate migration would be ineffective. This area is also sub- 9 ject to catastropic sinkhole collapse, which would affect the 10 structural stability of a landfill liner. 11 We do have a detailed geologic description and that 12 is in the final statement0 The depth to the water table in 13 that area varies from 100 feet in upland areas to a few feet 14 in the lowlands. 15 The shallow aquifer is separated from a deeper 16 aquifer by a widespread shale formation. Most residential 17 and agricultural wells draw from the shallow aquifer. 18 Sites suitable for the development of a hazardous 19 waste disposal site could be located at a distance of 30 to 20 40 miles from Springfield „ 21 Another option is that in lieu of developing our 22 own site, we could utilize existing sites operated by outside 23 concerns. 24 Modes of transportation to either of these sites 25 could be by truck or rail0 4 ------- 244 1 I do have some cost figures. I will just summarize 2 those here. We think the capital cost of developing our own 3 landfill for transportation by truck-,- and we have some con- 4 cerns because of the type of trucks chat may be available 5 that would actually seal this material and keep it from 6 spilling on the road. 7 Anyway, for an offsite facility, the capital cost 8 of $9,779,000. That doesn't include all the bonding costs 9 we might have to incur. 10 That option, we think, would have about a$1,314, 11 000 cost to us as an annual operating cost involving 20 em- 12 ployees and fuel and maintenance on the vehicles. 13 If we were not able to use the truck option, the 14 rail facility would cost $23,156,000 and again, that does not 15 include all the bonded costs that would be incurred and would 16 have an annual operating cost of$1,386,500 and would require 17 24 personnelo 18 If we were to use a commercial site and there is one 19 near St. Louis, I understand, but it is limited in size, land 20 area, and would not last the entire time of the economic life 21 of our plants. Our capital improvement cost would be $3,100, 22 000 for additional ash handling equipment and rail loading 23 facilities, with an annual operating cost of$4,280,000. That 24 includes the dumping fee. 25 Or, if we were able to transport it by truck, our ------- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 245 capital costs would be $1,204,000, plus an annual operating and maintenance cost of$4,660,000. I think you can see from the figures on the $40,000, 000 revenue, we are talking about incurring increases in cost to bur consumers of, in the range of, eight to twelve per cent on the base rates. In conclusion, we would, therefore, like to go on record as being opposed to the inclusion of utility wastes under regulation by the Resource Recovery and Conservation Acto The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that such wastes are produced in very large volumes, that the potential hazards posed by the wastes are relatively low and that the waste is generally not amenable to the control techniques developed by the Act. We believe that we have shown that the wastes have no potential risk when handled in the proper manner and that the disposal techniques presently in use provide an adequate control of the wastes. We have also shown that it would be a tremendous economic burden on the City Utilities and its customers to attempt to comply with the regulations set forth in the Act. We would ask that EPA reconsider its position of including utility wastes, even as special waste under the Act and leave the management of these wastes to the State and ?ed-l ------- 7:17 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 246 eral agencies now engaged in these practices. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Would you answer questions for us? MR. PLANK: I'll attempt to0 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Plank, did I understand you to say that you have conducted tests against the extraction procedure which show that your wastes are not hazardous by our defini- tion? MR. PLANK: Yes, sir, and those are very recent testso MR. LEHMAN: So, none of this would apply to you under these conditions, is that correct? MR. PLANK: Our concern is that coal, being such a variable material as it is, could in some way slip over the boundaries or parameters at some time in the future, if we had a different coal supply or the coal was extracted from a different vein. MR. LEHMAN: I think you also made the statement that you felt utility wastes should not come under the purview of the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act0 I just wanted to clarify that. Even if the waste is not hazardous, it is still sub- ject to Subtitle D of the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act. In other words, you haven't totally escaped, just be- ------- 7:18 247 cause you are not a hazardous waste. You are also subject to 2 || Subtitle D. I just wanted to make that point, which is not | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a--itrs subject to federal requirements, but these require- ments are administered by state agencies, not by the federal agency. I presume you understand that point. MR. PLANK: O.K. MR. CORSON: Just one comment, Mr. Plank. MR. PLANK: Yes. MR. CORSON: Again, following up on the ens that Jack asked, I believe you did indicate you had run the ex- traction procedure and found none of your wastes failing the tests following that. I am wondering whether you might be willing to shar< with us the data dealing with the description coal? We are trying to put together a body of data for use by utilities which may be able to derive some information that relates to coal-type burning process, to what might be released in the extraction procedure, so other utilities may make then, that A-priority judgment as to whether or not their wastes are in the system. MR0 PLANK: Yes, we would be happy to send those to MR. CORSON: If you would send those to us, we would appreciate it very much. MR. PLANK: Yes, O.K. ------- 248 1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I have a couple of questions. 2 When you gave us the dollar figures for the land- 3 fill, I take it you were giving us figures for a landfill 4 that would meet all of the 3004 requirements, or am I wrong? 5 Were you, for example, giving us figures for some- 6 thing that would meet the 250.46-2 special waste? That's 7 the limited special waste standards for utility waste, which 8 sounds to me, from your description, as though you are al- 9 ready meeting, other than perhaps the security or visual 10 inspection. n I am just trying to get clear what those dollar 12 figures were for. 13 MRo PLANK: They included the testing, monitoring 14 wells, even though we think they may be ineffective in our 15 area. I think meeting all the requirements. We can certainly 16 clarify that for you along with the other information. 17 MR. LEHMAN: Can I follow up on that? I think itrs 18 an important point. Were the cost estimates for the main 19 body of Section 3004 requirements or were they for the special 20 limited standards under the special waste category? 21 MR. PLANK: I believe they were for the limited, 22 yes. We can clarify that. 23 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., and I wondered when you 24 said you are doing--did you say monthly monitoring? 25 MR. PLANK: Yes0 ------- 7:20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 249 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Can you tell us what parameters you are monitoring for? MR. PLANK: We can send that data along, I can't tell you today exactly. It is as required by the N.P.D0E.S. permits on the monthlies. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. MR. LEHMAN: One question, Mr. Plank. I believe you also stated that your recommendation was that we remove the utility waste section or provisions of Section 3004 as a special waste category. MR, PLANK: Right. MR. LEHMAN: We covered this a little bit yesterday, but nowhere is utility waste listed as a hazardous waste. , It is only if the material does not meet one of our charac- teristics or fails one. MR0 PLANK: That's true, MR. LEHMAN: But the point is that if you remove the utility wastes as a special waste standard, then the full force of 3004 applies to waste that fail these characteris- tics. The way it is now, by listing it as a special waste, there are somewhat limited standards applied. MR. PLANK: I think we would like to have a total exclusion of utility wastes and leave it to the state. Par- ticularly, we have a very strong state program here in Mis- ------- 7:21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 250 souri. MR. LEHMAN: So, what you are really saying is you don't—if I may paraphrase what you are saying. You are say- ing you don't necessarily-it's not just that you want us to remove the provisions for utility wastes from Section 3004, you want us to make a total exclusion of utility wastes from the whole program? MR. PLANK: That's right. MR. LEHMAN: That would have to be done in the definition section of 3004 if that were to be accomplished0 MR. PLANK: Right. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. (The document referred to follows: HEARING INSERT ------- CITY UTILITIES SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 301 E. CENTRAL STREET JEWELL P.O. BOX 551 SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 65801 TELEPHONE 417- 831-8311 February 13, 1979 Mr. John P. Lehman Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division Office of Solid Waste (WH-565) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Mr. Lehman: This letter is written din reference to the proposed federal law per- taining to the Hazardous Waste Act and its affect on this utility. City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri has two power generating sta- tions, Southwest Power Plant and James River Power Plant. These stations both generate utility wastes but according to recent testing do not meet the criteria of the Hazardous Waste Act. We feel that current state and federal laws now being enforced are ade- quate in the control of the disposal of these wastes. There have been no problems encountered under the present system for disposal of our utility wastes. However, if our wastes did meet the criteria of the Act the cost incurred by City Utilities to meet the proposed standards would be cost prohibitive to our 59,000 customers. Enclosed is a copy of City Utilities' position on this Act. Since Chairman, B«ard of Public Utilities cc: Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton Sen. John C. Danforth Rep. William L. Clay Rep. Robert A. Young Rep. Richard A. Gephardt Rep. Ike Skelton Rep. Richard Boiling Rep. Gene Taylor Rep. Richard H. Ichord Rep. Harold L. Volkmer Rep. Bill D. Burlison Rep. E. Thomas Coleman Renelle P. Rae, Regional Administrator, EPA CITY UTILITIES SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 301 E. CENTRAL STREET JEWELL P.Q^MOX 55! SPRINGFIELD, M I SSOI^He 580 1 TELEPHONE 4l R. DAVID PLANK, PE MANAGER-ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TELEPHONEi 4 I 7 - 8 3 I - 3 5 O.'J ------- INTRODUCTION City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri, is a municipally-owned public utility operated as a division of the City of Springfield, Missouri under the City Charter. The electric distribution system of City Utilities presently covers approximately 119 square miles with 1,156 miles of distribution lines serving approximately 59,000 customers. Revenues for fiscal 1979-80 are estimated at 40,000,000 dollars. Power production facilities include a five unit coal-fired generating plant located near the James River on the southeastern edge of the city and a single unit coal-fired generating plant located on the southwestern edge of the city. The James River Power Plant has nameplate generating capacity of 259 megawatts. Nameplate capacity of the Southwest Power Station is 194 megawatts. In addition to these facilities, there is a 30 megawatt oil-fired peaking turbine located at the Main Street Station near the center of the city. The James River Power Plant consumes an average of 150,000 tons of coal per year. The Southwest Power Station utilizes an average of 434,000 tons of coal per year and 54,000 tons of limestone, the latter being used in the flue-gas desulfurization system (FGD). By-products produced in the form of fly ash, bottom ash and scrubber sludge from the FGD total 85,775 tons per year for the two facilities. Of this total, 9,125 tons of fly ash and bottom ash are produced at the James River Power Plant and 76,650 tons of fly ash, bottom ash and scrubber sludge are produced at the Southwest Power Station. Present disposal of these wastes at James River involves the use of an ash sluicing system that discharges into an ash holding and settling basin. This ash pond is operated under N.P.D.E.S. Permit No. MO-0001961 and the ------- effluent is continuously monitored for the parameters outlined in the permit, according to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500 and the Missouri Clean Water Law. The Southwest Power Station utilizes a two-cell settling pond for bottom ash. The cells are periodically cleaned and the settled ash is removed and deposited in a landfill along with a fixated mixture of fly ash and scrubber sludge. The ash pond is operated under N.P.D.E.S. Permit No. MQ-00899340 as is the settling pond for the coal ash and scrubber sludge landfill. Effluents from these facilities are continuously monitored for the parameters outlined in the permits. The coal ash and scrubber sludge landfill was built and is operated as a state-approved landfill in accordance with the regulations set forth in the Missouri Solid Waste Management Law, Permit No. 707701. In addition to the monitoring and testing conducted as prescribed by these permits, City Utilities conducts regular monitoring schedules with respect to the environment surrounding these facilities. These include twice-weekly monitoring of the leachate collection system within the Southwest Power Station Landfill; monthly sampling of the landfill settling pond; periodic testing of the springs in the vicinity of the James River ash pond; and frequent monitoring of the springs around the Southwest Power Station and Wilson Creek above and below the outfall from the permitted Southwest Power Station facility. TESTING PROGRAM AND RESULTS City Utilities has been engaged in testing programs involving the discharges of these facilities for the past few years. To date analyses per- ------- formed by independent laboratories and by our own laboratories have shown that none of these discharges meet the criteria set forth to be designated hazardous wastes. Recent investigations using the Toxicant Extraction Procedure show that wastes treated according to the protocol set forth in this test do not come under the criteria for toxic wastes. These tests were performed on coal ash and scrubber sludge. We feel that since our own testing does not show any results of a hazar- dous nature and since no definite environmental risks have been demonstrated to be directly or indirectly attributable to coal ash and scrubber sludge, that these wastes should not be included for management under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act. We also feel that existing statutes under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Missouri Clean Water Law and the Missouri Solid Waste Management Law provide sound and adequate management practices for handling the disposal of these wastes. The fact that we pro- duce over 85,000 tons of this waste per year and that over 66 million tons of this waste per year is produced throughout the country presents a definite problem when considering disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. The capa- city of acceptable sites in relation to the quantities involved precludes efficient management when compared to the successful way in which these wastes are presently being handled. Existing management practices have proved to be satisfactory in preventing pollution problems. We see no reason to change to an unwieldy, expensive process that will achieve that will achieve the same end result. ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE UTILITY AND ITS CUSTOMERS The inclusion of utility wastes in the Hazardous Waste Management Act of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976 would have a staggering ------- economic impact on City Utilities and its customers through capital invest- ments, increase in personnel and operating expenses. Existing landfill operations would cease due to reasons cited below and we would be forced to either relocate our landfill operation or ship our wastes to approved land- fills in other parts of the state-perhaps even out-of-state. Geologic conditions at existing sites are unsuitable for the development and operation of a hazardous waste landfill. The Springfield area is underlain by a highly soluble, jointed limestone in which karst development has resulted in an extensive, well-integrated subsurface drainage system. Groundwater migration does not proceed through the rock mass; but rather is confined to joints, fractures, and solution channels in which movement is rapid and filtration is minimal. Utilization of monitoring wells to detect leachate migration would be ineffective. This area is also subject to catastropic sinkhole collapse, which would affect the structural stability of a landfill liner. Available sites over the area are alluvial deposits confined to the floodplains and residual soils weathered from the underlying limestone. The residual soils are CH under the Unified Soil Classification, composed mainly of halloysites and kaolinites with small quantities of montmorillonite. Permeability is on the order of 1.0 X 10~5 cm/sec. Weathering of inter- bedded chert has resulted in the preservation of relict chert beds in the soil profile, which increase the permeability. Soil thickness ranges from 0 to 20 feet due to the formation of cutters and pinnacles at the bedrock surface. Thickness is highly variable over short horizontal distances. Depth to the water table varies from 100 feet in upland areas to a few feet in the lowlands. The shallow aquifer is separated from a deeper aquifer ------- by a widespread shale formation. Most residential and agricultural wells draw from the shallow aquifer. Sites suitable for the development of a hazardous waste disposal site could be located at a distance of 30-40 miles from Springfield. In lieu of developing our own site, City Utilities could utilize existing sites operated by outside concerns. Modes of transportation to either of these sites could be by truck or rail. The following tables show the economic impact of these various alternatives on City Utilities. In all cases, some capital improve- ments would be necessary at the power plants. ------- COSTS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING AND OPERATING A CITY UTILITIES' OWNED HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL * TRANSPORTATION BY TRUCK 1. Site investigation and design development$ 710,0001 2. Purchase of property 1,422,0002 3. Final design and construction 1,828,0003 4. Capital improvements at James River Power Plant and Southwest Power Station 878, 0004 5. Landfill equipment 430,0005 6. Trucks for hauling wastes 529,0006 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $5,797,000 7. Escalation 1, 630, 000? 8. Contingency 713,0008$8,140,000 9. Engineering, legal fees and overhead 1,019,000$10. Interest during construction 620,000"!° TOTAL COST (1982 Completion)$9,779,000 1. Includes initial engineering evaluation, preliminary design and prepara- tion of environmental impact statement as well as state approval proce- dures. 2. Includes fencing 640 acres and possible fees for condemnation. Of the 640 acres, approximately 500 will be used for the landfill. 3. Includes hydrological monitoring system, surface containment structure construction, soil liner, leachate collection system, treatment facility, laboratory and office building, maintenance building and testing equip- ment. Fuel storage tank. 4. Includes improved handling facilities at James River Power Plant and new storage silo and fuel storage tank at Southwest Power Station. 5. Includes dozer, scraper, compactor and watering truck. 6. Includes 7 tractor-trailer units with special fly ash resistant trailers. Four of these will be on the road with two working a shuttle system from James River and one in reserve. ------- 7. Figured at 40% for capital costs exluding land. 8. Figured at 10%. 9. Figures at 13% of capital, engineering, legal, overhead and escalation. 10. Figured for 1 year at 7%. * Estimated Life of 25 years. ------- ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL OWNED BY CITY UTILITIES - TRANSPORTATION BY TRUCK Additional Personnel: 1 Landfill Superintendent 2 Tab Technicians 2 Manifest Clerks 4 Guards 1 Sampling Technician 1 Inspector-Sampler-Full time landfill 1 Foreman 3 Heavy Equipment Operators 1 Truck Driver 2 Maintenance Men 2 Processing Clerks Total Personnel $700,000 Transportation Costs Fuel and maintenance 87,000 Landfill Equipment Fuel and maintenance 121,000 Landfill Operations Yearly construction, etc. 306,000 Laboratory Testing 100,000 TOTAL Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs$1,314,000 ------- COSTS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING A CITY UTILITIES OWNED LANDFILL BY RAIL ACCESS * 1. Site investigation and design development $1,000, 000 1 2. Purchase of property 1,800,0002 3. Final design and construction 5,500,0003 4. Capital improvements at James River Power Plant and Southwest Power Station 1, 500, 0004 5. Landfill equipment 2,430,0005 6. Engine and cars 720,0006 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS$12,950,000 7. Escalation 4,460, 000 7 8. Contingency 1,741,0008 $19,151,000 9. Engineering, legal fees and overhead 2,490,0009 10. Interest during construction. 1,515,000"!0 TOTAL COST (1982 Completion)$23,156,000 1. Includes initial engineering evaluation, preliminary design and prepara- tion of environmental impact statement as well as state approval procedures. 2. Includes 1,000 acres for spur and landfill or which 500 acres would be useable. 3. Includes hydrological monitoring system, surface containment structure construction, soil liner, leachate collection system, treatment facility, laboratory and office building, maintenance building and testing equip- ment. Fuel storage tank. 4. Includes improved handling facilities at James River Power Plant and new storage silo and fuel storage tank at Southwest Power Station. 5. Includes dozer, scraper, compactor, watering truck and rotary dump machi- nery. 6. Includes 12 rail cars, and switch engine. 7. Figured at 40% for capital costs excluding land. ------- 8. Figured at 10%. 9. Figured at 13% of capital, engineering, legal, overhead and escalation. 10. Figured for 1 year at 7%. * Estimated Life of 25 years. ------- ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR HAZAJUXDUS WASTE LANDFILL OWNED BY CITY UTILITIES - TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL Personnel: 1 Landfill Superintendent 2 Railroad Engineers 2 Unloaders 1 Foreman 2 Lab Technicians 2 Manifest Clerks 4 Guards 1 Sampling Technician 1 Inspector-Sampler 1 Foreman 3 Heavy Equipment Operators 1 Truck Driver 2 Maintenance Men 1 Processing Clerk Total Personnel 5 630,000 Transportation Costs Fuel and Maintenance and shipping costs by rail 229,500 Landfill Equipment Fuel and maintenance 121,000" Landfill Operations Yearly construction, etc. 306,000 Laboratory Testing 100,000 TOTAL $1,386,500 ------- CAPITAL OUTLAY TO TRANSPORT WASTES TO COMMERCIAL LANDFILL BY RAIL * Ash handling improvements at JRPP § 500,000 Ash handling improvements at SWPP 100,000 Railroad spur construction 300,000 Rotary car dump 2,000,000 Switch engine 200,000 TOTAL Capital Improvements Cost$3,100,000 Yearly Operating Costs Personnel: 2 Manifest Clerics 1 Processing Clerk 1 Lab Technician Total Personnel $60,000 Freight Costs 500,000 Dumping Fees 3,720,000 TOTAL Annual Operating Costs$4,280,000 Unknown Contingencies 1. Maintenance on rotary car dump 2. Operation on rotary car dump 3. Maintenance on spur line at landfill 4. Operation and maintenance on switch engine * 10 year maximum disposal space, then have to have new site* ------- CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR TRANSPORTING WASTES TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL LANDFILL - APPROXIMATELY 220-250 MILES BY TRUCK Ash handling improvements at JRPP $500,000 Ash handling improvements and fuel storage tank at SWPP 175,000 Trucks for transporting 529,000 TOTAL Capitalized Costs 51,204,000 Yearly Operating Costs Personnel: 8 Truck Drivers 2 Manifest Clerks 1 Processing Clerk 1 Lab Technician 1 Maintenance Man Total Personnel$ 390,000 Truck Maintenance and Fuel 550,000 \ Dumping Fees at Existing Hazardous Waste Landfill 3,720,000 Annual Maintenance and Operating Costs $4,660,000 ------- CONCLUSION We would, therefore, like to go on record as being opposed to the inclu- sion of utility wastes under regulation by the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that such wastes are produced in very large volumes, that the potential hazards posed by the wastes are relatively low and that the waste is generally not amen- dable to the control techniques developed by the Act. We believe that we have shown that the wastes have no potential risk when handled in the proper manner and that the disposal techniques presently in use provide an adequate control of the wastes. We have also shown that it would be a tremendous economic burden on City Utilities and its customers to attempt to comply with the regulations set forth in the Act* We would, ask that EPA reconsider its position of including utility wastes even as "special \ waste" under the Act and leave the management of these wastes to the State and Federal agencies now engaged in these practices. ------- 251 l CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: For anyone who wasn't here 2 yesterday and doesn't recognize Alan Corson, let me intro- 3 duce Alan. He's the Chief of our Guidelines Branch and works 4 on Section 3001. We asked him to come up for the first two 5 speakers this morning. 6 I also have what is marked in red, "Urgent", a 7 message from Mr. H. Scott Durbin, if he would come pick this 8 up. 9 All right, our second speaker this morning, also 10 1 believe, primarily speaking on Section 3001, is Dr. Robert 11 Post on from Camel Energy in Houston, Texas. 12 STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. POSTON 13 DR. POSTON: Thank you, panel members, for invit- 14 ing me to speak to this group. I was commenting at breakfast 15 today, to Paul Herbert, that I probably wouldn't have asked 16 for an opportunity to come before this group and speak, had 17 I not been involved, probably a year ago, in a uranium ex- 18 traction process in south Texas and I got to see firsthand 19 what the Government is capable of doing to an industry, 20 In underground solution mining of uranium deposits 21 in south Texas, the EPA has required these uranium solution 22 mining people restore completely a material, water, which 23 contains only 6,000 parts per million of total dissolved 24 solids. 25 Well, gentlemen, the value, in my opinion, of this ------- 7:23 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 252 water, after itfs restored, is no way equal to the cost. I can*t see any reason for some type of laws like this to be put on the books when it costs more to restore than it does to mine* I think we really have some soul searching to do when., it comes to control of the environment. I am Robert Poston with Carmel Energy. Our home office is in Houston. We have oilfield recovery. Our pro- duction operation is in Texas, Kansas and western Missouri. I noted there wasn't a hearing to be held in Hous- ton. I am out of Houston, so I took this opportunity, be- cause of our operations here in Missouri, to come before the group and speak. Carmel is not particularly different than any othe oil producing company. We drill for, we explore for and drill and complete and produce oil deposits. However, with another arm of the Government, the Department of Energy, we have been able, over a period of eight years, to develop some technology which is enabling us to recover reserves from what is called in the industry, heavy oil deposits. The only thing that makes this different is we generate on-site super-heated steam, COig and nitrogen, so just like the gentleman with the power plant, we have to concern ourselves not only with oil field produced brands, drilling buds, but also steam drum blowdowns. 4 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 253 In order to keep the steam drum from passing solids overhead into the vapor state, we have to blow down this material and it represents about three per cent of our total water through the unit* So, we are talking about 15 barrels a day of fairly high solid concentrated waters. Carmel, we have succeeded, probably, where other companies have failed, because of the more favorable relation- ship now between the price we receive for the oil and the costs, because of the basic entrepreneural nature of our com- pany, and because of two U.S. Department of Energy cost sharing contracts, one of which we are now involved with in western Missouri, over in western Burn county, right on the Kansas-Missouri state line. I believe what—and I am going to conclude here and I asked to speak yesterday and asked the panel to conclude, is oil field produced brine, drilling buds and this steam drum or cooling tower blowdown, really shouldn't be defined as hazardous material. All it is, in the case of oil field produced brines, itTs concentrated solids in the produced fluids. I will also advise the panel that in every state we operate, we are regulated from beginning to end0 I noted in the Federal Register that the real goal here is to regulate the generators of hazardous wastes from initial generation to the final disposition. ------- 7:25 254 1 Well, folks, the oil producing industry is already 2 regulated. We are probably as regulated, if not more so, 3 than even the public utilities. We have to get a permit to 4 drill a well. We have to get a permit to either complete 5 that well or to plug that well,, Wefve got to give notice to 6 the various state regulatory agencies and they have an oppor- 7 tunity to send their representative down to actually witness 8 the plugging of a well. 9 We have to get a permit for salt water disposal 10 well and here again, it's got to meet certain criteria. ll These wells,the shallow formations here in Missouri, and 12 2nald«h&£LLy* I will elaborate on this a second. It's a very 13 unique shallow deposit over in western Missouri, but these 14 wells have got to be cemented from the very bottom of the 15 formation to the top. 16 There is virtually no opportunity for any salt 17 water contamination of fresh water zones. The requirements, 18 the details on actual materials of construction, materials 19 to be used in a casing program, all this stuff is generally 20 spelled out. 21 I read very carefully through the Federal Register 22 and the only way it seems that you people are proposing to 23 include us, is in this one special category and then you 24 make the statement that if our solids content, the concen- 25 trations are equal to ten times that for potable water, then ------- 255 1 we, by definition, have a hazardous waste problem. 2 Also, for your understanding, perhaps, not all 3 oil operations use drilling muds. We drill, for example, in 4 western Missouri with air. We use air, because we find it's 5 a lot faster, it's a lot cheaper. We don't have the pits, we 6 don't have any disposal problem there. 7 We ran a great deal of surface equipment right be- 8 side one of these wells and, obviously, if you had a pit 9 there, you don't have the bearing stress to stand up under a 10 storage tank. 11 So, 1 think now I've already pointed out two sub- 12 jects here, or two points, where all oil producing companies 13 are not the same. One, everybody is not drilling a 10,000 14 foot well. 15 Out in western Missouri, our wells are only 150 16 foot deepo They cost us$4 a foot. They cost us $600 to 17 drill and I know I'm stepping into another area, but the pro- 18 posal is that we put up a$5,000 per well surety bond, cash 19 up front bond. Good gosh, the well only costs $600, so there 20 is a difference. Not all wells are drilled by Exxon at 25, 21 000 feet, as we see sometimes in west Texas and Oklahoma. 22 We use air and we find air works very well for us, 23 because it does give us the opportunity for a very good geo- 24 logic control. We can actually check the forma dens every 25 few inches as we are drilling with air« It's certainly non- ------- 7:27 256 1 polluting. The drilling cuttings are deposited on the surface 2 in neat little piles. We attempt to do it about every five i 3 feet and the state of Missouri asked that we send them samp- 4 les periodically from the wells we drille 5 Now, you all have suggested that we comment, the 6 industry comment, on the exemption provision. We are asking 7 you to exempt the oil producing industry from the definition 8 of hazardous wastes under Section 3001. 9 I understand we would still be under this Subtitle 10 D. We think that's fine. 11 In reading the Federal Register that you all pointed 12 out there was 5,000,000 metric tons a year of wastes being; • 13 hazardous waste generation by the oil producing industry. 14 Gentlemen and ladies, I would like to take you all 15 out into the field to show you we do noto The oil industry 16 does not pollute. 17 You know, the days where you could drill an oil 18 well and produce oil filled brine into an adjoining stream 19 or lay it out on the surface, those days are gone. The states 20 now regulate and they regulate very tightly. 21 Now in the case of drilling muds, a lot of wells, 22 the majority of wells in the United States, are still drilled -•—v 23 with drilling muds. But one of the primary reasons why muds 24 are used is because of fluid loss control. 25 By using the drilling muds, the water is not leached ------- 7:28 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 257 into the formation as you drill down to depths, A filter cake forms on the wall and this holds the water into the well bore and it*s circulated from the surface down through the drill bit. It lubricates the bit, it cools the drill string and the drill bit. Therefore, there is going to be very little in the way of water, salt water and contaminated water, that is actually even on the surface in a pit, that escapes the pit into the, you know, ground water. This was a reason given for your wanting to include this in hazardous waste, because • it would contaminate, perhaps, surface waters. I think, personally, that if you increase the exemp- tion for special wastes from this 100 kilograms a month to 1,000 kilograms, that would make it a ton, I don't see any way a ton of contaminants would escape a drilling mud pit, even in a conventional drilling mud operation. Drilling muds today are very expensive, so typically when a well is drilled and completed, an operator or drilling contractor or driller, he moves to another location, he likes to take his drilling muds with himc He'll pump it out and put it in a container and go over to another well, another location, and use it and cover the,pit back up to the original contour and with the exception that normally it*s not compacte- back in, you've restored the surface to its original condition I have commented on your proposal of a$5,000 up ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 258 front bond to assure a well is going to be drilled, so the hazardous materials, if you stick with the definition of hazardous materials on the drilling muds, don't contaminate the environment o I pointed out to you that not all wells are $100, 000 apiece and, in fact, in our case in Western Missouri, we are looking at less than$1,000. The state of Missouri, y, requires $1,000 up front bond or$10,000 for a field development bond. So, 1 think it's really, I guess the word is ridi- culous, to require a $5,000 per well, up front, bond. Now finally, I would like to comment on your finan- cial responsibility requirement. Most of the wells drilled in the United States, oil wells and gas wells, are not drilled by the Exxons and the Shells and the major oil com- panies o They are drilled by small, independent operators like Carmel. The requirement or the suggestion that a$5,000,000 financial responsibility bond be made available, that would essentially eliminate small companies „ 1 checked with our financial advisors, for example, and we don't think we can get a $5,000,000, 20-year, perpetual bond. We just don't think we can do it0 Just like the gentleman spoke a second ago, the Springfield public utility, I feel that the EPA, with respect ------- 7:30 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 259 to this hazardous waste and definition, ought to concentrate on really gross offenders. I think, from what I see on television and read in the newspaper, that there are quite a few gross offenders out there. But, gentlemen, we have been regulated now for, oh, certainly right after the War and the states do a real top notch job. At least Carmel, and I think the oil industry as a whole, feels that EPA should concentrate its efforts on the gross offenders and since we are already regulated, let us stay over there in this Subtitle 0 section, continue to monitor our activities, but at the same time, save us from the--it was a proposal that 300 days be required for us to even get a drilling permit. Spare us from that type of agony. Spare us from the$5,000 per well cash bond and the $5,000,000 financial X responsibility bond« CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Would you answer questions for us? DR. POSTON: Yes, I would be happy to. MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Poston, I've got a series of ques- tions here, but before I do, I think there may be some mis- \ understandings somewhere here. First of all, you talked about the$5,000 bond, up front, for drilling. That's not part of these regulations. Is that a set of EPA regulations somewhere else? ------- 260 l DR. POSTON: I had read that as part of the oil and 2 gas—I have to admit I did not see it in the Federal Registea^ 3 but I was advised by your people in Washington that would be 4 taken up at a later date. 5 MR. LINDSEY: But not under this Act. It may be 6 under the underground injection control program or another 7 program, which offhand I am not aware of. But, you may be 8 right. 9 The other thing you mentioned was the financial 10 responsibility in the requirement for operating hazardous ll waste disposal sites to maintain a $5,000,000 insurance 12 premium for disasters, if you will. 13 I just want to make it clear or make sure there is 14 an understanding here that under the special waste regula- 15 tions that we have here, the type of waste which we are talk- 16 ing about, which is gas and oil drilling muds, and oil pro- 17 duction brines, are not subject to that, at least during this 18 period that we are considering them as a special waste. 19 Did you misunderstand that? 20 DR. POSTON: I'm glad to have that clarification. \ 21 MR. LINDSEY: In other words, the only disposal 22 regulations that are in place now for the special wastes are 23 those limited set of regulations which are included here and 24 it does not includes these insurance premiums at this point. 25 I will have to study the wastes some more,, We may ------- 7:32 261 1 generate regulations for these specific wastes, but at the 2 present, that's not covered. 3 Let me get to a couple of additional questions, if 4 I could. You mentioned and I think you understood this cor- 5 rectly, that these kinds of waste are only covered, in any 6 event, if they fail the characteristics test under Section 7 3001. I believe you mentioned that,, 8 Have you done any testing or do you have any feel 9 for knowing the characteristics of the waste we are talking 10 about, the steam drum blowdowns, the brines and the oil muds, 11 whether or not they will meet or fail, if you will, these 12 characteristics? 13 DR. POSTON: The only way I think you would have us 14 caught is this arbitrary definition, in my view arbitrary, 15 that if it*s ten times your definition of potable water or 16 drinkable water, then we're in. 17 MR. LINDSEY: You think it*s probably going to meet 18 that? 19 DR. POSTON: Oh, yes. 20 MR. LINDSEY: I seec 21 DR. POSTON: My recollection is that potable water 22 is around 1,000 parts per million total dissolved solids and 23 most oil field brines are going to be in excess of 10,000 24 parts per million of total dissolved solids and cooling tower 25 blowdown or steam drum blowdown is going to be in excess of ------- 7:33 262 10,000 parts per million of total dissolved solids. I think you have us there. 3 MR. LINDSEY: I don't believe there is a total 4 dissolved solids requirement here. 5 DR. POSTON: Well— 6 MR. LINDSEY: I don't believe there is a total 7 dissolved solids requirement in here. The requirements are 8 for specifics from the primary drinking water standards. 9 There are primary drinking water standards which 10 list a series of heavy metals and a few pesticides. So, it*s 11 only the toxic— 12 DR. POSTON: I did not have benefit of,-you make 13 reference to the EPA's drinking water standards in the Federal 14 Register. I didn*t have that little piece of information in 15 my hands to know what that was. 16 I can tell you that from experience, when you start 17 talking about 1,000 parts per million of total dissolved solids 18 if you consistently consume drinking water that exceeds those 19 qualities, you are going to be in a little trouble. 20 MR. LINDSEY: The pertinent part that you need to 2i look at, I think, is under 250.13-D, which is where the 22 specific toxicants are listed. 23 DR. POSTON: Yes, I have looked that list over and 24 we do not characteristically, typically, have those toxicants. 25 we are out on that basis. ------- 7:34 263 l MR. LINDSEY: If that's the case, then those par- 2 ticular wastes would probably not, if you are right, would 3 probably not be considered hazardous* 4 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I just want to clarify that 5 for hinu I'm not sure, but I think the requirement under 6 RCRA may have been misinterpreted to you. We are using 7 the number only for those 10 substances that are listed in 8 here. 9 The fact that you have 1,000 parts per million 10 solids does not make you hazardous waste. It would only be 11 if you met, you know, had too much of one of these things, 12 these ten substances. 13 I think what you told us is, you have to meet any 14 of our requirements0 15 DR. POSTON: I just need that little piece of paper. 16 MR. LINDSEY: You mentioned that brine muds, brine 17 ponds and mud pits are already regulated, leaching pits. Who 18 is it that regulates them, the state? 19 DR. POSTON: The state in every case,, 20 MRo LINDSEY: Is this only in Missouri, or are we 21 talking nationwide? 22 DR0 POSTON: Everywhere we operate0 23 MRo LINDSEY: The lemching from these mud pits and 24 brine ponds is already covered? 25 DR. POSTON: Yes, if all industry has moved over a ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 264 period here of 20 to 25 years to salt water disposal well, I guess if you would say, "How much do you typically produce, how much brine is typically produced with the oil", I would have to say it's 50-50 or one to one ratioc There are exceptions to this. Sometimes you pro- duce very little water, but probably on the average for every barrel of oil, you produce one barrel of water, MRo LINDSEY: The ponds then are used for what, stor- age ponds before injection? Is that what's normally done? DR. POSTON: We don't even use in our operations, for example, we don't even use surface storage ponds to produce brines. We go to an underground disposal well with a pump. The drilling mud pits are right by the individual wells and they only exist for the period the well is being drilled. / MR0 LINDSEY: O.K., thank you. MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Poston, it appears from some of your comments that you are getting a lot of your information from an article that appeared in the Oil and Gas Journal. DR. POSTON: Yes, thatrs correct. MR. LEHMAN: I was shown a copy of that yesterday [and haven't had a chance to really study it, but apparently, there are some incorrect statements there, some misinformation. DR. POSTON: I hope so0 MR. LEHMAN: I would reconraend highly to you that ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 265 you take your information from the Federal Register and not from— DR. POSTON: I did go to the effort to get the Federal Register. I went to the library, got it out, and I did read it. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. (The document referred to follows:) HEARING INSERT ------- .«• ,A ^ '1 PREPARED STATEMENT EPA HEARING ON HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES by Robert S. Poston, Vice President Carme1 Energy, Inc. 1776 Yorktown, Suite 110 Houston, Texas 77056 Carme 1 Energy, Inc. is a very small oil producing company, privately held, that has developed over an eight(8) year period some technology which is working successfully to recover heavy oil from oil reservoirs in Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri. Carme 1 drilled approximately 50 wells in Calendar 1978 and plans to drill over 100 wells in Calendar 1979 to recover oil from heavy oil deposits. Cannel's Vapor Therm process consists of surface genera- tion of superheated steam, carbon dioxide and nitrogen; injection of these gases into a heavy oil reservoir and then producing oil from stimulated wells. Oil production response is a function of reservoir quality, but in general the Vapor Therm process is capable of over 10 to 20 fold increase in oil production rates compared to production without stimulation. Carrael is succeeding where others have failed due to the more favorable relationship between oil price and costs which now exists; because of the entrepreneural nature of the company and because of two U.S. Department of Energy cost sharing contracts to fund field demonstrations of our technology. Carmel, and the oil producing industry as a whole, does not want to pollute the environment in which we live and operate and favors laws to protect the environment with stiff penalties for willful violations. The industry simply has too good a record especially in recent years to reach a different conclusion. ------- Statement Page 2 However, what is of particular concern to Carmel is the pro- posed sweeping definition of "hazardous". Hazardous by definition means risky or perilous or severly damaging. Drilling muds, pro- duced oil field brines (connate water) and steam drum blow down are simply not hazardous materials and should not come under your jurisdiction and control. In reading Section 3001 in the December 18, 1978 Federal Register, the only way the EPA was able to define these materials as hazardous was by "assuming" that any material with a solids concentration ten times that recommended for potable water was by definition hazardous. By this definition it would be hazardous for anyone to swim in the oceans of the world or as a matter of fact the Great Salt Lake; which we all know is foolish. The real question of environmental concern and importance is proper disposal of oil field waters. Therefore, why not simplify the regulations and make it easier for oil companies to solve the energy crises by exempting drilling muds, produced oil field brine and steam drum blow down as non-hazardous provided these materials are disposed of properly. For example, drilling muds are to be removed from the surface pit and che piL covered back to its original contour (setting the exemption to 1000 kilogram per month). Produced oil field brine and steam drum blow down once properly reinjected back into the oil xormation from which it was produced or other formation approved by the state geolo- gist should satisfy all environmental questions. Disposal well permits as are now required should be continued. We recommend that the EPA adopt rules which specifically exempt the oil producing industry from the definition of hazardous waste as proposed in Section 3001 provided the above mentioned materials are properly disposed. The materials are in themselves hon-hazardous and the only possible environmental harm would occir in the improper disposal of the materials. I also wish to bring to your attention the fact that all oil field operations are not the same. In Western Missouri we have been drilling and coring with air and this technique is working well for us. The wells are very shallow--ayeraging less than ------- Statement Page 3 150 teet total depth--and the cost of digging and drilling mud pit and covering the pit back after drilling the hole becomes needlessly expensive when we can drill with air. We ask you to please recognize this fact and not require a permit or any other waste disposal requirement for air drilling operations. Certainly if after deliberation the EPA finds as I have suggested that oil field drilling mud, produced brine and steam drum blow down is not hazardous when properly disposed, then the oil industry need not concern itself with the most burdensome provisions of permitting with its suggested 300 day waiting period, the$5,000 per well up-front cash bond, the $5 million dollar financial responsibility requirement for 20 years and the costly manifest, record-keeping and reporting system. If however, the EPA continues to hold against the oil pro- ducers it will unquestionably reduce much needed domestic drilling and exploration because it will eliminate small independent oil producers like Carmel who year after year drill most of the land based oil wells in the lower 4tf states. The$5,000 per well up front bond seems reasonable relative to the abandonment and plug- ging cost of "average" oil wells. I am here to point out that there are exceptions to the average. As I stated earlier, our wells in Western Missouri are only 150 feet deep and contract drilling cost is $4 per foot or$600 per well. Each well can be plugged by cementing through one(l) inch from the bottom of the hole to the surface for less than $200. The State of Missouri requires a$1,000 per well bond or a $10,000 blanket bond. Either appear sufficient to plug an abandoned well in Western Missouri. The states do an excellent job of controlling the oil and gas producers in the areas in which we operate. I have checked with our financial advisors and Carmel has concluded that it would be impossible for us to obtain an open- ended$5 million financial responsibility bond for 20 years duration. We simply do not have the financial resources to ob- tain such a bond. We are convinced that the states requirement of a perpetual plugging and abandonment bond either on a per well or field basis sufficies. ------- Statement Page 4 Carmel feels that the EPA should take into consideration the fact that the oil producing industry has a good record of managing and controlling its waste and that imposing further regualtions on an already over-regulated industry will do nothing to stimulate what most feel is in the national interest--increased domestic oil production. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 266 CHAIRPERSON OARRAH: We will move on to to people who have asked to comment on Section 3002, and my first per- | son will be Mr. Merlin Horn of the Utility Solid Waste Acti- vities Group. STATEMENT OF MERLIN HORN MR0 HORN: Good morning,, My name is Merlin Horn. I am Director of Environmental Affairs for the Wisconsin Power and Light Company„ I am appearing today on behalf of the Wisconsin Power and Light Company and, also, the Utili- ties Solid Waste Activities Group, and the Edison Electric Institute, to comment on some aspects of the regulations proposed to implement Section 3002 of RCRA. While some of you are familiar with USWAG, that is the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group, let me briefly describe the group for those of you who are not. USWAG is an informal consortium of electric utili- ties and the Edison Electric Institute. Currently, there are some 45 utility members of USWAG. Those companies own and operate a substantial percentage of the electric generation capacity in the United States. E.E.I., Edison Electric Institute, is the principal national association of invester owned electric light and power companieso Coal is the principal fuel used for electric genera- tion in the United States today. At Wisconsin Power and Lighi ------- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 267 it is the major fuel source for the companyTs base load generation and will continue to be so in the future. The principal wastes from electric power generation that would be regulated under RCRA are those that result from the use of coal as a fuel to produce electricity. Thus, RCRA and the regulations to be promulgated under it: will have a substantial and direct effect on the operations and economics of the electric utility industry generally, and Wisconsin Power and Light particularly. We emphatically believe that the great bulk of utility wastes are not hazardous. As the members of the panel are aware, our representative at last week's hearing des- cribed why we believe that the methodology proposed under Section 3001, to determine whether wastes are hazardous, is \ unsound and unreliable. I will not repeat those points today, but it does seem important to note that if utility wastes are inappro- priately labeled as hazardous, approximately 400 coal-fired power plants in this country will be subject to Section 3002 of RCRA and the regulations thereunder. There are two points we with to emphasize today. First, we believe that the regulation should make clear that all generators of special utility wastes be regulated in accordance with the special rules provided in Section 250.46, rather than under Subpart B. ------- 7:39 268 l Second, addressing Subpart B as drafted, we believe 2 the proposed regulations as applied to generators of utility 3 wastes appear to create unnecessary and expensive burdens 4 and to erect barriers against the important objective of 5 promoting resource recovery. 6 The fundamental concern we have with regard to the 7 applicability of EPA's proposed 3002 regulations, the utility 8 wastes, centers on a relationship between those regulations 9 and the EPA's proposed special waste rules under 3004 „ 10 USWAG wholly endorses the agencyTs intention to 11 place high-volume utility waste in the special waste category 12 pending completion of a separate rule making. 13 We are somewhat confused, however, by an ambiguity 14 created by Section 250.46. As now drafted, the regulations 15 appear to suggest that only waste generators who also qualify 16 as owners or operators of special waste treatment and storage 17 and disposal facilities will be regulated under the special 18 rules. 19 If so, generators who do not own or operate T.S.D,F, 20 sites, treatment, storage and disposal facilities, will not 21 be recovered by them. 22 A further question is raised from the draft regard- 23 ing whether even owners or operators of T.SoD.F.sites, in the 24 roles as generators, would be subject to the full range of 25 3002 requirements, even though in their capacities as owners ------- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 269 or operators of T.S.D.F. sites, they would be regulated under the special rulese We do not believe that such a result is sensible, nor do we believe that it was intended. We thus urge that the language be clarified to provide that all generators of special utility wastes be subject to the same regulatory re- quirements. That is, those contained in Section 250.46, as owners and operators of T.S.D.F. sites for special waste. Another way of stating this is that the language, per se, does not afford generators the same exemptions exten- ded to owners and operators of T.S.O.F.s for special waste. EPA's reasons for proposing a special waste cate- gory certainty apply with equal force to special waste genera- tors. I particularly note EPA*s acknowledgment in the pre- amble to the 3004 regulations, "That the potential hazards posed by these special wastes are relatively low." There is also no indication, insofar as management of utility special wastes is concerned, that the Subpart B procedures are necessary to protect human health and the en- vironment . Thus, for example, I am not aware of any instances where shipping of unlabeled utility special wastes has posed, or will pose, a risk to human health and environment. Further, EPA has noted that utility wastes are high volume and may not pose a substantial threat to health or the environaent. ------- 270 l This is the basis for placing such wastes in a 2 special handling category for facility operators. These 3 utilities are also closely regulated in many states and the 4 number and locations of the waste disposal facilities are 5 already a part of the public record. 