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