6 USWAG will file detailed written comments address- 7 ing this matter and other aspects of the proposed Subtitle 8 C regulatory scheme. For now, let me direct the remainder of 9 my testimony today to three of our concerns. 10 One, the inappropriateness, as to utility practices, ll of the critical on-site/off-site definition contained in the 12 proposed regulations. 13 Two, the need to revise certain of the proposed 14 DOT packaging requirements as they apply to utility wastes, 15 and, three, the need to revise the regulations so they would 16 not preclude environmentally safe reuses of utility wastes 17 such as fly ash. 18 Proposed Section 250?20 (c) draws a distinction 19 between generators that send their waste to an off-site 20 facility,on the one hand, and those that send them to on- 2i site facility, on the other. 22 These distinctions are of considerable practical 23 importance, since so-called off-site handling would be sub- 24 ject to considerably more extensive regulation. In our view, 25 the regulatory distinction between on-site and off-site hand ------- 271 1 ling is impractical for high-volume, low-risk utility waste. 2 This distinction should be based upon the degree of risk im- 3 posed by the handling practice, not upon property boundary 4 lines. 5 EPA*s proposed definition, however, focuses only 6 on property boundaries. Thus, on-site is defined as the 7 "Same or geographically contiguous property", or two or more 8 pieces of property, geographically contiguous, separated only 9 by public or private rights of way. 10 This definition is wholly inappropriate as applied li to the electric utility industry. Many utilities dispose of 12 waste in facilities located as many as several miles from the 13 power plant. 14 If one considers the typical geographical setting 15 of a power plant, this is hardly surprising. For example, 16 many are located on rivers or in heavily industrialized 17 areas, in which demand for land is great. 18 " The effect of this, as well as existing land use 19 restrictions, is to limit the ability of the utilities to 20 site their disposal facilities at the power plant. It is 21 also important to recognize that although these areas may not 22 be directly adjacent to the power plant sites, they generally 23 are dedicated solely to utility use and disposal of the utili- 24 ty wastes. 25 Fundamentally, we believe EPA should draw regula- ------- 7:43 272 1 tory distinctions on the basis of risks posed. Indeed, the 2 Agency has already recognized the validity of this approach 3 in the proposed 100 kilogram exemption. That exemption is 4 premised on this type of risk perception analysis. 5 If the Agency believes itself obligated to retain 6 some on-site/off-site distinction, the term on-site should 7 at least be defined to include handling at reasonably proxl* 8 mate facilities, where the waste transport and disposal prac- 9 tices utilized pose no substantial risk to--no substantial 10 risk of adverse environmental effect. n I would now like to comment briefly upon certain 12 requirements contained in the proposed packaging rules. EPA 13 would require all generators sending hazardous wastes offsitetfj 14 to ship the wastes in accordance with Department of Transpor- 15 tation packaging requirements. 16 DOT, in a pending rulemaking, has proposed that 17 shipment of RCRA hazardous wastes in open-top vehicles, such 18 as dump trucks, be prohibited. DOT has also requested com- 19 ments as to whether transport of RCRA hazardous wastes in 20 tarp-covered, open-top vehicles should be allowed. 2i DOT*s proposed prohibition does not appear neces- 22 sary to protect the environment from dispersion of transpor- 23 ted utility special wastes. Many utilities use dump trucks 24 to haul ash and scrubber sludge, particuarly when these 25 materials are to be reused as fill material <, Ash is wetted ------- 273 l down and due to its chemical properties, forms a crust. Thus, 2 loose ash does not escape0 Scrubber sludge is also fixed in 3 a solid state to prevent dispersion in transit. 4 Clearly, if open hauling is flatly prohibited, over- 5 all waste management costs will substantially increase. Reuse 6 of utility special wastes will be especially hampered, because 7 many of these reuses are already economically marginal« 8 Therefore, we urge that DOTfs present packaging re- 9 quirements be retained. 10 Finally, 1 would like to speak for the negative im- ll pact of the proposed rules, what they will have on resource 12 recovery and reuse of utility special wastes. 13 A number of points are beyond dispute. First, a 14 fundamental objective of RCRA is promotion of resource reuse 15 and recovery. Second, most present reuse and recovery prac- 16 tices involving utility wastes, such as use of fly ash as a 17 road base and concrete additive, are economically marginal 18 and could be discontinued if an additional layer of regula- 19 tory cost is imposed0 20 I address this matter in further detail in my writ- 21 ten statement and wish only to make one point clear. We ask 22 EPA to reconsider feature of the proposed 3002 rules which 23 would needlessly impede resource recovery. 24 As proposed, every generator must comply with Sub- 25 parts B through E if its wastes remain on-site for 90 days or ------- 274 1 longer. Utilities, however, must frequently allow material 2 to accumulate for longer than 90 days before sufficient 3 quantities are collected for reuse, either for reasons of 4 economy, weather or availability of transportation. 5 For instance, the barging season in the upper 5 Mississippi is suspended from November to March. Under EPA's 7 approach, the materials accumulated in that period could fall 3 into the costly maze of the regulations and reuse would be 9 severely restricted,, 10 EPA, thus, should certainly recast this aspect of 11 its rules to allow accumulation of the utility wastes for 12 longer than 90 days without automatically triggering Subtitle 13 C regulation. 14 In sum, for the reasons expressed above, my com- 15 pany, USWAG and EEI, believe that the regulations proposed to 16 implement Section 3002 would impose needless costs on the 17 utility industry and would eliminate many present and future IS reuses of utility wastes. 19 There appear to be less costly and environmentally 20 acceptable alternatives, and we urge EPA to adopt them in its 21 final regulations. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Are there ques- 23 tions? 24 MR. TRASK: In your mention of the 90-day rule, do 25 you have an alternative suggestion as to how we could have ------- 7:46 275 1 some period of accumulation of waste for an economic shipment 2 by the generator and yet still provide for protection against 3 an accumulation of waste that is not going to be handled, 4 merely going to be left there? That*s the comment we have 5 heard from most other people and that's the reason itfs in 6 there. 7 MR. HORN: I don't have any specific suggestion, 8 other than the fact that some longer period might be as much 9 arbitrarily selected as, say, a 90-day period0 For example, 10 ISO days or 12 months or some period such as this. 11 MR. TRASK: Would the 180 days be sufficient for 12 the concern you have? 13 MR. HORN: In the instance of the one example, 14 which I cited, which applies to one of our particular power 15 plants, where we do ship materials by barge, if it were a 120 16 day period, then we would be able to get through the period 17 of time where navigation by barge on the upper Mississippi 18 is not generally possible. 19 MR. TRASK: Is barge shipment commonly used in dis- 20 posing of coal ash? I am not familiar with it« 2i MR. HORN: I canrt really answer for the industry 22 as a whole. For our case, it happens to be a rather unique 23 situation, where we do have a power plant located on the 24 Mississippi River with attendant barge facilities. ItTs 25 certainly one of the cheapest ways of transporting these ------- 276 I 1 materials which favor the economics of the reuse. 2 MR. TRASK: I have no further questions. I suspect^ 3 that Mr0 Robert may have had some questions for you on the 4 DOT packaging requirements, but I ain not qualified to ask 5 those. 6 MR. LINDSEY: I will follow up, if I may,on a re- 7 source recovery comment you made. That is the 90-day exclu- 8 sion. I think you mentioned you felt the 90-day limit on 9 storage would be an impediment to resource recovery. 10 Is that because--in other words, one can store for 11 more than 90 days. It's just that they have to get a permit 12 to do so0 You are aware of that, right? 13 MR. HORN: Yes. 14 MR. LINDSEY: You feel it's the cost of obtaining 15 the permit that would be the impediment to resource recovery 16 or, rather, is it the fact the material would be called haz- 17 ardous or what have you? 18 What is it specifically about the storage, the 90- 19 day part, that causes the impediment as you see it? 20 MR. HORN: I guess, basically, it's our concern, our 21 fear, that we would be subject to the full implications of 22 the 3000 series regulations. 23 MR. LINDSEY: I think that may be a misinterpreta- 24 25 tion, because basically if you do submit the material for re- source recovery, aven after 90 days, once you have a sale an « ------- 277 material is moved, then it is out of the system. But, if it is stored for more than 90 days, then a permit would be re- quired for the storage operation, which, depending on how it's stored, might not be very difficult to obtain. One other thing you did mention, I think, right at the outset, you indicated you felt the regulations would have 7 a substantial impact on the electric utilities industry, 8 When you say a substantial impact, are you referring 9 to the regulations as they are proposed, that is, the special 10 waste provisions, or are you going further than that, and 11 saying that if all the regulations under 3004 were to be 12 imposed that the impact would be substantial? Or, is it both? 13 MR. HORN: There will be some additional comments 14 rendered by our USWAG organization on those particular ques- 15 tions, but I would suggest at this time that even under the 16 special waste classification, that those sections that do ap- 17 plyj still create an additional economic burden on our opera- 18 tions. 19 MR. LINDSEY: Do you have any figures en what that 20 might be, say, for a typical power plant? 21 MR0 HORN: No, I donft have any at hand. I think, 22 perhaps, in our written comments that will be submitted prior 23 to March 16th, we may have such numbers available. 24 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Horn, you made a point in part of 25 your presentation concerning the distinction between on-site ------- 278 1 and off-site facilities and the impact that might have, on 2 your industry. Am I correct in assuming that what you 3 you also said that where you do ship off-site, itTs usually 4 only for a few miles due to transportation limitations and 5 it*s usually a site they are totally dedicated to for that 6 particular type of waste. 7 Am I correct in assuming that what you are driving 8 at here is that you feel facilities that are--I mean, the 9 distinction between on-site and off-site should be made on 10 the basis of, not on distance, or; contiguous property, but 11 on whether or not the site is dedicated solely for the use 12 of a particular waste from a particular source? 13 MR. HORN: I think certainly that your latter com- 14 ment is appropriate, that if the site is dedicated solely for 15 that use, it should have some bearing on the overall considera 16 tion of risk. 17 With respect to transportation, certainly distance 18 becomes an important factor,in that within relatively short 19 hauls, trucks turn out to be the most economic means of 20 transporting waste, unless they are so close that, perhaps, 21 pipeline transport could be used. 22 So, there is certainly a relationship between dis- 23 tance and mode of transport with the degree of risk that might 24 be posed .in the transport of "off-site" disposal facility,, 25 MR. LEHMAN: Thank you. ------- 279 l MR. TRASK: One further point I think we ought to 2 clarify. Perhaps if a generator owns his own disposal site 3 in the same state, then really the only difference is that 4 he needs a manifest in order to get there. His reporting 5 requirements are the same as are listed under the special 6 waste sections, reporting and record keeping requirements„ 7 So, the only difference then is the manifest and 8 being subject to the DOT requirements. But even if you go 9 directly across a public highway, you still may besubject 10 to the DOT requirements. That has nothing to do with what 11 we are doing. I just wanted to make that clear to you. 12 MR. HORN: YeSo 13 MR. MC LAUGHLIN: I would like to ask a few ques- 14 tions. Previously, we heard from the Springfield utility 15 people that they were already regulated by at least three 16 federal laws on their disposal sites and disposal practices. 17 Are you, in Wisconsin, similarly regulated and 18 by whom? Do you need a permit? 19 MR. HORN: Yes,-we do. We have been required to 20 have permits under our Department of Natural Resources per- 2i mitting system for quite some time. 22 MR. MC LAUGHLIN: Do you do any returning to the 23 mine for disposal? 24 MR0 HORN: No, most of our coal, of course, is 25 shipped in from rather long distances, either from southern ------- 280 1 Illinois or from Montana and Wyoming. I'm not familiar with 2 all the cost data associated with freight rates in terms of 3 hauling residual materials such as ash, but it's my under- 4 standing it would be quite exhorbitant. 5 MR. MC LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. 7 (The document referred to follows: 8 HEARING INSERT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- Statement of Merlin Horn, Ph.D. on behalf of Wisconsin Power & Light Company, The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and The Edison Electric Institute Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations to Implement Section 3002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 15, 1979 St. Louis My name is Merlin Horn. I am Director of Environ- mental Affairs for the Wisconsin Power & Light Company. I am appearing today on behalf of Wisconsin Power & Light, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and the Edison Electric Institute to comment on some aspects of the regulations proposed to implement Section 3002 of RCRA. Briefly summarized, I will address two concerns. First, we believe that the regula- tions should make clear that generators of "special" utility wastes are to be regulated in accordance with the special rules provided in Section 250.46, rather than under proposed Subpart B. Second, addressing Subpart B as drafted, we believe the proposed regulations as applied to generators of utility "wastes" appear to create unnecessary and expensive burdens and to erect barriers against the important objective of promoting resource recovery. Before expanding on these points, I would like to note that Wisconsin Power & Light provides electric service to ------- - 2 - some 281,000 customers in a 35-county area primarily in southern and central Wisconsin. Approximately 75 percent of the company's existing generation now on-line is coal-fired. Our company, along with four other utilities, form the Wisconsin-Upper Michigan Systems (WUMS), serving eastern and southern Wisconsin and a portion of Upper Michigan. Collec- tively, this group is planning to bring 2260 megawatts of coal-fired generation on-line in the period 1980 through. 1985. While some of .you are familiar with USWAG, let me briefly describe the group for those of you who are not. USWAG is an informal consortium of electric utilities and the Edison Electric Institute. Currently, there are some 45 utility members of USWAG. Those companies own and operate a substantial percentage of the electric generation capacity in the United States. EEI is the principal national association of investor-owned electric light and power companies. As a USWAG representative testified on Section 3001 at the hearing last week in New York, coal is the principal fuel used for electric generation in the United States today. At Wisconsin Power & Light, it is the major fuel source for the company's base load generation and will continue to be so in the future. The principal wastes from electric power genera- tion that would be regulated under RCRA are those that result from the use of coal as a fuel to produce electricity. Thus, ------- - 3 - RCRA, and the regulations to be promulgated under it, will have a substantial and direct effect on the operations and economics of the electric utility industry generally, and of Wisconsin Power & Light particularly. We emphatically believe that the great bulk of utility wastes are not hazardous. As the members of the panel are aware, our representative at last week's hearing described why we believe that the methodology proposed under Section 3001 to determine whether wastes are hazardous is unsound and unreliable, and I will not repeat those points today. But, it does seem important to note that if utility wastes are inappropriately labeled as "hazardous", approx- imately 400 coal-fired power plants in this country will be subject to Section 3002 of RCRA and the regulations thereunder, Let me now turn to the fundamental concern we have with regard to the applicability of EPA's proposed 3002 regu- lations to utility wastes. Specifically, that concern cen- ters on the relationship between those regulations and EPA's proposed "special waste" rules under 3004. USWAG wholly en- dorses the Agency's intention to place high volume utility wastes in the "special waste" category pending completion !/ of a separate rulemaking. We are somewhat confused, how- ever, by an ambiguity created by Section 250.46. I/ See proposed § 250.46-2(a), 43 Fed. Reg. 59015 (Dec. 18, 1978) and preamble thereto, id. at 58991-92. ------- As now drafted, the regulations appear to suggest that only waste generators who also qualify as owners or oper- ators of special waste treatment, storage, and disposal faci- lities will be regulated under the separate rules. If so, generators who do not own or operate TSDF sites will not be covered by them. A further question is raised from the draft regarding whe.ther even owners or operators of TSDF sites in their roles as "generators" would be subject to the full pan- oply of 3002 requirements, even though in their capacities as owners or operators of TSDF sites they would b'e regulated under the special rules. We do not believe that such a result is sensible; nor do we believe that it was intended. We thus urge that the language be clarified to provide that all generators of 2/ "special" utility wastes be subject to the same regulatory requirements (_i«^«i those contained in Section 250.46) as V owners and operators of TSDF sites for special wastes. EPA's reasons for proposing a special waste category certainly apply with egual force to special waste generators. I particularly note EPA's acknowledgment, in the preamble to the 3004 regulations, "that the potential hazards posed by the 2/ !..£. / hazardous special waste as described in Section 250.46. 3I/ This same approach should be taken with regard to trans- porters of special wastes. ------- - 5 - I/ [special waste[s] are relatively low." There is also no indication, insofar as management of utility special wastes is concerned, that the Subpairt B procedures are necessary to protect human health and the environment. Thus, for example, I am not aware of any instances where shipping of unlabeled utility special wastes has posed, or will pose, a risk to human health and the environment. Further, EPA has noted that utility wastes are high volume and may not pose a substantial threat to health or the environment. This is the basis for placing such wastes in a special handling category for facility operators. These utilities are closely regulated in many states, and the number and locations of the waste disposal facilities are already a part of the public record. USWAG will file detailed written comments address- ing this matter and other aspects of the proposed Subtitle C regulatory scheme. For now, let me direct the remainder of my oral testimony today to three of our concerns: (1) The inappropriateness, as to utility practices, of the critical "on-site/off-site" definition contained in the proposed regulations; (2) The need to revise certain of the proposed DOT packaging requirements as they apply to utility wastes; and 4/ Id. at 58991-92. ------- (3) The need to revise the regulations so that they would not preclude environmentally safe reuses of V utility "wastes," such as fly ash. Proposed Section 250.20(c) draws a distinction between generators that send their wastes to an "off-site" facility on the one hand, and those that send them to an "on- site" facility, on the other. These distinctions are of con- siderable practical importance since so-called "off-site" handling would be subject to considerably more extensive regulation. In our view, the regulatory distinction between on-site and off-site handling is impractical for high-volume, low-risk utility waste. This distinction should be based •upon the degree of risk posed by the handling practice, not upon property boundary lines. EPA's proposed definition, how- ever, focuses only on property boundaries; thus, "on-site" is defined as "the same or geographically contiguous property," or tv/o or more pieces of property, geographically contiguous, 5/ I would also like to mention in passing the implication contained in the 3002 preamble that a generator may be held liable in an enforcement action for the improper acts of transporters. In our view, it is unfair and inappropriate to impose on generators of large-volume, low-risk utility wastes responsibility for the actions of independent entities over whom they have no control, and EPA should remove any such suggestion from its final rules. ------- V separated only by public or private rights of way. This definition is wholly inappropriate as applied to the electric utility industry. Many utilities dispose of wastes in facil- ities located as many as several miles from the power plant. If one considers the typical geographical setting of a power plant, this is hardly surprising. For example, many are lo- cated on rivers or in heavily industrialized areas, in which demand for land is great. The effect of this, as well as existing land use restrictions, is to limit the ability of the utilities to site their disposal facilities at the power plant. (The economics of transporting the huge volumes of ash, sludge and other byproduct materials involved requires, however, that sites be reasonably close to the power plant, usually within a few miles.) It is also important to recognize that although these areas may not be directly adjacent to power plant sites, they generally are dedicated solely to utility use and disposal of utility wastes. Fundamentally, we believe EPA should draw regulatory distinctions on the basis of risks posed. Indeed, the Agency has already recognized the validity of this approach in the proposed 100 Kg exemption. That exemption is premised on this 7/ type of risk perception analysis. If the Agency believes 6/ § 250.21(b)(18). 7/ 3002 Background Documents, BD-8, at pp. 21, 27. ------- itself obligated to retain some "on-site/off-site" distinc- tion, the term "on-site" should at least be defined to include handling at reasonably proximate facilities, where the waste transport and disposal practices utilized pose no substantial risk of adverse environmental effect. I would now like to comment briefly upon certain requirements contained in the proposed packaging rules. EPA would require all generators sending hazardous wastes off- site to ship the wastes in accordance with Department of Transportation packaging requirements. DOT, in a pending rulemaking, has proposed that shipment of RCRA hazardous wastes in open-top vehicles such as dump trucks be prohib- ited. DOT also has requested comments as to whether trans- port of RCRA hazardous wastes in tarp-covered, open-top vehi- cles should be allowed. DOT's proposed prohibition does not appear necessary to protect the environment from dispersion of transported util- ity special wastes. Moreover, its impact on the electric util- ity industry would be significant. Many utilities use dump trucks to haul ash and scrubber sludge, particularly when these materials are to be reused as fill material. Ash is wetted down and, due to its chemical properties, forms a crust. Thus, loose ash does not escape. Scrubber sludge is also fixed in a solid state to prevent dispersion in transit. Clearly, if open hauling is flatly prohibited, over- all waste management costs will substantially increase. Reuse ------- of utility special wastes will be especially hampered, because many of these reuses are already economically marginal. As I indicated, less costly alternative measures ex- ist to prevent uncontrolled dispersion of utility special wastes when transported. We believe, therefore, that EPA should urge DOT to retain its present packaging requirement: namely "that under conditions normally incident to transportation, there will be no significant release of the hazardous materials to i/ the environment." USWAG will urge such an approach in its comments to DOT'S proposal. Finally, I would like to speak to the negative im- pact the proposed generator rules will have on resource re- covery and reuse of utility "special wastes". A number of points are beyond dispute. First, a fundamental objective of RCRA is promotion of resource reuse and recovery. Second, most present reuse and recovery prac- tices involving utility materials — such as use of fly ash as a road base and concrete additive — are economically a. marginal and could be discontined if an additional layer ^ of regulatory cost is imposed. EPA's background document to the 3002 regulations correctly recognizes that "resource recovery facilties are often marginally profitable, and too stringent permitting, recordkeeping, reporting, manifest, 8/ 49 C.F.R. 173.24(a)(1). ------- - 10 - etc. requirements could put a marginally profitable facility out of business, and would violate Congressional intent I/ to promote resource recovery." As I stated, we do not believe large volume utility wastes may properly be classified as hazardous wastes. We also do not believe that Congress intended to regulate under Subtitle C environmentally safe reuses of utility "wastes." Indeed, we note that several Federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Bureau of Mines, have encouraged a number of important uses of utility "wastes" in construction, and reclamation, and testified to Congress about these uses when RCRA was under consideration. Nevertheless, EPA's proposed 3002 regulations (as well as its other proposed rules) indiscriminantly regulate reuse and resource recovery, without regard for whether regula- tion in fact is needed to protect health and the environment. Thus, all "hazardous waste" must be transported to a permitted facility, and the generator, transporter, and facility owner/ operator must comply with all of the requirements of Sections 3002, 3003, and 3004. This conceivably could require a con- struction firm, responding to the Federal Highway Administra- tion's policy of encouraging use of fly ash, to obtain a RCRA permit. Obviously, most reuses cannot continue if this sub- stantial additional layer of cost and administrative burden is imposed. 9/ BD-8, p. 17 ------- - 11 - EPA addressed these problems far more rationally in its 3002 background document than in the regulations themselves. There, EPA concluded that the 3002 regulations should encourage resource recovery either by avoiding regulation of wastes-sent to resource recovery facilities, or by exempting from most of the Subtitle C regulations resource recovery facilities and generators whose products are reused. Generally speaking, we believe these alternatives fit the spirit of RCRA's resource recovery objectives and urge that EPA reconsider its approach in this area. We also ask EPA to reconsider a specific feature of the proposed 3002 rules which would needlessly impede resource recovery. As proposed, every generator must comply with Sub- parts B through E if its wastes remain on-site for 90 days or longer. Utilities, however, must frequently allow materials to accumulate for longer than 90 days before sufficient quan- tities are collected for reuse, either for reasons of econ- omy, weather or availability of transportation. For instance, the barging season in the upper Mississippi is suspended from November to March. Under EPA's approach, the materials accumu- lated in that period could fall into the costly maze of the regulations, and reuse would be severely restricted. EPA thus should ce'rtainly recast this aspect of its rules to allow accumulation of utility "wastes" for longer than 90 days without automatically triggering Subtitle C regulation. ------- - 12 - In sum, for the reasons expressed above, ray company, USWAG and EEI believe that the regulations proposed to implement Section 3002 would impose needless costs on the utility industry and would eliminate many present and future reuses of utility "wastes." There appear to be less costly and environmentally acceptable alternatives, and we urge EPA to adopt them in its final regulations. ------- 281 1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The next speaker this morning 2 is Mr. Howard Chin, Environmental Control Division, the 3 Attorney General's Office. 4 (No response.) 5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Mr. Chin hasn't answered. Is 6 Robert Robinson here from the Missouri Solid Waste Management 7 Program? 8 MR. ROBINSON: My name is Robert M. Robinson. I 9 am Director of the Solid Waste Management Program for the 10 Missouri Department of Natural Resources0 11 STATEMENT OF ROBERT M0 ROBINSON 12 MR0 ROBINSON: The Department has several comments 13 and will, at a later date, submit more detailed written com- 14 ments. 15 Section 250.21-B-4 defines several documents which 16 may be used in lieu of the original manifesto We recommend 17 the EPA require the original manifest be used except where 18 physically impossible, as is in the case of railroads. 19 We are concerned that allowing the use of other docu 20 ments will be confusing and impair the effectiveness of the 21 cradle to the grave management system. 22 Second comment, the exemptions provided for genera- 23 tors producing less than 100 kilograms per month, and for 24 retailers provided in Section 250,29-A, are, in our opinion, 25 too broad. ------- 282 1 These regulations do not consider the degree of 2 potential hazard and, apparently, provide an unlimited quan- i 3 tity exemption for retailers. 4 Under this situation, wholesalers or industry could 5 maintain a retail outlet and let this branch of the company 6 dispose of all of their off-spec product, which might be haz- 7 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ardous. We recommend that EPA provide both a quantity and quality exemption for small quantities of hazardous wastes. Retailers should only be exempted under the 100 kilogram pro- vision in the regulations. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Are there any questions? MR<> TRASK: Mr. Robinson, you mentioned that we should deal with quality as well as quantity of hazardous waste and I believe you mentioned degree of hazard as a divid- ing Iine0 Do you have some ideas along that line, what would we use as a basis for determining degree of hazard? MR. ROBINSON: Certainly, it would only be with the very toxic, very hazardous material, such as dioxin and some of your pesticides and things like that. It concerns me that we get all this concerned about containers, pesticide containers for instance, and yet--and thatrs not a good example, I guess, because pesticides, I sup- pose, are controlled„ But we get concerned about some things' ------- 283 1 like that with a very small amount of hazardous waste and, 2 yet, we may let 100 pounds of very toxic material be disposed 3 4 So, I think, as I understood it when we started out 5 developing these regulations some time ago, there was going 6 to be, hopefully, a small list of very toxic wastes that 7 would be excluded from that 100 kilogram exemption. 8 MR. TRASK: I am sure you noted in the preamble 9 that we mentioned we were discussing five other options in 10 this particular area, one of which would look at the degree 11 of hazard. 12 What we need a great ------- 284 system. MR0 ROBINSON: I understand that, yes. But, I wou still be concerned about some of those types of wastes and handling problems and exposure then at the landfill. MR. TRASK: We would like to receive whatever data you have in this area„ MR. LEHMAN: Mr0 Robinson, getting back to your point about retailers exemptions, setting aside for the moment your point about the possibility of wholesalers setting up some 10 sham operations to avoid that, do you have any information 11 that would lead you to believe that wastes from retailers 12 present a significant environmental or public health problem? 13 MR. ROBINSON: I don't have any specific informa- 14 tion to that regard, but it concerns me that werve let this 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 great big loophole which can be used0 I agree with the 100 kilogram, by and large, except for the very toxic materials„ But, why don't retailers have to also comply with that provision? I am also in favor of exempting the farmers and things like that, but I don't see the retailers who, of course, retail hazardous materials all the time and for some reason they may have broken quantities or contaminated quantities of that, that they can*t sell and they are going to have to get rid of» I think that ought to come under the system, because you have no quantity„ They could have 100 tons of it, as I ------- 285 l understand it0 2 MR. TRASK: Is your concern then with certain kinds 3 of retailers--what we had in mind was retailers such as a 4 hardware store, for example, where it might be very difficult 5 for them to separate a small quantity of hazardous waste. 6 MR» ROBINSON: I think they would, by and large, 7 fall under kilograms per month, but if they don't, I think 8 they ought to come under the system,, I think very few of 9 them would be coming under the system of over 100 kilograms. 10 But, you leave wide open the opportunity for abuse 11 there. 12 MS. SCHAFFER: Mr. Robinson, I have a point of 13 clarification. First of all, for the retailer, if they do 14 have more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste, they still 15 have to comply with the D.O.T. transportation requirements 16 and also take that to a 4004 facility. So, the waste is, 17 again, not outside of a controlled system. 18 So, there is still a degree of control for it. 19 But, secondly, I think one way to get around your problem 20 of the sham operation for retailers, for a retail facility 21 connected to a wholesaler, is the definition that we pro- 22 vided for a retailer, and I quote, means, "A person engaged 23 solely in the business of selling directly to the consumer." 24 I think that, at least from an enforcement point 25 of view, I would not consider a person who has a retail opera- ------- 286 tion connected to a wholesale operation solely in the business of selling directly to the consumer. MR. ROBINSON: It might cost you $20,000 in investi- gating of records to determine whether that would be true or not. The other thing is, you talk about the D.O.T. When you are talking about your short hauls to the Subtitle D site, you might as well forget about trying to impose D.00T0 regulations. There are not enough policemen around to do 10 that. 11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I understand your concern 12 about retailers, but you donTt appear to have the same con- 13 cern about performance0 You don't think this might cause a 14 great resurgence-, in farming activity? 15 MR0 ROBINSON: I don't think farmers are going to 16 start taking hazardous waste and disposing of ito I think 17 primarily there we are dealing with some few pesticide con- 18 tainers and things like that» 19 They have the property and usually dispose of it on 20 their own ground very many times. If they think it's bad, 21 they are not going to dispose of it there, they are going to 22 take it somewhere where it can be disposed of properly. 23 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much0 24 Mr. Terry Freeze from Mississippi Chemical Corpora- 25 tion. ------- 287 1 MR. FREEZE: I am Terry Freeze from Mississippi 2 Chemical Corporation in Yazoo City, Mississippi. 3 STATEMENT OF TERRY FREEZE 4 MR0 FREEZE: Mississippi Chemical Corporation is a 5 fertilizer cooperative, composed of more than 25,000 farmer- 6 owners in the southeastern part of the United States. 7 Mississippi Chemical operates a fertilizer complex 8 at Pascagoula, Mississippi and this facility has a by-product^ 9 gypsum, as a result of its phosphoric acid manufacturing 10 planto We are also currently in the process of developing a 11 phosphate rock mine in central Florida, 12 At this time we would like to address briefly por- 13 tions of the proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regula- 14 tions. . 15 In the time allocated, we cannot fully address 16 each issue that concerns us. Detailed comments and objections 17 will be submitted for inclusion in the official record after 18 our consultants and researchers have completed an in depth 19 study of all the issues raised, before the March 16th dead- 20 line. 21 Land farming as defined in the proposal would in- 22 elude the use of our by-product, gypsum, as a soil supplement. 23 Gypsum is widely and commonly used as a soil supplement, for 24 instance, in the peanut crop production,, It is also used on 25 other crop growing soils which need sulphur and calcium re- ------- 288 quirements. Gypsum is used on high alkaline soils in some arid climates. To obtain these elemental supplements through other means would increase the farmers' cost for crop production and would ultimately increase the consumers cost for goods purchased. This definition is contrary to the spirit of the 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 9 Treating agricultural gypsum application as a means 10 of disposal of a hazardous waste, as required by the proposed 11 definition of land farming, would hamper, impair and prohibit 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the use of gypsum for such soil supplements, We object to gypsum and phosphate mining tailing, overburdens and slimes being subjected to this proposed hazard ous waste regulation. These high-volume, low-hazard wastes should not be regulated in the same manner as highly toxic low-volume hazardous wastes. The broad, all-inclusive grouping of these two types of waste is not cost effective and is not in keeping with the goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. One of these goals is to, "To conserve natural re- sources directly and through the management, reuse, or re- covery of solid wastes." The standards setting forth the radioactive criteria have not been made final. We object to the listing of gypsum and phosphate mining overburden, tail- ------- 289 1 ings and slimes as radioactive, hazardous waste in the absence 2 of established criteria. Tailings and clays from the mining 3 operation placed back in mined sites are part of reclamation 4 constituting overburden and should not: be regulated under the 5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 6 The waste management techniques currently in use 7 in the phosphate mining and by-product gypsum disposal are 8 cost effective and are the best management techniques reason- 9 ably requiredo The proposed security requirements are un- 10 reasonable and unnecessary. 11 Daily inspections of all facilities with written 12 records, fencing, guard service, are unneeded, unreasonable 13 and not cost effective. These security requirements listed 14 above are unrelated to the harm that Congress intended to 15 cure. 16 Site selections and land use are determined through 17 the necessary environmental impact statements required already 18 and the state and local regulations and building codes dictate 19 land use. Land use should strictly be a local concern„ Addi- 20 tional Federal regulations in these areas are unneeded, un- 21 warranted, unreasonable and are counter-productive, 22 The proposed requirement that a new gypsum or phos- 23 phate mining overburden, slimes and tailings storage facility 24 be prohibited on a 500-year flood plan is an unreasonable 25 requirement with no well-founded basis and unrelated to the ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 290 harm Congress intended to cure. These high-volume, low-haz- ard processes must be located near the natural resource and/ or near water transportation to be cost effective. Good engi- neering practices for containment and flood security are appropriate requirements for the location of phosphate mining overburdens, tailings and slimes, and gypsum storage piles. It is more appropriate to require that these faci- lities be engineered to withstand a 100-year flood. A 100- year flood is subject to definition from actual records. In the groundwater and leachate monitoring section, the proposal states that monthly analyses be determined to develop background data. We object to the monthly analyses as being burdensome and unnecessary to develop substantial background groundwater data. The EPA background document concerning special wastes states that quarterly monitoring is sufficient and that more frequent monitoring would not be required. We agree that back- ground g'oundwater data can be developed based on quarterly monitoring as previously recommended by EPA. In addition, rather than requiring analyses for mini- mum and comprehensive analyses, the requirement should include only those analyses for substances which could reasonably be found in the waste and only those which would constitute or help define a hazard. We feel that the powers assumed by the Regional Ad- ------- 291 1 ministrator in this section, to require discontinuation of 2 operation of a facility until the Regional Administrator 3 determines what actions are to be taken, in the event of 4 groundwater contamination or the potential for groundwater 5 contamination, is unwarranted and is not provided for in the 6 Act. 7 We do not feel it is reasonable to establish regu- 8 lations for all hazardous wastes in one regulation. The pro- 9 posed regulations are far too broad in that they try to cover 10 high-volume, low-hazard waste and low-volume, high-hazard 11 waste in one regulation„ 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you0 Would you answer 14 questions? 15 MR. FREEZE: I would definitely try. 16 MR. LINDSEY: I think you are aware, your last 17 point was that we are trying to cover both high-volume and 18 low-hazard and low-volume and high-hazard wastes together in 19 one set of regulations0 20 i guess I should point out the reason why we have 21 the special waste regulation is because of that point. Those 22 special wastes are high-hazard-—high-volume and low-hazard, 23 as far as we know. But the main reason they are listed here 24 as special wastes with limited requirements is that we don't 25 really know much about them at this point0 ------- 292 But our intention was to treat them differently and not the same. I think I should point that out. Secondly, let me ask you a couple of questions, if I might. I think you mentioned, you started out by talking about the use of agricultural gypsum on peanuts and what all. This agricultural gypsum that's used there, is that a by-product from the phosphate mining operations? 8 MR. FREEZE: In some respects, yes. 9 MR. LINDSEY: The same materials, not mined gypsum 10 as a separate entity,, 00K., I didn't know that. 11 I think you indicated also that at least some of 12 the things that are listed in here under 2500463, which is 13 the special waste category, phosphate, rock mining, are not 14 hazardous. That is they are not radioactive. Did I under- 15 stand that correctly? 16 MR. FREEZE: No, you donTt understand that correct- 17 Iy0 18 MR. LINDSEY: Then let me ask you this. Did you 19 net make some statement with regard to the fact that certain 20 of these wastes that are listed should not be considered in 21 the same category as other wastes? Maybe I misunderstood 22 the whole thing. 23 MR. FREEZE: I think the point we are trying to 24 make is possibly some additionaldegrees of hazard. Even 25 though we recognize and appreciate the fact for the existence ------- 293 of the special waste category. MR. LINDSEY: But all these things that are listed are radioactive to some extent, right? 4 MR. FREEZE: Right. 5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: There are no more questions* Thank you. 7 (The document referred to follows:) 8 HEARING INSERT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMENTS FOR PROPOSED RULES 40 CFR 250 HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS AS PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER MONDAY, DECEMBER IB, 1978 SUBMITTED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT BRECKENRIDGE PAVILION HOTEL 1 BROADWAY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63102 FEBRUARY 14, 15, 16, 1979 MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION P.O. BOX 388 YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI 39194 ------- Mississippi Chemical Corporation is a fertilizer cooperative composed of more than 25,000 farmer/owners in the Southeastern part of the United States. Mississippi Chemical operates a fertilizer complex located at Pascagoula, Mississippi. This facility has by-product gypsum as a result of its phosphoric acid manufacturing plant. We are currently in the process of developing a phosphate rock mine in central Florida. At this time we would like to address briefly portions of the proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations, 40 CFR 250, as published in Part IV, Federal Register, December 18, 1978. In the time allocated we cannot fully address each issue that concerns us. Detailed comments and objections will be submitted for inclusion in the official record after our consultants and.experts have completed an indepth study of all the issues raised. EXTENT OF PERMISSIBLE REGULATION UNDER RCRA The EPA has misinterpreted the RCRA and has gone further than the act intends by including phosphate mining wastes and gypsum as hazardous materials. Their inclusion is unreasonable and unrelated to the harm congress intended to cure. It is not supported by the evidence therefore it is arbitrary. DEFINITIONS Land farming as defined in the proposal would include the use of gypsum as a soil supplement. Gypsum is widely and commonly used as a soil supplement for peanut crop production. It is also used on some other crop growing soils which need sulfur and calcium supplements. Gypsum is also widely used on high alkaline soils in arid climates. To obtain these elemental supplements through other means would increase the farmers' cost for crop production and would ultimately increase the consumers' cost for goods purchased. This definition is contrary to the spirit'of the RCRA, is unreasonable and has no valid basis. Treating agricultural gypsum application as a means of disposal of a hazardous waste as required by the proposed definition of land farming would hamper, impair, and prohibit the use of gypsum for soil supplements. ------- Page 2 i IDENTIFICATION AND ^«i6- OF GYPSUM AND PHOSPHATE We object co gypsum and phosphate mining tailing, overburden, and slime being subjected to this proposed hazardous waste regulation. These high volume, low hazard wastes should not be regulated in the same manner as highly toxic, low volume hazardous wastes. The broad all inclusive grouping of high volume, low hazard waste and low volume, high hazard waste is unreasonable with no valid basis and is not cost effective and is not in keeping with the goals of the RCRA. One of these goals is to quote, "to conserve natural reso.urces directly and through the management, reuse, or recovery of solid wastes. The standards setting forth the radioactive criteria have not been made final. We object to the listing of gypsum and phosphate mining overburden, tailings, and slimes as radioactive hazardous wastes in the absence of established criteria. Tailings and clays placed back in mined sites are part of reclamation constituting over- burden and cannot be regulated under RCRA. Listing gypsum and phosphate mining overburden, tailings, and slimes as proposed radioactive haz- ardous wastes is not based on sufficient and reasonable evidence. WASTE MANAGEMENT The phosphate mining and by-product gypsum from phosphoric acid production, waste management techniques currently in use are cost effective and are the best techniques reasonably required. The proposed security requirements are unreasonable and unnecessary. Daily inspec- tions of all facilities with written records, fencing, and guard service are unneeded, unreasonable, and not cost effective. These security requirements listed above are unrelated to the harm that congress intended to cure. These requirements are not supported by the evidence and, therefore, are arbitrary. SITS SELECTION AND LAND USE Site selections and land use are determined through the necessary environmental impact statements required, and the state and local regu- lations and building codes dictate land use already. Land use should be strictly a local concern. Additional federal regulations in these areas are unneeded, unwarranted, unreasonable, and are counter productive. ------- Page 3 The proposed requirement that a- new gypsum or phosphate mining overburden, slimes and tailings storage facility be prohibited on a 500-year flood plan is an unreasonable requirement with no well-founded basis and unrelated to the harm congress intended to cure. These high volume, low hazard processes must be located near the natural resource location and/or near water transportation to be cost effective. Good engineering practices for containment and flood security are appropriate requirements for the location of phosphate mining overburdens, tailings, and slimes, and gypsum storage piles. It is more appropriate to require that these facilities be engineered to withstand a 100-year flood. A 100-year flood is subject to definition from actual records. In Section 250.43-8(c) Groundwater and Lechate Monitoring, the proposal states that monthly analyses be determined. We object to the monthly analyses as being burdensome and unnecessary to develop back- ground groundwater data. The EPA background document concerning special wastes states that quarterly monitoring is sufficient and that more frequent monitoring will not be required. We agree that background groundwater data can be developed based on quarterly monitoring as previously recommended by EPA. In addition, rather than requiring analyses for minimum and comprehensive analyses, the requirement should include only those analyses for substances which could reasonably be found in the waste and only those which would constitute or help define a hazard. We believe that monitoring for groundwater effects of phosphate rock mining overburden, slimes and tailings is impractical and unnecessary. We feel that the powers assumed by the Regional Administrator in this section to require discontinuation of the operation of a facility until the Regional Administrator determines what actions are to be taken in the event of groundwater contamination or the potential for groundwater contamination is unwarranted and is not provided for in ths act. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA We seriously question the criteria that were selected for listing a waste as hazardous. We do not feel that the criteria is supported by the evidence used for their establishment. We do not fael that it is reasonable co establish regulations for all hazardous wastes in one ------- Page 4 regulation. The proposed regulations are far too broad in that they try to cover high volume, low hazard wastes and low volume, high hazard wastes in one regulation. Respectfully submitted by Terry Freeze, Environmental Consultant, Mississippi Chemical Corporation, Yazoo City, Mississippi. ------- 294 1 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The next witness this morning 2 is Kenneth Sineleer of the Industrial Association of Quincy0 3 MR. SMELCER: I am Kenneth Smelcer of the Indus- 4 trial Association of Quincy, Quincy, Illinois. 5 STATEMENT OF KENNETH SMELCER 6 MR0 SMELCER: I have just some short comments, 7 fairly non-technical, trying to relate to some of the problems 8 again that we are having with regulations. 9 To read to you from the statement we gave you yes- 10 terday, the Agency requested comments on the requirements 11 for generators of small amounts of hazardous wastes, parti- 12 cularly on whether the 100-kilogram a:month exemption should be 13 lower or raised. 14 We believe this limit depends on many factors not 15 addressed, such as degree of hazardousness of the waste and 16 the capability of the individual landfills to safely handle 17 the proposed waste, which was a point I made yesterday about 18 the landfill. 19 We believe the supplemental permit system similar 20 to that operated by the state of Illinois could effectively 21 allow disposal of most of the waste that would be classified 22 as hazardous under the proposed guidelines of all operated 23 Subtitle D landfills. 24 These companies generating relatively small amounts 25 of hazardous waste should not be burdened with unnecessary ------- 295 paperwork. The exemption should be raised to about 1,000 kilograms a month or more for the less hazardous waste delivered to accepted Subtitle D landfills, or more for the less hazardouso Again, this is to try to get away from the small manufacturer, the medium-sized guy, who is going to have con- siderable problems relating to these regulations. For example, we have about 50 members and of those 50 members, I think we have four people who, as a part of 10 their job, it is environmental, and this specific thing. The 11 rest of these companies don*t have anyone and someone is going 12 to have to try the best they can, in addition to purchasing 13 and you name it, to try to understand these, things and go al 14 with them for actually small amounts of waste that are going 15 to be put to the landfill or try to find someplace to take 16 them. 17 We recognize that you did ask, I guess, for com- 18 ments on your five lists here. Number three, on the condi- 19 tion exemption of different quantities, depending on the de- 20 gree of hazard, we think this is addressing the problem. 21 Number five, lesser administrative requirements and 22 so forth, where you are not requiring the record keeping and 23 so on, with the manifest, that makes sense to us. 24 Number six, phasing the regulatory coverage of 25 small quantities overtime makes sense to us again, because ------- 296 1 one of the things we see as a problem, if we are going to have 2 exactly six months from the time the final regs come out, we 3 are going to have problems in many of our cases trying to 4 make arrangements. 5 If we are going to have to dispose of these things 6 and we've got borderline cases right now, we don't have the 7 faintest idea. For example, one of the questions somebody 8 asked me, in the state of Illinois there are 30 or 40 land- 9 fill sites. How many of those, when we are through, are 10 still going to be able to take the materials we are talking 11 about? As of now we know of only one that's still open in 12 Illinois for hazardous. The others are still there, but I 13 guess they would be the Class C, or the type of landfill we 14 have. Of course, we are not anxious to have other people 15 from Chicago coming down to ours either. 16 But that is going to be a problem,. Where are we 17 going to take this thing? Without our experts, we are going 18 to be bringing up the tail on this thing and trying to live 19 by the regulations,, 20 So, we are saying that if you could consider a time 21 delay on some of this stuff and not making it effective as 22 quickly; time your implementations whenever the regulations 23 come out, that could be helpful to some of the medium and 24 small companies. We just aren't going to be able to gear up 25 in time. ------- 297 1 We are going to hava a severe impact with some of 2 the things, again talking about the 100 kilogram limits on 3 the medium and small„ 4 For example, even with the things that are not 5 going to fall away, even if you helped us with the reclassi- 6 fication of the exemptions, we are not going to generate 7 enough to have a hauler who is going to be interested at all V 8 in hauling this thing to California or wherever. It's going 9 to be a problemc 10 The last time we had a meeting of our people that 11 would be affected by this, we were coming up with something 12 like 12 or 15 barrels between all of them, that they thought 13 might fall into a hazardous category, outside of the paint 14 sludges, this sort of thing. 15 That's not a lot and we are going to have difficulty 16 trying to get this thing together, as to where we are going 17 to put this and how we are going to get it there. 18 So, if these lower limits can be raised somewhat, 19 I think it's going to help a lot of our people. And, as a 20 matter of fact, this is a side aspect, some of these things 21 are scaring our people0 We are a municipally owned and opera- 22 ted landfill, so they have the public right there and they 23 are very concerned with some of these. 24 One of the other things I wanted to mention was that 25 in my understanding from yesterday, if you have a company, if ------- 298 1 they exceed the 100 kilograms in all phases, under it, that 2 it could be one kind, five different kinds, but if it all 3 turns out to be 100 kilograms together, we feel that maybe 4 that would be helpful if you did not do it that way. 5 We are still talking about a small amount for that 6 company to dispose of. We are saying instead of, maybe, mak- 7 ing paperwork, the reason for not covering it, maybe economics 8 the reason for not covering it, it's just not economical to 9 try to handle these small amounts0 10 Again, I do think we would realize, of course, that 11 when you get into the very toxic types of things, you are 12 going to have to cut that off. But some of the less areas, 13 we are not going to have that problem,, 14 That, I believe, would take care of our comments. 15 We are worried about the economic impact and how we are going 16 to handle some of these things that are going to happen be- 17 cause of regulations, because of where we're at, and the size 18 of our companies. I don't like to see the guys sending it 19 home with a guy in a pickup truck to dump in his gully, I 20 know that's what's happening with some of the small companies 21 all over the country,, They are not going to bother .with;it. 22 They don't want it, they will ignore it and we shouldn't be 23 doing that. 24 Storage, of course, is going to be a problem, too, 25 if we have complete regulations that are going to be very is ------- 299 tough to meet. On the storage, why, that again is going to be expense. We're worried of the Catch 22rs. This is going to cost you$20,000, this one will cost you $30,000 and there is no in between when they don't have either one0 MR. TRASK: As we indicated in the preamble to 3002, we do not have a great deal of data in this area of the so- called small generatorso You indicated you had talked with your generators in your city and had gotten from them some indication of 10 quantities that they generate? 11 MRo SMELCER: Yes, when we got away from the paint 12 sludge thing that we talked about yesterday, which is a volume 13 problem, then we got into the other things that they are pretM 14 ty sure fall into that, such as pre-treatment sludge. That's 15 another box we got into. We built the treatment plant. The 16 people built a new plant and they pre-treated their stuff. 17 Now they've got the sludge to worry about and we 18 are pretty sure this is not going to fall outo These things, 19 these barrels of stuff, they are not a lot, but they are about 20 12 or 15 a month, between all of them, 21 MR. TRASK: Is it possible to relate these quanti- 22 ties of waste to the approximate size of the business, in 23 terms of sales or number of employees or something on that 24 order? Would you say the quality of the data you have would 25 be that good? MR0 SMELCER: I would think of the range, because ------- 300 the one I'm talking about with the—whose real problem is the pre-treatinent sludge that's left, nickel and so on, they could dump it down the sewer. They would have to pay for it, but they could dump it down the sewer, which is one of the options we are really going to be left with and we really don't think that's where it should go. That's a fairly large company and that's really their only problem, this pre-treatment sludge. They really don't even have the painting problem. 10 But, yet, wetve got another small guy, just as an example, who has galvanized chicken feeder type equipment 12 and he isn't generating that much, but I could see some of 13 our companies where they might have some pretty toxic stuff that we wouldntt want in our landfill, to put it bluntly, 15 from the public side» 16 So, I don't think we could relate it to that very 17 successfully,, 18 MR0 TRASK: I think we might want to contact you 19 later and see what sort of data you do have, because we are 20 desperately in need of data which describes this whole area 21 of so-called small generators0 22 Another indication, you said the small quantities 23 you had would not present any kind of a problem. Do you have 24 any information on what kind of co-disposal ratio, that is 25 the amount of waste, who has this waste, would present a prob- ------- 301 1 lera? 2 MR. SMELCER: No, I don't know what we are talkinj about in that area. Again, we've been fighting with the state of Illinois to get into the landfill right now with some of our things that have been backlogged, but we had three different methods of handling it, putting it all into one trench, or scattering it. We finally ended up, they take so many barrels a day and they put one here and they put one there and they are 10 away from each other and they are buriedo It's not that 11 amount that they can*t successfully just handle it on a daily 12 basis by separating it away. 13 But the figures you are asking for, no, I really don't. I forget, we did have a comment here on how much 15 solid waste we do have going in and we did have an error,, 16 We've got—let's see0 I'm looking for my comment here on it, 17 the numbers of how much we generate. 18 We've got 200,000 gallons per year of industrial 19 sludgeso That's wrong0 My secretary put the wrong number 20 down. It's closer to 150,000 or 100,000, But the other, 21 200,000 cubic yards, is from our landfill people, 22 MR. TRASK: Sc you have about 150,000 gallons of 23 industrial— 24 MR. SMELCER: That's our paint sludges, the whole 25 works, anything that's not solid like a rock, I guess you ------- 302 might say. M?v0 LEHMAN: Mr. Smelcer, in your remarks you men- 's tioned that you liked or you suggested Option Wo0 3, where you would take into account the degree of hazard, in effect, in the exemption. You are saying we should raise the exem- 6 ption level to 1,000 kilograms or more, to paraphrase your 7 remarks, for less hazardous waste. 8 Would you care to comment, knowing the kinds of waste that are generated in your Association, as to what 10 types of waste would be less hazardous and which types of 11 waste would be more hazardous? You mentioned there were some 12 you felt might not be appropriate for a municipal landfill,, 13 MR. SMELCER: We were basically talking again of 14 our paint sludges for a lot of our smaller companies and they 15 are stuck with this right now. It*s a big problem for us, 16 because, like I say, the backs of every plant are filled with 17 barrels,because they canft get it out. 18 Aftr a year, it starts to get to be a problem. That 19 is basically what we are talking about. Itrs some of these 20 things o 21 We do realize the color has got something to do with 22 it and some people might to have to make some changes if they 23 are going to avoid that problem,, I don't know the color dif- ferences, but I know some of them cause a lot more problems 25 than others. But, that's basically what we're talking about„ ------- 303 I 1 Some of the other wastes are—most of the other 2 wastes we have are not going to be that hazardous and if thew ^ 3 are, they will be taken care of. 4 For example, when we first started our discussions, 5 cutting oils and solvents and so on used in the machine in- 6 dustry, we've got a problem. Well, when we got to talking 7 about it, we don't have a problem,, It's just a matter of 8 them wanting to send it down here to St. Louis and getting 9 it recycled or not. We don't think that's an excuse, as 10 long as there is a place to go with it. That's a different 11 story0 12 We still have some things like, and I don't under- 13 stand what their problem is, but they claim it's still therejfl 14 metal shavings and oil type of things. They say they can't 15 separate it out enough that we could get it into the landfill. 16 We've got some problems that way. 17 We're really after, in our case, our economic hard- 18 ships are going to come from those marginal areas that you've 19 been hearing about the last two days. There is where the real 20 cost factor is going to come in. 21 We know because of where we're at, we are going to 22 have trouble with the very hazardous type things that will 23 get generated from some plants, but a lot of these are going 24 to come from labs. It's just not going to be that amount 25 and a lot of these people already have made arrangements or ------- 304 1 are sending it away now, because they don't want to put it in 2 our landfill, even if they could. They never did before and 3 they aren't going to now. 4 But we see a lot of this coming from the various 5 labs, from feed companies and this sort of thing, where we 6 would have some mining or milling operations you might call 7 it, minerals9 that sort. 8 MR8 TRASK: You mentioned about phasing of the 9 regulationso I think in the options we listed, we are con- 10 sidering, our thoughts on phasing were that we would start 11 with the largest generators and take those. 12 I think the example we used was something like 10, 13 000 tons a .month that would come into the system first and 14 then over a period of a few years, we would gradually work 15 down to some level if, indeed, that's what we end up with, 16 where everyone would be in after a few years. 17 I sense, though, that you have a different thought 18 in mind about phasing. I would wonder if you could expand on 19 that a little bit? 20 MR. SMELCER: I guess just a plain initial kickin0 21 I like what you are saying to a certain extent. Yes, you 22 want to control the bigger ones before you do the smaller 23 ones, but again, with our landfill problem, it doesn't make 24 any difference. The landfill won't take it» 25 You are affected from January 1 next year, if that's ------- 305 1 when it's going to be, or June or whatever0 In our case, 2 Illinois has given us permits to January 1 of next year and 3 that's it. We don't know what's going to happen beyond that. 4 We think it is going to take time to put this in 5 place. It's not going to be something you can just rush out 6 and do. We are going to, obviously, make plans ahead of time, 7 but for example, in trying to talk someone into hauling, most 8 of the haulers that are doing our work right now, we do have 9 some bulk disposal of things that are, again, very marginal0 10 We understand this guy doesn't know whether he's 11 going to put up with this or not. He may decide he doesn't 12 want that branch of hauling and go out of that business, be- 13 cause of the paperwork and everything involved in it0 In 14 fact, we just got our regulations from Illinois and it's 15 about that thick, three inches, in the mai!0 So, when he 16 sees that, he probably will go out of business. 17 So, we don't know. We can see some real expensive 18 things here where companies are going to have to make their 19 arrangements themselves for very small amounts, for once very 20 89 days, making a trip someplace„ 21 Maybe we can do something through the Association 22 or something,, That's going to be the only out we can see in 23 these kinds of arrangements. But we're afraid some of these 24 companies are going to have to spend a lot of money in spec- 25 ialized things that have nothing to do with generator productT1 ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 306 As one said when we had this problem with this sewer thing, "We are in the business of making machinery, we are not in the business of setting up our own treatment plant. We canrt make any money off of that." It's only when you are producing a product that you can make any money0 We are con- cerned that we get so many of these other side things involved, especially the mediums and the small, there is nothing left. MR. TRASK: Do you have some specific thoughts on the timing of the phasing? Should we be looking at months, years? Did you have any figures in that area? MR* SMELCER: No, you understand I am a mouthpiece for our engineers in the companies. No specific time period was mentioned, but this was one of the things that they did talk abouto Frankly, because of these hearings, we are going to go back and write another statement to submit to you, based on what we*ve heard here and I think probably a lot of people will do that9 where we will, maybe, make some sugges- tions on implementation. But I think the crash type of, "It's now in effect", number one, hurts and number two, it means you are not going to get compliance, because most people are going to say, "I can"t, so sue me0" They are not going to do it. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you, Mr» Smelcer, We will recess for about 15 minutes and reconvene ------- 307 1 about 10:55. 2 (At this time a short recess was taken0) 3 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: On the record. 4 I've been asked to point out that smoking is over 5 hers on your right and the left is a non-smoking section, so 6 if anybody is in the wrong place, you might want to move» 7 The next person who has asked to speak this morning 8 is Russell Smith from Salsbury Laboratories, Charles City, 9 Iowa. 10 MR. SMITH: Thank you. My name is Russell Smith 11 and I am representing Salsbury Laboratories of Charles City, 12 Iowa. 13 STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SMITH 14 MR. SMITH: Salsbury is a manufacturer of animal 15 health products. The production includes facilities for 16 biologies, pharmaceutics and organic chemical synthesis. 17 I have a few comments on what might appear as minor 18 areas in the Act, but I think will come out to be problem 19 areas if they are not changed. 20 Section 3002, 250.20 states that every generator 21 must comply with Subparts D and E of the regulations if the 22 waste remains on site for 90 days or longer0 23 i object to the 90-day limit0 For over one year 24 now, our company has been disposing of all of its industrial 25 solid waste at an off-site hazardous waste disposal facility. ------- 308 This is being done under contract with the waste acceptance firm. A manifest system is being used and the following steps that we have found to be necessary to carry cut before shipment of this waste to the disposal site0 All of our wastes are segregated at the source, so we have many different solid wastes we are not-/ disposing of at off-site facilities. The first step is to sample and 8 characterize each solid wastestream. 9 This is necessary to provide the proper information 10 to the waste acceptance firm, which has responsibility of ll proper disposal and, also, to determine the proper D.O.T, 12 shipping classificationso 13 The second step is then filling out a contact form, 14 supplying all the above information, plus any necessary hand- 15 ling precautions, auxiliary information, to the waste accept- 16 ance finn0 17 The waste acceptance firm then evaluates this re- 18 quest for disposal0 This, sometimes, necessitates sending 19 them a sample so they can carry out some of their own testing 20 and analyses to proper evaluate if they can safely dispose 21 of this material. 22 They then have to advise their capability for safe 23 disposal, including disposal site selection, and contract 24 terms. 25 We have found this procedure, many times, to take ------- 309 1 uiore than 90 days and this will be especially true if one 2 samples and tries to test his waste to show it is not hazard^ 3 OUSc 4 The point I'm making is not necessarily applied to 5 waste where this is already being done or to repeat waste 6 shipments, but more to the new waste one encounters when he 7 er.teres into the system and changes production, et cetera. 8 One of the reasons I think EPA chose the 90-day 9 limit is to help insure the integrity of the container that 10 the waste is put in, during shipment. I feel that judgment 11 can be left to the generator and I'm sure the generator would 12 use tha proper storage techniques and precautions., 13 I would like to close my comments this morning by 14 recommending that 180 days be considered as the time limit !5 instead of 90. I feel the 90 days will place many generators 16 into the classification of treatment storage and disposal 17 facilities and require them to carry out the burdensome re- 18 quirements of Subparts D and E0 '19 My next comment relates to Section 3002, 250.29, 20 which pertains to the less than IOC kilo exemption and it 21 also pertains to Section 3004, 250.44, which pertains to the 22 disposal of empty containers which previously contained a 23 hazardous waste0 24 In the discussion of the exemptions for waste of 25 quantities less than 100 kilos, the regulations point out tha? ------- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 310 and this is read primarily from the regulations; "The prin- cipal element of this issue is how to balance the need to protect human health and environment from the adverse impact of potential mismanagement of small quantities of hazardous waste with the need to hold down the administrative burden of management of these wastes, under RCRA, within reasonable and practical limits." It also says although there is wide agreement that the regulatory burdens are appropriate and necessary for the management of large quantities of hazardous waste, there is considerable debate whether they are necessary for the management of small quantities, particular if other means can be used to assure these small quantities are adequately treated,disposed and otherwise handled., I agree with EPA's concept that small quantities of hazardous waste can be disposed of in sanitary landfills that meet the 4004 requirements and that they will not pose any long terra environmental hazards or problems. However, I feel that this concept should not be impartially applied to just generators of less than 100 kilos a month, but that it should also be applied to generators of larger quantities0 Now, I am not arguing with the 100 kilos versus the 1,000 or whatever it should be. I would like to clarify this point. I am not recommending that generators of greater than ------- 311 1 100 kilos be allowed to dispose of 100 kilos per month in 2 any sanitary landfill. In our case, we generate several 3 per day. I'm not saying that of that several tons we should 4 save costs by disposing of 100 kilos in a sanitary landfill. 5 An example I would like to use and this applies 6 particularly to our operation and I'm sure to many others, 7 is that we receive many raw materials in sealed drums, paper 8 bags and fibre drums. These are large fibre drums, 38 to 40 9 gallon drumso 10 After we empty these containers, we especially re- 11 use the fibre drums to store, handle and process materials 12 that we are manufacturing. 13 The waste now, or the proposed waste, the regula- 14 tions, will require that all of these containers be incinera- 15 ted or disposed of in a landfill which meeets the requirement !6 250o45, which is a hazardous landfill. 17 The approach we are now using for our fibre drums 18 and paper bags is that they are thoroughly emptied and rinsed 19 before disposal in a sanitary landfill. The amount of con- 20 taminahts left in these fibre drums and paper bags would 21 amount to ounces per day0 22 in other words, over a month's time, this would be 23 considerably less than the 100 kilo exemption allowed to 24 others. 25 However, if we have to haul these drums to a ------- 312 ous landfill, and at this time that would have to be, perhaps, 700 or 800 miles away, this would mean that on a daily basis we would have to take 30 or 40 large, bulky fibre drums and ship them halfway across the country to hazardous landfills. We don't feel this is creating any hazardous con- dition and we feel there is some flexibility for evaluating the disposal of empty containers should be allowed. This certainly could be controlled at the state level on a case by case basis, through an enforceable agreement or contract 10 with the authority having jurisdiction over the sanitary land- n fill. 12 So I don*t think that concept of a small quantity 13 of hazardous waste not being harmful in a sanitary landfill 14 should only apply to small generators. 15 The point I demonstrate here, if it was considered, 16 I think it could adequately be determined that what we are 17 doing is not a hazard,, But, once the regs are out,we are 18 going to spend, perhaps,$200 a day disposing of these fibre 19 drums at a hazardous landfill. 20 I don't like the concept of shipping empty contain- 21 ers halfway across the country. It's not energy efficient 22 or necessary,, 23 So, I think--! realize a small limit has to be set 24 and I don't sympathize with EPA in determining whether that is 25 100 kilos or 1,0000 I think it's pointed out by the speakers ------- 313 that it would be better if it could be evaluated on a case by case basis, but I also understand that's difficult for EPA to carry through on. But, allow some flexibility, especially on empty containers for all generators. I don't have a copy of my comments, but I will pro= vide them shortly after the hearing„ CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Would you answer questions from the panel? 10 MR. SMITH: Yes. 11 MR. LINDSEY: You objected to the 90-day limit for 12 storage before sending off-siteo You suggested you think it 13 should be something like 180 days. 14 I guess I should point out first that there is no 15 reason why you can't store it for more than 90 days. It's 16 just you would need a permit and apparently it's that, that 17 is your objection, the fact you would need a permit? 18 MR. SMITH: Right, and I think you alluded earlier 19 that would not be that much of a problem, but as I read all 20 the requirements under Subparts D and E, all the emergency 21 precautions,the dike containment capabilities, I don't think 22 it's just a simple matter of saying, "I'm going to store this 23 material0 Give me a permit." 24 MR. LINDSEY: No, it's not that easy, that's for 25 sure. ------- 314 1 MR. SMITH: I think EPA's position has tried to 2 lower the burdensome paperwork, et cetera, and this is just 3 an add to. 4 MR. LINDSEY: It's partially the paperwork thing. 5 The other reason is because of our belief that the storage 6 of drums and other containers for 90 days, even in an un- 7 controlled manner, that is without all the RCRA controls and 8 paperwork, does not create a problem. 9 But beyond that point in time, or some point in 10 time similar to that, it could be arguable what that could be 11 We get or may get deterioration of drums and so forth if it*s 12 not controlled,, 13 I should also point out that the regulation still 14 applies as far as the technical regulations, they still apply 15 even for less than 90 days. Standards must be met in any 16 event. It's just the control factors, the oversight, if you 17 will, by EPA. 18 Let me follow through with that a little more if I 19 can. You thought this was going to be very stringent, these 20 storage--as I say, we developed them because we felt they 21 were necessary. 22 Do you disagree or do you feel the storage standards 23 which we have are too stringent? I'm not talking about your 24 operation in general, but for storage of hazardous wastes 25 overall? ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 315 MR. SMITH: I question them. I think most manufac- turing people have experience with handling hazardous mater- ials or what have you. They store them and contain them in a proper manner. We receive many different kinds of acids, solvents. We store these things for months adequately. But once it becomes a spent solvent or spent acid, I am required to fol- low all the RCRA requirements. I think you've gone a little bit too far there. I realize one should not be able to store the wastes on this property indefinitely, because then you have a waste disposal site. MR. LINDSEY: That's one problem, yes. MR. SMITH: But I don't think going from 90 days to 180 is really going to change your control that much. The way you send the sample out to have it tested for whether it's got priority pollutants in it, all testing required, it can take two months to get this information back. MR. LINDSEY: Another question, you also suggested we incorporate more flexibility for the disposal of hazardous containers which contain—which now become a waste to be dis- posed of and contained the hazardous material. I guess—what specifically would you have us do in that area? Would you have us exempt these containers or what? MR. SMITH: Some way I feel.If a container contains ------- 316 1 a hazardous liquid that can be simply rinsed out with water, 2 I see no need for this container to be shipped to a hazardous 3 waste disposal site. A fibre drum that may have a little 4 bit of chemical dust, in our case, on ity- 5 MR. LINDSEY: We do have this provision in here that 6 it may be tripled rinsed in accordance with these regulations, 7 it could be disposed of in a Subtitle B facility. That would 8 also apply, I think, to fibre containers. 9 I don't know, but I think many of the fibre con- 10 tainers are asbestos lined, for example, and could be triple 11 rinsed. 12 MR. SMITH: I'm concerned, of course, in our case, 13 more with the fibre drums. I know you have that in the regu- 14 lations for the steel drums. 15 MR. LINDSEY: Drums, a lot of them are plastic 16 lined and could, presumably, be rinsed out without totally 17 dissolving,, 18 MR. SMITH: That's true. Is that allowable under 19 the regulations? 20 MR. LINDSEY: Yes, it talks about drums. It does 21 not say whether they are metal, plastic or fibre or what, 22 providing you can triple rinse them without causing them to 23 dissolve away into nothing, you know, a pulpo 24 MR. TRASK: To continue on with that, there's noth- 25 ing wrong with rinsing a bag if you can do it. ------- 1 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 317 MR. SMITH: That might be difficult. MR. TRASK: No, there are some plastic-lined bags that are— MR. SMITH: Let me ask you about paper bagsc We do receive material in 50 and 100-pound paper bags. We shake them out and they contain chemicals, some of them, which could be interpreted as being hazardous„ If we dispose of 50 bags a day, there may be a couple of ounces of material in there0 Is it necessary to send this to a hazardous land- fill? MR. TRASK: One of the things we are considering is how to change that definition of triple rinsing, so it would apply to the paper bag. We would be interested in your suggestions as to what methods could be used to be sure they were non-hazardous when the bags, when they were finished? MR. SMITH: I think to some extent you have to rely on the local authority to have an agreement with the generator whereby he will receive such and such discarded materials, including paper bags or fibre drums and that they shall be rinsed and cleaned out» That's practical and let him have spot checks. He has the authority to enter on a contract like that. MR. TRASK: You would suggest we use, if the local municipal waste landfill would accept it, then it would not be* ------- 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 318 hazardous ? MR0 SMITH: To some degree, yes. MR. TRASK: It might put us in a Catch 22 position. MR. SMITH: Very true, right. MR. TRASK: One question, following up a little on this co-disposal thing that you mentioned in your statement that you thought it would be alright to use, to put larger quantities than 100 kilos in a municipal waste landfill. MR. SMITH: I did not say that. MR. TRASK: Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you0 Could you clarify what you meant then by— MR. SMITH: I think I was pointing out at this time generators that generate less than 100 kilos can dispose of up to that amount in a sanitary landfill and as I think the speaker from Missouri pointed out earlier, some of these can be pretty hazardous materials. I was asking for some relief to large generators for disposal of paper bags, that type of material, that may contain very small amounts of material and by the time it's mixed with the large bulk of waste in a sanitary landfill, would not pose a hazard. I think you pointed out that concept in the regula- tions. MR. TRASK: Do you have any thoughts under what sort of ratios that we could tolerate in landfills of these-- ------- I 319 of what degree of hazard, perhaps, related to the quantity that could go into a municipal waste landfill? MR. SMITH: I don't. I think you mentioned 40 to 1 in the regulations. I would be happy with that. MR. TRASK: We are concerned about what the impact of what that ratio would do to a landfill. In other words, it's still going to be a proper containment facility. That's where we are seeking data in that area. So, if you have any, we would be interested in receiving it. 10 MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, I do not. 11 MR. TRASK: One further question on containers. 12 You mentioned in your statement that you felt the containers 13 questions could be left up to the generator, the manufacture^^ 14 because they had experience in that area. 15 Do you have some data on how long certain kinds of 16 wastes can be stored in containers without danger of deterio- 17 ration of the container? 18 MR. SMITH: We have some from experience. 19 MR. TRASK: Do you? 20 MR. SMITH: What I am saying is that we have stored 21 waste in metal drums that have failed. These are not liquid 22 wastes, they are sludges. But this does not create any en- 23 vironmental catastrophe or hazard, which you normally see as 24 a leakage of some sort in the drum. You redrum it in a sal- 25 vage drum or completely remove it and drum it in a different ------- 320 1 one. So, there are times when you are going to get fooled, 2 but these are wastes that have been around six months to a 3 year or so. 4 I think there are ways for the generator to properly 5 package his materials and, of course, D.O.T. provides some 6 regulations on that. 7 MR. TRASK: Any of those data you have that you 8 could share with us, we would appreciate it if you would put 9 it in your statement, in your comment later. 10 MR. SMITH: Fine. It would be very hard to relate 11 it to other people's waste, but I will consider it and see 12 what I can do. 13 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Smith, you mentioned that you 14 have done a lot of testing on your wastes and that's interest- 15 ing. The interesting thing I would like to know is, do you— 16 have you tried using the procedures we recommended in here 17 or that we talk about in here with regard to identifying what 18 is hazardous and so forth? 19 Have you used those procedures and any comments 20 you might have on that would be useful to us. 21 MR. SMITH: As you can appreciate, we are probably 22 a little gunshy by now. Therefore, we have not done a lot of 23 testing then to show that a waste is not hazardous. Most of 24 our testing has been done to provide the waste acceptance 25 firm the proper information he needs to properly dispose of ------- 321 1 the waste, heavy metal content, ammonia, nitrogen, BoO. D, 2 whatever variables are conditions he might want to look at. 3 MR. LINDSEY: Do you have any idea what your costs 4 run for testing for that purpose, on a per ton basis or, 5 additionally and the second part, do you expect the testing 6 requirements that are in these set of regulations now would 7 increase that cost? 8 MR. SMITH: I don't think I can answer that ques- 9 tion, because for our situation the testing requirements", have 10 not been that large a portion of the cost. 11 However, I am sure it would be significant if one !2 was to try to determine if his waste was not hazardous. The 13 approach we've used is to play it safe and say it is hazard- 14 ous and, therefore, it must go to a hazardous landfill. 15 I'm not saying that now that we have a concrete 16 set of conditions to test by that we will probably go back 17 and evaluate some of the wastes, which I am sure are probably 18 not hazardous. 19 MR0 LINDSEY: I was going to say, the only time in 20 which one would be, would want a test to prove that it's not 21 would be if they were on the list, on the list of wastes. 22 In the other case, I guess you would have to test 23 it to determine whether it was, also, if you didn't know or 24 didn't have good information. 25 If you have any thoughts on that before the ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 322 closes, we received comments in the New York areas that the testing imposed by these regulations is quite high and we are seeking information on that. If you have any thoughts on that or estimates on that, we would appreciate having them. MR. SMITH: My concern is not so much, I think, that the first four set of requirements call for that type of test- ing, but the last two, I am sure will be expensive. MR. LINDSEY: By the last two, you mean tests that would be required to delist? MR. SMITH: Right, if you wanted to test whether a waste was toxiogenic or not, I think the costs of that will run you roughly $1,000 per sample. In some cases you may have to sample several times to really prove that waste is not hazardous. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you, Mr. Smith. The next person listed is Mirko Popovich from the Human Rights Survival group. MR. POPOVICH: Thank you. I am Mirko Popovich from the nearby Benld, Illinois and participate in the activities of the Human Rights Survival Group. STATEMENT OF MIRKO POPOVICH MR. POPOVICH: This is addressed to the Public Participation Officer, WH-562 and concerns proposed hazardous waste regulations, Sections 3001, 3002, 3004 and also 3003. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 323 An Illinois Pollution Control Board release, R76- 10, states on Page 13 as follows. Where spills require immediate removal, the U.S. E.P.A. has proposed regulations pursuant to Section 3003 of RCRA that the requirements for generators transportation and disposal, treatment or storage be suspended for more flexible standards which focus parti- cularly on neutralizing and removing the waste generated by the spill with a minimum amount of delay. That is taken from EXH No. 26 and that's the end of the quote. Waivers, promulgations and reference to some inter- agency communication is mentioned in the continuing descrip- tion to add to the generalities, "That will be suspended for more flexible standards." ( The D.O.T. and EoP.A. could not resolve the spill- age problem in Wilsonville and apparently ambiguity is still in fashion. The language of effective results is not pre- ced edi by the specifics with clarity concerning immediate responsibility and capability by those enjoined in the parti- cular operational stage of handling. A whole array of imponderables mentioned by parti- cipants in a Waste Management, U.S.E.P.A. Conference in 1977 in Washington, has not been dispersed. A perusal of the proposed rules and regulations in- dicates an intenneshing of old pretenseful procedures pre- viously asserted in many instances, but not followed, as ------- 324 1 Wilsonville and area citizens found to their chagrin. 2 Responsibility for street spillage by waste haulers 3 was indeterminate. It is indeterminate still. The recently 4 proposed rules continue in the previously legalistic folderal 5 manner which permitted the arbitrary dispensation found in 6 bad judgment in Wilsonville's court proceedings. 7 Persistence in avoiding pertinent stipulations for 8 dealing with particular and immediate problems, together 9 with an avoidance of major critical issues, such as site 10 unsuitability, EPA Waste Management collaboration shown by 11 undue arbitrary permit dispensation, a proliferation of 12 questionable products sustained by pre-emptive marketing 13 techniques, bypass of individual and community sovereignty, 14 and trade.secret protection for products discovered in dele- 15 terious operations such as Wilsonville dumping, give a 16 clarifying focus to bureaucratic demagoguery0 17 EPA regulations and procedures indicate an aloof- 18 ness to constitutional cognizance of individual and community 19 sovereignty. 20 Responsibility for industrial waste disposal is 21 lifted from the producers, implying an advantageous societal 22 value for their existence over other productive units of 23 society, including taxpaying citizens. 24 The deaths and health debilitations in the P.A.B. 25 experience are not conciliated by generator's claims to sur- ------- 325 veillance capability. Priceless human life cannot be equated or balanced with marketplace demagoguery. Advertising has grown on like a cancer. Rawls, R-a-w-1-s, states, "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason, justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the 1° larger suras of advantages enjoyed by many." 11 Our corrective efforts are directed to prevention. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Would you be will ing to answer questions from the panel? 15 MR. POPOVICH: I would try, yes. 16 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. 17 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Popovich, I gather from the in- 18 itial part of your comments that you are unhappy with some 19 of the spillage requirements. 20 i would like to point out that the variances which 21 are allowed in the spill requirements are due primarily to 22 a perceived need on our part that with certain circumstances 23 we will have emergency situations and that it may be necessary 24 to dispense with, on a temporary basis anyway,the paperwork 25 requirements in order to allow us to deal with a real or at ------- 326 1 least a perceived emergency in the case of a truck spill or 2 it may be emissions that create problems. 3 That, really, is the thrust of those variances, if 4 you want to call them that. In that regard, if you feel we 5 have gone overboard in that area, do you have any suggestions 6 on how we could handle legitimate emergencies without creat- 7 ing, without having to hold things up for paperwork and so 8 forth and yet— 9 MR. POPOVICH: I don't feel based on the experiences 10 particularly from our standpoint, which are a little closer 11 and harder felt in the Wilsonville situation, but also from 12 other related incidents, as we come to read about them in the 13 newspaper, that there has been established a real system or 14 way of dealing with a particular problem or problems in the 15 specific stage of handling with the clarification concerning 16 the people's capability who handles it and whose particular 17 responsibility it is in the particular incident. 18 We have made repeated phone calls to the D.O.T. and 19 I think you are familiar and it's no secret that the D.O.T. 20 and the EPA have not, at least previously up to several 21 months ago, come to an understanding about whose responsibility 22 it is. 23 Wilsonville was left with the necessity of simply 24 cleaning up the mess that someone else lefto 25 MR. TKASK: In this area of responsibility of ------- 327 transporters, I think that's what you mentioned earlier, we thought we had covered the bases pretty well there, that the transporter can accept only properly manifested waste that he has a responsibility to deliver all of that waste to the designated, permitted facility. If he stores that waste somewhere en route, he can do that only at a permitted facility. We don't know what we left outo I guess if you have some ideas, we might look at 10 them. 11 MR. POPOVICH: I feel these points you are pointing 12 to are aberrations and in the transport of materials there 13 are occurrences which vary from the ordinary routine, but we 14 found the surveillance that was pretended to by responsible 15 authority simply was not there. 16 As I indicated, we called various offices, includ- 17 ing Washington, I'm sure, and we found a general tendency on 18 their part to feel it wasn't their problem, but there was no 19 indication on their part about whose particular problem it 20 was. 21 The recent incident here in St. Louis and I don't 22 know whether it was mentioned in previous hearings or meet- 23 ings, but this person who kicked this drum off the highway, 24 according to the newspaper account, tried eventually to get 25 in touch with some people, including Washington, and they ------- 328 1 seemed to slough it off in one manner or another, comments 2 varied. Finally, the only thing he could do was to get in 3 touch with some local area and it might have been other than 4 St. Louis, but in Missouri, concerning civil preparedness. 5 We find there is such a gap between the language 6 that you sort of play with concerning how to deal with these 7 problems and the—and between actually what has transpired. 8 This, we feel, encourages us to look in the direc- 9 tion of prevention and this is our role, concerning any acti- 10 vity on the part of public committed officials, to try to li rectify this tremendous problem that has been developing. 12 I think you are aware, even as we are, from people 13 who deal directly with these problems. For instance, gas 14 leakage and so forth, that even with that surveillance, it 15 cannot prevent some very serious happenings. 16 The problem arises in many instances from the fact 17 they are dealing with material for which they cannot say, 18 "We can adequately provide a comfortable surveillance." 19 We feel there has to be a re-look, a very serious 20 re-look and a readjustment in our priorities and a general 21 tendency of what you are dealing with here, in detail as you 22 have gone into, as it seems you have, that we feel there are 23 priorities that should be placed on some of the other areas 24 that I mentioned. 25 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I think if I could characterize ------- 329 1 your statement, essentially you are saying the regulations 2 might be all right, but the .enforcement of the regulations 3 is the big problem from your point of view. 4 MR. POPOVICH: I think if my statement I tried to 5 point out, hopefully, that a perusal of the proposed rules 6 and regulations indicates an intermeshing of old pretenseful 7 procedures, previously asserted in many instances, but not 8 followed as Wilsonville and area citizens found to their 9 chagrin. 10 I rather enjoy, and I don't know whether enjoy is 11 a proper word, but I've heard over and over and I'm sure you 12 people have, this problem of defining hazardous. I think 13 that's part of the problem, that you are continually playing 14 with words and of course words are what we have to deal with, 15 but you are continually playing with words that different 16 people have a different attitude toward, a different under- 17 standing of and, therefore, we really, through the system and 18 procedure which you have outlined, cannot come through with a 19 proper regulation and proper communication in which everybody 20 understands what everybody else is doing or are supposed to 21 do0 22 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I have one more question. I 23 think I understood you to say that we were, that the respon- 24 sibility for disposal is being lifted from the producers. I 25 think that was part of your statement. ------- February 15, 1979 ^ ' ' ./.••- 'Public Participation Officer WH-562 Concerning Proposed Hazardous Office of Solid Waste v Waste Regulations U.S.3.P.A. • . • Section 3001 Washington, D. C. 20460 Section 3002 "i Section 30 '••'..•• "! Also 3003 'V? An Illinois Pollution Control Board release, R76-10, states on page 13 as follows: where spills require immediate removal, the U.S'. E.P.A. has proposed regulations pursuant to Section 3003 of RCRA that the requirements for generators, transportation and disposal, treatment • or storage ce suspended for more flexible standards which focus particularly on neutralizing and removing the waste generated by the spill with a minimum amount of delay'- (taken from.EXH # 26). IjEnd of Quote) Waivers, promulgations and. reference to some interagency : communication is mentioned in the continuing description to add to -the generalities "that will be suspended for more flexible standards," The DOT'and E.P.A. could not resolve the spillage problem in Wilsonville and apparently ambiguity is still in fashion. The language of "" effective results is not preceded by the specifics with clarity concerning immediate responsibility and capability by those enjoined in the particular operational stage of handling. A whole array of imponderables mentioned by ..articicants in a Waste Mgt.-U.S.S.P.-i. Conference in 1977 in Washington has not been dispersed. A perusal of the proposed rules and regulations indicates an intermeshing of old pretenseful procedures, vreviously asserted in many instances, but not followed, as" '.vilsor-vllle and area citizens found to their chagrin. Responsibility for street spillage by waste haulers was indeterminate. It is indeterminate still. The recently proposed rules continue ir; the previously legalistic folderal manner which permitted the arbitrary dispensation found in bad judgment in "vilscnville 's court proceedings. Persistence in avoiding pertinent stipulations for dealing with particular and immediate problems together with an avoidance of major ------- critical issues such as site unsuitability, E.P.A.-Waste Management * i . collaboration shown by undue arbitrary permit dispensation, a prolifer- "»• ation of questionable products sustained by pre-emptive marketing i techniques, by-pass iOf individual and community sovereignty, and trade secret protection for products discovered in deleterious operations such as the Wilsonville dumping give a clarifying focus to bureaucratic demagoguery. SPA regulations and procedures indicate an aloofness to constitution- al cognizance of individual and community sovereignty. Responsibility for industrial waste disposal is lifted from the producers implying an advantageous societal value for their ezlster.ce over other productive units of society including taxpaying citizens. ' The deaths and health debilitations in the PA3 experience are not conciliated by generator's claims to surveillance capability. Priceless human life cannot be equated or balanced with marketplace demagoguery, Advertising has grown like a cancer. j Rawls states "each person possesses an inviolability founded on Justice that even the welfare of society as a whole-cannot override. For this reason justice denies tkr-t the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that I the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of • advantages enjoyed by many." Our corrective efforts are directed to prevention. Mirko Popovich Benld, Illinois 62009 ------- 330 1 MR. POPOVICH: Yes, it is. 2 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: If it was, would you try to 3 clarify what you meant by that? 4 MR. POPOVICH: We feel the EPA has, amongst others, 5 has mentioned some guidelines for producers to follow concern- 6 ing how to minimize the waste problem. 7 There are, I think you probably know it better than I, alternatives, there are reprocessing. Monsanto 9 should have been burning their P.C.B.s. We feel many of 10 these products have been substituted by pre-empted marking 11 techniques for other ways and means, for products that were 12 probably just as good, except theydidn't have the kind of 13 marketing expertise that some of the conglomerates have been 14 able to put together. 15 We feel that certainly some focus and a little more 16 than a little bit, should be placed on this area. 17 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you, 18 (The document referred to follows:) 19 HEARING INSERT 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 331 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I have one more person who has asked to speak this morning, I'll call her and if there is anyone else who wants to speak on Section 3002, if they would get in touch with the registration desk and have their names brought up to me, I will call you later this morning. The next person is Gwen Mollenar, also from the Human Rights Survival Group. ------- 1-9 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 332 STATEMENT OF GWEN MOLINAIR MS0 MOLINAIR: My name is Gwen Molinair and I am representing the village of Wilsonville through an organi- zation that was formed which is namely the Human Rights Survival Group and I would like to say first that I don't represent anyone but people and to us people come first. This should be on the top of the list in promulgating rules and regulations for dealing with hazardous waste. What has happened to the environment resulting from chemical waste, whether they were disposed of properly or improperly is un- excusable0 Our experiences over the past two years has opened the eyes of many, opened the doors to many unan- swered questions, and separated the smokescreen that has covered the dangers behind chemical waste dumps0 Towns like Wilscnville and Sheffield, Illinois, should not be forced by the Federal and State Environmental Protection Agencies to do the job for which they were in- tended, to prevent another Love Canal, New York to come into beingo Informational meetings should rank high as the first priority,, The siting of waste dumps in a residential area should be restricted, regardless of how small the population. People in a town of seven hundred are just as humaias those in a city of seven or seventy thousand. ------- 2-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 * 333 We suggest that land disposal should be the last recourse in dealing with hazardous waste. It definitely is the cheapest method, and unless forced by strict regulation this will remain the popular method. After many incidents of load spillage and leakage onto the streets of Wilsonville, which^ incidentally, was from defective drums, and reported to the proper agency, no one ever knew where the responsibility lay. The director of the agency, the Illinois State Environmental Protection Agency, thought it might be the Department of Transporta- tion but wasn't sure« Is the twenty-year maintaining and monitoring of a closed site enough? What is time? Time to giant corpora- tions is money; time to us is life. No one knows how long hazardous waste placed into the ground will stay immobile. If industries can pass their potential time bombs out to society, and the responsibility steps there, will the tech- nology for disposing of harmful chemicals change? It is unfair for a small community like Wilson- ville to have to absorb the expense of a year and a half lawsuit to bring to the surface the growing concern for the protection of our land, air and water that is being poi- soned by the dumping of deadly chemicals. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON DAXRAH: Thank you. Would you ------- 3-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 334 questions if there are any? MS* MOLINAIR: If I can. MR. LEHMAN: Ms0 Molinair, one of your comments deals with the twenty-year maintenance and monitoring re- quirement of the current proposed regulations and you are asking, .-"-rhetorically, is that long enough? One thing I think, thatfenot, perhaps, clear enough in those regula- tions is that if a problem is detected within that twenty- year period by monitoring, well, then, that twenty-year period can certainly be extended so it is not a fixed thing where the monitoring would end at that time0 Nonetheless, that aside, you essentially, I be- lieve, feel that twenty years is not long enough, MS0 MOLINAIR: I certainly don't. MR. LEHMAN: Do you have a suggestion as to what might be an appropriate time period? MSe MOLINAIR: I think as long as those chemicals stay in the ground, that is how long the generator should stay responsibleo Just because at the end of twenty years there is no problem, twenty years passed in Love Canal, New York, and there was no problem and as long as there are records that say, I am not going to use any name, but any company that disposed of chemical waste in a landfill, that those records are kept just exactly like your birth certifi- cate and mine, that if it takes fifty years and they have to ------- N! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 335 go back and get them, go get them. MR, LEHMAN: Well, I think it is fair to state that there were no monitoring requirements placed on Love Canale Had there been monitoring requirements perhaps we could have picked up that movement before it reached the homes that were affectede MS0 MOLINAIR: I am sure it is a matter of record to know that the monitoring of Wilsonvillers site isn't monitoring either and no one knows that or wanted to accept that until after a lengthy trial, CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: No more questions, Thank you very much0 Is there anyone else who would like to speak this morning on Section 3002 Regulations? Did Mr0 Howard Chinn get here from the Illinois Attorney General's office? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We will close the record right now of the public hearing and if we have some cards our staff people will pass out cards„ If you do have ques- tions on Section 3002 we will try and answer them,, (See separate transcript for question and answer session. ) ------- SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT FOR QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION St. Louis, Missouri February 15, 1979 ------- 5-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 336 MR0 TRASK: Most of these seem to apply to the 90-day limit on storage,, It says, "Regarding the 96-day cutoff are the requirements for how waste.are stored any different before and after the 90-day date expires. After the ninety days expires, if the waste is still there in storage you need a permit0" That's the difference. At that time you become subject to all of the 3004 standards for storage site and you need a permit,, You are responsible for the 3004 standard during the 90-day period but you do not require a permit0 Next question, "la setting the 90-day limit on storage by generators, why is not some consideration given to the method of storage, i0e., an OSHA approved metal containers, et cetera?'1 The 90-day storage can be under- taken by the generator only when he uses either a DOT con- tainer or if he goes to a permanent storage tank, then he must meet the storage tank requirements in 250.440 I be- lieve that those do reference those requirements in that section, so, it is covered. Another one, "Does on-site storage have to be in DOT containers?" Yes. 'Please explain what DOT containers includes." It can be either in DOT containers or in perma- nent storage tanks which meet the requirements of 250,44<, "Please explain what DOT containers includes." in the 49 CFR there is a long list of compounds, each one of ------- 6-9 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 337 which is related to a particular container specification and that is what we are referencing. The question goes on, "Does it include, for exam- ple, a 55,000 barrel immovable storage tank?" An immovable storage tank would be a permanent storage tank and would be subject to the 250044 regulations. It says, "A properly lined Iagoon0" I don't know if the question is is that a DOT container, I don't think a properly lined lagoon would be a DOT container,, That really is a facility type ques- tion. Maybe you want to deal with that one. Bulk rail car shipping, "Our plant receives empty rail cars for shipment of our product from one plant, from our plant. Frequently these empty cars contain up to sev- eral hundred pounds of previously shipped unknown materials, Since rail cars are frequently in short supply, we must empty the cars or use them with the unknown materials still in them, which is obviously unacceptable,, We are, there- fore, frequently put in a position of accumulating other companies products for our disposala Does EPA or DOT have any recommendations on what we can do to resolve this problem? Note, the railroad isn't interested in keeping the material. Significant costs will be involved in deter- mining what this material is in order to adequately comply with regulations for disposal, " This problem has been brought to our attention ------- 7-9 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 338 and it isn't only railroads. Tank car carriers have the same concern,, We have heard that after the tank truck has been emptied that sometimes while the drivers have a cup of coffee, the crew at the plant hooks the hose up to another tank and he ends up with a few hundred gallons of waste. It is not uncommon for him to come back to the truck termi- nal with something entirely different than what he set out to do. I would point out to you that under the DOT rules that when a tank truck is carrying a hazardous material, the driver must be with that vehicle at all times. I don't know how that applies to rail cars but under tank truck rules, so I have been told by DOT, the driver is always responsible for being with that vehicle,. He may not leave it to have a cup of coffee. So, if that happens it really is due to his fault. If something strange gets put into that tank it is his fault. However, in a larger sense a transportation compa- ny does become a generator in this instance because now they do have ways to get rid of it0 As far as having suggestions as to how you prevent it, at the moment, I don't think we do We are studying in this area regularly and we may have some- thing in the future but at the moment I donrt know, if you are dealing with customers how you control what they are go- ing to do when you deliver a tank car of material. That's ------- 8-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 339 a question that Alan Roberts would like to have a shot at. MS0 LINDSEY: In regards to containers, "Would the total weight of a container be used in applying 100 kilogram limitation if the container is considered a hazardous waste? Yes, it is the total weight of the waste, not the concentration or the quantity of any one constituent that determines the one hundred kilograms, "Please elaborate on six-month grace period fol- lowing promulgation of rules and regulations, " Some people might get the impression they do not have any responsibility during this time. Do generators have to file and disposers file for permits?" What the person is getting to is that by and large, the regulations do not go into effect until six months after promulgation0 However, there are some require- ments during that period of time for anyone who generates, transports, treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste within ninety days of the promulgation of regulations under Section 3001, which are now scheduled via court order for December 31. Within ninety days of that point, everyone who generates, treats, stores, disposes or transports a hazardous waste must notify the agency under Section 3010 of the Act. We have previously proposed regulations for doing-' to the system doing that and those have been issued. They ------- 9-9 1 haven't been promulgated yet. We expect they will be pro- 2 mulgated later in the summer. In any event, what we will i 3 be doing, to summarize it a little bit, is to all of those 4 facilities who we think, to all those people, generators, 5 transporters, whoever we think may be generating or handling 6 hazardous waste, we will be sending them forms, relatively 7 simple forms we expect it to be, to facilitate their noti- 8 fication. That does not relieve anyone who does not get 9 this mailing from, the requirement to do it because the re- 10 quirement to notify is statutory and the responsibility lies l'l on the generator, transporter, treater, storer, disposer 12 'out we are going to try to assist this operation by letting 13 those that we think may be in this ball game know they have, 14 to do it. 15 In addition to that, most of the regulations be- 16 come "defective 180 days after we promulgate. Also at the 17 180-day point in time, it is necessary for anyone who treats. 18 stores and disposes but not people who generate or transport. 19 those who treat, store and dispose, however, must submit 20 Part A of the application for a permit and the regulations 2i covering that have not yet been proposed. Those are current- 22 ly being integrated. They are procedural in nature. They 23 have to do with how to get a permit and all the hearing pro- 24 visions and so on in getting a permit and those have not 25 been proposed yet» They are currently being integrated wi ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 similar regulations, procedural regulations, under the NPES program and under the underground injections control program and we expect those will be proposed in about four to six weeks. So, there are two requirements. One is that they notify within ninety days and second that you submit Part A of the application within 180 days. Harry passed me this second part of this question involving 55,000 barrel removable storage tanks and properly lined lagoons and are they covered by regulations, I guess is the question, if they are on site. The answer is yes, they are subject to the 3004 Standards for containers in storage„ In the case of a 'spill there are two phases, the emergency phase and the recovery phase0 The regulations clarify this issue as to when manifesting is required. Let me see if I can take a crack at that. That is not my area and if I go wrong, Harry, would you jump in? If my memory serves me correctly, during an emer- gency phase in which the emergency coordinator is on the scene, that would be either, I suppose, EPA or coordinator or something like that and the availability of paper work that is, the procedures which would require the manifest are not readily there and yet there is need to move the material quickly because it poses some imminent hazard, for ------- 11-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 342 example, that during that emergency that perceived a real or declared emergency that the paper work requirements can i be waived. Do you want to add something to that or is that about right? CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Let me just make a comment. Again, this brings up the issue we ran into yes- terday. If, in reading the regulations, even if you think you have--let's call it a minor comment like this, please write it down, sign it and submit it for the record. You can just say, "I don't believe that these requirements are specific enough in differentiating between emergency re- sponse and recovery for a spill", and we certainly would be happy to consider that,, If it is a question, fine, ask a question but if it is definitely a comment, please go ahead either now or before March 16th to submit it to us for the recordo MR, LEHMAN: I have some questions here, "The reporting requirements of Section 250,23 provides for annual and quarterly reporting to the Regional Administrator. When a state is operating a hazardous waste program approved under Section 3006 of the Act, will reports still be re- quired to be sent to the Administrator? If no, can the regulations be written to reflect this?" The point here is that what you see before you in the Federal Register and what we are discussing here are tlJ ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 343 regulations for the federal program wherever that program is implemented in a state which for one reason or another does not have authori2ed hazardous waste programs0 The require- ments for state programs are spelled out in Section 3006 Regulations or, as I mentioned this morning, these particular regulations are being incorporated into combined with NPES underground injection control under Section 40 CFR 122, 123 and 124. So, the basic answer to the question, though, is that where a state is running an approved program, these annual and quarterly reports would go to the state, not to the EPA and the reason that we donTt spell that out in our regulations is that these regulations apply only in the case where the federal program is operating in that state0 Question: "Did EPA intend to apply the special waste rules now contained in Section 250,46 to generators and transporters of special wastes? If the answer is no, please explain EPA's reasons for not doing so." I believe we have stated in our preambles and so on. our assumptions or rationale, one of the rationales for set- ting up the special waste categories in the first place was that these are very high volume wastes and our assumption was that these wastes, being of high volume, would be managed on the site of generation, namely, they would be of such high volume it would be impractical or uneconomical to ship them ------- 13-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 4 4 offsite, therefore, frankly, we just didn't consider it a possibility that these high volume wastes would be shipped somewhere else. That's why it is not covered there» Now, I believe it was Mr. Horn of the Utility Solid Waste Activities group this morning that brought up this point, that this is not always the case, that some of these high volume wastes are, in fact, transported to an offsite facility and, in effect, made that comment that we should re- consider whether or not we apply these regulations to genera- tors and transporters of these special wastes, so, we will take that under advisement0 Couple of waste oil related questions8 For those of you who were here yesterday, you can appreciate the few chuckles here in the audience because we spent a lot of time on this yesterday but, nonetheless, the question: "Please explain the contractual agreement for generators of waste, oil and transfer of liability." The basic requirements for this contractual agree- ment are covered in Section 250,28 and, basically, it says on Page 58979, as to the contractual agreement itself, it says, "Each generator entering into such a contract must keep a signed copy of it as a permanent record during the time the contract is in effect and for a period of one year following elimination,, " Then the provision goes on to say, "The assump- tion of duties contract must state in writing that in exchan ------- 14-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 345 for valuable considerations the transporter or treater or storer or disposer group, may also enter into these contracts will perform all or part of the duties contained in the sub- part If less than all of the duties are assumed the contrac must specify which duties are not assumed and lastly, the contract must be signed by authorized representatives of the partiese So, these are the explicit requirements for this contractual agreement,, I might also point out that this whole issue is discussed in the preamble on Page 58974 to some more depth and anyone who wishes to pursue that could read about it in the preambles Next question: "Please define waste oil," Now, waste oil, as we point out in Section 3001 Regulations, was singled out for some special treatment under our regulations. It gets tied into the definition of other discarded material which is found in Section 250aliO on Page 58954 of the proposed regulations and in particular, for the purposes of defining other discarded material, we state that usad lubricating hydraulic transformer, transmission or cutting oil, which is incinerated or burned as a fuel, is a discarded material and, therefore, they waste oil* This is also followed up with a specific listing under Section 250.14-A in which waste lubricating oil, waste- hydraulic oil cr waste cutting oil are specifically listed ------- 15-9 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as hazardous wastee This gets Co another question. "What problems have resulted from indiscriminate disposal of waste oil? Why is waste oil not placed on the 3001 list if it is truly hazardous or is the EPA just trying to indirectly force recycling?" Well, as you just saw, part of that is incorrect, part of the statement is incorrect because waste lube oil, waste hydraulic oil and waste cutting oil are placed on the 3001 list as I just noted. As to what problems resulted from indiscriminate disposal of waste oil, we have a number of cases concerning that. Probably the one that is closest to home here occurred in Verona, Missouri, where there was indiscriminate disposa of waste oil which was mixed with other chemical wastes and eu J sprayed on a horse arena for dust suppression purposes and also along roads in the area, which resulted in very severe health problems and a number of individuals became quite ill, A number of animals were killed and it was a very distinctive case0 There are a number of other problems like that that we have. I won't go into all in depth but it is questions like that that leave us with the impression that waste oil disposal must be controlled. As to the last part on this, "Is EPA just trying to indirectly force recyling?" I guess we have to plead gui'S ------- 16-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to that, Yas, we are, quite frankly, not only trying to' eliminate the public health and environmental problems in indiscriminate waste disposal but we are indeed trying to foster the recyling of oil because we have a number of stud- ies which show that the highest use of waste oil is re- refined back into lube oil. If this oil is merely burned for its fuel value, that is not the highest use of that waste oil and there are substantial savings in energy usage and also reductions in overall pollution loading by using re- refining for waste oi!0 So, while we are not demanding that waste oil be recycled, we are certainly anxious to foster that practice, MS. SCHAFFER: I have a. number of questions that are enforcement related. The first one says: "According to Part 250.20C, any person who generates waste must evaluate that waste to determine if it meets the hazardous waste cri- teriae Please state what mechanism would be used to require this evaluation, Note, I am referring only to nonlisted waste,, " As Fred said before, the notification requirement of Section 3010 requires that anyone who handles hazardous waste be generator, transporter or owner/operator or sewage treatment or disposal facility, must notify EPA within ninety days after promulgation of the Section 3001 Regulations, which spell out the criteria for hazardous wastes, ------- 17-9 1 Kind of as a background, I think states and EPA 2 have somewhat of a handle on who is involved in the hazardous, 3 waste system arid who isn't and we have a contractor put to- 4 gather a list of possible players in the game, as I like to 5 call it, and as Fred said also before, we are going to be 6 sending out notification forms to people who are on that list 7 so we kind of have an idea who will be in it. The mechanism 8 for insuring that people do the evaluations is the idea that 9 you will be violating the Act and the regulations they are 10 under and can have enforcement action brought against you if 11 you don't evaluate and properly notify according to 301Q0 12 Two other points, one is that EPA is probably going 13 to do»~tne regions are planning on doing some kind of a 14 quality assurance program, testing some of the"generators 15 whether they have notified or not just to make sure that their 16 tests have gone along with their results, that our results 17 and their results are the same. 18 Secondly, I think it's EPA's goal, at least for the 19 first couple of ysars on the implementation of the Act, to 20 get as many people who should be in the system into the system 2] So, a significant amount of compliance monitoring will go to 22 generators to make sure that they have included their waste 23 in tha system-, 24 The second question is; "Under the proposed regula- 25 tions, if a permanent disposal facility has its permit re- ------- 1 voked, what will be the mechanism to notify his customers 2 so other disposal means can be exercised? If by federal 3 announcement, what will be the expected time lapse from per- 4 nianent revocation to public announcement?" 5 This is something that really has not been ad~ 6 dressed in the Regulations» However, it seems reasonable tha 7 we could require an enclosure activity as part of the order 8 for closure, that they notify all the customers who have 9 been sending waste to the facility,, Timewise I really canrt 10 answer because we have not, as I said, really addressed it H but I think it could be a possibility. 12 N@xt question: "When a vessel that carries chem- 13 icals as cargo has its tank cleaned by a tank cleaning fa- 14 cility, who is the hazardous waste generator, the vessel 15 owner or the cleaning facility?5' 16 The cleaning facility is the generator, 17 Next question: "Under the cradle-to-grave concept, 18 if the generator of hazardous waste properly reports and ,„ gives its waste to a properly permanent transporter using 20 proper manifest procedures, does the generator cease to be 21 liable for those wastes?" 22 One correction, and that is that under the federal 23 system transporters are not permanent* They have requested 24 an gotten an identification number from Federal EPA but are 25 not permanent per se0 However, on the Agency right now, it ------- 19-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 350 believes that the generator never completely loses liability for the waste that he produces* He is responsible for making sure that his wastes that he has sent off site gets to that facility and he retains that liability until the waste is properly disposed of. However, if it is not the generator who violates the Act by doing something improper with the manifest or improperly disposing of it, the enforcement ac- tion won't come against the generator, it will go against the transporter or the disposal facility that has handled the waste. So, it is kind of a.-yes and no question., MR0 LEHMAN: I just want to amplify on the ques- tion that Msn Schaffer answered just a minute ago because-- it concerned the cleaning facility for a vessel3 because this question caiae up at an earlier meeting we had, a similar question and I want to make a distinction here, The answer that Aray Schaffer gave was correct in that particular case, Let me read it again: "When a vessel that carries or carried chemicals as cargo has the tank cleaned by a tank cleaning facility, who is the hazardous waste generator, the vessel owner or the cleaning facility?" The answer in that case is the cleaning facility as Amy said. In this case, basically, you are taking the vessel to the cleaning facility. However, the normal ca.se is where you have storage tanks on a generating or manufac- turing facility and in many cases, a service type of ------- 20-9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 is called in to clean those tanks * Mow, in that case,, it is the manufacturing facility who is the generator and not the contractor who is being brought in to clean the tank* I just wanted to make that distinction, MR. MC LAUGHLIN: I have a couple of questions here dealing with containers and some others: "if a state does not have an approved state plan under Subtitle D, will all hazardous waste from retailers and those who generate less than a hundred kilograms per month have to be disposed of at an approved EPA Subtitle C site within the state or be trans- ferred to another state's landfill where this stats has an approved plan?" As the guidelines for the development and implemen- tation of state solid waste management plans are currently structured, the answer to that would be yes. However, in those cases where states do not opt to participate in the Sub- title D prograci, I can't really answer where that case will A second part of this question is; "At what point does a state plan under Subtitle D become approved and how long does this approval process take?" The schedule calls for the state plan guidelines to be proGiulgaced approximately in July. The states, then, have eighteen months to develop and approve their state plans, They have been working on it since ^Oi-lrt was passed, so, ------- 21-9 352 this is a liveable schedule, I would estimate that it would 2 take them approximately six months to get through the a 3 procedures which include both their administrative, state 4 administrative procedures act requirements and ErA's public 5 participation requirements. So, if the state plan guidelines 6 are promulgated as scheduled in July, a state probably could 7 not have an approved state plan before January and some states 8 may take until January of the following year to complete 9 their plan and get it approved,, 10 MR, TRASX: A question on containers: "How is a 11 storage tank which has frequent or continuous input and 12 withdrawal but which is never empty considered in relation 13 to the 90-day storage?" 14 If the withdrawal equals the input, I think it 15 would be considered to be within a 90-day privy, if you will. 16 In other words, it would not be subject to the permit require- 17 merits because it is continuously being changed. In other 18 words, it is not being used as a permanent storage facility. 19 It is being used as a currisiulative facility. 20 "I am not familiar with DOT regulations pertaining 2i to containers for hazardous materials,," 22 If you are in the hazardous waste business I sug- 23 gest you start reading because you are going to be needing it. 24 The question is: "Would steel barrels or drums be 25 required for containerising hazardous waste? Could 'good ------- 22-9 II 353 1 ! ditiori* containers be acceptable?" 2 The DOT container regulations contained in 49 CFR 3 Part 173 are very voluminous and much more than we would be 4 able to go into here today0 The specific part on reuse of 5 containers, however, is spelled out in the DOT proposal to 6 amend regulations in Part 173,28, and there it says that in 7 some cases, "Certain containers which would not otherwise 8 be reusable can be reused for single trip for disposal of 9 hazardous waste." In other words, a single trip container 10 or nonreusable container could be filled with hazardous waste 11 and taken to a disposal site for that one trip that would be 12 I permissible. 13 It would have to pass a so-called 24-hour test, 14 that is, twenty-four hours after the material has been put 15 in the drum, it would have to be inspected for leakage and 16 it could not be transported if it leaked because of the inter- 17 locking set of regulations we have now between SPA and DOT. 18 All of this is put together so that a leaking drum with waste 19 would be illegal to be transported,, 20 I would suggest, though, whoever sent this question 21 in to look at Subpart 173 because that's where it is at. 22 The other questions here deal with transportation;, 23 Do we want to take those now or later? I'm sorry. One of 24 them deals with manifesto Perhaps we better discuss that, 25 :*Will the SPA propose manifest be the only format ------- :( 354 ! 1 ' for the manifest document that will be permitted or will 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 flexibility for the use of a readable computer format be allowed?" And then a statement, I guess, "I would hope a document with only equivalent information would be required. " We are not allowed the luxury of doing that, DOT rules require that a format be used0 In other words, it sets up the kind of information and the order in which that infor- mation must be supplied, So, if we are to combine our mani- fest with the DOT shipping paper format, then we are locked into a format and we have elected to do that, I don't see that that is going to be any big burden0 What it really says is here is the information you need0 You are going to have to do it for DOT anyhow. You do just these extra things for I the manifest for EPA, 10 11 12 13 14 MR, LEHMAN: Question: "Under the proposed regs, a generator may declare his waste to be hazardous without testing,, What is the effect, if any, of Company A declaring their waste hazardous while Company B declares the same waste nonhazardous? What if Companies A and B were not separate companies but different operating divisions of the same company? Well, I think the general answer to that is some- body is going to get a phone call from SPA. In other words, we would follow up on anything like that, This is similar, I might add, to the experience that I am aware of in Cali- ------- I 355 1 fornia which has been operating a hazardous waste program 2 and manifest program for several years and their experience 3 was that they didn't have this happen. In other words, they 4 knew there were ten petroleum refining operations in the 5 state and nine of them were reporting in accordance with the 6 manifest and the other one wasn't. They would use management 7 by Exception type of basis and pay a call on the tenth one 8 and want to discuss why the waste, why they didn't have 9 hazardous waste when everyone else did0 ]Q Back to waste oil again: "What about oil cans 11 generated at a service station? Will the cans require mani- 12 festing?" 13 No, not really. What we are really concerned about 14 here., I think, it should be clear after this discussion, our 15 waste oils that are contaminated in some way with, in the 16 case of crankcase oils contaminated with lead, cutting oils 17 and hydraulic oils that are somehow contaminated and not 1g automotive oils Chat are delivered in cans0 19 Another one: "Will waste oils which proceed to a 2Q rerefiner require a manifest?" 2i The answer there is no, Here again, the point 22 being if you thread your way through the definitions of 23 other discarded materials you will see that waste oil which 24 is destined for a rerefiner is basically considered not to 25 be a discarded material} therefore, not a solid waste, there- ------- 25-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 356 fore, not a hazardous -^aste, therefore, no manifest required, It goes on to say, "My concern is that the price for waste oil may be higher if delivered to a road oiler than that received from a rerefiner3 This could be an enforcement loophole, " Well, a couple of comments here0 First of all, unde our proposed regulations, road oiling would be reuse which constitutes disposal,.land disposal of waste oil. Therefore, it would come under our definition of discarded material assuming that this waste oil is a hazardous waste, road oiling of that waste requires disposal, consequently, ^e would expect that the economics of that situation would change as a re- sult of that and, therefore, what is true today raay not be the case in the future, with respect to relative prices available for the various uses3 Now, here again, this last statement is,in effect, a comment on the regulations, the proposed regulations., I would again, as Chairperson Darrah indicated, ask you if you have this type of direct comment on the regulations, concerns about regulations, please write it down and submit it for the recordo MR0 LINDSSY: "The state has been granted interim or final authority to run the program in their state:, A gen- erator or disposer is governed by the stata rules and regula- tions 0 What is the generator's or disposer's responsibility ------- 26-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 357 | with regard to RCRA?" This is true what the person says, Once a state has been authorized under the authority of IICRA to nan its own program, then generators, treaters and so on in that state are subject to the state program, I would point out, however, that the authorization procedures for authorising a state program under Section 3006 of the Act we must con- clude that the stat?s program is equivalent to the federal program, that is their rules and regulations and degree of control, degree of protection of public health in the en- - vironment is equivalent to the federal program, There are also certain requirements within all of that including manifest system which raust be adopted,, I •would recommend that those people who are interested in state program authorization pay special attention to the regula- tions which will be reproposed on that section in several weeks, I remember I indicated earlier Section 3C05 and 3006 regulations will be proposed in concert wich similar regu- lations under ingrade regulations under NPS program and un- derground injection control program, "Was any consideration given to municipalities In other not-for-profit institutions to be given a special ex- emption or allowance above the one hundred kilograms per month? For example, city owned garage and painting crews siay normally generate only fifty to hundred pounds a month ------- 27-9 i ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 353 but on a special occasion, one month per year perhaps, go over the hundred kilogram limit." First question first, did we give any special con- sideration and the ansver to that is no. Large quantities of hazardous waste can cause problems if improperly managed, irragardless of who it is that generates them and so there is no special deal for municipalities or others like thata As far as this particular example goes you have a situation here, for example, which is really borderline and I believe that in a case like that you go over a little over one hun- dred kilogram limit once par month, I don't like to tell people how to get around regulations but maybe you dispose of one hundred each month and get below that one hundred kilogram limit that way0 'Since empty containers of hazardous materials repre- sent very small quantities of hazardous waste, why is more control than just going to the nearest approved sanitary landfill justified? !l I think we talked about earlier if the material-- if the containers are triple rinsed, they can go to a sani- tary landfill but the problem is this, they tend to be trans- ported and disposed in large lots and they are frequently not empty as you and I would term empty. Frequently, they con- tain an inch to three inches of material in the bottom, some of which would be highly toxic and highly hazardous. So, ------- 23-9 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ! 359 •when you collectively get large quantities of these drums shipped on flatb-eds, the controls are needed to, for one thing, assure it gets from A to 3 and is not dumped in a ditch or a. farmer's back forty some place or in the woods. Secondly, if disposed of in quantities each drum contains two ox* three inches of material in the bottom, you can have a concentration of materials in the sanitary landfill which could present a very real hazard, This is a two-part question<> I can only answer one part of it and I will pass it down the row0 I don't know if they are going to answer the rest of it now or maybe think about it. The part I can answer, :iWhy does EPA feel there is a need to notify a foreign country of a hazardous waste shipment? Isnrt SPA's job to protect the US environment?" Well, that's true0 Our job is to protect the US environment0 We, however, feel it is good international re- lations to at least have the foreign government know what it is that we know that is coming from here to there, We also have been asked, that's another reason0 The second question, and I will read it off and if somebody on sty right can think of the answer, will either handle it now or maybe later: "Why does the statement, rTo the best of ay knowledge' be excluded from the certification tatscents? Does anybody know that? ------- 29-9 l 2 3 ' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 360 MS. SHAFFER: I am pretty sure that the reason that statement, th-e wording was put in there, is that it is approved wording by the Department of Justice and the office of water enforcement, which is a separate office from -what I am in, and because we are combining a lot of the activities that go along in NPEDS activities and RCRA, that we -were go- ing to use the same kind of information--I mean the certifi- cation, hence, we use the wording from the NPEDS certifica- tion,, CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We will break for lunch now. If there is time after this 3C03 hearing this afternoon, "arid perhaps questions on that section, we will answer any other questions on 30020 We will reconvene the hearing on 3003 at 2 parn« (Whereupon a recess was taken until 2:00 o'clock p» ------- ------- * -i n ~ • FTERNOON SESSION 2:00 1 i 2 CHAIRPERSON DAR2AH: On the record, 3 The subject this afternoon is Section 3003 Regula- 4 tions proposed under Resource Conservation Recovery Act« 5 The first speaker is Father Casimir Gierut* 6 STATEMENT OF FATHER CASIMIR GIERUT 7 FATHER GIERUT: My name is Father Casirair F0 Gierut. 8 pastor of Holy Cross Church, Wilsonville, Illinois, "My aiail- 9 ing address is always Bunker Hill but for those who pay ray 10 salary it is Wilsonville 3 I am one of the members of the n Survival Group of Wilsonville which is composed of citizens 12 seeking to protect the health of the people and seeking to 13 protect the safety and clean air environment in the cotMnun- ! 14 -ity of Wilsonville, 15 I would like to call your attention as .members of 16 the Federal Environmental Protection Agency that transporters 17 of hazardous and toxic waste are polluting the environment 18 and are endangering the health and safety of the people, 19 The following three examples clearly indicate that 20 the Environmental Protection Agency does not have control 2i over those who are in the business of transporting hazardous 22 wastes: 23 First example 0 A transporter of hazardous wastes 24 dumped Polychlorinate-d Biphenyls into an open ditch in Ditt- 25 rner, Missouri, Later it vas found that the adjoining creek ------- 31-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 362 was contaminated and livestock were affected with PCB0 The source of contamination was traced to the open ditch saturated with ?C30 While the original PCS was contained in 100 druss, trie removal of the ground saturated with PC3 filled over 5,000 drums of stee!9 55 gallons each capacity which was transferred to the landfill in Wilsonville, Illinois, This removal was at a cost to the taxpayers of over$500,000, The taxpayers had to pay for the mistake because the EPA could neither trace the transporter of the waste nor could the EPA identify the originator on the PCS waste who had hired the transporter to move it to a certain safe place for treatment or burial, Second e:carr,ple« A transporter had illegally dumped PC3 into the sewer in Louisville, Kentucky, The PC'3 dumping had hightened the danger to the health of the people to the already contaminated sewage sludge„ The entire sewage sludge with PCS was being transported from Louisville, Kentucky, to the landfill in Wilsonville, Illinois, Upon its arrival in Wilsonville, the citizens had notifed the Illinois EPA that on the streets of Wilsonville was leakage from that car- go» That means the leakage was continuous from the moment thej cargo'left Louisville, Kentucky, to its arrival in Wilson- ville, Illinois, Imagine the number of automobile drivers wac were .to!loving tnat cargo not aware that tne leakage was flying through the air and possibly making its way into the ------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 automobile,, This fact: chat the EPA could net trace the trans- portation company responsible for dumping the ?CB into the sewerage 0 cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars., The third example is Ottawa, Illinois,, The land- fill was closed, for only 3. week, 'The owner was on. vacation and the transporter decided to get rid of the hazardous waste by dumping the waste into the nearby Fox River, The Illinois SPA had no knowledge of who the transporter was, nor was it possible to trace the originator of that hazardous waste, The transportation of hazardous waste involves the following areas of responsibility, (1) the originator of the hazardous waste, (2) the transportation company, (3) a re- sponsible driver hired by the transporter, (4) the destina- tion of the -waste, (5) billing receipts and bookkeeping of the originator, transporter and the recipient at the point of destination in cooperation with the EPA record of informa- tion, | I The responsibility of the originator of the hazard- j ous waste does not terminate with the fact that the waste has bean removed from the originator's place of business* Nor does the responsibility terminate with the fact that the originator of the waste has evidence of payment to the transporter for the removal of the wastes tc be transported to a c-artain. destination,, Te orgnator s r resonsible to see ------- o o -10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 | j 14 15 16 17! 18 j 19 20 | j 21 | 22 24 ; 25 • 364 contract with the transporter is fulfilled in reaching the point of destination. If the waste has not been delivered, to the point of destination the EPA should be informed. The EPA will now have sufficient information to check on the trans- port-arc, If there is any evidence of illegal dumping, the transporter should be wade financially responsible to correct the situation and the transporter's license could be revoked by the EPA, The transporter hauling hazardous waste cannot use that truck to haul anything else other than hazardous waste. It is unthinkable for a transporter to use the same truck to haul hazardous waste to go to the freight warehouse and trans- port canned goods from Libby's or Campbell food produces. The vehicle should have a large sign painted with the words, "Hazardous Wastes" on it so that it is visible to everyoneo In case of an accident, that sign would be a warn- ing to all concerned, especially, those who normally coce to help in the situation, namely, the State Police, the two- truck, ambulance, doctor and the clean-up crew. The -driver should have complete knowledge of what He should be well instructed as to who to notify in case of an accident, and above all, to have the telephone number handy to immediately notify the EPA to prevent contamination of the environment or "o prevent the endangering of health and his cargo contains as in the case of hazardous waste ------- 34-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i i 14 ! .6 | I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 365 safety of the people in the community. For example, in St. Louis, about three weeks ago, on the most busiest highway and at a time with the greatest amount of traffic, because people were on the way home from work, a truck loaded with radioactive material was in troub- le,, The bottom of the truck fell apart.. Drums containing the radioactive roiled onto the highway0 A man driving a. taxicab decided to stop and hel.p0 He pushed the drums off the highway. Another person stopped his car and also helped push a couple of drums off the highway,, When the E?,A was informed of the situation, instruments were brought to the scene to find out if there were any contamination of the en- vironment,, The EPA also made effort to i-nmedlately contact the taxi driver., He was located and an analysis was made to insure any type of contamination. An all-out alert was an- nounced on television and radio seeking the other person who helped rarnove the drums. His whereabouts are still unknown* But if the drivers were fully instructed as to what to do in case of an accident, he would, in this case, alert the taxi- cab driver and others not to touch the drums for fear of con- i tamination and endangernient to their health, as well as their ! safety,, As for landfills, Gcd gave us the good earth to produce food. Here in Southern Illinois farmers last year produced 45 million bushels of corn, 35 million bushels of ------- 35-10 1 j 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 i ,J ,, II 16 II 17 13 19 20 21 I JQO II wheat:, 10 million bushels of soybeans, net only fox1 our country but for the needy throughout the 'whole word0 For Earthline, with the approval of the EPA, to contaminate this good earth is a serious crime against nature and a social in- justice to the hundreds of farmers whose livelihood is agri- culture. In view of the fact that there are many tons of hazardous, toxic waste produced each year, 'we will soon run out of landfills, Therefore, the responsibility rests with the EPA to notify, for example, Monsanto and Dow Chemical Companies and all other chemical industries that their Chem- ists are fully responsible to find a way to neutralise and to detoxify the harmful "wastes from their products produced, otherwise, the government will prohibit the company to manu- facture such harmful chemicl compounds. To neutralize, and to detoxify these substances is the only answer to end the threat of hazardous waste buried as a detriment to society's and world future health and. well-being* For example, the chemists of Monsanto Company were j aware that it is common knowledge among chemists, that Pol}-- j ! chlorinated Biphenls (?CB) can be destroyed within two seconds!, that's snorter than 1 can say the word "Amen", by burning the waste in an incinerator at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit,, If the chemists know this, then 'why do they allow the carcinogens to b-e buried in landfills, ------- . 1 A — v> 2 ! i 3 | I I 4 ! 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l| 16 i! 17 13 19 i i 20 j " i 22 || ii 23 i ;i 24 '! 25 'i The failure of the chemical industries to destroy what is detrimental to the health and well-being of society is irresponsibility in the highest degree, an injustice to society and above all, an immoral act0 Immorality is not limitad to illicit sex, X-rated movies or pornographic KSga- zines but also extends to illicit activities in business transactions which prove to be detrimental to the health of people,, To bury hazardous waste in landfills is not the solution. They will not decompose and disappear in the ground. On. the contrary, they will react as was shown and experienced in the recant incident in Love, New York., where homes, schools, were built on this landfill,. The seepage frccn the landfill caused children to be born with defects., there was much sickness, nausea and finally, the families of the entire com/nunity of Love, New York, were ordered by the government to abandon their homes* The vacant homes.,, now a ghost town, are the result of a landfill of only twenty years ago where hazardous waste was buried0 Now, the best part of all, it is good to know that after saying what I did say, no collection has been taken up, CHAIRPERSON DARJUH: Would you answer questions for us? FATHER GIZ2.UT: Yes. MRB LIMDSZY: I think vour comments and your exam- ------- 37-10 1 I 2 3 4 5 !! •I 7 3 | i 9 ! i 10 i 12 13 14 I 16 ji 17 II j: 18 I 19 20 i 21 22 23 i! 24 368 pies were right to the point0 I just might say I think that many of your thoughts seem to parallel those of Congress and when they passed this act and I think those of our own as we developed these regulations4 Let me get to sorae specifics, on your comments relative to transportation control or lack thereof. In the Act and then in our regulations there is a provision for the oxanifest control systems we set up. In your opinion, will that go far enough toward the control of the transportation or is something more needed there? FATHER CISRUT: No, I will tell you, you can put all the regulations you want on the books but from our ex- perience, it doesn't work,, The citizens of Wilsonville had called time in and time over to the Illinois SPA saying chat another truck c-arne into Wilsonville and we have more spillage. Another truck carr.e in where the cover of the steel drum was missing, in one truck there were three covers missing0 Now, J you can imagine as it is on the highway the wind is blowing the material out and never has the EPA made pressure on 'Earth' line to say, "Now, look, these people are trying to protect the environment, '' The complaint is for the good of the com- munity and to a certain extent, it is good in regard to the transporters of the cargo because it is a valid complainta Now, the newspaper, the Alton Telegraph., Kac, or. several occasions, stated that che Illinois SPA has notified ------- 13-10 7 I 9 10 11 12!! l! 13 14 15 16 ' 18 19 20 21 22 i 23 : 24 ! 25 369 Earthline on 2. nusaber of minor violations and cnajor viola- tions and it made no difference because Earthline would al- ways, in a beautiful way., say, "Well, we are going to correct this and we are going to do something" and nothing happensa They never make the corrections, Now, when the fifth and sixth and seventh and tenth tirr.s the citizens of Wilsonville call upon the EPA and again say, "Look, there is another in- fraction, in regard, to transportation, " I think that the SPA should either be serious in its business or get exit, If you have the regulations and you den't follow it, then there is no use spending all the taxpayers money printing that paper*, •The regulations are printed to defend you in re- gard to your business and, therefore, the Illinois EPA, afte, they have given three successive warnings to Earthliae, I think the fourth one they should have said, "Now, either yo get serious or we are not going to give any more permits to bring any more material to your landfill,, " MRo LINDSSY: Your problem, is with the enf ore sire n£ ] as opposed to the regulations that are in affect? Rt" -?bt- i.\. ,e*. ,,~ i. * •— o ii t M3.0 LZ.HI-TAN: Father, some of your consents seem to ouch on some areas where I don't believe the regulations, as currently imposed, cover and. if I ;night get you to coccusnt en this point we .-.light be able to translate these i.ito some sug- gestionSo You say in one part of your statement that if ths( ------- 19-10 370 is any evidencs of illegal dumping the transporter will b 10 ir*ade financially responsible, to correct the situation and the transporter's license could be revoked by the £r&<, oiow, in the federal EPA proposal, there is no re- quirement for the transporter to have a license. Certain states may require licenses but federal proposals does not, A:r> I to assume from your comment that you believe that the federal proposal should include a requirement that transporter:? hav-a liability? FATHER G1SRUT: Yes, there should be a separate 11 ii license in that regard. ll ;i 12 ! MS0 L2HMAM: You also point out that in your view !j 13 ij it is unthinkable for a transporter to use the saoie truck to ii |i 14 |j haul hazardous waste and at the same ti^ie haul consumer goods li 15 || and, again, that is an area which we have not covered in our 16 j regulations and I assume you would, say that is a recomnienda- 19 •! tion that it should cover? i I FATHER GISRUT: Yes, because no matter if they made j an attempt to clean the truck, there is always soae type of 20 !| ; contamination and, then, say you put cases of canned goods or 21 ! cas-35 of lettuce, why, you know it .-nay go into the cardboard 22 - and than deliver that to the grocery c^aa, the grocery man pic leg 23 |j it up and you are transporting a lot of disease unnecessarily, 24 • IS. LZHXAN: Ri^ht, so, it's fair to say that you .i !: vould recommend that this be added to our regulations? ------- •10 1 2 3 3 9 12 13 14 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 24 25 Father Gierut: Right. I would say that certain trucks should be used only for hasardous material. It cannot. be used for any other purpose0 >{R0 LEHMAN: Then, your last point along these saise lines, you indicated an incident in St0 Louis where radioactive waste was dropping out of the bottom of the truck and the point you were makings I believe, was that the driver of the | truck lacked adequate training and here again, this is an area, correct me if I am. wrong, I believe that we do not re- | quire training for transporters under these proposed regula~ | ! tions0 Could I then construe this to mean you are recommend- ! ! !j ing a training program be implemented? FATHER GIERUT: Really, it should be a simple train ing program,, For example, in cas.e of an accident, please tali people not to move any of the articles around the trailer,, no matter if it blocks the highway because this is contaminated ! stuff. Secondly, he should have the telephone number inane- i i diatsly of the SPA because we had drivers of trucks that came to Wilsonville and all he knew was, I ans only a truck driver. I don't know what is on there and I don't care and that's ,i ;| about the extent of it and that's not the point, The t>o.Ln" ! is, when an accident does happen, like it happened in St, •i •i Louis hardly three weeks ago, an appeal has been aade over ;l 1 television, "Will the nnan 'who helped move the drums kindly ------- 41-10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 22 23 24 25 372 report to the Er.A to check you out« " That xnight be a man frotn Indiana that would never hear that, so, it-is a serious busi- ness and ir, case of accident, this is what the average truck driver should know what to d.oa MR. LEHMAi-I: That's a good point. Cne other one along this line is that you reccrimend that vehicles transport- ing hazardous waste should have the words "hazardous waste" on the truck so that it is visible to everyone. Therefore., in case of an accident, the sign would be warning to all con- cerned,, Our regulations on transportation are being very carefully coordinated with the existing regulations by the Department of Transportation. DOT already requires placarding of certain types of trucks like "f laaunable" "corrosive", things of that type* In other words, those particular words have a par- ticular meaning in the trucking industry. The proposed regu- lations under RCRA, basically, use the DOT placarding system and does not have the additional requirement that the words "hazardous waste" be on there. In other words, the fact that i it is flaonaable or corrosive would be there but not hazardous waste, Are you basically recommending that in addition to the DOT placard you would have hazardous vasts? FATHIH .7 IE RUT: Righto The word hazardous waste should not be put on the door with all the other tonnase and ------- / O in -4 «-~ ^- ~/ 373 iT.hz ^,nd all that because that is distrscting,, It should be 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the real big part of the van,, Any nuin with common sense will stop right .here, "I'm not going to help because there is" something bad about that carriage," MR, LEHMAN: Well, I guess the point of my question, do you real it necessary to have that additional placarding in addition to the existing DOT placard which already gives some degree of warnings FATHER GIERUT: I think it should be separate0 Nor- mally, on the trucks that have flammable material it has written, "please do not stop" or "This truck stops at every crossiago FlaiTuiiable material'% and you, as a, driver following know you batter stay at-?ay, In regard to hazardous material, it should be some- where very visible but I. think the average parson would not help out,. Hazardous material, that is enough for me, I can't help yous MJU TP.ASK: Father, you indicated that some instruc- tions for the driver of the truck out to be carried with the ji truck0 We have mads a provision that on the manifest some 1 instructions as to •what immediate action should be taker, would ;j •j be put on the oianifest for the specific waste that is being ,i :( hauled and also that the number of the Coasc Guard National i .; ?x3spcr.sa Center >?hich is really under a number in hashing ten, '' vould also be put on there where further information could b- ------- « _. 1 , i / — J. >J I II obtained0 Do you think that is enough or should we be doing 2 ji something more than that? 3 j! FATHER GIEPJJT: I think the closest one is really il 4 the state i?A wherever a person is. If this is a truck with- 5 !j in the state, all he needs is one telephone number, say., the Illinois EPA office but if it is a track that is interstate comparee, well, then, he should have the telephone numbers to th.2 SPA because I think SPA is .nacre important in case of !| hazard. than the National Guard, The National Guard is some- 10 thing to conae out and clean up the place but the EPA will ,. |j co;?.e with instruments to find out whether there has been con- i| .0 |j tamination0. In Arizona the EPA had ordered almost a block and a half of the highway to be torn because contamination had gone into the cement itself, So, I think the EPA should be the Moa 1. over the Coast Guard. 15 j! ,, |i MR0 TRASK: If 1 might follow up on this question I O , j 1? :| of license as well for transportation for transportersa You ;| have some ideas on what should be licensed? Are you talking 1 about the condition of the vehicle or are you talking about j driver training? What should we be doing? '( ;! FATHER G1ERUT: No, I suppose that anyone that .: the company hires already knows everything about regulations j of driving and knows how to drive but we are talking about 'i 1 this driver be instructed and be licensed, so to speak, re • j J drive this particular truck because vcu have some truck dri- ------- 375 1 . vers *?ho are only anxious to deliver the cargo of the cesti- I 2 I nation because thev rnaka their dollar for it. Whereas a 1 3 ' lic3D.ssd driver 13 not concerned how ;nany nours he puts in0 4 j His salary is guarantee-do He needs to only get to the desti- $'; nation, so, it is not beating the speed limit or causing any 6 ;j type of hazard. We are talking about a licensed driver so 7 .! in the driver's raind is, ''I don't have to break the speed « !: limit to -sake a dollar, I am guaranteed itc, " Secondly, he is well informed, the very fact that 10 IJ he i;3 responsible for the cargo, he is going to take excep- ^ '' tional tine0 Now, 1st rne give you one example, A man drives ,„ ;) a truck, a fair-sized truck, and the enan frcra pathaldo took 'i .„ i| over iust temporarily because the regular driver was ill and. , J :j ~ 14 II this is what you call those really long trucks. Mow, vhen ,,. ,| he came to Wilsonville, where there are just narrow streets, ,, ] he didn't know how to handle that big van and he knocked a 10.! :! couple of things down and there was almost a question where , • the entire cargo of hazardous material vould spill out in i O ( I t i v/ilsor.villso '| The policeman gave him a ticket for destroying the !J j! culvert and not knowing how to operate the vehicle correctly '• ana tnis is a question ct operating a venicie correctly. So, | j i _ . , . , ^ - . . , ,. ., i .L say again, tne icea on a license in rogar-i to a crivt-r 'worx- rcou3 rvateri -il in his '"nin-d is Z do"*. ' t h^'/^ to ! -.'ork fast. 1 don ! t have to beat the liriic, ------- 2 I 6 11 !! 12 ;i 13 i! ,1 14 i| i! I- is j! ii 16 i| 17 13 19 20 21 22 i! •worry acy long it is going to take me to get around that curb, 1 aa: going to be paid, ' You have greater security in the delivery of that hazardous material. What I am saying, is to avoid catastrophe , Now, ve had a catastrophe in Bedford Park just a few days ago where the entire town, my sister lives in Bedford Park, the entirs to-wn of about 450 had to leave because of a minor accident and yet it contained hazardous material and the police called everyone to leave their hone icr/nediataly,, Soj it is a question of the driver, I am putting emphasis on licensing the driver because they have to come to know that their bread and but tar is to deliver the hazardous mater- ial safely, not get there so he can corr^e back and. pick up another loaU0 That's what is on ray mind, VK* TRASK: My staff just handed ma a note that when DOT picks up hazardous waste as a hazardous material, then, hazardous waste will be subject to all of the existing regulations rsgarding hazardous materialSo One of those is for driver training, a certain amount of driver training uius c e g iven, otherwise the transporter has violated not only the | Z?A la-w because wa ara picking up the DOT regulations, but also DOT lavs because they are picking up our regulations-, So. it could be a ciffsrent bail game in the future ^hen ------- 1 • r.ent or. l^r.-l disposal. I think your suggestion -vas that: '------- 47-10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ; i 25 ' Jf'o "Father, it's a question in regard to the inciric8rator0 " 1 said, "if you want to buy PCB which Monsanto is responsible mostly for originating, why don't you build an incinerator at Wilsonville to destroy PCB when, you know about it* M You know what his ansver was, "Father, it costs ro.onej/. " So,, Moris an to who makes billions of dollars in profit is more in- terested in how much profit the stockholders get than the safety of the people when you know that an incinerator does the truck, Like I say, two seconds time, PCB can be destroyed, The second part about the Polychlorinated Biphenyls is when you destroy the cancer causing factor, you have a by-product which can b-? again sold and what remains is a safe product you can put right next to your vegetable garden and the chemists know it at Monsanto and they agreed with ~:e on that MR, LIMDSZY: I think maybe our concern would be, I think it was Mr, S-aaltzer this morning, made the comment that if it gets too difficult, there rr-ay not be enough oolice- mario I think he is talking policeman in generics to keep tabs on sverybody. At least it is a concern that we have, FATHER GIZHUT: The police situation in ay paper, what I a.-?, trying to bring out is this, Monsanto Company cannot have only responsibility to call, say, Corodura Company, '"You ------- 1 ! 2 i 3 4 5 6 j | 7 j 8 ! 9 10 j 11! i 12 13 14 15 16 j 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 j 1 24 should •vai.t, I-I:? should not pay the Cordura Company until af- they have r 2 ached the destination. In niy simple *vs.y ., I ordsr a television set from Sears, lioebuck and Sears, Roe- buck pays Cordura Company to deliver the T7 to me, if the destination does not eosne to me I am going to seek another TV, I don't pay for the price of the TV. In the meantime, Sears, Roebuck is not going to pay the transporter,, You have not delivered the TV. Where is that TV set and this is where the EPA comes in0 Say, we have proof Monsanto gave you the craterial and it is supposed to go to Sheffield, Illinois0 It hasn't re-ached Sheffield, Or let's say, four hundred druras are on. that van and only two hundred and eighty are delivered, EPA wants to know what happened to the one hun- dred and. twenty. So, it is protecting, really, Monsanto and it is also saying that the Z?A now means business, v;e have regula- tions and we v;anc it to be followed by everyone ana you will just have to put it down,, As I say again, if the EPA will not follow its own regulations,,forget it. Why don't you just drop the business and be done with it0 Zither you are serious in your business or you are not and. the average busi- ness man has this point. In Illinois EPA and "Earthline, they knew the Illinois ZPA was never too serious because ^eek af- ter week we called,another truck came with spillagea aboxit it? You niean to tsll ^e that SPA could r.ot say, ""Loci ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3oG nej ve are going to give you one acre chance and when th^t the citizens of Wilsoavilla complain that another truck has come with leakage or spillage., it will be the and of all p-rinits. You are out of b\.isiness0 " You will find out how fast that will work. "if you don't put t.b.2 brakes on you are out of business* " MR0 LEHMAN: Father, I v/ould just like to cc I think the general thrust of your last series of remarks about responsibility of the generator in assuring that the material actually gets to its destination and so on, is, in fact, incorporated in our proposed, regulations and when these regulationsj assuming they are promulgated as proposed., and go into effect, then, in fact, you will have this track of~~ FATHER GIERUI (interrupting) : Loes the billing have,ia nry estimation, the billing should have four sheets, one by Monsanto Company, the second billing to the transporter third to the recipient, £ha landfill and fourth, to EPA,, Ncrv, the reason 1 put EPA is because EPA automatically knows '•/ho ia the originator of the waste and who is the transporter, so, whan you hav? somebody in Louisville, Kentucky, dumping PCS in the saverage and getting & way with it, you and the SPA will pick it up and say, 1!We knew from our four-fold billing that Vcnsanto of St* Louis v?as the center of the ?G3 and the cransporter, by axs^ple, is Cordura, '' But if you don't have that fourth sheet that goes to you, the nane cf ------- 3 , I 4 i 5 i j 6 ! 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the orisinator, Monsanto, the transporter and th.2 placs of destination and your fourth copy, than you are just not op- .arating correctly, It is a question of efficiency and the only way to havs efficiency ^han you have it all now right here, not susss^ork and calling Mcnsanto, "Who :--/as the trans- porter ?!1 You have got it. You wouldn't even have to call Monsanto, You call the trucker, "Did you deliver this? Why was it not delivered in Sheffield, Illinois, only ended up in the sewerage?" ME0 L3HHA2I: Of your four-part example there, the current regulations do require the first three and in the fourth ca-33, instead of sending the fourth copy directly to SPA, we have required instead that a summary of all of the manifests bs sect in its place0 Now, in your opinion, is that adequate ? FATHSU GIERUT: I think it is because it is not actual paper T«ork "when you write out the carc30 I goes to three duplicates anyway* Without you having the knowledge of vho sent the material, "where it was sent and by whom, then you are doing what the Illinois EPA has done for the people hera in Denver, Missouri,, M£0 LEHMAN: The poi'-t 1 was trying to drive at, Father, :v r -' - "' -I .1 \ ------- 51-10 2 3 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 i I I 25 ! each individual piece of paper. We gat a combination of all of them at periodic intervals, Now, in your opinion, is that adequate? FATHER GI33UT: Absolutely not because all w?. need is ens example, one particular load, This gentleman decided, like this -man, the driver who took the hazardous waste to Ottawa, Illinois, and dumping, the ground was frozen for s. weak or sc, He took it upon himself to get rid of it by dumping it in the Fox River, Now, that is maybe once out of forty trips out you and the SPA have no record of who sent that or who the trucker was. All we know now is the Illinois EPA merx said, ""Well, it was a small delivery, about forty drums, therefora, let's call it meaningless as far as effect is concerned on the Fox River," My point is, the "£?A and you don't know who put that there. You are talking only of a general suraaiary which means nothing. We are talking about the fourth one here and, new, Svsry delivery you know where it is at, 'vJhen you get a sus-mary, that's only statistics, it :r.eans nothing, I xvould like to see, because it costs nothing raore and there is no extra work in office work, when Monsanto makes out its re- port, Corcdura Company is going to transport it to Sheffield and ou irrunediatsl rsceive the Z?A su.'ani 1 asn recommend hat strongly, otherwise , v;e ar2 going to come back, you dorr t careu When T:his happened, only one truck dri- ------- 52-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18: 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 383 ver dumped the PCB in Dittmer, Missouri, it costs us tax- payers$500,000 because you failed to know, who dumped it in Dittmer, Missouri. Do you see the point? MRc MC LAUGHLIN: Father, I have some good We not only know who dumped it in Dittu-er, they have been sent a bill for the entire cost of the bill about two weeks FATHER CIS RUT: That's the way it should be.. As long as the taxpayers don't pay for it, I am happy about it.. • MR» LEHMAN: Father, I also would like- to point out one aspect of our tracking system that we have been discus- . sing here and that is the generator, or in the case you have been using as an example, would be the Monsanto Corporation, must inform EPA if they do not gat a confirmation- of delivery within thirty days,, In other words, there is a feedback _ _ tern built into this so that it is not only EPA that is keeping track of what is being sent but the originating company is also responsible-'for. keeping track. . FATHER GIEBUT: The responsibility is fulfilled by all persons, Monsanto, the transporter, the place that re- ceived it and the EPA, all are in good shape now» CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank.you very much. The next speaker this afternoon is Don Norton from Congressman Findley's office0 STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FINDLEY AS GIVEN BY MR. DON NORTON MR. NORTON: My name is Don Norton. I am administr" ------- 53-10 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 384 tive assistant to U. S. Representative Paul Findley of the 20th Congressional District of Illinois, which encompasses the area from Alton to Springfield to Quincy and down the Mississippi River and includes the community of Wilsonville, Illinois. I am speaking on behalf of the Congressman today because he is in session in Washington and I noticed, to my chagrin, after I got here, after you had noticed also the nature of our remarks, they really pertain to Section 3004, which is tomorrow on your agenda. If you will indulge my presence today, I will go ahead and read the statement and also, I apologize for the designation of Mr. Chairman on: that, I am afraid one of our staffers got carrieda*ay perhaps with the ritual of capital health. Before I get into this, we were delighted to learn of the revelation two weeks ago the offending party had been located as to the Dittmer dump, so to speak, and I hope that the collection efforts will be pressed vigorously on that, MR. MC LAUGHLIN: The U. S0 Coast Guard actually paid for clean up and they are the ones responsible for attempting to collect the money to pay the U0 S, Government. They have assured us they will keep us informed as to their progress. MR. NORTON: Congressman Findley asked for this time today so he could indicate in the strongest possible way ------- 54-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 385 his great distress over the direction or lack of direction in the way the Environmental Protection Agency has imple- mented certain sections of the Research Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. He recognizes that few will argue with the need for action. The Love Canal in New York, the Valley of the Drums outside Louisville, the PCB episode in Michigan and countless other cases, all provide grim testimony to the po- tential for disaster. That is why we are here today. These tragedies show up in the most explicit way, the immense economic and physical hardship imposed on victims of hazard- ous waste pollution. In our particular case, you need not go as far as i - . • New York or Michigan to see the potential or new environmen- tal disaster in human suffering being stored in the ground. Just across the river in Macoupin County, Illinois, less than an hour%:/d drive from here, lies the community of Wilson- ville served by Father Gierut. And located within the city limits, believe it or not, is the hazardous waste dump op- erated by a corporation which euphemistically calls itself Earthline. A quiet rural community, Wilsonville has every desire to stay off the front page of the New York Times. The people do not want to end up in a story about the grizzly consequences of finding a hazardous waste treatment facility within the community. But in recent months, words like ------- 55-10 386 1 "leachate," ''activated sludge," and "PCB's", terms, which un- 2 til recently, mean little to the average American, raise the 3 spectre of debilitating disease, economic disaster, and an 4 uncertain future for those who live in Wilsonville. 5 This afternoon I would like to direct my remarks 6 to those areas of the proposed regulations which need drastic 7 attention if we are to avoid the creation of a series of Wil- 8 sonvilles across the country. To begin with, the proposed reg 9 ulations do not begin to deal adequately with the problem of 10 site selection for hazardous waste dumps. To be sure, no 11 city, no township, no individual wants to be on the receiving 12 end for hazardous wastes. Yet, EPA's approach has been to 13 ignore the most basic and perhaps the single most important 14 problem in the regulation of hazardous waste. 15 In fact, it is the very absence of tough regulations 16 on site selection that caused the problem in Wilsonville. 17 Back in 1976, when construction permits were granted to Earth- 18 line, no mention was made as to what the operator of the fa- 19 cility planned to treat and buy there. It was only after the 2Q dump began filling up that residents learned of the dangerous 21 chemicals being buried within their community. Immediately, 22 they filed suit in court to close down the site. The Illinois 23 Attorney General joined them in their suit, but ironically, 24 the Environmental Protection Agency took the side of Earth- 25 line Corporation. ------- 56-10 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 387 In August of 1973, Judge John Russell ordered the site closed and the dismantling of the facility. But whethe^l and when that may occur is very speculative. A higher court could overturn Judge Russell's decision on appeal and the town of Wilsonville could still have a hazardous waste dump within the city limits. My reason for reviewing this very personal and local experience is to show you how difficult it is to remove a hazardous waste dump once it has actually be- gun operation. We suggest that what this means is that the first thing you should concentrate upon is the criteria to be used to determine where these hazardous waste dumps should be located. Once they have been established in a heavily populated area, even your strictest regulations governing their operation are likely to be inadequate. The mere existence of a hazardous waste dump in a population center should never be permitted,, I urge you to change your regula- tions, Congressman Findley urges, to eliminate once and for all the possibility of this occurring again. The approach of EPA's proposed regulations to this problem is simply to create a buffer zone of some 200 feet between the active portion of the facility and its property boundary to reduce the risk to public and environmental health. This two hundred foot requirement is wholly inade- quate. Chemical landfills never lie dormant. When water etrates buried wastes, it removes soluble components, pro- ------- 57-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 388 ducing a grossly polluted liquid leachate that travels away from the dump. EPA recognizes that the technology of lea- chate monitoring is still being refined, and there is no reason to believe the leachate will not travel a two hundred foot distance, especially when the surrounding soil is por- ous. EPA's own Office of Solid Waste has guessed that the average landfill site, about 17 acres in size, produces 4.6 million gallons of leachate a year if there are 10 inches of rain. It is unrealistic to think that all 4.6 million gallons remain within the hazardous dump. Compounding this, there is always the problem of ground water contamination when leaching occurs. More than 100 million Americans depend upon ground water as their source of nature's most vital fluid. In Wilsonville, for ex- ample, if the ground water becomes so contaminated as to be unfit to drink, the town would be without a major source of watero The two hundred foot requirement is also inadequate when you consider the potential for explosions or contamina- tion of the atmosphere which could expose hundreds if not thousands of people to the deadly contents of such substances as cyanides, sulfides and dioxin. We repeat, it is absolutely vital for EPA to write regulations which will make it impossible to construct a haz- ardous waste dump in or near a population center« In the last ------- 58-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 389 session of Congress, Congressman Findley introduced a bill that would have solved this problem by requiring that lands be used for the location of hazardous waste facilities. Due to the sluggishness of EPA in formulating an agency opin- ion, hearings were not held on that bill. Another area of the proposed regulations which we feel is inadequate is EPA's proposal that persons who produce and dispose of 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds) of hazardous waste in any one month be exmpted from EPA's regulations. Although we can sympathize with your desire not to regulate "the little guy", we still find this requirement extremely troublesome. All hazardous wastes have different levels of toxicity. The residue C-56, created through the manufactur-' ing of the pesticide Kepone and Mirex, has a relatively low level of toxicity even in sizeable amounts. At the other end of the spectrum, however, chemists point out that as little as three ounces of dioxin are enough to kill more than a million people. Clearly, EPA should devise a system which takes into consideration the relative toxicity levels of various hazardous wastes instead of issuing a blanket exemp- tion. Finally, we believe EPA has made a major mistake by focusing all of its attention on the treatment and burial of waste only at locations away from where they are generated^ The General Accounting Office estimates that in 1976, only ------- 59-10 390 1 17 per cent of the approximately 46 million tons of poten- 2 tially hazardous waste produced would be buried off-site. 3 The remaining 83 per cent are buried by the company which 4 produces them on the site where they are produced. These 5 hazardous wastes which are buried on the site they are pro- 6 duced, are just as dangerous as those which are carried to 7 another site for burial. In one sense, they may be even more 8 dangerous because little is known about them. It is our 9 understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency does 10 not currently have an accurate record of where all hazardous 11 wastes are buried in this country. It is reasonable to as- 12 sume that the most difficult sites to identify will be those 13 that are located right where the hazardous chemicals were 14 produced. Until these sites are identified and licensed, 15 it will not be possible to have any real concept of the ex- 16 tent of the danger to our society from the hazardous waste 17 dumps peppered across the nation. 18 When RCRA was passed by the Congress in 1976, it 19 was never intended that EPA would only attack part of the 20 problem,, It would be our hope that the promulgation of 2] these regulations would apply to the extent possible, equally 22 not only to off-site facilities such as the one at Wilson- 23 ville, but also to all on-site dumps. 24 To EPA's credit, the Agency has tackled an enormous 25 job with tremendous vigor and thought in trying to implement ------- 60-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 391 RCRA. But the need for action is clear. EPA has already missed its deadline set by Congress by some ten months in issuing regulations. We cannot afford to wait much longer. The situation is critical. If EPA fails to respond soon or in a way not compatible with the concerns of the public, it may be left up to Congress to make those hard decisions to insure the health of the public and the environment. In closing, we would like to leave you with one last thought. Less than 7 per cent of the 92 billion pounds of chemical waste generated each year receives proper dispo- sal. If we are to prevent future disasters from occurring such as the one at Love Canal, the Valley of the Drums or Wilsonville, we need to act now. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you, Mr. Norton. Would you answer any questions we may have? MR. NORTON: I will try. MR. LINDSEY: I think there has been a misinterpre- tation somewhere, maybe because we didn't write these things as clearly as we thought we had but I would just like to point out that on-site disposal facilities are regulated, essen- tially, to the same extent as off-site. How the misinterpre- tation could have been made I don't know but the intent of the regulations as far as we are concerned in writing, that is the case. So, I think that will alleviate some of your ------- 61-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 392 problems, hopefully. MR. NORTON: I thought that might come up. On Page 58947 of the proposed rules, 58947, middle column to- wards the bottom, "The Agency has developed implementation plans which would give first priority for permitting to off- site disposal facilities and new facilities". It is from that, plus other comments we have obtained that led us to that conclusion. MR0 LINDSEY: Let me address that just a minute, if I could. What you are looking at there is a strategy, essentially, we are implementing. Given we have limited resources and the states will assume responsibility for this where we don't, we will also have some limited resources but it is going to take us some time to get around to permitting all the facilities. It's our conclusion, at least thus far, that by and large, a disportionate amount of the damages have occurred from what we will call fly-by-night on-site opera- tions and our intent there is to try and get to those first. That doesn't mean to say we are going to ignore everybody else but by and large, we are going to try and implement in those areas first. There is also some other implementation scheduling arrangements which we are considering and that is we are going to attempt to release or relieve the burden somewhat by trying to implement on-site permits at the same ------- 62-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 393 time that NPDS permits are reissued so we can do them to- gether, things like that, but that doesn't mean to say where we know or expect to be a problem, have reason to believe from a third party operation that we won't proceed to act on those permits immediately and the-regulations themselves ap- ply in either case. What you saw there is a policy of implementing them and when we will get to whom first and that sort of thing. MR. NORTON: It's a matter of concern, obviously, and I will convey this position back to the Congressman be- cause that will relate to further steps that we will be taking MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Norton, to follow up on that a little bit, I should also point out, I think, that even setting aside the priority for permitting, there is still a requirement in the regulations as proposed that all generators and all people who operate treatment storages or disposal fa- cilities on site as well as off-site, must notify EPA within ninety days after these regulations are promulgated and fur- thermore, within 180 days they must apply for a permit. I think this will go a long way to answering your concern about, first of all that we are somehow treating differently on-site than off-site. In fact, we are really not, but also that we will have a much better idea, as you point out, as to where all of these treatment, storage, disposal locations are once this notification process takes force but at the moment, I ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 394 must admit that your Congressman is correct. We do not have as much information along those lines as we would like to have. MR. NORTON: We were worried about the emphasis here. I read the regulations. We have that knowledge con- cerning the proposed timetable for getting in touch with and licensing the on-site generators. We just wanted to make sure that that is a equal matter of priority where it is pur- sued with vigor. MR. LEHMAN: As far as the notification goes and as far as the current application goes, there is equal priori- ty for on-site, off-site there. Another point I would like to clarify, it's part of your statement getting back to the situation of the Earthline facility in Wilsonville. You make the statement that when construction permits were granted to Earthline no mention was made as to what the operator, facllJLty pteaid.h'%'------- 64-10 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Of. 395 the permit before it is issued and so on. I think when these regulations do become finalized that these types of problems that you have pointed out will no longer be a problem. MR. TRASK: Mr. Norton, as you know from reading our Preamble 3002, we are wrestling with this 100 kilogram issue and that is a suggestion and there were five others men- tioned in the Preamble, one of which dealt with the degree of hazard which you suggested we ought to look at. We do solicit the input into this. If you have some thoughts on where we would begin, what would be the dividing line and as to what would be in, what would be out, bearing; in mind that a material that would not be subject to all ad- ministrative requirements, still would be subject to 4004 tyjA facility requirements. In other words, it would not be let lose in the at- mosphere, per se. If you have some thoughts on that we would like to have them. MR0 NORTON: We do and we will be communicating those in writing. MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Norton, I have another question I would like to pursue with you, one of the remarks you were making concerning the setback requirement with respect to lo- cation site selection, indicating that we are aware of the fact the Congressman did introduce a bill concerning the use of a public land for location of hazardous waste facilities ------- 396 65-10 i and I am wondering, first of all, I guess the question is, is 2 that still in the Congressman's plan? Are you intending to 3 have a civil bill introduced in this Congress? 4 MR. NORTON: Yes. 5 MR. LEHMAN: So, it is still the Congressman's 6 opinion that that is the appropriate policy for location of 7 hazardous waste facilities? 8 MR. NORTON: It is. 9 MR. LEHMAN: Given the fact that some federal land 10 are located in somewhat heavily populated areas, you are ll really talking about a. distinction here of a certain type of 12 federal land? 13 MR. NORTON: We would distinguish land as to their 14 proximity to population centers, of course, not just being 15 public land automatically qualifies, for a site. 16 MR. LEHMAN: Do you have some feeling or would you 17 like to comment on just what is an appropriate setback dis- 18 tance than we are talking about here? 19 MR. NORTON: I personally speaking, from my own 20 knowledge and conversations that our office has had with 2i your Agency, I think that that would be subject to quite a 22 few variables in nature, the ground itself and location in 23 relation to water supplies and so forth. I am not prepared 24 to state any magical distance at this time, 500 feet or a 25 thousand feet or what have you. I do know that the existing ------- 66-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 397 or the proposed setback requirement, you apply it in very graphic cases, the Village of Wilsonville where the Earthlin facility is right across the street from the last house and the facility at the end of Main Street^ that that demonstrates it must certainly be farther than 200 feet and actually, the active part of that site is probably more than 200 feet away from the last house along that street. I will be happy to take this subject up with the Congressman and ask him, perhaps, to elaborate on that, MR. LEHMAN: Another follow-up question along those lines, your statement indicated that the location of all hazardous waste facilities should be on federal land. Do you feel that there is a distinction that should be made here between different types of hazardous waste facilities, like incinerators, treatment facilities, et cetera, versus land- fills? In other words, do you think the same type of isola- tion is required for all types of facilities or just for cer- tain types like a landfill. MR. NORTON: At this time we are not making any dis- tinction, I might elaborate on that. Siting is a most diffi- cult problem. You folks are having to contend with it and you have for several years and to look at the examples of Wilsonville, which is closest to our heart because it is in our district, perhaps with the Minnesota demonstration Grant situation or the Oregon problem orvfcat have you, referring to ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 398 the GAO report of late December or early January, this is an awfully tough nut to crack and the Agency has opted for and RCRA is based upon the regulatory approach as contrasted to an earlier emphasis about ten years ago. I think it is our feeling that we don't want to be prophets of doom here but we think we will find there will be little practical solution in the existing approach and we are going to have to go to the public land approach to get the sites situated and operated, MR, LINDSEY: If we go to public land approach when we would go as far as to say the old national disposal sites concept that somebody asked a question about the other day. In other words, would we set up a system where Uncle Sam would be running the facility or would we simply allow and assist the siting of facilities where maybe we would own the land, the federal government would own the land and pri- vate contractors would build facilities? You haven't thought that through? MRo NORTON: There would be several possibilities under the general umbrella, that could be set up, I think, . in our estimation. The worst case situation perhaps might be with the federal government providing a site. I believe from information that I have that the Oregon approach was to assist a private operator with proviso that the land become public property when the site was closed. That's another pur- ------- 68-10 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 399 pose. All of these could be rolled in. They deviate, in our minds, drastically from the existing rules. We think it is going to have to go in that direction,, CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much. We will take a five-minute break. (A short recess was taken.) ------- 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The next speaker this after- noon will be Mildred Hendricks from Gillespie. MS0 HENDRICKS: Is someone calling me? CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Yes, are you Mildred Hen- dricks? MS0 HENDRICKS: I most certainly am, CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: You had indicated you wanted to speak this afternoon? MS, HENDRICKS: Well, I'll tell you what I did0 I was getting ready to go home and I had handed in my tes- timony to these people here. So it will be in the testi- mony o CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K. We have a written statement for the record rather than oral testimony. (Whereupon statement above referred to was made part of the official record.) HEARING INSERT ------- r ^•C v'Voo. -X' '"Following" are"'excerpts testimony by Mrs. Frederick Hen-< dricks, Gillespie, Illinois, (LRA. member) before the 111. legislators. We, the citizens of our Sovereigni State of Illinois, have great hope .-. that you will enforce your oath of office and stop the destruc- tion of that balance of power that once existed between the Sover- eign States and their Agent, the • Federal Government. The State Constitution states, : • "The public policy of the state and the duty of each person is to provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future genera- ; tions. The General Assembly shall • provide by law for implements- ; tion and enforcement of this • Public Policy." In my humble • opinion, the Environmental Pro- > tection Agency is not doing this j and is breaking the law due to ' it being unconstitutional. I do not recall our elected -' representatives ' in Washington giving this power to these un- elected bureaucrats? ?of QSHAr EPA irvd "Thm However, I have hopes that our Congressmen in Washington will be successful | and get back this power which rightfully belongs to our elected legislators. Illinois is a Sovereign State today and must remain one tomorrow and not become a Branch Office of a Regional Bureaucracy for Federal Dictator- ship that might attempt to rule over all of us fromJVash. D.C. We the citizens of the Sovereign State of Illinois created the Federal Government granting very • specific and limited powers, and the Regional Planners admit they have no Constitutional authority for their regulatory agencies. I sincerely hope that the concept of "HUMAN RIGHTS" will not replace our U.S. Constitutional "BILL OF RIGHTS." Then al- most anything can be called "CONSTITUTIONAL" including Regional Governance. In my opinion the present silli- ness of the EPA and some other U.S. agencies is due in major part to a violation of some of the basic concepts of our U.S. Consti- tution particularly Art. I, II, and III, which define the separation of Legislative, Executive and Judicial functions. Although sanctioned to some degree by law, these Regulatory Agencies have more and more assumed all three: they set up regulations, enforce them and judge their validity. Such a concentration of power is certainly contrary to our American tradition and is at odds with the Constitution of the U.S. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 (See separate transcript for question and answer 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 401 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Is there anyone who would like to speak on Section 3003 Regulations? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: All right, we will close the record of the hearing on Section 3003. session.) ------- ROOM 2133. RATBUMM BuiunNO ' PAUL FINDLEY COMMITTEES, WASH.NCTON. D.C. 20315 ZOn. DISTRICT. |LUNOI» INTERNATIONAL. RELATIONS (202) 225-3271 AGRICULTURE Congress of tlje SJniteb States SUpreaentatifce* , 5B. C. I I Lj Please include this statement in the official record along with the statement presented by my Springfield administrative assistant at the St. Louis hearings February 15, 1979. Thanks very much Paul Findley Representative in Congress ------- I am pleased to submit for the record these additional substantive comments concerning the final promulgation of rules for section 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These regulations were to be promulgated, as directed by law, no later than April of 1978. Unfortunately U.S. EPA's lack of diligence in formulating and adopting rules has now delayed by one year establishment of an active, effective and comprehensive regulatory program. Yet, in proposing these rules EPA signals its first real attempt to deal with the problem of hazardous waste management. Although a step forward, these regulations do not, even in the smallest way, tackle the problem of where to locate hazardous waste facilities. The Love Canal in New York, the Valley of the Drums in Kentucky, the PCB episode in Michigan and countless other cases provide grim testimony to the potential for disaster. For example, within the Congressional district I represent lies the small, quiet community of Wilsonville, Illinois. Yet Wilsonville has been in the national news recently. Located in Wilsonville, a hazardous waste dump which euphemisti- cally calls itself Earthline has created a public outcry of unequalled proportions. Filing suit, the citizens of Wilsonville, joined by the Illinois Attorney General, have sought injunctive relief against further dumping and operation of the Earthline site. Ironically, the Environmental Protection Agency took the side of Earthline. Squaring off against each other, the residents won a victory in August of 1978 when Judge John Russell ordered the site closed and the dismantling of the facility because of the danger the site posed to the town. Yet Judge Russell's order may never be implemented if his decision is overturned and the town could still have an active hazardous waste dump within the city limits. ------- r- 3 •' '• 137Q . • i •.. .-.» «/ -.'j i j . \ i J i_i i_Zi '•'•- U STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN PAUL FINDLEY before the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S HEARINGS ON RCRA FEBRUARY 15, 1979 ------- Page Two I strongly urge EPA to do two things: First, EPA should withdraw its opposition to Judge Russell's order and accept the court's, verdict closing the Earthline hazardous waste disposal site in the town of Wilsonville. EPA should recognize that the people living within a community have a right not to have a hazardous waste treatment plant placed within the borders of their town. Second, EPA should formulate national regulations prohibiting the establishment of any hazardous waste treatment plant within a community or other population center. The lesson of Wilsonville is that such hazardous waste disposal sites are unnecessary, unwanted, undesirable, and unhealthy. EPA can and should make them unlawful. Site location is the crux of the hazardous waste issue. With these comments as a preface let me discuss briefly section 3001, identification and listing of hazardous wastes, and point to some of the strengths and weaknesses I see in these proposed rules. First, under the scope of the definition of hazardous waste in paragraph 250.10(d) certain materials are excluded from the definition because they are not regarded as discarded materials. In my judgment the definition should not turn on this indistinct definition. For example, some operators claiming to be solvent reclaimers have in fact been hazardous waste disposal operations. Usually such an operation solicits waste materials containing potentially recoverable solvents in the hope that significant revenue can be obtained by recovering the materials. However when it is discovered that solvents cannot be economically recovered, the operator may be left with a large inventory of waste materials for which he has insufficient funds for disposal. It is my judgment that EPA has erred in choosing not to prepare ------- Page Three regulations recognizing the degree of hazard. A single hazard classifi- cation system for all hazardous wastes, as EPA has proposed, will require all hazardous wastes to be handled in the same manner and to be treated at facilities conforming to the regulations stated in section 3004. Wastes are usually disposed of in either the acidic environment of an open dump containing decaying organic matter or managed in the hazardous waste system prescribed in sections 3002, 3003 and 3004. These two disposal methods represent extremes in cost and complexity. Many wastes can be disposed of in facilities far less costly than those conforming with the section 3004 regulations provided they are kept from an acidic environment. A waste classfication system such as those in effect in Illinois, California and Texas, could be designed recognizing the degree of hazard. Utilizing this kind of system would enable more reasonable, defensible and less inflationary regulations to be devised. Classification would also, I believe, make public acceptance of hazardous waste sites more likely if people knew what kinds of wastes were to be handled at the facility. For example, fly ash is considered hazardous but has a low level of toxicity. Given a low toxic rating, people would be more willing to have fly ash stored near them than say a waste, such as dioxin, having a much higher toxic rating. Additionally, I disagree with EPA's proposal for a blanket exclusion from the hazardous waste regulatory program for generators of less than 100 kilograms per month. While such an exclusion might be justified for some small waste generators, substances such as dioxin or hexachloro- cyclopentadience are lethal in quantities of much less than 100 kilograms. ------- Page Four I would suggest that a new hazard classification system which takes into account volume and toxicity be used to determine the need for taking part in the regulatory program. I also found in the preamble of the regulatory proposals a state- ment that greatly distresses me. On page 58947 of the Federal Register, the preamble said in part, "The agency has developed implementation plans which would give first priority for permitting off-site disposal facilities and new facilities,. ..." The General Accounting Office has estimated that of the 46 million tons of potentially hazardous waste produced in 1976, 83 percent was buried by the company which pro- duced the wastes on the site where it was produced. Yet these on-site wastes are just as dangerous as those which are carried to another site for burial. When RCRA was enacted into law in 1976, Congress never thought that EPA would direct its efforts primarily to the problem of off-site disposal. It is my hope that EPA will seek to balance its future efforts between on and off-site disposal of hazardous waste. Section 3002 of RCRA sets forth the requirements governing the generator's manifest, reporting and recordkeeping system. If one reads the proposed rules carefully concerning this system an obvious defect appears: A generator who sends his wastes to an off-site, in-state, captive facility is exempt from all reporting requirements. Operators of captive waste management facilities should, at a minimum, file the same reports as on-site disposers. Turning to section 3004, I would disagree with the specific requirements concerning the 200 foot buffer zone to be placed between the active portions of the facility and the property line. I believe ------- Page Five that the danger of explosion or contamination may in certain cases be so great that a 200 foot buffer zone would be inadequate if the facility is located in a populated area. I would also object to EPA's requirement that a facility not be located in a 500 year floodplain. This is a rather stiff requirement that I consider unnecessary. I would suggest that a 100 year floodplain or even the greatest flood of record, whichever is greater, be used to determine the propriety of locating a facility on a floodplain. Finally, I want to express my concern over EPA's proposed standards governing special wastes. The thrust of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is to encourage the recycling of wastes when possible. My fear, however, is that certain combustion by-products such as fly ash, bottom ash, slag, and sulfur will not be recycled to the degree possible due to the hazardous waste classfication given these by-products under section 3001. For example, the special waste classification proposed by EPA classifies fly ash as hazardous. Yet the level of toxicity for fly ash is so low that it is silly to classify the ash with such toxic wastes as dioxin. I know for a fact that certain townships within my district have been blessed with have quantities of fly ash available to use with slag and sulfur to build the sub-surf ace for roads. Fly ash also has other uses. It can be used in making cement and concrete blocks and fertilizer. If fly ash is classified as a hazardous waste, however, few farmers may want to apply to EPA for a permit to use this by-product. ------- Page Six I would urge EPA to reconsider its strategy for special wastes. Recycling should be encouraged, not stymied. The hazardous waste labeling given these by-products may preclude their use, their recycling and their contribution in reducing the amount of accumula- ted waste. EPA has tackled an enormously important job. Love Canal, the Valley of the Drums in Kentucky, Wilsonville, Illinois, demonstrate the need for action. EPA should complete its regulatory program as mandated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as soon as possible and not let another year slip by during which the seeds of other tragedies may be planted. ------- SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT FOR QUESTION- AND ANSWER SESSION St. Louis, Missouri February 15, 1979 ------- 402^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We will go ahead and answer questions that we had left from this morning on 3002 and we'll also be handing out more cards if you have anymore written questions on Section 30030 MR0 LEHMAN: This relates back to the answer to a previous question this morning„ The question: "Are you saying that using hazardous waste oil for purposes of dust suppression can be a permanent disposal method?" The answer is yes, according to our regulations, it's not banned outright. What we are saying rather is that it must be controlled. Namely/ it needs to be, if it is permitted, it has to be done with a permit so the answer to the question is yes, it is possible that dust suppression using waste oil can so be done but it would require permit. Another question: "If a state does not have an approved Subtitle D program,""— this is for nonhazardous waste under RCRA0 "If a state does not have an approved nonhazardous Subtitle D program, where will the disposal of nonhazardous waste be allowed within that state?" Well, the answer is that under Subtitle D, the Federal Government really has no direct authority. The landfilling of nonhazardous waste or disposal of is subject to state control0 The fact, however, that a state does not have an approved Subtitle D program then you have to ------- 403 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 read the 4000 series of RCRA to understand their interrela- tionships there between EPA as a criteria for land disposal and the approval of state nonhazardous waste program,, If a state does not have an approved Subtitle D program, this opens up the direct possibility of foreclosure of certain landfill sites0 In other words, it is only if a state has an approved Subtitle D program that they can put certain landfills that are classified as open dumps in accordance with the Federal criteria on some sort of a compliance schedule. Otherwise such facility would be subject to direct citizen suits for immediate closure. Also, I might point out as we've discussed earlier today, in the 100 kilogram per month proposal of conditional exemption of 100 kilograms per month under Section 3002 for hazardous waste, it is conditional in the sense that you are out of the regulatory system provided that you take the less than 100 kilograms to a landfill which is — see if I can get — I'm going to have to look at the regu- lations for the exact wording but to paraphrase, the Sub- title D landfill would have to be approved pursuant to an approved Subtitle D program. In other words, if you have — if you happen to live in a state which does^ not have an approved Subtitle D< program, then the state permits for those nonhazardous waste facilities do not satisfy the requirements of these ------- 404 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conditional exemptions and therefore the 100 kilogram ex- emption would not apply either. So there are a number of ramifications associated with a state .that does not have an approved Subtitle D program. Question: "Spent solvent going to a solvent re- claimant, does the generator of the spent solvent need to fill out a manifest?" Well, the answer is no under our -proposed regula- tions. However, I think I should point out that previous commentors, both here yesterday and in New York last week, have questioned this practice or this situation as a possible loophole and consequently the Agency will reexamine that. But as of December 18 when we proposed our regulations, the answer to that question would be no. MR. LINDSEY: A couple of questions about the siting, really0 They are rather broad0 "Have you given any consideration as to how or where a landfill would be located? Is Federally-owned land a consideration?" There is nothing in our regulations that preclude the use of Federally-owned lands but Federally-owned lands are not under EPA jurisdiction. They are largely under a variety of other Federal agencies, including the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and military and so ------- 405 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 forth0 There was — I should point it out if it might be of interest, a relatively recent action in which the state of Washington obtained a piece of Federal land in the mid- dle of a reservation which is Atomic Energy plant for in- dustrial waste disposal site and that is being developed at the present time. And there was quite a bit of public interest in that at the time. As a matter of fact they have relocated several times in response to that public interest. O.K., it says, "This might be a more appropriate 3004 question but what effects on the site selection process for hazardous waste disposal sites does the EPA foresee resulting from the soon-to-be-finalized public participa- tion regulations? Several comments over the past few days reflect a general public emotionalism attached to the is- sue of siting facilities and I'd like your opinion about site availability and s.o forth," Well, the first question is what about the effects of the public participation regulations. Those are being incorporated more specifically in regulations under our Section 3005 regulations which are being integrated. They are procedual in nature. They have due process requirements which includes hearings and so forth and which correspond to the requirements of the public participation. And those will be proposed in an integrated fashion with similar ------- 406 17 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regulations under JfPDS and UIC in a control program in about four to six weekso But there will be an opportunity for public input in several phases, including a hearing, with regard to that0 Now the problem which the person here addresses is the fact that the public, by and larger is not interested in having these facilities being located near them. We've heard a, number of comments to that effect in these hearings and it's been a known problem for awhile that this is a difficult problem. And that's understandable, given the love canals and other problems which have come down the pike. The question is what is all this going to mean and the bottom line, with regard to siting facilities? Well, it's certainly going to make siting facilities more difficult. Hopefully the regulatory program which we have here will be perceived by the public as providing control and if we implement it correctly and enforce it correctly, hopefully the public will gain some faith in our ability, collective ability of the disposal industry, plus as regu- lators of that industry, to protect their health and best interests. You heard Mr. Norton's comments just recently on his concerns in this area, his and Congressman Findley's ------- 40? i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and he mentioned the potential for some Federal intervention, perhaps, in the siting situation, perhaps use of Federal lands or perceive them even going so far as setting up Federal disposal facilities, perhaps. So all these options are in the wings. As to where this will all come out, I'm. really not sure0 We certainly hope that private enterprise, with the regulations which we're putting together, will be successful in con- vincing the public that this thing can be done right and, in fact, must be done right, if we're to avoid more danger- ous problems of having these materials simply dumped in pits and alongside the roads and woods and people^s back- yards because there isn*t any alternative. In fact that's about all we can say about it for the moment. MR« TRASK: , A couple of questions that were turned in this morning. They seemed to fit more properly under 3003 so we held them for this session. The first one is, "How will the transportation of hazardous materials by barge be handled?" I don*t know if welre in a semantics problem here, or not, but I suspect we may be. But for the record, we are not dealing with hazardous materials in these regula- tions. We are dealing with hazardous waste because hazar- dous waste is a DOT term0 ------- 408 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But let's assume the person meant a waste. There is no special requirement for barges. They are treated the same as any other vehicle. It*s. important to note here that the Coast Guard has informed us recently that they are considering proposing some amendments to 46CFR, which would pick up the hazardpus waste regulations and incorporate them into their regulations dealing with hazardous materials, In other words, they would do much the same as the DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials regulations that — so all regulations dealing with barges would be in one place, the same as regulations dealing with railroads and highways are in one place. The other question says, "In the event of a spill, who is the generator? IS it the spiller or the cleanup contractor?" Legally, as I understand it, the generator would be the spiller and not the cleanup contractor because the definition says that it's the person whose act or process produced the waste. And if hazardous material is spilled and that part which was not recovered as product then would become hazardous waste and therefore the person whose act or process caused that to happen0 The question goes on, "In the case of the notifi- cation, will all persons who could have a hazardous material spill be required to notify it?" ------- 409 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 T4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The answer is no, they are not required to notify it unless they are in the business of handling hazardous waste in one form or another. The notification in this particular instance, I believe, is going to be satisfied by the requirement that a copy of the EPA — EPA will receive a copy of the spill report which is sent into the EPA. And that would suffice as a notification,, Question dealing with containers says, "Does triple rinse apply to best side containers only or to any container previously containing hazardous waste? For example, empty paint cans? If not to paint cans, how are paint cans and other such containers disposed of?" In the 3001 Standards in 250014A on Page 58958 that deals with — what it says specifically is that contai- ners are a hazardous waste unless they are triple rinsed. In other words, any triple rinse container would be a non- hazardous waste and therefore a candidate for disposal under 4004-type facility. I have some more if you want them,, MR0 LINDSEY: According to 250.20C, "Any person who generates a waste must be determined pursuant to Subpart A if the waste is hazardous,," "You had stated earlier that you did not know who is generating hazardous waste and they will be notified. ------- 410 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Are those not notified by you in violation of the regula- tions if they do not evaluate their waste? Also how can we find out who it is that will be notified?" I think maybe I ought to address this whole noti- fication business a little bit and hopefully clear it up. The notification provision is in there, in the Act by Congress, in order for EPA to be told by those who have the wate whether or not they have hazardous waste. In other words, the onus, if you will, is on the generator, treater, disposer, and transporter to tell EPA so that EPA knows who the regulated community is. That's the rea- son for that. On the other hand, there are some provisions in there, for example, in order to have interim status if you are a treater, storer or disposer, in order to have interim status for an ongoing facility during a period when EPA is reviewing permit applications, which might take some time, one must have notified EPA. And what we're trying to do here is to say, "00K., this is a requirement. Every- one must notify us," And by and large, we don't really have to do anything except sit back and receive these things. But we said, "That doesn't make sense because a lot of people may not realize what their requirements are under this Act, So what we'll try to do is anticipate who ------- 411 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may be involved and let them know what their requirements are." So we've planned to send a mailing. And what we did, frankly, was sit down and go through SIC codes and try to pick out of those SIC codes, in these three sections and subsegments and subsegments, which may or may not have hazardous waste,. So we're trying to be overly inclusive here and we're going to generate a mailing which will come out to those people whom we feel may be in this system and say, "Look, here*s the requirements. If you are, in fact, in this system, you must let us know.^That is -require-! ments of the Law." Therefore, since we have tried to be overly in- clusive, I expect that many of the people who receive the mailing will, in fact, not be handling hazardous wastes. And if they are not, then they have no requirements0 On the other hand, there may be some people we miss, that we didn.'t know or didn't think had hazardous waste, or what-have-you. In those cases, those people still have requirement under the Act as still to notify EPA. The final part of this says, "Are those not notified by youiin violation of the regulations if they do not evaluate their waste?" They are in violation of the regulations if they handle hazardous waste and don't notify us. They are not ------- 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 412 in violation of the regulations. They are in violation of the Act. And the question, of course, goes a little bit further than that. I .think that it said suppose we didn't knovr and legitimately didn't know and we didn't notify them, what happens when we get caught. I guess that's going down on this particular question. Well, they are in violation and there are in the Act the provisions here for enforcement actions to be brought. And there's a lot of discretion on the part of the Agency with regard to what we would do with enforcement actions and I can't prejudge those. But people would be in violation and they would be subject, at least, to some sort of enforcement action. Amy, do you want to say anything more about that? MS. SCHAFFER: I think that kind of the philoso- phy of my office, the Agency, is that we're more interested in getting people into the system than bringing enforcement action. And if you honest-to-goodness really didn't know that you were supposed to be in the system and you find out a year later, we're not going to slap you with a $25,000 fine0 However, it is still up to the discretion of the Agency and it's going to have to be a case-by-case basis. But as Fred said, I want to reiterate that we have some idea who is going to be involved in the system but we don't know everybody. And the burden of reporting is ------- 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 413 on the publico That is the industry who uses the hazardous waste community. And it's hot our responsibility to tell you if you have to notify. It's your responsibility to tell us if you have hazardous waste. I have a question here concerning the transporter reg0 In 250,35, there is a requirement that the transpor- ter must obtain certification on the manifester, deliver the document by the authorized agent to the permitted faci- lity 0 The question is, "What is the transporter to do if he cannot acquire certification of manifester after five days?" This is another instance where we really haven't sat down and said, "We know exactly what is going to happenj( If I were the transporter, I would immediately notify the generator that, to protect myself as a trans- porter, I would also notify EPA and/or the state involved, the state agency involved, to tell them that I could not get the certification and I had delivered it and I have my portion of the manifest assigned. And then the state or EPA will take appropriate action0 The second part of this question is, "Where and when does the delivery document enter the tracking system?" I think the delivery document is a piece of- paper that is used in transportation and it has the same information on the manifest but it is carried by the trans- ------- 414 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 porter while the waste is in transportation. It is a cur- rent practice of the transporters to use the delivery document. Hence, and it is some generators like to keep the original manifest at the site of generation and use the delivery document while the waste is in transit. The reason why we have included delivery docu- ment is because of the current practice. The tracking document would be delivery document but the actual piece of paper that is needed to be kept as reference and used as the reporting information is the manifest. So basically the delivery document coming into the tracking system as soon as the waste leaves the place of generation. MR. LEHMAN: A question: "If diesel fuel oil that has a flash point of 125 degrees Fahrenheit or above and has been recovered from oil/water separators and locomotive fueling stations"— I'm sorry. "Is diesel fuel oil that has a flash point of 125 degrees or above and has been recovered from oil/water separators and locomotive fuel- ing stations, is that considered a hazardous waste? It is collected and used as steam generator fuel." Well, here is another case, I assume that this is basically collecting what is noncontaminated virgin diesel oil off of oil/water separator at a fueling station and reusing it as basically noncontaminated virgin oil. ------- 16 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Therefore I don't believe in this case it would be con- sidered a hazardous waste0 "Who will set the standards for the quality of oil for road oil and quality of oil for incineration? If this has been determined, what are the applicable standards?" Well, for example, it has been determined and the standards are the applicable parts of Section 3004. Namely, if you're going to incinerate oil in an incinerator, itls got to meet the incinerator*s standards. And if you're going to road oil, it's got to meet the applicable part of the land disposal regulation in 3004. Also, I might point out, that where there is some doubt, the Human Health and Environmental Standards override all of the other standards. Special waste, Section 3004, "How were the speci- fic wastes listed in the special waste section designated for this category?" And, "Were the large quantities of slag by the steel industry considered for this special for this special waste designation?" 0,K., when I answered the first one, I think I also basically answered the second one. And I call your attention to the preamble of Section 3004 on Page 58991 where the whole special waste standard was discussed. Let me just paraphrase what it says in the preamble^ which is the answer to this question. And that is that the ------- 416 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Agency realized that there were some portions of certain very large volume wastes that probably will be hazardous under Subpart A or 3001 standards0 And thus will come with the purview of the hazardous regulatory scheme. Also that for some of these very large volume wastes there was — there did not seem to be a very direct corollary between the regulatory program structure that was set up there in our proposed regulation towards those special wastes0 As I mentioned earlier, the assumption was that these were in such high volumes that they would be handled primarily, at least, on site. So these were some of the reasons why some of these wastes were designated for special treatment under Section 30040 I think we've gone into the distinction early on about whether, on other words, not all of these wastes are necessarily hazardous unless they are listed in Section 3001 or meet some of the criteria in 3001 for r hazardous wastes. As to whether or not the slag for the steel in- dustry was considered for this designation, the answer there is that the information we have from our studies of the iron and steel industry indicates that most steel slag is nonhazardouSo Therefore we did not see the need for any special waste category for the steel slag» And this is similar to a question that was asked, I believe, yesterday ------- 417 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or perhaps it was New Yor^ I'm getting fuzzy about some of these things, concerning foundry sand. The same basic question was askedo Like why was foundry sand considered to be a special waste category„ And the answer is the same there. Our information has it that most, if not all, foundry sand is probably nonhazardous and therefore we didn't see any need to set a special waste category for that. MR. TRASK: I have a few questions here dealing with triple rinsing. Let me take them together because the answer is the same, I think. It says, "Triple rinsing is not comprehensive enough. For example, if you triple rinse an oil drum . or an oil paint drum with water fulfills the letter of your reg, but will do little to remove the hazardous waste." I -guess it's a question, "Should you say triple rinse with a solution which will remove the hazardous sub- stance?" And the second one is, "Triple rinse paint cans with water or thinner?" The definition of triple rinse as stated in Section 3001 says, "It shall be rinsed with a volume of diluento" The intent here is that diluent means the normal diluent for that material. If it's an oil base paint then it would be a thinner0 If it's water base paint, it would ------- 418 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be water„ In other words, whatever the normal diluting material is is the material that should be used for triple rinsing that drum. I think the bottom line of all that is is that a triple-rinsed drum which still has a residue in it could be said to be not triple rinsed. Our experience with triple rinsing and now we're getting into the area of pesticide drums, but we found that it was feasible easily to get at least 90 per cent removal of the residue in the drum by triple rinsing. In, fact, in some cases, triple rinsing when it was carried out to the full extent was the drum was thoroughly turned over and over, we could get about 96 to 97 removal. And this was some of the work done by the Air Force with some of their pesticide containers. In everyday practice, even using water in those emulsifiable concentrates of pesticides where water is the normal diluent, we found it common to get in the area of 88 to 93-94 per cent removal of residuals. So triple rinsing does work and we do have some basis to compare the efficiency of removal0 So I think it would be wrong to assume that the way the regulation is written it would mean water. I think that there could be some bad fallout from all that. The question here, and I really think it's a com- ment, not a question but let me read that. "Tn connection ------- 419 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with an NRC phone call" — I assume that means the National Response Center of the U, S» Coast Guard, it says, "why couldn't, this be consolidated into an existing call, for example CHEMTRAK, so that an officer on the scene of an incident doesn't spend all of his time on the telephone?" This seems to indicate that this person has had a hard time getting through to the National Response Center of the U0 Se Coast Guard. We have been informed within the last two weeks that the Coast Guard is doubling the size of the staff at the National Response Center so that much better service will be available from them. I don't know what it was like before. We're assured that now it will be adequate,, A question on the manifest says, "In addition to the manifest requirements is it possible to identify each drum with a unique number that would precisely identify the material within, i.e. a serial number on something or a can? The reason for the additional information would be immediate idea of contents in times of emergency.? I point out that the regulation in 250.26B through reference requires that the name and common code of the waste be in the marking on the container0 And also that the words "Controlled Waste. Federal Law Prohibits Improper Disposal" followed by the generator's ID code and the — the other part of that escapes me for the moment but ------- 420 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anyhow there is a marking there by which you can precisely identify what is in that container both in terms of the name of the waste and the common code number which is a CAS number0 Also the hazard involved because the label — there must be a label on the container which indicates the DOT hazard that we're dealing with here0 Question about transporter, "If a transporter has a spill of hazardous materials and thereby becomes a hazardous waste generator, then will the transporter need to notify and apply for an ID code as a generator?" I think we spoke to that before, that when this happens DOT requires that a report be sent to i.t0 DOT is going to send out a copy of that report to us. We can then use that as a notification and, in turn, send an ID code to that persono So that he has properly notified us. This is, however, an implementation question and that's our first approach to this. But experience may dic- tate we want to do something else. But for the moment, that's what we intend. Alan Roberts, where are you? Anyway, I'll try this one. It says, "Do the DOT regulations apply to a transporter if he is hauling a hazardous waste that is not a hazardous material under DOT and he does not cross a state line and he is a private carrier, that is not for hire? If the answer is no, what EPA is required to comply with?" ------- 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 421 The answer is yes so the second part doesn't mean anything. I call your attention here to the proposals from DOT, in Part 171.3, where 171,3A says, ''No person may offer for transport or transport in interstate or intrastate com- merce any quantity of a hazardous waste except in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter." What that means is that hazardous waste becomes a full-fledged hazardous material. It.-.also asserts DOT's intention to regulate intrastate as well as interstate transportation of hazardous materials. So whether it crosses the state line, it doesn't matter. And whether or not it's a private carrier doesn't matter. The fact is that hazardous waste now becomes a hazardous material and these regulations apply to everyone0 MR0 LINDSEY: Would an on-site facility, a dump or incinerator on-site, that was permitted be required to manifest every batch or shipment?" The answer is no, there's no required manifesting on site. The manifestinent is a mechanism to insure that waste gets from wherever they are generated to wherever they are disposed. But if all that's done on-site, then there is no manifest involved,, "Are all regulations for on-site facilities equal to off-site facilities?" Yeah, there's no — there's nothing different abou? ------- 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 422 — in other words, there's no break given to on-site faci- lities or off-site facilities. They are treated the same0 "What about bonding for on-site facilities?" And, "For public sector generators and operators such as the state university?" O.K., that's really several parts. There's no real difference in the financial responsibility regulations, financial regulations, with regard to bn-site or off-site facilities. There just isn't a difference there„ The question then goes on to talk about public sector generators and operators. There is no financial responsibility requirements for generators at all. That's for treatment, storage and disposal facilities which have a permita Thatls. where the financial responsibility regu- lations occur. To take it one step further and see if I can explair some of this. The financial responsibility regulations are under 250,43-9, and there are really three parts to those. One is the closure bond, if you will, which is an upfront depositi It's a trust fund is basically what it isa And that's required for everyone. That doesn't matter whether they are a state university or a city or what it is. We find that city and public institutions are not always in any better shape to pay for problems and closeout than pri- vate institutions in a lot of cases. And thus no distinc- ------- 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 423 tion has been made for public facilities with regard to in- suring that the money is going to be there to properly closd the facility when it's done. The second part of that has to do — the second part of these requirements, financial requirements, has to do with the building of th.e fund for post-closure monitoring, maintenance which is built up over the length of the site and that is also incumbent on the public sector facilities as well as those in the private sector. That fund would have to be built up and trust fund mechanism to be sure that money is there to pay the post-closure monitoring and maintenance at a later time. The third area has to do with the site-life liability requirements. That is what most people talk of as the insurance requirement. Now in that there is a little bit of a variation that can be allowed in that there is three ways in which one can establish that financial re- sponsibility. One is evidence of liability insurance. Another is self-insurance, which is pegged to 10 per cent of equity. And the third is evidence, other evidence, of financial responsibility. The ability, in this particular area, the ability or jurisdiction to tax, for example, to discharge this responsibility in the case, in the event that it's sued. It probably would be something that we would look upon as acceptable0 ------- 25 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 424 Now the Regional Administrator is the one who will make those decisions as^ to what other evidence is allowable. But I would think that would be something which a public sector facility would be able to us.e0 "Is it intended to dispose of hazardous wastes according to their chemical nature —" reactivity and so forth, "or all in one trench?" I would refer the question to 250045-2-B-40 That's on Page 59009 and it says, "Waste containerized or noncon- tainerized that is incompatible," and there's a list in an appendix, "shall be disposed of in separate landfill cell." And so the answer is that it's not allowed to dis- pose of materials together that interreact. I should also point out that No0 3 right above that requires that permanent record be kept of what is placed where within the facility so that if the need is ever there -to go back and retrieve any of this material because of problems or because maybe we want to obtain it for resource purposes at a later time, then that record will be there. And, "If solid waste going to a recycling company is not regulated, why would this be considered a loophole when the recycling company is regulated as a generator of the waste?" If somebody thinks we said that was a loophole ------- 425 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then I think they are misinterpreting us. It's our thinking that solvents and other things that are going to recycle its products has a value and they are not likely — not as likely to get lost in the transporting phase as are other things. It's been said to us by several people — I don't think today but at other times, that without a mani- fest, unless these wastes are manifested, they sure will be lost, be going to the recycler. And all I can say to that is, you know, that if people want to violate the Law in dumping that waste on the way to the recycler is viola- ting the Law, then there's nothing to prevent them from violating the Law even with a nonrecycle waste simply by not starting a manifest and hauling it down the road and dumping^ito And if we catch them, then there will be an en- forcement suit and so forth. And as a matter of fact, that might even qualify, depending on intent, that might even qualify for criminal sanction under this particular Act. "Will states have the option of requiring a stricter manifest system than that proposed in the regula- tions? In other words, requiring a manifest for hazardous wastes whether it is recycled or disposed of on land or incinerated,, If so, how will this iinpact interstate trans- portation of hazardous wastes?" That's a very good question. By and large — well, ------- 426 2/7 / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the manifest format which we are requiring here will be in- Cunbtfot^lQ everyone in the country. States will have the option to add to that manifest, ask different questions, perhaps, and that sort of thing. However, the format which is in our regulations which is not only questions that will be asked but the form, the place on the form where they ask is nationally mandate. So they must use — everyone must use our format. They can add to it. They can also, presumably, as far as we're concerned anyway, they can make this manifest incumbent on other wastes as far as we're concerned. Things that are not covered under the Federal system. For example, recycled materials which. is a person's question, whether or not we're going to re- quire a manifesto If states want to do that, presumably they could. The problem would be they won't be able to enforce it outside their jurisdiction. Outside of their jurisdiction they would have no way of enforcing the disposer in another state, for example, to send them a copy, perhaps. There is something else here and maybe, Harry, you want to listen to this. Since we're — just to make sure I'm not making a mistake. Since we're integrating our manifest system with the DOT shipping papers, I would think in such a case there might be a chance that the Department of Transportation might preempt such a more in- ------- 427 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elusive manifest system, particularly if it involves or impedes in some fashion the movement of waste or messes around with their forms. Question, Harry, let me just reiterate it because I'm not sure you were listening. In other words, could a state cause — could a state, lot of difficulty here. "Could a state require manifest on additional wastes?" In other words, take a manifest system and acquire for additional waste or for additional facilities and things like that. Would that not — I think my point is I think it might run afowl of the DOT shipping requirements. MR. TRASK: You mean for more than just hazardous wastes? MR. LINDSEY: Well, what we would consider hazardous wastes. Would states have the option of requiring stricter manifest system — in other words, requiring a manifest for hazardous wastes whether it is recycled or disposed of on land, incinerated or what-have-you? In other words, extending its use of the manifest system beyond what we would do? MR0 TRASK: O.K., we have tried to work out very carefully with DOT what leeway we have here, where we can go and where we can't go in this area of the manifest versus the shipping papers. And I think we have come to the joint conclusion that as long as the requirements are not incon- ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 428 sistent with what DOT is doing. In other words, does not interfere with transportation, per se. Then DOT is not likely to preempt that particular program or that element of the program. In general, a state apparently does have the authority to require separate manifest form. Note that neither EPA nor DOT requires a specific form. In both cases we're dealing with format. So if the state comes up with a form and if the information on that form is essentially the same as what EPA and DOT re- quire, at least if the minimum information is on that form and in essentially the same order, DOT has indicated that they are not likely to preempt that sort of a situation. The situation seems more likely that they would preempt, and here you almost get into prejudging as to what they would do and what they wouldn't. I don't think they have preempted anything yet. But that would be a case where a state erected some barrier to transporta- tion within the state from outside of the state. That might be a proper subject for their preemption. This is discussed some in the DOT proposal and whoever has raised this question might want to study that to some extent, I'm sorry that Alan Roberts is not here to discuss this at greater length because he has some very definite ideas on it. But I'm essentially paraphras- ing things that he has said at other meetings and hearings. ------- 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 429 I have a. couple of questions here. I might as well carry on. It says, "Will all aerosol cans of insecticides have to be collected and disposed of as a hazardous waste because they cannot be triple rinsed?" Most aerosol cans of insecticides are designed for household use and household wastes are of course ex- cluded. That was a very clear intent of Congress that house- hold waste not be included in hazardous waste and we have said —- the Agency has said elsewhere in 40CFR, Part 165, that pesticide products and their containers that are in- tended for domestic use will not be included as a special waste but instead should be wrapped in paper and put in with the regular municipal waste stream. The second part of this says, "Also, will all small paint cans that are not triple rinsed have to be disposed of as hazardous waste?* I think the same situation applies„ What we do have, however, is some local municipal waste authorities prohibiting the pickup of hazardous wastes. And some of these do extend to paint cans, I think one of the local jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C. area, Montgomery County, Maryland, for example, does prohibit the pickup of any of the hazardous materials and they are particularly after flammables and some paints are flammables, as you probably ------- 430 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know. A question on the 100 kilos item, "Can a generator produce two or more entirely separate, not combined, hazar- dous waste materials and be allowed to dispose of them in Subtitle D landfills without being included in the Subtitle C system because each separate waste is less than 100 kilo- grams per month? Or is the hazardous waste total from one manufacturing location, the waste which qualifies for Subtitle C reporting permitting system?" Two things here: the total of the waste stream is what counts in this particular instance, whether it's two or three or a dozen waste streams. If the total comes to more than 100 kilograms a month, then that generator is in the system and needs to report. The last part of this question talks about per- mits. There are no permits for generators0 I want to make that perfectly clear. Congress clearly said that we should not interfere with the productive process in making these regulations. And therefore we do not, cannot require any permits for generators0 MR,, LEHMAN: Question: ."How will future use of closed hazardous waste landfill areas return to the public for use be controlled to preclude disruption of the cells?" Well, first of all, it's not clear that closed hazardous waste landfill areas would be returned to the ------- 32 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 431 public for use. It might be returned for private use as i well. All that aside, either way the answer to the ques- tion is that under 250.43-7 of the Section 3004 regula- tions, these regulations stipulate or require a stipula- tion in the deed of property that future use shall not violate the integrity of the cover of the landfill, its liners or the monitoring systems. That's written right into the property deed. Section 3004 question: "Could you address the topic of existing pits^ ponds and lagoons relative to Section 3004 regulations and the requirement directed at these for leach aid detection systems? And secondly, how will this affect pits ponds and lagoons associated with MPDS activities, for example, holding and treatment ponds or pond& containing contaminated water or waste treatment or discharge?" O.K., I'll answer the second question first. The issue here is that MPDS activities are regulated to the extent that the Clean Water Act deals with discharge in navigable waters. It does not address, MPDS permits, do not address air emissions or ground water emissions, at least ground water emissions that do not impact surface water. Consequently the Agency has determined that RCRA does apply to these types of pits,ponds and lagoons ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 432 to the extent that KPDS does not, namely with, respect to air emissions and ground water leaching or leaching into ground water0 Now what we're driving at here and which has, I think, been misinterpreted by some is that for existing pits, ponds- and lagoons, we want to be satisfied that they meet the basic intent of the Section 3004 regulations. Now that means that they have an equivalent degree of containment. Now as to what the standards are, for example, let's take, a hypothetical case. Say, our regulations re- quire, say, five-feet of clay as a liner and an existing pit£ pond or lagoon only has one foot. Does that mean you've got to dig up your old either pit, pond or lagoon and replace the one foot of clay with five feet of clay? The answer is no, not necessarily. What we're saying.is that if you can show that the one foot of clay for that particular lagoon doesn't leach. In other words, it doesn't, in fact, contain the waste so that you don't have leaching isnto ground water, that's O.K0 You can keep your one foot of clay. That's: an equivalent degree of con^ tainment for that particular system. As to leach aid detection systems, one of the posers that has been brought up in these discussions is what if you have a 500-acre lagoon? How are you going to ------- 433 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get the leach aid detection system underneath a 500-acre lagoon? First of all, I think that's possible to do in an engineering sense but nonetheless there are notes asso- ciated with these leach aid detection requirements which do allow alternatives for leach aid detection systems other than one which is specified in the regulations. Here again this would be a question of interpretation of the regula- tions at the terminating stage. That's the whole purpose of these notes is to deal with the whole question of flexi- bility of the regulations to address the site specific and waste specific situations. And we've elected to do that by the note process, by the permit writing process rather than in the reg writing process. I hope that addresses that whole area, I might poi-nt out, though, that this whole area has been subject to a lot of interpretation. Some people have assumed that they are going to have to replace all their old pits ponds and lagoons and that's not necessarily so. Question: "Under the criteria you use to classify slag and foundry sand as basically nonhazardous, why didn't, fly ash. fall under the same classification rather tha,n as a special waste?" Well, the answer to that is while we were draft- ing these regulations, early data indicated that a substan- ------- 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 434 tial percentage of fly ash was going to be a hazardous waste and therefore, we included it in our special waste. We did not list it as a hazardous waste, as I pointed out before, but we did provide for the fact that it is hazardous and falls in the special waste category. And I think I said yesterday more recent data indicates a lower percentage of fly ash, probably less than 10 per cent or, perhaps, less than that may be found;.. to be hazardous in accordance with our characteristics. Con- sequently, in this particular case, its a question of our data base at the time the regulations were drafted. As the waste oil expert, you have addressed the use of the waste oil as a dust suppressant on roads as acceptable if done as a permitted land fanning operation. Isn't there a requirement in the proposed reg that such oil must be refined? Well, first of all, the answer to the basic question is. no, there is no such, requirement that waste oil must be refined. But I'd also like to comment on the way this question is worded0 We do not say that the land farming regulations are the applicable regulation for dust suppression on roads. I believe we will use the landfill regulations as applicable, interpreting those landfill regulations that do apply and "if parts of those regula- tions do not apply, as I indicated earlier, we would go back ------- 435 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the Human Hearth and Environmenta.1 Standards when is- suing permits- in that area. Now- this is a question but it's really a comment on our regulations. And here, again, r would hope that people who are writing questions like this, I say it once again, the purpose of this whole business is to get com- ments on the regulations on the record. And whoever wrote this question, I would urge them to write it down as a com- ment and give it to our court reporter as- a comment on the regulations. But anyway, here goes: "Why regulate waste crude oil, et cetera, and not waste solvent* when both may contain toxic metals and both may be blended into a low grade fuel indiscriminantly?" Now Fred Lindsey addressed that a little big in the sense of saying, I believe, that waste solvents generally have a high value and generally are recycled rather than burned as a fuel, although we realize that some may be burned as a fuel. Also Is go back to a previous remark that some previous commentors haven't questioned this basic approach about having" spent solvents outside of our regulatory pro- cess and that we are, in fact, probably going to reexa- mine that whole situation in light of these comments. The other side of this, I think it's fair to ------- 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 436 point out is that the purpose of hearings of this nature is to hear comments about what people like as well as what they don't like and if somebody likes the idea of having spent solvents outside the system, they should say that for the record as well as for people who don't like it and are suggesting that we make changes to the regulations. That's all I have. MR, TRASK: I have a couple more here. One is a clarification, apparently, to my previous answer on household waste was not sufficient. It saysr "Small paint cans and aerosol insecticide cans from an industry who is registered as a generator, those that are heavily used in industry, do they have to be disposed of as hazar- dous waste?" In this instance the answer to the question would be yes if, in fact, they are hazardous waste. I would point out that not all insecticides are hazardous waste, particularly many of those that are used in aerosol cans. Many of them are not listed in the hazardous waste lists or are in the drinking water standards, which forms the basis for toxic waste. So it may well be that most of these that are used in industry in aerosol cans are not, in fact, hazardous0 Paint cans, I don't know. I suspect that some of them may ------- 43"? 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not be hazardous but by and large they would be. What industry has small paint cans, I don't know, either. But they may have, I have here what is really a comment and not a question. And if whoever turned this in and would reclaim it and use it as a basis for a comment/ the commentary is open until the 16th of March and this really should come in as a comment,. It would become part of the official record. As it is now, it's merely a question and is not part of the official record. MR. LINDSEY: Let's get back to my previous question which had to do with the question of mixing incompatible waste and says, "As alkaline and acid hazar- dous waste can*t be mixed, per Appendix 1, is not the Agency outlawing any valid treatment method? In other words, neutralization of hazardous wastes?" And answer to that 'is no, the requirements for not mixing have to do with landfilling, O.K.^'o'f- incom- patible wastes-, not of treating process as disposal. The second part of that is tha,t maybe the ques- tioner is planning to codispose in the ground alkaline and acid waste. And there is a note associated with all this which is under 25.0.45C, which is- referenced back there to 250,45C. I don't know what it says, I can't find it off- hand. Basically which says that you can demonstrate that ------- 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 438 codisposal of incompatible waste is a satisfactory opera- tion or maybe even beneficial operation as could be the case in a situation like this. And then all you. have to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the permit officer and that note, then, would allow, in essence, a variation from this particular standard. So that could be permitted. Even codisposal could be permitted. So normally neutralization is carried out in treatment process and not underground, ''Would not hazardous waste exempted, such as solvent for recovery, have to be manifested under the hazardous materials category?" No, the mani— Our manifest would not be re- quired, however, DOT shipping papers might be required under the hazardous materials transportation.' And this person writes on both sides, "Is the value of waste a consideration for determining if that given waste is- in the system?" And the answer is no, not directly. Arid, we have been relating to the fact that re- cycled wastes normally- have a value, that was a considera-. tion xn our allowing recycled waste out of the manifesting system because of our thinking that they are less likely to get lost because of the value. But it's not that a value, any given value, of it is not associated with that point. ------- 439 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's it. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., we will end this afterngon session. We will reconvene for the hearing tonight on Sections 3001, 2, 3 and 4. That session is designed primarily for people who haven't been able to come to the daytime sessions. I thank everyone who has offered comments and I commend you all on your endurance. (Whereupon, at 4:45 o'clock p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 7 o'clock p.m. the same day.) ------- ------- 440 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EVENING SESSION 7:00 p.m. MR. LEHMAN: Good evening, My name ±s John Lehman. I'm Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Divisionf EPA's Office of Solid Waste in Washington. On behalf of EPA, I'd like to welcome you to the public hearing which is being held to discuss the proposed regulations for the management of hazardous waste. We appreciate your taking the time to parti- cipate in the development of these regulations which are. being issued under the authority of the Resource Conserva- tion and Recovery Act, The EPA on December 18, 1978, issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal A'ct as substantially amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public Law 94-580. These proposals respectively cover, first, the criteria for identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification of it and a hazardous waste lis.t. Second, the standards applicable to generating such waste for record keeping labeling, using proper con- ta,iners- and using a transport manifest. And, third, performance, design and operating standards for hazardous waste management facilities. ------- 441 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The proposals, together with those Already pub- lished pursuant to Section 3003 on April 28, 1978, Sec- tion 3006 on February 1, 1978, Section 3008 on August 4, 1978, and Section 3010 on July 11, "1978, and that of the Department of Transportation pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of May 25, 1978, along with 3005 regulations yet to be promulgated — or yet to be proposed, excuse me, constitute the hazardous waste regu- latory program under Subtitle C of the Act. This hearing is being held as part of our public participation process in the development of this regulatory program. The panel members who share the roster with me are Tim Fields, Program Manager in the assessment and tech- nology branch of the Hazardous Waste Management Division in Washington. And Tim is primarily responsible for Sec- tion 3004 regulations. Amy Schaffer of the Office of Enforcement, head- quarters in Washington, EPA; Dorothy Darrah from our General Counsel*s office, headquarters EPA in Washington; Fred Lindsey, Chief of the Implementation Branch of the Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA, Washington; Harry Trask, Program Manager in our Guidelines Branch of Hazar- dous Waste Management Division in Washington, EPA; and Alan Roberts who is — I'm not sure of your exact title, ------- 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 442 Alan, you keep changing it. Anyway/ Alan is responsible for the administration of the Hazardous Materials Transpor- tation Act, among other things, in the Department of Trans- portation, DOT in Washington, D.C. And just joining the panel is Alan Corson, Chief of our Guidelines Branch, Hazar- dous Waste Management Division, EPA, Washington, With that brief introduction let me turn over the hearing to our chairman, Dorothy Darrah. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. We have five people who have signed up to give us comments. If there are any other people who want to comment can either come forward at the end of the other testimony or you can check our registration desk and they will bring up your name to me and I will call you in order. I'm not going to limit comments or questions unless they tend to get very lengthy or repetitious be- cause we don't have too many people. So I don't think that should be a problem. I'm not sure all these people are here but I will call them. I'm not sure, is Mr0 Jessee from Monsanto here? STATEMENT OF GENE L. JESSEE MR. JESSEE: My name is Gene Jessee. I'm Director, Environmental Processes, Monsanto Companya ------- 443 44 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm pleased to appear here today on behalf of Monsanto Company to comment on proposed RCRA Section 3001 and 3004 regulations, which appeared in the December 18, 1978 Federal Register, beginning on Page 58946. Monsanto is a broad-based chemical manufacturing company with manufacturing plants located in 28 states and will be significantly impacted by these regulations. In accordance with the procedure contained in £he Federal Register, we will submit the detailed written comments on the proposed regulations- prior to March 16. Today I would like to focus upon certain aspects of the proposed regulations which are of particular con- cern to Monsanto. First, I would like to bring to your attention a problem which is pervasive throughout the proposed regu- lations. This concerns the failure to treat waste different- ly based upon the type of hazard and the level of the par- ticular hazard,, For example, consider a highly toxic waste material like cyanide waste and, on the other hand, an industria.1 flammable material like methanol0 Cyanide wa,ste presents a constant hazard to health and to the en- vironment in and of itself. It does therefore clearly require special care, storage, handling and disposal. ------- 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 444 Methanol, on the other hand, presents a hazard to health and the environment only when exposed to an ignition source in an uncontrollable manner. Itccan:. be disposed of quite easily and safely in a normal utility boiler. Yet both the highly toxic cyanide waste and the flammable methanol waste are designated as hazardous under the proposed regulations requiring special generator, transporter and disposer care. This blanket treatment of waste will significantly increase the quantity of hazardous waste and, we believe, create a severe shortage in sites for disposal of very hazardous wastes. It is recommended that wastes be grouped in a manner which recognizes differences, nature and severity of the hazard a waste presents and the persistence of the waste0 The proposed exemption of 100 kilograms per month should be increased for less hazardous waste0 This would allow a tight control on very hazardous wastes which present a constant hazard in and of themselves and, at the same time, reduce the number of insignificant generators by raising the exclusion quantity for less hazardous wastes which may pose a substantial hazard only when improperly treated, stored or disposed. ------- 445 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This will help minimize the quantity of hazar- dous waste and avoid a future shortage of sites for dis- posal of very hazardous waste. Another concern with the proposed regulations is Section 250.10B, which requires verification that material is burned primarily for heat recovery are not considered other discarded material. Regulating these valuable commercial materials would impose the stringent incinerator standards proposed in Section 250.41 on the boiler which utilizes them. There are numerous situations when residues from a process are burned in heat recovery facilities to supply energy needs of a process or other parts of the plant. The incinerator standards, as presently worded, will reduce the use of such materials and deprive the plant of a valuable energy source. Along the same lines, we recommend that proposed Section 250.10: (b) 2 (ii) , which improperly includes spe- cified oils which are burned as fuel be deleted from the definition of "other discarded material". This inclusion seems without statutory basis and is contrary to the plain meaning of the term "discarded". The proposed hazardous waste characteristics set forth in Section 25.0.13 are defined too broadly and should be restricted to only those definitions accepted by the ------- 446 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scientific community which are based upon or substantiated by standard testing protocols which are validated by vol- untary consensus standard setting groups, exclusive of EPA. If the proposed characteristics are retained, many common materials will be classified as hazardous. For example, some carbonated beverages such as colas, which have pH's between 2 and 3, would be considered corrosive and thus hazardous. The characteristics of hazardous wastes should be revised to include only waste which is significantly more hazardous than municipal refuse. Proposed Section 250.14 is a helpful approach in listing hazardous wastes to the extent it lists truly hazardous wastes and waste-producing processes. However, waste should be included in or deleted from the list set forth in this section exclusively on the basis of validated characteristics set forth in Section 250.13. At the outset of the preamble to the proposed Section 3004 regulations, EPA states its intent to pro- mulgate such performance standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facili- ties as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment. Nevertheless the proposed regulations rely on design and operating standards which provide little flexibility for innovative or equivalent designs. ------- 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44? This is critically important to existing facili- ties attempting to meet interim status requirements. Se- veral of the interim status requirements include notes providing alternative relief from, atstandard. As practical relief the notes fall short since they are supplied in limited number of sections. As a consequence, the inflexible-^use of speci- fication standards will cause many existing well-designed and environmentally sound facilities to be not in compli- ance. The regulations should allow for greater flexibility by providing that a facility will not be required to meet the design and operating standards if it can show either (a) that it meets the health and environmental standards in Proposed Section 250042, or Ob) tnat it will achieve performance substantially equivalent to that achieved by prescribed design and operating standards. To achieve this end it is recommended that proposed Section 250.40 (d) 2 Cii) (A) be deleted. Thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to make these comments. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Will you be willing to answer questions from the panel? MR. JESSEE: I'll certainly try. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. ------- 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 448 MR. ROBERTS: I just have one very brief ques- tion or comment about your testimony on carbonated beverages and under 49CFR 173.307, carbonated beverages are not sub- ject to regulations of the Hazardous Materials Transporta- tion Act, MR. JESSEE: Thank you. MR. LEHMAN: Also I'd join in there and say that carbonated beverages are a commodity and not a waste and therefore not subject to control under Subtitle C of RCRA but that may be not what your point was. If 1 may ask you a question, Mr. Jessee, to elaborate on your comment regarding the exemption level of 100 kilograms per month. You said, first of all, that the degree of hazard should be addressed in that area. MR., JESSEE: Yes, sir. MR. LEHMAN: And then secondly, that the level should be increased for less hazardous waste. MR. JESSEE: Yes. MR. LEHMAN: Could you comment on those two as- pects a little more? In other words, on what basis would the degree of hazard be made and what level should the le- vel be increased to for the less hazardous wastes? MR. JESSEE: Over the last couple of days I know this has come up several times and I know that the Agency is wrestling with this and all I could say at this point is ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 449 we are, too, and if we come up with something prior to March 16 that makes sense and we think you would be wanting to see, we will certainly submit it. MR, FIELDS: Couple questions. You mentioned that the design and operating standards provide little flexibility for alternative stan- dards. One of the problems you had was with incineration. Can you specifically indicate which standards specifically you're having problems in that area? Could you be more specific? You made a statement "alternatives don't provide enough flexibility". Do you have any specific standards in mind? MR. JESSEE: I can cite maybe a couple of exam- ples and, then, one general comment along that line. The subject of flexibility or inflexibility comes up in. that — if you would look at financial requirements, the regulations presume there's only one way to handle it. If you will look at certain portions of the one dealing with incinerators, the efficiency or the burn-efficiency in it, -.: decomposition levels required in the incinerators are pretty well fixed and we are wrestling with the practi- cal availability of something that will perform that well, dealing with certain materials that we would want to in- cinerate. As to the burn-efficiency, as to the total decom- position achieved and as a general comment, the section ------- 450 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that deals with the fact that only in the place where there is a note can the administrator deal with anything else will lead to what I think we all experience in regulations, that there's something that you haven'-t thought about, we haven't thought about, the permit writer hasn't thought about, and the plant or the industry or the facility that's bein.g considered is going to discover it, that in the ab- sence of a note, it*s cast in stone. And that's our — would be a general overall concern. MR. FIELDS: Are you saying that the combustion efficiency and construction efficiency numbers, you should be specifying those or you don*t agree with the numbers? MR. JESSEE: We have a concern that, as a prac- tica.1 matter, the large scale industrial equipment may not exis-t, might not exist today in combination with some scrubbing requirement that would accomplish that. MR. FIELDS: So your question is to practicality? MR. JESSEE: Yes, sir. MR0 FIELDS: We'd like to have any data you can send us in that area with your written comments. We would appreciate it regarding what you think realistic numbers should be* I didn't get the last one you said-. Would you repeat that? MR. JESSEE: The coverall, as I see it, under ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 451 the note system is — I relate it to Section 25.0.40 (d) 2 (ii) CAJ., and it says that if there*s-. no note, it's inflexi- ble. We're concerned overall, again, that there's some- tning that you haven't thought of, we haven't thought of, the permit writer hasn't thought of and when it comes down to the wire, we'll discover some-.things that there should be some — just room to move, if you will, and that Section 250.40 (d); 2 (ii) (A) doesn't give any. There's no note, then it's cast in stone. And that affects financial handling, that affects certain things I mentioned about the incinerator, and I'm sure we're going to discover some- thing out there that in your wisdom you haven't been able to think of that's going to be an exception that there's no way to handle ito MR. CDRSON: Just following up, Mr. Jessee, with the question Mr. Lehman asked earlier and, again, it's the same question we've been asking all the time when people have suggested as you have, some thought to the concept of degree of hazard and so on. I'd appreciate if you could, with your written testimony, submit what you could. We'-re also concerned with any thoughts with ;:. the degree of hazard.-".Also"'should we work to include some- thing like that in 3001 and would have to be then carried forward in a specific fashion in 300.4. Because 3004, even as you have noted, with its note approach, does allow for ------- 452 1 some flexibility, as it appeared to me that we might end 2 up in a different kind of a problem than if we make the 3 concession at 3001, we might have to remove some flexibility 4 at 300.4. 5 MR, JESSEE: I can only comment in this manner, 6 that consistency is the thing you desire and the thing 7 that those of us who are regulated desire. We begin to 8 get into an area of the fact that a number of these things 9 are site-specific. And we have to believe that someplace 10 in our relationships that has to be resolved. I don't 11 know- how to do it, 12 MR, FIELDS: O.K. 13 MR. LINDSEY: In your response to Mr. Fields' 14 question earlier on, you mentioned that you had some pro- 15 blems with the financial requirements. Could you elaborate 16 a little more on, you know, what your problems are there? 17 MR. JESSEE: Oh, just the fact that as presently 18 stated, the regulations say "that's the only way". I 19 would think there might be other ways that would be per- 20 fectly acceptable to all parties concerned. 2i MR^ LINDSEY: O.K., I guess our intention here, 22 our concern here, is that we provide sufficient funds or 23 to assure that sufficient funds are available for closure 24 and for post-closure monitoring and maintenance. There 25 are a number of different ways that are allowed for the ------- 453 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 site-life liability requirements but for closure and post- closure monitoring and maintenance, I guess we were unable to come up with alternatives that we thought would be suf- ficient or would do the job for us. I think if there were some that we thought would be equivalent or provide an equi- valent degree of protection or assurance, we would be wil- ling to consider those. So if you can think of any, let us know. MR. JESSEE: All right.. MR. CORSON: Just one.more question. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Yes, MR. CORSON: Just one more question, Mr. Jessee, or one more comment, perhaps, with regard to something you had said and r don't recall the exact words but it had to do with your reference to our use of standards by volun- tary- consensus- groups, if I recall the words, and I guess we have — I personally have a couple of small problems. One is that we — it's very difficult for us to get a voluntary consensus group to respond in the time and the fashion that we must with regards to the charge we get from Congress in regard to the regulations. MR0 JESSEE: I appreciate that. MR. CORSON: Plus the fact, that only we were charged with producing regulations, not a consensus group. So that we have a particular premise — while thafcvmaycnot ------- 454 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 set the purposes for the group, we just can't provide that direction. I'm wondering what you think we should do if there are no such standards, whether your preference is we would postpone regulations until such things are develop- ed and how we would then meet. Our time requirements would be-^certainly beyond our control. MR. JESSEE: The only thing I could offer, Mr. Corson, is the — something along what might be the possi- bility of some corroborative round-robin-type tests. And whether that's feasible at this date under the pressures I understand and we appreciate you're under, I don't know whether that's possible or not. MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Jessee, I'm trying to paraphrase what one of your remarks was and I hope I paraphrase it correctly. I don't know, but this leads to a question, if I understood your remarks, you were saying basically that the design and operating standard approach was too restrictive and inflexible and that you suggested that the Agency go to a performance standard-type of approach for regulations under the facility standards. Arid so I would ask you what explicitly did you have in mind in terms of performance standards? I mean we talked for awhile here just now about destruction efficiencies with respect to incinerators and in a way that is a performance statute. MR. JESSEE: You misunderstood what I said. ------- MR, LEHMAN: Oh, O.K. 2 MRo JESSEE: I didn't say what you interpreted 3 I said. 4 MR. LEHMAN: Well, O.K. We'll let it drop then, 5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you, Mr. Jessee. By the way, would you give a copy of your state- ment to the court reporter? 8 MR. JESSEE: Yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., thank you. 10 Let me just make that an insert, which I don't 11 think I mentioned. If you do have an extra copy, if you ^2 could give a copy to the court reporter before you speak, 13 it would help us. If you have any extra copies for the 14 panel, that would also be great. !5 CWhereupon, the aforementioned statement was 16 made part of the official record.) 17 HEARING INSERT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- STATEMENT OF GENE L, JESSEE, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES, ON BEHALF OF MONSANTO COMPANY REGARDING THE PROPOSED EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 3001 AMD 3004 OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976, ST, Louis, MISSOURI FEBRUARY 15, 1979 ------- I AM PLEASED TO APPEAR HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF MONSANTO COMPANY TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RCRA, SECTION 3001 AND 3004 REGULATIONS WHICH APPEARED IN THE DECEMBER 18, 1978 FEDERAL REGISTER BEGINNING ON PAGE 58946, MONSANTO is A BROAD BASED CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY WITH.MANUFACTURING PLANTS LOCATED IN 28 STATES AND WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY THESE REGULATIONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. WE WILL SUBMIT DETAILED WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS UPON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WHICH ARE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO MONSANTO, ------- -2- FlRST, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION A PROBLEM WHICH IS PERVASIVE THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, THIS CONCERNS THE FAILURE TO TREAT WASTE DIFFERENTLY BASED UPON THE TYPE OF HAZARD AND THE LEVEL OF THE PARTICULAR HAZARD, FOR EXAMPLE, CONSIDER A HIGHLY TOXIC WASTE MATERIAL LIKE CYANIDE WASTE AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, AN INDUSTRIAL FLAMMABLE WASTE MATERIAL LIKE METHANOL, CYANIDE WASTE PRESENTS A CONSTANT HAZARD TO HEALTH AND TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN AND OF ITSELF, IT DOES, THEREFORE, CLEARLY REQUIRE SPECIAL CARE, STORAGE, HANDLING AND DISPOSAL, METHANOL, ON THE OTHER HAND, PRESENTS A HAZARD TO HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT ONLY WHEN EXPOSED TO AN IGNITION SOURCE IN AN UNCONTROLLABLE MANNER, IT CAN BE DISPOSED OF QUITE SAFELY IN NORMAL UTILITY BOILERS, YET, BOTH THE HIGHLY TOXIC CYANIDE WASTE AND THE FLAMMABLE METHANOL WASTE ARE DESIGNATED AS "HAZARDOUS" UNDER ------- -3- THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS REQUIRING SPECIAL GENERATOR, TRANS- PORTER AND DISPOSER CARE, THIS BLANKET TREATMENT OF WASTE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND, WE BELIEVE, CREATE A SEVERE SHORTAGE IN SITES FOR DISPOSAL OF VERY HAZARDOUS WASTE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT WASTE BE GROUPED IN A MANNER WHICH RECOGNIZES DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURE AND SEVERITY OF THE HAZARD A WASTE PRESENTS, AND THE PERSISTENCE OF THE WASTE, THE PROPOSED EXEMPTION OF 100 KILOGRAMS PER MONTH SHOULD BE INCREASED FOR LESS HAZARDOUS WASTE, THIS WOULD ALLOW A TIGHT CONTROL ON VERY HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH PRESENT A CONSTANT HAZARD IN AND OF THEMSELVES AND AT THE SAME TIME, ------- REDUCE THE NUMBER OF INSIGNIFICANT GENERATORS BY RAISING THE EXCLUSION QUANTITY FOR LESS HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH MAY POSE A SUBSTANTIAL HAZARD ONLY WHEN IMPROPERLY TREATED, STORED, OR DISPOSED, THIS WILL HELP MINIMIZE THE QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND AVOID A FUTURE SHORTAGE OF SITES FOR DISPOSAL OF VERY HAZARDOUS WASTE, ANOTHER CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS is SECTION 250,10(t) WHICH REQUIRES CLARIFICATION THAT MATERIALS BURNED PRIMARILY FOR HEAT RECOVERY ARE NOT CONSIDERED "OTHER DISCARDED MATERIAL," REGULATING THESE VALUABLE COMMERCIAL MATERIALS WOULD IMPOSE THE STRINGENT INCINERATOR STANDARD (PROPOSED SECTION 250,41) ON THE BOILER WHICH UTILIZES THEM, THERE ARE NUMEROUS SITUATIONS WHEN RESIDUES FROM A PROCESS ARE BURNED IN HEAT RECOVERY FACILITIES TO SUPPLY ENERGY NEEDS OF A PROCESS OR ' ------- -5- OTHER PARTS OF THE PLANT, THE INCINERATOR STANDARDS, AS PRESENTLY WORDED, WILL REDUCE THE USE OF SUCH MATERIALS AND DEPRIVE THE PLANT OF A VALUABLE ENERGY SOURCE, ALONG THE SAME LINES, WE RECOMMEND THAT PROPOSED SECTION 250,lCKb) (2)(ii), WHICH IMPROPERLY INCLUDES SPECIFIED OILS WHICH ARE "BURNED AS A FUEL/' BE DELETED FROM THE DEFINITION OF "OTHER DISCARDED MATERIAL," THIS INCLUSION SEEMS WITHOUT STATUTORY BASIS AND IS CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TERM "DISCARDED," THE PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS SET FORTH IN SECTION 250,13 ARE DEFINED TOO BROADLY AND SHOULD BE ------- -6- RESTRICTED TO ONLY THOSE DEFINITIONS ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WHICH ARE BASED UPON, OR SUBSTANTIATED BY, STANDARD TESTING PROTOCOLS WHICH ARE VALIDATED BY VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD SETTING GROUPS EXCLUSIVE OF EPA, IF THE PROPOSED CHARACTERISTICS ARE RETAINED, MANY COMMON MATERIALS WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME CARBONATED BEVERAGES, SUCH AS COLAS, WHICH HAVE PHs BETWEEN 2 AND 3 WOULD BE CONSIDERED CORROSIVE AND THUS "HAZARDOUS," THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SHOULD BE REVISED TO INCLUDE ONLY WASTE WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE HAZARDOUS THAN MUNICIPAL REFUSE, PROPOSED SECTION 250,14 is A HELPFUL APPROACH IN LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE TO THE EXTENT IT LISTS TRULY HAZARDOUS WASTE AND WASTE PRODUCING PROCESSES, HOWEVER, WASTE SHOULD BE ------- -7- INCLUDED IN OR DELETED FROM THE LIST SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF VALIDATED CHARACTERISTICS SET FORTH IN SECTION 250,13, A.T THE OUTSET OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE PROPOSED SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS, EPA STATES ITS INTENT "TO PROMULGATE SUCH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES,,,, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT," NEVERTHELESS, THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS RELY HEAVILY ON DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS WHICH PROVIDE LITTLE FLEXIBILITY FOR INNOVATIVE OR EQUIVALENT DESIGNS, THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO EXISTING FACILITIES ATTEMPTING TO MEET INTERIM STATUS REQUIREMENTS, SEVERAL OF THE INTERIM STATUS REQUIRE- MENTS INCLUDE "NOTES" PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE RELIEF FROM A ------- -8- STANDARD, As PRACTICAL RELIEF THE "NOTES" FALL SHORT SINCE THEY ARE SUPPLIED IN A LIMITED NUMBER OF SECTIONS, A.S A CONSEQUENCE., THE INFLEXIBLE USE OF SPECIFICATION STANDARDS WILL CAUSE MANY EXISTING, WELL DESIGNED AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND FACILITIES TO BE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THE REGULATIONS SHOULD ALLOW FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY BY PROVIDING THAT A FACILITY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS IF IT CAN SHOW EITHER (A) THAT IT MEETS THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN PROPOSED SECTION 250,42, OR (B) THAT IT WILL ACHIEVE PERFORMANCE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT ACHIEVED BY PRESCRIBED DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS, TO ACHIEVE THIS END, IT IS RECOMMENDED PROPOSED SECTION 250.40(d)(2)(li)(A) BE DELETED, ------- 456 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The next speaker will be Gilbert W, Fuller, The Empire District Electric Company. STATEMENT OF GILBERT W. FULLER MR. FULLER: Madam Chairperson, the Hearing Committee, my name is Gilbert W. Fuller. I'm appearing here in behalf of The Empire District Electric Company, Jopli'n, Missouri, with, the responsibility of Superintendent of Environmental Engineering and Liajaoa for the company. The Empire District Electric Company is an in- vestor-owned electric utility company with corporate head- quarters in Joplin, Missouri. The company service area is approximately 10,000 square miles in the four-state area, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas. The company is small, capacity-wise, compared to its pool connected neighbors with 64 per cent of its present generating capacity producing approximately ' 70 per cent of the on-system energy requirements, utilizing coal as the fuel. In 1980 the picture changes slightly with 69 per cent of the generating — or the generation producing approximately 75 per cent of the requirements by using coal fuel. Presently the company manages, coal fuel ash dis- posal in clay bottom ash ponds at two different generating sites, approximately 30 miles apart. One in southeast ------- 457 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kansas and the other in southwest Missouri. The Missouri plant generation site burns, area coal, predominantly Missouri coal, with a mine-mouth opera- tion adjacent to the plant. The Kansas plant burns Oklahoma coal. This year the Missouri plant, Asbury plant by name, will produce in excess of 100,000 tons of bottom and flyash, which go to ponds on the property. Also this year, the Kansas plant, Riverton plant, will produce approximately 18,000 tons of ash which will be sluiced to one of the two ash ponds on this property. In 1980, the company will be involved in the operation of the first new unit of the latan Plant jointly owned by several companies and located in northwest Mis- souri . Our company will assume its portion of the joint' responsibility of ash disposal on this property,. This unit; will be burning coal from the Colorado-Wyoming area0 Our company's 12 per cent responsibility of the coal fuel ash will mean another 22,000 tons annually. It is- not the intent of the company that this statement be detailed in nature insofar as constructive criticism of the guidelines and the regulations proposed. But rather to share concerns of a general nature and scope. Insofar as our industry -is concerned, there have ------- 458 1 been and are and will be numerous organized efforts to 2 address the guidelines and regulations in considerable de- 3 tail. For instance, EEI, EPRI, USWAG and others. 4 Our company has a one-person environmental de- 5 partment and that person has to function as the general 6 practitioner. The ash produced by the operation of the 7 company's coal-burning plants is believed to be very low- 8 risk material and does not endanger the health and welfare 9 of employees, neighbors and the environment, 10 The company has been discouraged to date to uti- 11 lize the ash from the Kansas plant because to do so would 12 require a permit and the implementation of an ash manage- 13 ment program. 14 Years past the ash was utilized in the rebuilding 15 of numerous cinder tracks and through the efforts of private 16 research groups found to possess desirable qualities that 17 could promote and enhance commercial ventures. 18 Utilization was discouraged and of late not 19 fostered because of the state permit liability. 20 The company has been able to utilize a portion 2i of the ash from the Missouri plant. In fact, ash from 22 this plant is going across the state line into Kansas and 23 being utilized in roadway constructions, 24 The ash characteristics- make it possible to con- 25 serve considerable oil that would normally be used in con- ------- 3 It appears that the RCRA amended Solid Waste 4 Disposal Act severely threatens the prospective utilization and interim on-site storage of a coal fuel ash. The 6 wording in the subject EPA document serves to place and apply its statement on this material that will discourage 8 commercial utilization of coal fuel ash. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 459 vention asphaltic concrete. The company to date, in Missouri, has not been burdened with a detailed ash management program. That document states that flay ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge are special wastes and implies that they are a hazardous waste by stating that the Agency is calling such high volume hazardous waste, special waste and is professing to regulate it witn special standards. Further, on Page 58993 this statement appears: "A proposed ruling will be published at a later date regarding treatment, storage and disposal of sped-al wastes." Are we, as producers of coal fuel ash, to ,,. anticipate being prospective permittees and storage facility operators? Are we to proceed to prove that ash we produce is nonhazardous and does not threaten human health and the environment, when the material has already been declared hazardous? The company believes Subpart F, the statement, ------- 460 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "Program requirements will be extremely important, Deci- sions- by the states on a case-by<-case will ultimately for- mulate a workable program. Allowing states to utilize suitable alternate testing methods is recommended." The company concurs that utility coal fuel ash should receive separate treatmentf with the present em- phasis on coal as a primary fuel and the fact there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health and/or the environment with the disposal of the ash from these properties. With an ever increasing need for adequate, cooling water, for condensers, steam electric generated plants, many future facilities will need to be sited in the 100- year-flood-plain. On-site storage and disposal of both the bottom and fly ash especially should be allowed, from a reasonable engineering standpoint when, of course,"pro- vided with adequate diking and control. Historically both bottom ash and fly ash have been disposed of on-site and on the immediate property owned by the utility with no problem of consequence or import. Projection of the problems facing the electric utilities in the area of disposing of coal ash material is unknown and fraught with liabilities. It has become obvious to the company that from the standpoint of the ------- 461 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 current national energy policy that continued utilization of coal as a primary fuel for both existing and projected plants must be encouraged. History substantiates that utilities have adequately handled its waste problem and should have separate consideration to .avoid unnecessary expense to the rate payers. Thank yo.u, CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you. Would you be willing to respond to questions from the panel? MR. FULLERi•: Sure. MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Fuller, I guess there seems to be some — I think there may be some confusion. We do not list — I guess I got a couple of things I want to point out and then I do have one questions We do not — and one of the observations I make is that we do not list fly ash as a hazardous waste in here. But in- formation which we have, some preliminary information that we have, indicates.that occasionally fly ash does fail, if you will, the characteristics testsswe have under Section 250,13, specifically with the leaching of heavy metals, I guess. Not always but sometimes, apparently. In recognition of that, the fact that it some- times does but not usually, and the hazard level, when it does exceed those limits it's relatively low. Plus the ------- 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 462 fact the high volumes of this particular waste plus the fact that the standards which we have under 3004 for other hazardous wastes don't seem amenable to this kind of mater- ial. We have listed them as a special waste and said that we need to do some more studying to determine whether and how to fully regulate these things„ Now I guess the problem I have is that what you seem to be suggesting is that we delete this particular waste stream from a special waste category and if we were to do that, then any time that the fly ash were to fail the criteria or the characteristics under Section 3001, they would be subject to the full set of requirements. And I don't think that's what you're getting at. MR. FULLER: No, Mr0 Lindsey, I respectfully say that — I mean I've heard you, I've been here at the meeting, and I heard you make the statement several times in clarification, and it still is a problem with me be- cause the words ,£ieiieitedc. right from the paper, and it says that is a hazardous waste and, you know, those words are right there just as I read them. MR. LINDSEY: O.K., it says, "Which is determined to be— MR. JESSEE (interrupting): "that they are a hazardous waste", yes. MR. LINDSEY (continuing?: —which is determined tc ------- 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 463 be a hazardous waste under 250.13, Subpart A," meaning if they fail the criteria. If they don't, fail the criteria^ they are not a hazardous waste. Maybe that's not clear. MR. FULLER: The words say that they are high volume hazardous waste, special waste. MR. LINDSEY: You must be in the preamble. O.K., well, maybe we need to clarify that. MR,. FULLER: It's there and I can point it out to you. I mean, I didn't bring it up here with me, I've been waiting for you to say you don^t really mean that and I haven't heard you say that so I want to point it to you right now. MR. LINDSEY: Unless it fails the criter— char- acteristics under 25.0.13, it is not a hazardous waste in- so far as the regulations are concerned. And the implica- tion through the wording somewhere tends to give that impression, that it's always a hazardous waste— MR, FULLER (^interrupting) : Now, what I'm really asking for is that you understand it, we understand it. MR. LINDSEY: 00K. MR. FULLER: I want to be sure that, you know, that they get cleaned up and at this point the general public, you know, because it is- there. MR. LINDSEY: O.K., we'll take another look at the wording and try to clarify that if we can. S8-:---Sbtit-"-fehe ------- 464 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 intent is that if it only fails the characteristics of the hazardous waste under Subpart A, MR. CORSON: I just wanted to follow up on that and again I wish you would and certainly may follow up later, indicate to us because as we read it, the preamble, we say "some portion of certain high volume wastes might be hazardous" because the regulation is clear. But the other thing you did indicate in your comments, Mr. Fuller, that you feel your wastes are a low- risk, I-'m wondering whether you might have some data which tells us the characteristics of your ash, both the fly ash and bottom ash, as well as the sludge.. And particularly^ if you have any tests you may have run on the wastes that we might, you know, if you'd, share that with us so that we can look at it, rt would help us build our data base to possibly further identify those wastes which are of concern. So I'd certainly appreciate it if you'd do that. Also I have a problem — you indicated, I be- lieve, and r forget, which one of the two states it was but in one of the states, apparently, you require a per- mit? MR. FULLER: Kansas. MR, CORSON: What is the purpose of that permit? Could you tell me why or what it is that the permit is for? ------- 67 465 MR. FULLER: Just their interpretation. I kept asking, I said, "What does it take to be in compliance with their solid waste management program?" MR, CORSON: Somewhere in their solid waste regulation they feel that ash requires some special control? 6 MR. FULLER: Well, they say that if I don't re- 7 move any over the sides of the ponds, I'll never need 8 a permit. But as long as I leave it in storage on-site, 9 It's- when I lift that first bucketful across the dike is 10 when I change status and require a permit. That's why I've discouraged usage of that particular ash, 12 MR, FIELDS: One question. 13 MR. FULLER: O.K0 14 MR. FIELDS: I think you alluded to this in 15 . your presentation, it wasn't clear, following up on Fred 16 Lindsey, if certain fly ash or bottom ash is hazardous 17 waste, do you have any particular problem with the special 18 waste standards for utility wastes in the current regs? 19 MR. FULLER: You mean the running— 20 MR. FIELDS (interrupting): The standards, them- 2i selves. The standards on reporting, do you have any 22 problems with the standards that would be applicable to 23 those portions of the fly ash that were hazardous? Do 24 you have any problem with those standards? 25 MR. FULLER: Not in particular no, MS, DARRAH: Thank you very much. ------- 466 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (^hereupon the statement of the aforementioned speaker was made part of the formal record,!. HEARING INSERT ------- Statement Made Regarding EPA Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations at Public Hearing, February 14-16, 1979, St. Louis, Missouri by The Empire District Electric Company The Empire District Electric Company is an investor- owned electric utility company with Corporate Headquarters in Joplin, Missouri. The Company's service area is approximately 10,000 square miles in the four-state area of Missouri - Kansas - Oklahoma - Arkansas. The Company is small, capacity-wise, compared to its pool connected neighbors with 64% of its present generating capacity producing approximately 70% of the on-system energy requirements utilizing coal as the fuel. In 1980, the picture changes slightly with 69% of the generation producing approximately 75% of the require- ments by using coal fuel. Presently the Company manages coal fuel ash dis- posal in clay bottom ash ponds at two different genera- tion sites approximately 30 miles apart, one in S.E. Kansas and the other in S.W. Missouri. The Missouri plant, generation site, burns area coal, predominately Missouri coal from a mine-mouth operation adjacent to the plant. The Kansas plant burns Oklahoma coal. This year the Missouri plant, Asbury Plant by name, ------- - 2 - will produce in excess of 100,000 tons of bottom and flyash which will go to ponds on the property. Also, this year, the Kansas Plant, Riverton Plant, will produce approximately 18,000 tons of ash which will be sluiced to one of the two ash ponds on this property. In 1980, the Company will be involved in the operation of the first new unit of the latan Plant jointly owned by several companies and located in N.W. Missouri. Our Company will assume its portion of the joint responsibility of ash disposal on the property. This unit will be burning coal from the Colorado-Wyoming area. Our Company's 12% responsibility for the coal fuel ash will mean another 22,000 tons annually. It is not the intent of the Company that this statement be detailed in nature insofar as constructive criticism of the guidelines and regulations proposed, but rather to share concerns of a general nature and scope. Insofar as our industry is concerned there have been, are, and will be numerous organized efforts to address the guidelines and regulations in considerable detail, i.e., EEI, EPRI, USWAG, and others. Our Company has a one person environmental department and that person ------- - 3 - has to function as a general practioner. The ash produced by the operation of the Company's coal burning plants is believed to be very low risk material and does not endanger the health and welfare of employees, neighbors, and the environment. The Company has been discouraged to date to utilize the ash from the Kansas plant because to do so would require a permit and the implementation of an ash management program. Years past the ash was utilized in the re- building of numerous "cinder tracks" and through the efforts of private research groups found to possess desirable qualities that could promote and enhance commercial ventures. Utilization was discouraged and of late not fostered because of the State permit liability, The Company has been able to utilize a portion of the ash from the Missouri plant, in fact ash from this plant is going across the State line into Kansas and being utilized in roadway construction. The ash charac- teristics make it possible to conserve considerable oil that would normally be used in conventional asphaltic concrete. The Company, to date in Missouri, has not been burdened with a detailed ash management program. ------- - 4 - It appears that the RCRA amended Solid Waste Disposal Act severely threatens the prospective utilization and interum on-site storage of coal fuel ash. The wording in the subject EPA document serves to place an applied stigma on this material that will discourage commercial utilization of coal fuel ash. The document states that fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge are Special Wastes and implies that they are a hazardous waste by stating that the Agency is calling such high .volume hazardous waste "Special Waste" and is progressing to regulate it with special standards. Further, on page 58993, this statement appears, "A proposed rulemaking will be published at a later date regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of special waste." Are we, as producers of coal fuel ash to anticipate being prospective permittees and storage facility operators? Are we to proceed to prove that ash we produce is non-hazardous and does not threaten human health and the environment when the material has already been declared hazardous? The Company believes the Sub Part F, the State Program Requirements, will be extremely important. ------- - 5 - Decisions by the States on a case-by-case basis will ultimately formulate a workable program. Allowing States to utilize suitable alternate testing methods is recommended. The Company concurs that utility coal fuel ash should receive separate treatment with the present emphasis on coal as a primary fuel and the fact there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health and/or the.environment with the disposal of the ash from these properties. With an ever-increasing need for adequate cooling water for condensers of steam electric generating plants, many future facilities will need to be sited in the 100 year flood plain. On-site storage and disposal of both the bottom and fly ash especially should be allowed from a reasonable engineering standpoint when, of course, provided with adequate diking and control. Historically, both bottom ash and fly ash have been disposed of on-site and on the immediate property owned by the utilities with no problem of consequence or importance. Projection of the problems facing the electric utilities in the area of disposing of coal ash material ------- - 6 - is unknown and fraught with liabilities. It has become obvious to the Company that from the standpoint of the current national energy policy that continued utilization of coal as a primary fuel for both existing and projected plants must be encouraged. History substantiates that utilities have adequately handled its waste problem and should have separate consideration to avoid unnecessary expense to the rate payers. Yours truly, Gilbert W. Fuller Superintendent of Environmental Engineering & Liaison ------- 467 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The next speaker tonight will be Betty Wilson from The League of Women Voters of Missouri, MS. WILSON: I've got three copies that are somewhat briefer than my final version if they will help. STATEMENT OF BETTY WILSON MS, WILSON: Members of the Panel, I am Betty Wilson of St. Louis County, speaking on behalf of the Lea.gue of Women Voters of Missouri, The League is vitally concerned about the conse- quences of improper management of hazardous materials. The League in Missouri worked for adequate legislation in 1977 to establish a state program. We do not want unneces- sary delay but there are some changes that we see as nec- essary to achieve the intent of the Missouri and Federal Laws, Our primary objection to the proposed regulations is the exemption of generators, 25.0.40, by the volume of waste produced. We do not have the technical background to offer the solution but we recommend that the classifica- tion of waste be further divided so that total tracking of the most hazardous materials is required except for the Congressional exclusions. Recognizing limits to program startup, we would prefer a year or two delay before bringing less hazardous ------- 468 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wastes into the system. We are aware of 3 program in Mary- land which classifies waste, both by degree of hazard and the concentration of hazardous substance in the waste. We concur with this type of classification system. After refining the classification system, re- porting time should be shortened for substances with the greatest potential for health and environmental damage and left at the proposed one year for the less harmful waste, 25.0.2.3, For the waste that would not be reported under the hazardous waste program and therefore required to be sent to an approved disposal facility, we would suggest there be a requirement for informal reporting to the state agency responsible for the solid waste, disposal. In this- transition time from open burning and inadequate waste disposal to developing adequate facilities, it is imperative that a well-designed and well-operated site be selected and that the number of small generators using a given site is within the tolerance of that facility. In regard to Section 3004, disposal facilities, much of the specificity and therefore security for the citizens of the siting regulations has- been removed from drafts to the proposed regulations. We believe the- exemption provisions in siting ------- 469 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a facility are too loose and should be rewritten. We do not believe it should be necessary to lo- cate hazardous waste facilities in the flood plain, wet- lands, critical habitats, on sole source aquifers or within 200 feet of the property line. Landfarming of hazardous waste is a complicated problem. In the proposed regulations, toxic wastes are not included in the excluded categories. The guidelines are still to be written for the wastes with genetic impairment or bioaccumulative properties. And therefore they are not included. The statement in the discussion that "EPA does not have the data needed to make a definition of persis- tent organics at this time" would justify omitting this option or, at a minimum, placing the responsibility and liability on anyone seeking a permit to landfarm hazardous waste, If there are to be permits for landfarming, the burden of proof that there will be no health or environmen- tal damage should be on the operator and at the experimen- tal level for the first few years. Many organic wastes do not contain appreciable levels of heavy metals, could be landfarmed as the best method of management, certain sludges, for example. On the other hand, highly toxic nonbiodegradable ------- 470 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wastes should not be landfarmed because of the potential to enter the environment. We hope that in these comments we have been able to point up our feeling that there is- a need for a hazar- dous waste classification system. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I realize you weren't try- ing to give us really technical comments- but would you try and answer questions for us? MS, WILSON: 1*11 try but my technical informa- tion is lacking, MR. FIELDS: Ms. Wilson, you had one comment regarding your site selection comment in general. We have a problem, the most we have with everybody on stan- dards in there is site selection criteria, but one of the reasons is that, in the case of existing facility, now some facilities are already handling hazardous wastes and they would be handling it in an environmentally ac- ceptable manner. What would you do in the instance if, for ex- ample, we didn't have a note and a facility was adequately handling hazardous waste, there were no problems, he had a track record of good environmental management and the facility, for some reason, violated the 200-foot bump- er zone, what would you propose that EPA do in the case of ------- 471 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 existing facilities that would be in violation of one or more of these standards if there was no note maximum? MS. WILSON: Well, I'm not sure. What would you do? MR. FIELDS: I would do what I have here. That's why we have these notes. That's one of the reasons. Be- cause we want to allow some flexibility in those kinds of circumstances. But you indicate that you would not want to have those notes. I was wondering how you handle — you see the problem that we have. MS. WILSON: I see the problem that you have and I think we're probably not able to answer our own questions in some of these cases. MR. LEHMAN: Can I get a little clarification from you, Ms. Wilson, about the last part of your statement? I'm just not clear what your main point was in your dis- cussion of landfarming. I think that maybe part of the confusion is that there is a typo in the text here. It says, "In the proposed regulation^ and then you have a specific citation there but it doesn't track with anything we have in our regulations. It must be a typographical error. MS. WILSON: You mean in the second sentence? MR. LEHMAN: Yes. MS. WILSON: I had trouble with that, too. I ------- 472 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't do all of this by myself. This is some of it. I never could find it so I crossed it out i,n my own copy. But unfortunately I had not considered the fact that we were going to give them to you, so I didn't cross them out in all of them. So that*s it. That citing was a typo, MR, LEHMAN: Aside from that, though, the main thrust of your remarks, as I understand it, is that you be- lieve that organic wastes with genetic impairment potential or accumulative properties should not be landfarmed, isn't that the general gist of your remarks, or atoleast it ought to be under some sort of a special— MS. WILSON (interrupting): Should be very care- fully and very specially investigated before landfarming. In fact, we thought that only a very few of the organic wastes, and especially those that contain no metal at all, should be landfarmed at all. I think in terms of certain sewage sludges and certain pesticides and so forth, it'-s probably acceptable. But landfarming seems to us, at least, something that we have to treat with great care. MR0 TRASK: Ms. Wilson, you testified that you thought that we ought to change our regulations to have the effect of shortening the reporting period for certain wastes which may have high degrees of hazard. MS, WILSON: Ye.s0 ------- 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR, TRASK: I wonder if you could share with £s some of your thoughts on what the characteristics of those wastes might be or otherwise the names of some of.the wastes, What exactly do you have in mind here? MS. WILSON: r was thinking of some very hazar- dous wastes such as PCB's. MR0 TRASK: When you say like PCB's, you mean wastes that have characteristics similar to PCB's? And the PCB's, themselves? . MS. WILSON: Yes, and wastes that are considered to be extremely hazardous. MR. TRASK: Well, as you know, we haven't done that sort of a breakdown, a split between the different kinds of wastes so the different hazards that we're dealing withy we're searching for some split. MS9 WILSON: I think that we're recommending, trying to reccomend, that there be different classifications and therefore that certain more hazardous wastes be treated in a different manner from the less hazardous wastes0 And I smmply give PCB's as an example because it's one that we have dealt with in Missouri. MR. TRASK: Are you going to send — are you sending your comments later in writing or is this your statement here? MS0 WILSON: This is my statement.. ------- 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TRASK: All right, thank you. MS0 WILSON: Thank you, MR, CORSON: One comment, if I may, Ms, Wilson, because, your answer to Harry kind of treated one of the problems that we've been wrestling with. Because you looked for the bad actor, bad waste, and then earlier on in your comments to Mr, Lehman, you indicated or you indi cated in your statement that you were concerned about some possible carcinogens when you do landfarming. By — we seem to be trying to read into it that it would be very hazardous wastes when landfarmed, maybe not very hazardous wastes when incinerated. So— MS. WILSON Cinterrupting): Well, that must be confusion in the way we've stated it because we felt that certain wastes lent themselves to landfarming and the sun and air and so forth might help take care of it. And the danger to the surrounding environment would not be as gceat, that there should be such criteria as that for landfarming. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you very much, (Whereupon, the aforementioned statement was made part of the formal record,) HEARING INSERT ------- League of Women Voters of Missouri 2138 Woodson Road St. Louis, Missouri 63114 Statement at the Public Hearing on PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS February 15, 1979 I am Betty Wilson of St. Louis County speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Missouri. The League is vitally concerned about the consequences of improper manage- ment of hazardous materials. The League in Missouri worked for adequate .legislation in 1977 to establish a state program. We do not want unnecessary delay, but there are some changes that we see as necessary to achieve the intent of the Missouri and Federal laws. Our primary objection to the proposed regulations is the exemption of generators (250.40) by the volume of waste produced. We do not have the technical background to offer the solution, but we recommend that the classifi- cation of waste be further divided so that total tracking of the most hazardous materials is required, except for the Congressional exclusions. Recognizing limits to program start up, we would prefer a year or two delay before bringing the less hazardous wastes into the system. We are aware of the program in Maryland which classifies waste both by degree of hazard and theconcentration of hazardous substances in the waste. After refinirjg the classification system, reporting time could be shortened for substances with the greatest potential for health and environmental damage and left at the proposed one year for less harmful waste. (250.23) For the waste that would not be reported under the hazardous waste program and therefore required to be sent to an approved disposal facility (discussion on page 58,970), we would suggest that there be a requirement for informal reporting to the state agency responsible for solid waste disposal. In this transition time from open burning and inadequate waste disposal to developing adequate facilities, it is imperative that a well designed and well operated site be selected and that the number of small generators using a given site is within the tolerance of the facility. Re: Section 3004 - Disposal facilities. Much of the specificity, and therefore security for the citizen, of the siting regulations has been removed from drafts to the proposed regulations. We believe the exemption provisions ------- (250.43-1) in siting a facility are much too loose and should be rewritten. We do not believe it should be necessary to site hazardous waste facilities in the floodplain, wetlands, critical habitats, on sole source aquifers or within 200 feet of the property line. Landfarming of hazardous waste is a terrifying thought. In the proposed regulations (250145.5), toxic wastes are not included in the excluded categories. The guidelines are still to be written for the wastes with genetic impairment or bioaccumulative properties, and therefore, they are not included. The statement in the discussion (p.58,990) that "EPA does not have the data needed to make a definition of persistant organics at this time" would justify omitting this option or at a minimum placing the responsibility and liability on anyone seeking a permit to landfarm hazardous waste. If there are to be permits for landfarming, the burden of proof that there will be no health or environmental damage should be on the operator and at the experimental level for the first few years. Thank you. ------- 475 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Is David Wilson here? Is Richard Meunier from CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Is Marie Roberts here? (No response. 1_ CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: CNo response >} CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: The Farm Nuclear Study here? MR. MEUNIER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: I hope I didn't mispronounce your name, MR, MEUNIER: That's all right. First I'd. like to ask the panel, it is my under- standing that transportation of nuclear or radioactive waste was to be included in this as a specialty, is that? CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Only to a very very limited extent. fits in? Alan, if you want to explain under RCRA how it MR. ROBERTS: We have two outstanding rule-making actions regarding the transportation of nuclear materials. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: This is the Department of Transportation speaking here. MR., ROBERTS: One is a complete restatement of the Department of Regulations from A to Zit on radioactive materials transportation system in the proposed new Part 127 entitled 49CFR. Possibly you're addressing our Docket ------- 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HN 164 which deals with the routing of radioactive materials, MR, MEUNIER: Right. MR. ROBERTS: This is not the subject of this hearing. MR. MEUNIER: Not the subject? MR. ROBERTS: No, sir. MR. MEUNIER,: Did that happen yesterday? MR, ROBERTS: We have an open docket on it and you're welcome to submit comments to the same address on our ruling docket at the back of the room for transporta- tion. MR. MEUNIER: O.K. MR0 ROBERTS: I forget the closing date of the comment period. If you submit them within the next few weeks, I'll cover you for sure, MR. MEUNIER: 0,K. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Let me just explain, the RCRA regulations cover hazardous waste but most nuclear waste is not included under RCRA. That is within the purview of another agency, so we do deal with some low level nuclear wastes, some hospital wastes or some of the other phosphate mining. MR. ROBERTS: Are you talking about nuclear fuel? MR. MEUNIER: About nuclear fuel in particular or nuclear fuel just in general or any kind of low-level ------- 79 1 radioactivity, transporting that, 2 MR, ROBERTS: You're making a very broad com- 3 ment there. Then possibly there may be something here. 4 But if you're talking about uranium ore such as yellow 5 cake, then it's^ not the subject of this hearing. 6 MR. MEUINIER: I was under misunderstanding. I 7 thought— 8 MR. ROBERTS (interrupting): This hearing will 9 deal mainly with radium, material of that type, and not 10 get into enriched uranium, spent nuclear tools, or anything 11 of that type. 12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: If you have some comments 13 on — that seem to be applicable to low-level, transpor- 14 tation of low—level radioactive wastes, we'd be happy 15 to hear them. 16 STATEMENT OF RICHARD MEUNIER 17 MR. MEUNIER: Well, just that we've had several 18 hazardous waste spills in Missouri fairly recently. One 19 wasn't radioactive:wastes. It was a train spill in Stur- 20 geon. And we had a truck accident out here on 1-70 with 2i low-level. Now that was yellow cake and you say that's 22 not the subject here. 23 MR. ROBERTS: That was a load of specific radio- 24 active material. That is not the subject of this hearing. 25 That was virgin material and it was not lethal. ' ------- 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR, MEUNIER,: Yesf J- guess my question to the panel here is you have no control of this. Is this totally NRG or does the EPA have any kind of a say in what— CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: If you want to ask us those kinds of questions, we'd be happy to talk to you after the close of the hearing. MR. MEUNIER: O.K., I rm sorry. I was understand- ing that this was part of this hearing and that's what my statements were going to pertain to, MR, ROBERTS: Well, I do strongly suggest that if you have something to say about the transportation of radio- active materials, if it's the routing of radioactive ma- terials — in other words, the route followed by the .ve- hicles transporting those materials— MR. MEUNIER (interrupting): Right. MR. ROBERTS (continuing): —if you'd make a note, jot down Docket 164. In the back of the room on the table there is a document with my name and address on it, and you may write to us and discuss, under Docket 164, the routing of radioactive material. If you want to talk on the other rulemaking docket which is, like I said, A to Zit, the whole business other than routing, you better give me your name and address and I'll mail you the rulemaking. And it will probably take you about a month to review it. .1- dpn't mean ------- 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 479 that facetiously. I mean that seriously, MR. MEUNIER: Right. MR. ROBERTS: If you started at the time it came back, it would probably take you at least a month. MR. MEUNIER: All right, thank you. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Thank you for coming. Is there anybody else that would like to speak or has comments on 3001, 2 or 4 of the RCRA regulations? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Is anybody for the Coalition for the Environment here? MR; MEUNIER: I think their interest is the same is mine. Maybe they found out before I did and that's why they didn't show up. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., thank you. O.K., we will close the official record of this hearing and we'll pass out three by five cards if somebody has — now for people who have not been here during the daytime hearings, anybody here tonight who has questions on how the regulations are meant to apply, if they are not clear, if you need some help from us, write down your questions and we'll have people bring them to us and try to answer them, (Seersepacateetca'fia czipt rf or rqueat ion and "answer s}d.) ------- SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT, .FOR QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION St. Louis, Missouri February 15, 1979 ------- 480 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ROBERTS: I have one. The handwriting looks familiar. "Would you explain the requirements of proposed Regulation 171.3 Ce}_, especially 171.3 (e) 3. We're almost as bad as EPA, I think, on that. And by the way, put on the table back here are copies of our notice of proposed rulemaking and also there are more than 100 of them down at the registration desk. And I apologize but I was not here this afternoon. I was having a lovely time touring the airport of Kansas City and I finally came over from Kansas City by Greyhound Bus. So I just couldn't make it this afternoon. Proposed 171.3 deals with the preempted aspects of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1964. And I guess in the simplest way to say it is that in terms of the transportation of materials, we are saying that any state or local requirement that's inconsistent with the Federal requirement for the transportation of hazardous wastes is — I better read it because if I start to inter- pret it before I read it, we might run into trouble. What it says is, "With regard to a hazardous waste subject to this subchapter, any requirement of a state or its political subdivision is inconsistent with this subchapter if it applies because that material is a waste material and applies differently from or in addi- tion to the requirements of this subchapter concerning packaging, marking, labeling and placarding, or the format ------- 481 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or content of discharge reports except immediate reports for emergency response "—'- that's excluded from the pre- emption, obviously- ,"or the format or contents of shipping papers, except any additional requirements of the state or locality of consignment, which is part of an authorized state hazardous waste management program under 42USC692.6." The simplest way to explain this is that we are dealing with thousands of jurisdictions in the United States. In order to have an orderly system for the move- ment of hazardous waste to their authorized or permitted disposal locations, chaos would prevail if every jurisdic- tion within the United States would decide to write its own rules. Visualize the packaging of a given material and it comes into some local jurisdiction and they decide they want it in a concrete vault and then the next jurisdiction says it has to be in a steel tank. And in many cases we would have wastes in the transportation cycle for months while we were just trying to move it through these juris- dictions if everybody wrote their own rules. One of the reasons why we've been very desirous of actively participating in all these hearings with the EPA, is to receive comments on our proposed rulemaking and also consideration of our proposed rulemaking in regard to the 800 pages of Federal regulations presently set forth ------- 482 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for shippers and carriers of hazardous materials. We have one of the fattest CFR's in the U. S. Government system, including 400 pages of packaging specifications. Now that doesn't mean that a state or local jurisdiction may not be able to do a better job of specifying packaging but we must have a consistent and harmonious system or chaos would prevail. And I hope you will all understand that. What we have done, though, we've recognized that in the proposal, and it's already been objected to by a number of commentors, we have recognized that destination state may require certain additional information to be set forth on the document relative to its aetermihatmon of the appropriateness of the disposal of the material. In other words, we've said, in terms of the destination state, we are not requiring a preempted situa- tion to exist if it's done under a state-authorized, auth- orized state hazardous waste management program. And I think someone from the EPA can explain that better than .1, What this means is that when a man prepares a document, say, in New Jersey and for some reason the material is going to Ohio, the document prepared consis- tent with the EPA and the DOT regulations for that material would be acceptable in the state of Pennsylvania, an inter- ception of that shipment within the state of Pennsylvania/':; when it is only transiting that state, would be considered ------- 483 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 having the potential for being declared inconsistent under the provisions of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, However, the state of Ohio may have some require- ments concerning the preparation of documents under its state-approved plan and I would again suggest that some- body from the EPA could explain some of the situations that would illustrate the desirability of permitting that type of requirement to exis.t.. And I must again emphasize at previous hearings and some of the commentary, this has been strongly ob- jected to from the standpoint of the railroad industry, for example, I can understand some of the distress with this proposal. I believe that's just about as well as I'm able to explain where we are on this particular part of the scope and. application of the standard and I would be delighted to answer further if I have not explained it well enough. On an earlier question that was raised deals with tankcars. The commentor says, "Our plant receives empty- railcars for the shipment of our products from our plant. Frequently these empty cars contain up to several hundred pounds of previous-ly shipped unknown materials. Since railcars are frequently in. short supply, we must empty the cars- or use them with the unknown material still ------- 484 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in them, which is obviously unacceptable," I agree, "We are therefore, frequently put in the position of accumulation of other company's" —": then the word "waste" is stricken ..-"products for our disposal.: Does EPA or DOT have any recommendations on what we can do to resolve this problem. Note: The railroad isn't interested in keeping the material. Significant costs would be involved in determining what this material is in order to adequately comply with the RCRA regulations for disposal." I think the only way I can answer that is that if the inbound car contained a hazardous material subject to DOT regulations and the car is not empty. Meaning in our case, cleaned and purged, the car — if the car moves out on the rails again, under Section 17.3.28, Paragraph F, of our regulations, that car is subject to our regula- tions in the same manner as when the car came in with a full load, with one exception. At a certain level, a cer- tain quantity of the material, and we are working on the rulemaking to specify that, of the residue of the car, they may turn the car and show the empty side of the placard. Meaning when the empty placard in the railroad industry means the car is not full and is virtually empty of its contents. That's just about what it means. It doesn't mean it's entirely empty or cleaned and purged. Or otherwise the placard must be removed. ------- 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 485 As to how that material is dealt with, if they clean the product from the car within the plant facility and store it or do something with it — I again must re- fer to my good neighbors here from the EPA as to what de- termination would be done with that material. I only deal with the transportation aspect of these cars. And if they are on the plant facility and the material is removed from the car, as to what happens to it is not wxthin my purview. "Do you see any way that DOT and EPA could de- velop one regulation to cover transportation of hazardous wastes rather than two regulations as proposed? What is a way for a person who has not used DOT regs before to develop a meaningful understanding of DOT regulations? Is there a good summary document?" First of all, if I'm not mistaken and, Mr. Trask, I'm sure you'll correct me, there is an indication in the EPA transporter document that there may be significant modifications of that document if DOT proceeds to adopt the regulations that it proposed last May 2.5. I believe I'm correct on that. MR. TRASK: That wording is in the proposal, right. MR. ROBERTS.: Maybe we ought to have a talk be- fore we proceed. ------- 486 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I should point out that so far as the generator part of DOT's. involvement, there's been a change in the Act by the quad communities amendments, as I call them, of a- few months ago. And where previously it talked about regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, relative to adoption of EPA rules, it used to say "Subtitle" meaning Subtitle C and now it only refers to Section 300.3. And of course most of our rulemaking deals with matters that are covered by 3002 in terms of what the shipper must do in giving the materials to the carrier. Packaging, shipping documents, labeling, marking, things of that type, EPA is no longer, as I see it, obligated to promulgate regulations for generators that are consis- tent with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. And before somebody writes me a card and asks the question about the origin of that modification, a few months ago under the revision of this Act, I have no know- ledge of how it was revised,, As a matter of fact, I was not even aware of it until last week. But I think if you look at the DOT and EPA pro- posals, by and large, they are consistent, one with the other. Obviously, in our case, we wrote them to fit within the existing DOT regulations. So there are differences in the language. But by and large, I think you will find ------- 48? 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that they are very compatible„ If someone disagrees with that, I think they should bring it to our attention. As far as becoming aware of DOT regulations, DOT holds seminars around the United States. We do make some slots available at the Transportation Safety Insti- tute in Oklahoma City to industry people who have a de- sire to receive intensive training in this area. We have regional and field offices around the United States, hazardous material specialists. There is one in Kansas City, Mr. Crowder from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, who is a hazardous material specialist. The first thing you must do if you're not fa- miliar with this, though, is I would strongly recommend get a copy of the regulations. And they are available from the Superintendent of Documents and whoever asked the question, later on I'11 be delighted to tell you how to get it. MR. CORSON: I have a three-part question. "One of the main points of the past two days of discussion has been a desire to classify wastes by degree- of hazard. The League of Women Voters mentioned that Maryland is- currently in the process of doing this. Why aren't you following the example, if this is true, since you keep asking for ways to do this?" That does remind me, I should have thanked Ms. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 488 Wilson for reminding me about the Maryland work0 . But we did, in part of pur investigation leading to the regulation as we have proposed it, looked at several state regulations which looked at degree;: of hazard and many of them were quite cumbersome and we felt required quite a large amount of testing on each and every waste to determine degree of hazard. We felt the approach which we included in our December 18 proposal, which was to use 3001 as a yes-no gate^and then allow for the flexibility of 3004 to accommodate to the waste-specific problems with a site-specific solution to be an adequate answer to the degree of hazard. Now we did raise in the preamble the fact that we will be looking, and we are, at relating degree of hazard to the small quantity generation problem because it does appear that, at least it certainly has been shown in the last two days here and I think in New York, that there is a fair amount of interest that relates to the problem relating to small quantity at least, or the quan- tity exclusion to various degrees of hazard we'11 be looking at. And we will certainly, at least now that we have it on the record, it will be a visual reminder to review the Maryland work and we will do s.o. Second question: "Also isn't this a state which ------- 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 489 classifies fly ash a natural resource, not a hazardous waste?" And I cannot answer that question because I don't know, "Where may we view your data on fly ash leaching studies.?" We have, between the work we have done in-house, that's with a contractor, what we've done jointly and done separately by the American Society £drr-Testi|ig::Materials, has-'probably had some results on, perhaps, eight to ten fly ash samples. My recollection of the data is we have yet to come across a fly ash which, when exposed to the extraction procedure, failed the analysis for the contami- nents of concern and our toxicity teat. I believe there was just one sample that was borderline with cadmium but they are — you can contact us at our office in Washing- ton, The problem is the next time we will be there is the beginning of the week.-:starting February 2.6. MR. LEHMAN: There's a question here which has come up time and again and indicates the difficulty I tnink the general public has in understanding our intent with respect to the definition of discarded materials. And also to some extent it illustrates the difficulty we had in writing that definition and making it clear. But let's try it once again. Question: "Would incinerators beeused to^cofifcert by-products streams which frequently are disposed of as ------- 490 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 waste to usable products and/or usable energy? And would such incinerators- be covered in any manner by RCRA? If such devices are covered by RCRA in any manner, are there criteria that will determine coverage versus noncoverage?" . O.K., now to answer the first part, no. In other words, what you're really referring to here, I be- lieve r are what we would call boilers rather than incinera- tors. Boilers using by-products streams to generate ener- gy or to use as fuel to generate steam for future process use, whatever, as opposed to an incinerator which, in our term, is used for the one and only purpose, being to de- stroy the waste. So if I can interpolate this question a little bit, what I think is being asked here is if you have a by- product of a manufacturing process and you feed that back into an in-plant boiler, use it as fuel or use it to gene- rate steam and so on, that is not covered under our defi- nition of discarded materials under RCRA. Is not solid waste ana therefore is not an hazardous waste. So our intent here is to encourage, where you feel it; is safe to do so, the reuse of these types of materials for fuel or for other purposes. If we find abuses to the intent behind all of this, EPA can and will bring into regulatory control these other types of uses, and we make that point in Section ------- 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 491 250.10, in a note where we have a statement that, "A reserved section where we say that other materials and their uses will be included by an amendment to this list of controlled substances upon a finding by the EPA that it is necessary to control such uses." So we feel that we should go with the proposal as we've indicated, encouraging people to do this0 But if we find that there are environmental and public health problems associated with it, then we will go back and restructure that. MR. TRASK: I have a question here that deals with the 90-day storage period. It says, "How does one handle, within the frame- work of hazardous- wastes regulations-, secondary process material which is destined for recycle but is held longer than 90 days before sale or treatment?" And there's a note: "The material fails the ET tes.t." If it's- held longer than 90 days then a permit is required. During the 90-day period, it must meet the storage, requirements of the 3004 regulations and of course when it's under the permit it must meet all of thos.e. But it also must have the permit for more than 90 days. MR. ROBERTS: I have a question here. It says,. "It was stated this afternoon that the DOT regulations may be amended to control hazardous wastes ------- 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 492 transported only intrastate." I think the question is will it be amended to include intrastate as well as inter- state, if I may interpret the question. We regulate interstate transportation and have and our predecessor agencies since 1908. The question goes on, "Does DOT have this authori- ty? Is- DOT attempting to obtain intrastate regulatory authority?" Now the answer is a& follows: first of all, this particular ruleraaking, Docket 18145A, published last May 25, is from the standpoint of highway carriage. And the highway carriage alone, this^ comment, is the first time there has been a proposal to extend the DOT regula- tions to cover intrastate transportation. NOW as to whether we have the authority, the ans- wer is yes, and I can only, without a long explanation, cite 49. United States Code 1801, And the person who asked the question should look that section up and find how we obtained that authority in 1974. And to the latter part, yes, DOT is proposing to apply the hazardous waste transportation standards to intrastate cominerce as well as interstate commerce. There are two other rulemakings in the mill, both of which will be in. the Federal Register within the next two weeks that also deal with intrastate commerce. The other ------- 493 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one that would have some relationship to this hearing is the transportation of hazardous substances under Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the other deals with the transportation of flammable cryogenic liquids. So DOT is going into the intrastate regulatory area on a selective case-by-case basis and not in the broad sense of applying its standards for all materials that are classed as hazardous materials jurisdictionally to intrastate commerce, MR. LEHMAN: I have a question here. First of all, it says, "Comments are due March 12, '79." Well, first of all, it's March 16, '79 on these proposed rules. "However, the issue of the degree of hazard, need for classification systems, et cetera, is clear." It's a statement by the writer. It's not neces- sarily EPA's conclusion. "Upon submission of preliminary or outlined alternative proposals of this nature by March 16f is there a mechanism to follow this with details, sup- porting information at a later date? If so, how much time would be available?" The answer to that is no, the comment period, when it closes on March 16, is the last date upon which we are going to receive information concerning these pro- posals. There is no mechanism to receive comment on these ------- 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 494 proposals after March 16. MR, LINDSEY: If a company had a contract for sale of hazardous wastes and must store it for more than 90 days before removal/ would this storage require permit? The answer is yes, it would. MR.- ROBERTS: Questioner says-, "I am not familiar with the DOT regulations pertaining to containers for hazardous materials. Would new steel barrels or drums be required for containerizing hazardous wastes?" This is depending on what the material is. Again it would be too lengthy of an answer. Everybody would fall asleep, I'm afraid, if I tried to explain it all. It depends on the classification of the hazardous material or, in certain cases, if it is a specifically named material in our regulations as to what the packaging is called for. For example, certain materials are incompatible with steel and therefore we do not authorize them in steel drums. Some material are allowed in fibre drums. Obviously nitric acid is not authorized in fibre drums. So the hazardous wastes regulations we are pro- posing are a simple extension of the existing hazardous materials regulation to the extent that we presently regu- late the materials. That comment enables me to answer another question raised and I'll do them both together. The person is alleg- ------- 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ing that we would — what happens if he is hauling a hazar- dous waste that is not a hazardous material? I would suggest that that person read again care- fully our notice of proposed rulemaking0 Because if it's a hazardous waste subject to 40CFR250, it is a hazardous material under the DOT proposal. And if you read our no- tice, we have one category at the very tail end of our entire list of two thousand and some entries which covers this situation. The legal description, legal shipping description, hazardous waste, and a lis.t. After you go through and track through and find out it's not an explo- sive, it's not a corrosive material, it's not a compressed gas, et cetera, radioactive material, ediologic agent, all the things we presently regulate, it points out at the bottom of the pecking order, it's a hazardous waste and unless, and it would shipped accordingly under that1 designation. And the paper, the shipping document, would iden- tify the EPA required description in parentheses following that designation. So I think that answers both these ques- tions as best as I*m able to in a few minutes0 MR. CORSON: I have a short one, "In, 25.0.13," and I believe it's, referring to Paragraph D, "does it make any difference if the elements lis-ted may be in oxide form? In does make a difference ------- 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4SI insofar as the leaching characteristics of certain elements'.1 The answer, if you'•re referring just to the question where is it, in fact, referring to the list of substances we've extracted from the drinking water stan- dardSo The topic is whether it be oxide form or not and we are concerned only with the solubilization. So to the extent that other forms may make them less soluble, they would not be released and therefore they may not be in the system. MR. LINDSEY: "Do you have any credible evidence that earthen built containment ponds for toxic and hazar- dous material will, in fact, contain these materials? If so, please explain how the containment works, liners work," containment liners, I suppose that is. By earthen built, our regulation require more than what I would call earthen liners. There are two techniques in the regulations for constructing landfills that are put forward. Where we are using natural materials we are talking about clays and roll clay liners. Let me — I think maybe it would be useful to talk about the overall intent here of the way in which we've put together this landfill criteria under Section 300.4. I think what the person is getting at here is that*there is no absolutely zero — notabsolute way to insure absolute zero discharge. ------- 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 When we first started xi\to these regulations we thought what we would try to do would be determine and try to model the movement of waste from a land disposal site into the ground water in such a way that we could predict, given the chronocologic requirements and so forth, the movement of wastes in the ground water in such a way we could predict the maximum concentrations thereof. We found, after a lot of work, that we really couldn't do that. So we went to a maximum containment approach. In so doing we mandated the use of liners and the main concept of the liners is that during site life we will prevent the escape of materials from the landfill site and then post-closure, and what we would be depending on is the reduction of the elimination of movements of liquids from the surface, namely rainfall, from the surface into the contained site through capping techniques so that you build up no driving head, that is no leaching which can then leach out of the site. That is the concept. * With regard to credible evidence that earthen built containment ponds — I'm talking about ponds, not landfills, work. There are a great many of them around and they are not doing any harm0 If someone would like to share with us this kind of information — it gets kind of involved. I would suggest that maybe if you look at the background documents that we have for this work and, as ------- 498 100 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an alternative to that, they can talk with our people. And whoever wanted to do this, I can give the names of people who would get right along with it, I think, here. MR. LEHMAN: Question: "Can the Agency request information or support data on the proposed regulations from selected associations or individuals after March 16, 1979?" The answer to that is yes, the Agency can and does ask, for example, for clarification for comments re- ceived, The Agency can and does gather supporting informa- tion on particular issues that are raised during the com- ment period. So, yes, the answer is yes, the Agency can request information after closing the comment period. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Do you have a question you were going to answer? MR, ROBERTS: No, I just wanted to be sure to insert in, the record and for the purpose of the meeting tha,t the Federal Register of February 8, 1979, Page 7988, states the closing date of the DOT rulemaking to be June I, 1979, as* far as the receipt of public comment. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., we are going to re- open the official record. We have one person who wants to offer us comments who was- delayed getting here. Court reporter, do you need a short break be- fore we go? ------- 499 101 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTER: Yes, CHAIRPERSON DARRAF: If you wor^t mind, we'll take about a five-minute break. (Whereupon, the question and answer period was temporarily closed,) ------- ------- 500 ]02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K,, would you identify yourself for the record, please? DRo PARKER: I'm Dr. James Parker, La Marque, Texas. LaMarque is situated between Houston and Galveston, It is some nine miles from the Galveston causeway in the vicinity of Texas City and is a part of Texas City. STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES P. PARKER DR, PARKER: The two documents that I am going to leave on file with the panelists is for their informa- tion. One is to show today how many waste classification systems that is currently in use by the Texas Department of Water Resources which is a branch of the Texas Water Commission. %. This is a waste classification code in which there's 53 pages0 I think there's 25 to the page. The idea that I would leave with the panelists is that the classification/ and this is out of a computer and I think this will be evident when they see it, is a highly inade- quate classification in that is very general. And if any of you care to look at this later, I would be happy to go over it with yo.u. I think that we will be, in Texas, breaking down such thingsLasccommingled wastes and tank bottoms, et cetera. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We'll submit it to the ------- 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 501 court reporter and they will make it as part of the record. DR. PARKER: All right. The next exhibit that I will present is some Xerox pages from a book by Dr. Harry '"Gedergren, John Wiley & Sons. I might, for the record, state that John Wiley & Sons have given open permission to utilize this material by my letter to them and their letter to me. Now this, by no means, encompasses the work of Harry bGedergren or Dr. CasaGrande or. Dr. Kerzage, but it would give you men at least my view, from an engineering point of view, of up-to-date work that is quite relevant here to the question that I submitted on earthen built levies for containment ponds. The actual book I'm going to retain but I would advise any of you to buy this book here. Harry Cedergren is a consulting engineer in soil mechanics. He's currently in Sacramento and I have his address, if any of you care to consult with Dr. Cedergren. He is by no means the only expert that I have utilized but I think that his book — it is widely used in universities and engineering schools. Now the slides that I have proposed to show to- night are all from a rather small area. The Gulf Coast of Texas. Primarily these are from the Galveston Bay. Well, I would say they are all from Galveston in the West Bay, the Houston Channel and an area designated as ------- 10.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 502 Bayport, which is eastward extension of the Houston, Channel. The slides, most will be in, a color reversal„ For. those of you that are unfamiliar, I might just very briefly explain the process of looking at an infrared film. Infra- red is the film that was developed by Eastman in World War IT for air reconnaissance. In utilizing its emulsion you use a minus blue filter which will cut out the ultraviolet, the violets and the blues0 And depending upon the filter that is used, you may edge into cutting some green0 Now the advantage of using this emulsion in pollution detection work is several. One is that you have eliminated the troublesome shorter wave1length of light. And the usual fuzziness, particularly in aerial work that would come from reflected light off of moisture. The other great advantage is that you do go into A the invisible spectrum, into about 900 dedometers. Now I have utilized film that went much further but I'm not exhibiting that here tonight. I speaking of rays that almost go to the radio wave length. That type of emulsion has to be used with liquid nitrogen. This emulsion is common. I have used it in medicine and I have used it in forestry work0 The basic principle that you need to bear in mind is the reversal of color. Anything that is blue will appear black because we haye filtered out blue. Now anything that is blue — ------- 503 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well, we're getting into chemicals here. Let's say that anything that is red will appear green. And anything that is green will appear blue with all the gradations. The one thing that you might most bear in mind is that polluted water, either by dissolved or suspended material or simply by a lack of oxygen, will appear milky. Now you will see vegetation here but it*s quite red. That is healthy vegetation will be the color of this rug. We call it magenta. That is the chlorophy.i:,. Now the damaged or stressed plants will appear in various shades of yellow and brown and this is important from the point of view of tracking pollution. Now I'll be glad to explain as we go along. We will be looking at things that don't make any sense here in a few minute.sf because of exotic chemicals. For example now, a spigot of water out of a treatment plant, if it's working right, should be black. Healthy water will be black. Polluted water will be white. I may be telling you something you already know here. Let's go on to some of the slides now and we'll have the rest of the lights out now, if you will. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We.have allowed Dr. Parker to show these slides. He has promised us they are exhi- bits. He will supply us a copy within the time the record remains open. ------- 504 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. PARKER: I will give them to you tonight. The kodachrome slide, this is not color reversal. This is a picture of the Houston Channel, This first slide is presented merely to give you a comparison between kodachrome and the infrared which will follow. I would call to your attention in the Houston Channel, the containment pond that I'm concerned with. You will note there immediately adjacent, direct- ly adjacent to the Marine Waters of the United State.s. In the channel alone there are well over 100 of these. And as we go on down the coastline of Texas to .the south, we find even more. This is simply another one showing that even without the use of infrared, you will note the wastebed here creating a line. You may argue that that's something *else but I will show you very clearly that that is, in fact, sewage from an earthen land. This is again just another visual spectral film showing the multiplicity of waste containment ponds on the Houston Channel, Now we go into the main usage that I have made in many aerial reconnaissance missions in flying a plane in the channel of the entire Gulf Coast of Texas, That is a spill — not a spill. That is an illegal discharge. I think it was visible to the unaided ------- 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 505 eye. This black would, as I have told youf be blue if the eye could see i.t. This water here is channelled, part of the Houston Channel or some add mixture with whatever is being done. And there is a pond source here and I observed it over two hours in circling over. Now the water in the channel, and I call your attention, has a murkiness, milkiness. If it was a healthy water it would be black. This is just another shot showing the proximity. There is the channel. Here is your containment pond, another pond there. These dikes are levies between them, may not be more than 10 feet. You can see Houston in the background. This is the battlefield monument, a portion of channel back here and within a few yards of the monument we have waste con- tained in the ponds. This is the reflection pond there. These are ones that have been built in the surrounding area. And now- for the first time I'd like to show you what a stress plant looks like in infrare.d. Those have more of random color and that's because of the season of the year. In the springtime this would have been more of a yellow0 Out here on the freeboard or levee, you will see the chlorophyll response, which is a magenta and those plants are healthier. ------- 506 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now in here you must bear in mind as winter comes on some trees* shed and you will have that picture from the wintertime on many of the trees. The value of aerial reconnaissance I think is well defended here. This is a little channel that goes into .the Houston Channel, That's called VineeiBay.au. ?>-That particular channel runs out to the international airport. Where it divides in two0 You will note here someone is letting a stream go. Now that is very characteristic, whether it is municipal or whether it's industrial, it will have that look. If that were treate.d water it would be black. Now we're getting into the question, you might say, is this a healthy body of water? Well, that Vince Bayou is polluted at that point. And you might see here the little containment pond. You can see three in this picture. They are only separated by inches. The water moves- freely in and out and I would be happy to go over with any of the panelists the engineering data, they will not work, they have never worked, they've^ totally polluted the Gulf Coast of Texas and that's, why I'm here tonight. This object here is the wing of the plane0 I was using a wide angle lens so discount that object. This is another illustration along the Houston Channel waste pits and over there to that g±de> you can see where ------- 507 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ^5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it is seeping in at the edge of the channel and if you can, perhaps, see from where you*re seated, the vegeta- tion along that ledge has the characteristics of dying vegetation. Now this will not be visible to the unaided eye, Infrared is the only way you're going to detect this. In background, I might say this, that infrared does penetrate water about one foot. And that will vary a little bit depending upon the time of the year and infra- rays of the sun. And for the first time, the temperature may have a little bit to do with it. For those of you who are totally unfamiliar with this, this is not photography. It has nothing to do with any emission of infrared. It is primarily all reflectants of infrared. There is the same spill that I showed you earlier. Now one of the ways of testing levies that should be done, bore holes in the levee and bore hole inside the proposed pond and one outside. Throughout this whole vast area of Texas I have, perhaps, five hundred slides showing what you can see very clearly, whatever this black material is on the infrared is coming-out in a stream. This is called piking. And when you build a levee, as you must, from available materials, you build dissimilar styles and that is a very important consideration. The peeir.Biea-tOaLi^tiJfy of the pike clay versus the ------- 508 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of a sand or a calciferous material will vary into the billions. Now I want you to bear that in mind. And when you saturate a levee, and it's going to be saturated, either from tide rising — and in that part of Texas we have some 1,300 tidal rises a year, you're going to saturate and every time it's saturated, you're going to have the more permeable material in essence melting. And your ball of clay will act like oricle. And this is- the one thought I mus-t leave. This is just another example. I couldn't tell you what's in there but from my experience I think it's. styrene. Probably* vinyl chloride in styrene. I haven't matched a great deal of these chemicals but itTs a very risky thing to do. • . All right, here is the bayou I showed you with the illegal discharge. This is Vince Bayou or Little Vince, one. Now a very good illustration here of polluted water coming down in the little bayou. There are some 50 plants upstream and I don't know how I could show you better the characteristics of highly polluted water. The remainder of this channel is not healthy. You can tell by this color there is chemicals. Now here again you can see seepage out of the whole saturated earth along the side. I just guess this is just another illustration of ------- 509 ill i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I guess we're advertising we have industries down there. Wherever -you look you find these. To this side is a portion of the channel and this is made with a telephoto lens. Incidentally I used in, this work largely wide angle lenses and primarily light cameras and Nikons. The Nikon is excellent for thi-s, This material here reaches the water. It has some pollution and changes color somewhat. On a flight, this is a flight in January. All of these were made in January, incidentally, I had ob- served — I don't know whether you can see it or not, the barges are tied up there and we observed a barge spraying down. In water like this-, it*s not subject to much tidal action up here. Not as much as you get in the bay. The stream from a washed down vessel will be visible for some two hours. That's just another exposure of the same thing. I don't think that this adds a great deal except for the continued multiplicity of these earth containment ponds. You can see them back in here and you can see the dead construction of the plants which is indicative of their seepage. And of course you always find the material going in. To the left you can see the ponds that are right ------- 510 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the water. They are all leaking. Now I. don*t recall the precise distance from the water that your guidelines proposal stated. I think it was 75 feet. It might have been more. But my point, gentlemen, is that wherever you put them you are going to have them seep into the under- groiond water and you're going to have them seep into any adjacent"water because the first thing you have, wherever on the Gulf Coast, you have stratification. You have the first two or three feet of muck and then you have a sandy, a calciferous and down to clay. Now these materials, like water, will travel along these interfacings between varying types of soil. Incidentally, in this area, which is near^Bayport, the entire shallow underground water, the entire bay is pol- luted. We had the same thing in Galveston. The water at 26 to 32 or 33 feet, wherever you have a waste pit, is all polluted. Now the great question that concerns us in that area of the country, we're trying to go to over- ground water supplies„ We're still in many places de- pendent upon well water and the prospect that we look at today is that this pollution of the shallow layers will go down to the Algoa Sands or the Evangeline Cistern which is some 6"00-700 feet down. There is no reason why ------- 511 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it will not reach, there and then the entire underground water supply of the largest industrial area of the United States will be gone. And I don't know how far away we are but we're down to 32 feet deep now. The primary evil is the erroneous concept that someone might have that you can contain anything in an earthen pond. That is more pollution out of another bayou and I didn't identify it. These are all in the Houston channel. If you look with care you can see the skyline of Houston in the background, I said there were 100 of these things. There must be 300. This is a vast area*. Here is one over here. You see the stress. There isn't any vegetation all around it. This is the simplest way in the world to detect pollutiono I don't think that shows anything essentially that we had not seen before. Just another shot. You can go upstream here, a whole complex of these things, and see where they were going. And I might add that this is a major dogfight in the state of Texas in which I have been involved for now some 30-odd weeks and we're re- suming the fight on Tuesday. And I'd. like some of you to join me in Austin. I would tell you quite frankly it is very unlikely ------- 512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the state of Texas will ever allow this, whatever the guidelines are here. Because we've had Court rulings re- cently and this past year from our own Court that in re- gard to pumping underground water, that the people, and we're now talking largely about these industries that you've been looking at, must be responsible for their damage. And that's where it weflLfengn.toToeeite just what we've seen in the Love Canal area, industry. We're talking about chemical,, Industry is responsible for its spill waters. And one of my great concerns in these guidelines is that there should be some effort on the part of the Federal Government to shield industry. And I will tell you that Texas will not apply because we've already had a ruling to the effect and the ; people who are pumping underground water and further siting, and this whole area has undergone perhaps three to five feet of subsidence. Those industries that continue that are now paying. And industries that will pollute with these earthen built things are going to pay. This is more of a panorama shot. Here is an open pollutant. This is again near the monument. And wherever you look you can see it streaming into the water. This isn't a waste containment pond but itfis. seepage from somewhere back of the plane. It will all seek its own level just like water. ------- 513 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is at Bayport, a Gulf Coast waste disposal authority they have in Texas — a facility in, Texas also. I think if you had to pick the one major polluter in that part of the state of Texas, they have polluted, I suppose, more of the bay than any other single entity. Well, this is a good.picture here of a totally polluted — this is a little basin for boats to put in being polluted. Several of these containment ponds have concrete around the outer portions. Incidentally, I don't think concrete will work either. You can move gasses through concrete, you can move water through just about as readily. Now we come back again to the kodachrome as the eye would see it. This is again,, in my opinion, a number one polluter. This is a treatment facility. One of the things he has done in our area is bubble air through waste materials and these are solid wastes, Ciass I toxic hazardous materials, on the idea that he may have either aerobic or a fibel type of degradation. Some of it may exist but in this particular facility, they are taking in, perhaps, 4,000,000 gallons and they have discharge point there back of- that barge. And I made three flights. There are two barges there. The barges are being fake loaded. The material is being pumped out the back end. Those barges have a designated destination ------- 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 514 of 1,000,, QQ.Q gallons a, day down in the. mine area,. We're still on kodachrome9 Even on kodachrome you can see — and this is Vince Bayou again. You can see the contents- of this Gulf Coast waste pouring right on out into the Bayou. That's unusual to see it. that clearly. I would again call your attention to the barge, and that's the subject of the current hearings in Austin. Illegally, totally illegally discharging. There are two of them. As you will see in a moment. That's just another view. I don't think that adds anything new. Now you can see the two barges and on another film at the other end, you will notice another one dis- charging. Now in three successive missions covering 32- days. period, this situation was constant. That Agency, under the present state law, has a political immunity. And I know a lot of people don't like to listen to political things but it was created by an Act of Legislature. The executive director, former campaign manager of United States Senator Tower, the President's campaign manager and fund raiser for Senator Schwartz. The assistant man, Joe Teller, appointed by a former Governor of Texas and so they have license to do anything. And this is what we are looking at. And this is the name of the game in Texas. ------- 515 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now in this particular one you can see the blue. I couldn't tell you the outfit, r have no idea, but those barges are permitted on the destination site. They were headed for 1,000,000 gallons a day. Or about --"rather 480,000 each. We're still on regular color, put on a telephoto lens. They are a little bit better in finding them. This is an unusual circumstance. This is the current rule in Texas. Now I have called the attention of the Coast Guard and Dallas EPA. Of course the Texas Water Commission would have nothing to do with it. There isn't a Federal Agency nor a state agency that will make one move against this type of thing. And this might be very discouraging to some of the young people in this game. It doesn't bother me that much.- Here is their NiPDS discharge. I 'm not going to bore you with what the bottom seven samples revealed, but I will tell you that they run' the whole gamut of chemistry. Now we're into the infrared. Actually infrared didn't help us a lot here but it will get better — little bit better delineates the discharge, illegal discharge of the barges. Now a good contras.t. This water here is discolored by the various chemicals that went into it. The other water is just a good example of pollution. On the second flight, which was in January, they ------- 516 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were putting out for their normal permitted area, an, ac- celerated amount. I don't, know whether that's permissible or not. But with this going on in Calveston Bayr the Governor, ex-Governor, recently declared it a disaster. It is the largest bay on the whole coastal United States, The largest in our state. It's the second bay to be so declared a disaster and not usable for many purposes, including dragging. The oysters I have examined here are highly contaminated with chromium, cadmium, lead, to name just a few of them. And the contaminents in the crabs and oysters parallels pretty well what the stream analysis- from the various industries- will show. Well, thatrs just another one with the infrared. I don't know that you need all of it but you're welcome to it, This is coming on down toward Calveston. If you've ever been in that area, it's dividing line between Harris County to my right and Galveston County to the left, I present this slide really to show what an incoming tide looks like and the contrast as it moves the accumulated polluted water out of the way. Now on this particular day, we had a bad winter there. The chill factor in that area that day was 11. The highly polluted little bayou coming back in there, I think you can see. The municipal discharge outfit is here, The homes down in there, most of them do not have a tie-in ------- 517 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and you can see the pollutants moving into the water. Now as the tide goes in you can see it pushing it all up into the clear lake. On up into Clear Lake, well, you're only a mile from NASA at this point. Some of you might have been there. Portions of this volume of water is going into the NASA area0 This is simply another shot showing what the tide does. That's a great dream of most polluters, that the tide will exchange it. Now I think I have one as the tide moved out on a successive shot there. Yeah, this is one as the tide was beginning to leave. You will note that in these areas you have had exchange fresh water and you can still see the fresh water moving out in a clearly dilineated line there. That's just another shot made of the same area. I might point out that infrared and you buy a carton of 20, And the batch is, one or the other will vary, although ihe relationships colors remain the same. This film has to be kept in the deepfreeze and you really cannot load or unload it in light. You either .need a darkroom or use a changing bag. We still have a lot of green trees in the winter- time in Texas, as you can see. Up in those areas they are quite healthy. ------- 518 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's just another showing the tide coming in a little more. Some of you might wonder is this is shallow water. I'll tell you, I fished in this area a Io.t0 Water out there is eight or nine feet deep. Now you might see NASA, This little bayou here went on out to the space center. This one came back to my old friends, the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal people. We^re now down on into Galyeston's West Bay, swinging around to the south. Texas City is another highly industrialized spo€ and this pond here is Union Carbide, the Texas Division. I thought it was interesting in that.whatever that material is, you can match it coming out into the water. But we had an incoming tide and I want to show you a little bit what happens0 This is a lake known as Swan Lake0 Now the water moves in and it will follow the path of least resistance. You'll see the clear water fol- lowing the perimeter of that little lake and the polluted water remaining in the center. In this channel here is a small manmade channel going up to Highway 14.6. The tide is beginning to move in. It is tracking material from here and here. And I think I have some showing you what happens on an outgoing tide. ------- 519 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's just another one of essentially the same thing. The tide is now moving out. And you can see the polluted pattern. Incidentally, for stress on plants, you see that all through this area and over the other side as well. This stress on plants is one of the most valuable things that you can do, I guess. One of the many ways indirect. We use it in Texas analyzing cotton fields and fruit orchards. That's another one of the same thing. The dis- charge point of that facility is there. And you can — at the end of this channel and you can note the highly polluted water. In that area, I found levels of chromium, cadmium and lead. Some 15 to 20 times above the allowable in shellfish. And of course the bay has been closed to shellfish. By now since the crabs^in that area, it's even worseo The big question that's in Texas now is, "When can you reopen the Calveston Bay complex?" And this is the subject of many controversies. Great many people are out of work, the commercial men, the sportsmen and the monkey is now on the back of the Legislature. And some of us may hang it around our new Republican Governor if he doesn't wish to act. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Can you tell us how many more slides you have? ------- 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 520 DR. PARKER: 15. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Let me just make one com- ment. We have asked people in general to limit themselves to about 10 minutes. A lot of people have been pretty good about that and I take it that you do want some time to discuss. DR. PARKER: Well, I .will hurry through the remainder. I think it was about 15. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O0K., if you would parti- cularly contain yourself to what you think is going to be relevant to your comment on a regulation. DR. PARKER: All right. Well, this is all rele- vant to the earthen ponds. Everything you've seen here, these containment ponds have been built of earthen materi- als. And that is the subject. All right, let's move on. Here, is the Gulf Coast Waste facility at Texas City, aereated, here is the polluted water outside. Highly polluted. You can see the stress on the plants here. This is the way it is in the summertime» This is the same site on a different day. Booking to the east.. Galveston Island is in the background. That long thing right there is the dike. I call your attention again to the highly polluted water here and here. Well, I don't think that adds a great deal except there is a tide moving outa But here you spot it and of ------- 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 521 course you see the aftermath of polluted water in the stress to damaged plants. This is the Gulf Coast Waste facility looking at 14.6. I might point out the plants will pick up the materials just like an oyster or crab and then you've a different problem because, in fact, these are the chemi- cals that were in the water. Some of that vegetation is still alive, like this, more durable plants even though those out there,, they are highly stressed. I don't think that shows anything that you ha.ven't seen before. You know that polluted water is the center of that little thing and dying vegetation where- ver you look. This is another waste facility built on the edge, the direct edge of our west plain,, And these are the ponds without any levee. These are just dug. And there are four of them there and I don't think I need to tell you what's happening right here. There is an incoming tide there and you can see the stressed and damaged material. Now similar to this part of Texas — this authori- ty in Texas, and this one in particular did not have a sol- id waste permit. This particular operator has only a deep well injection permit. This is the same site. With a telephoto lens and you see the polluted water, stressed and damaged vege- ------- 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 522 tation in an area and you can see the normal response. That tells — that is still another. The tele- photo tells the story. The tide was moving into the channel here. You can se.e. Still another. I don't, think we'll pause on that. Well, that looks like one we've seen. Move on that, if you would. Those are the same site.0 I held that in there •A because this thing is under heavy controversy in Galves- ton County. All right, move on. That's the same thing with a different exposure and the tide beginning to move out at the time. This is another light in our area, the water communities. They are built on marshes and trapped. These waters in here, while they are dark, the darkness is not from — it is not a sign of health. That is trapped water and in most instances it is dead water0 That's another shot of the same thing except that we go into a municipal thing. They have a.municipal treatment plant. I think that is called KeKe Island and here is a discharge point and here you go with the stream. Now this was an incoming tide0 It doesn't track too well. You can better see here the treatment facility and the channel over here is just white. And that was only ------- 523 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about 15 per cent filled up at this time with houses. That is next to Ga,lyeston, Cayseway, You approach the Causeway from the mainland. This is a regular color film of where I live, about two miles from there. I'll, show you one in koda- chrome. These are containment facilities for oil and one way or the other the Texas coast will either have big deep ports or off-shore facilities and all ready. They •»L were building literally hundreds and hundreds of storage tanks^ and the cur— the storage tanks all have earthen - levee around them and that's why I'm showing you this. Now that's a backup view of the site that we just looked at which would be in here.and that is a bayou. This is the Gulf Freeway running between Galveston and Houston, Now I think I have a telephoto lens for the next shot. Get another one. Well, keep on. All right, that's the one I was thinking of. This was made with a 135 milimeter lens at about 1,500 feet. But I want you to look at it carefully because I think it well illustrates for the hundredth time my view here. This- is where the oil that you saw in the tele- photo was being trapped. It was strained into all of these. This is a railroad coming from Hitchcock over into ------- 524 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the industrial part of Texas City. The material has seeped right on through and right on out into the bayou. Well, now you say you see some good vegetation. That's on the freeboard and it doesn't reflect here from the aerial shot but those things that are healthy are probably four feet above the level of the marsh. Here is another water community, thanks to the Corps of Engineers. These are highly polluting with miles and miles of just water .that cannot circulate. And for many years many of those spots there had septic tanks0 The ele- vation there today was subsided. This is a minus. It is below sea level actually, as you can see in here. This whole area has undergone, at this point, about three feet subsidence. And even if you stopped all ground water, it just means it would retain it for over a decade. And I would say that it would be that you would look at five or six more feet .of subsidence in all of this area. That is- the mainland Galveston area and Harris County. Not so much on the Island. Now to illustrate that community you just looked at as over 1,200 residences and some of them are up and down. There's probably 1,500-1,600 families with one small facility and you see what the output is0 You can trace it on into the water. As a matter of fact I traced that last summer by air into the Gulf of Mexico and ------- 525 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it run, I think, for over 20 miles to get out beyond the lighthouse. It is always a billowy streak in the water. It's a lot more visible in the summertime than it is in the winter. This is another shot of it and it doesn't add anything essentially to the last one. Well, this is a little big lighter exposure of the same thing and of course it penetrates the water bet- ter. That water is >— I wouldn't want to guess what the DOT would be, but I will tell you that there are no fish in it. Some might wander in there by mistake. All right, move on. Now this is the subject of some recent articles in national magazines and some of our state magazines. This is my town, LaMarque. This is,, you might say, the Love Canal. This is the island. This was built back some twelve years ago without any permi.t. The water is only a few hundred feet from here. This is a confluence of roads going to Calveston and back to Houston. It contains styrene, chloride, kepon and I don't know what else. That's how it will look, same scene, in infrared, This w. s made in September. This- .-vegetation.- — very beautifully illustrates the stress along the shoulder of the highway, you have a healthy good response0 This is simply another one of the .same thing. ------- 526 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, let's move on. That's just more stress plants-. These are ground level shots and you can't follow pollution at ground level as satisfactorily as you can in the air. This is .part of the Bay right here now. Now these are some aerials and here the material goes to Texas and goes on up to LaMarque and my plane is over the Gulf Freeway going from Houston to Calveston. Here we can find the telltale stress -vegetation].and lawant you to follow it.. This was done also in September, that shot was. All right, let's move on. Now a little further away, looking back toward Texas City and LaMarque, which is this: view to the west, the material is from here seeping right on down following the power line and here you can trace .it very well, the dying vegetation, and into Galveston's West Bay and with every moving tide you suck it in and out. Now the Texas Department of Water Resources tried to get a bid to remove this and they advertised it for$5,000,000 and they have yet to have a taker* And I can understand why. And it's only 11 acres0 This is another shot made in the same direction showing the track of it, coming on down into the Bay. It has spread into the other outlying areas there. You have, ------- 527 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in these things, they totally saturate the mass of earth and the. disaster of Galveston Bay will last for a long time even if you remove these sites. This is simply another one. Showing more of Galveston Bay, The Causeway to Galveston is seen to my left. Straight ahead for 40 miles would be the city of Houston. You can see the reflectants. values in this the same as you say, probably styrene and vinyl chloride, the same as you saw back in the pits. 4 These slides, here again now, is the subject of controversy that I have engaged in with the Texas Department of Water Resources since October. And this is a 1,400-acre site built south of Hitchcock, seven miles to the Causeway to the west and toward Freeport0 Now this is a dragline, red dragline. The barge canal, highly polluted. Here's Rockaway Lake. You can see the murky water. And I want to particularly call the panel's attention to this, I observed the building — this is the last containment probably built. As it was built it filled with water. Here you have the marsh, itself. As they made it, the water comes up. Now they were borrowing dirt along the way. They had borrowed some there and it had not filled up yet. Possibly that had not filled up. Now with stereoscopic negatives and I have some ------- 528 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those. I don't, have them here. You can identify the height of that ledge inside that, I didn^t calculate the ledge at Rockaway Lake,, This is a shot of the entire site — no, that's back to Gulf Coast Waste. This is^ a color, kodachrome, and not too much. You get a suspicion in that inside pond. This is an abandoned portion. It was abandoned as- a result of some rather bitter fighting in 197.5. But really without infrared you can see very little<, This is a better view.- of the Guiness site, an arm of Rockaway, another arm of Rockaway, an intercoastal canal that runs on down to Freeport and back to Galveston. I call your attention, this is shallow, about three feet deep. You can see the streets and polluted water, this bay not quite as polluted as that. Now also you will note where the barge canal enters- the intercoastal there is a very sharp line of demarcation. This is a close up showing varying degrees of stress, this canal being a hazardous yellow color under stress, some kind of water plant. You see water one color here, another color there. The entire mass is leaking just like a sponge. Now we use the term infrared, exotics. These are some type of chemical matching closely to this. I ------- 529 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 couldn't tell you what it is but these were simply termed exQtics in the marine envi^onmeivt. There is another shot and I want you to look very carefully,. This is probably styrene and we will match it up with styrene inside as a color indicator. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Doctor, we'll ask you to end your slide show now. If you'd, like to offer us some comments. You've been going for 45 minutes or longer, longer than anybody in here. DR. PARKER: We only have two more I think. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: All right. DR. BARKER: This- would' be sufficient to match the styrenef if you can see it inside now with what we were observing outside. And you can see in the background. I appreciate the time you've given. It is a big subject and I would be happy to answer any questions here or possibly there's some of you that may be interested to provide you with slides. I have some 400 of these and we have only tonight here touched very lightly upon it. Sort of a handle preview. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Can the slides be numbered for us in the order in which they were shown here tonight before you submit it, please? DR. PARKER: All right, I will do that. I would be happy to go over any of this at length ------- 530 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 while I'm up here in S.t, Louis or if any of you people are in the Houston area. I would particularly like for some of the panelists to visit in Austin where we are — we are in no great hurry there. Hastiness might have been the sin in the past and I think at this point I have some 60, hours of recorded testimony that is going on yet and will be starting again for eight hours on Tuesday. And we're going to fight this out in Texas. I don't know whether the problem is- this bad anywhere else or not. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Do you have any comments specifically on our proposed standards under Section 30Q4 or one of the other sections? DR. PARKER: Well, I must apologize in that I *• read the sections hurriedly. What I gathered from reading it is there was a regulation on how far back from a water*s; edge impoundment would be located. Now I did not gather that there would be any requirements for specific testing, which should be done as you build an earthen bank, whether it's a dam or any- thing else or all levies. Now I may be mistaken because it is a big volume0 They call it the Bible in Texas. I could easily have overlooked the requirements, that I would have put. in, standard engineering requirements as you build it and ------- 531 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the testing of it that must go along and the borings and the soil prior to building, this book by Dr. Cedergren and Dr, CasaGrande and Kerzage. They clearly point this out. They point it out at every conceivable way and I'd be happy for anyone that's interested technically to go over the engineering of these men. CHAIRPERSON DAKRAH: O.K., T have one other ques- tion or comment for you. You have referred to this book. If you write down for the court reporter the title and the spelling of the author's name, that would help them out. Not right this minute but before you leave. DR. PARKER: All right, it is on that document I submitted. I submitted the front sheet and the acknow- ledgements. This is a part of the copyright agreement. CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: O.K., thank you. I will ask the panel members if they have any questions. MR. LINDSEY: I would just like to ask Dr. Parker, if he would, to take a look at the proposed regu- lations'^whi'chnwe have for surface impoundments and so forth, and tell us, you know, if he has any problem with those relative to his experience with the construction of some of the lagoons that you have indicated have been problems through your work. In