United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste
Washington DC ?0460
Solid Waste
Proposed  Hazardous
Waste Regulations
March 7-9, 1979
Denver, Colorado
Transcript

-------
                         TRANSCRIPT



                           Public Hearing

               on Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations

                  March 7-9, 1979, Denver, Colorado
      This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-51p) are reproduced entirely as  transcribed
       by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
                U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                1979

-------
                          BEFORE THE

         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   In the Matter of:              3
                                  ]     TRANSCRIPT OP
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND    ]
REGULATIONS                       ]     PROCEEDINGS
                              Wednesday, March 7, 1979
                              8:00 a.m.
                              Holiday Inn
                              101(0 Quebec Street
                              Denver, Colorado
      APPEARANCES :
            DOROTHY A. DARRAH, Chairperson, Office of General
                               Counsel. Environmental Protection
                               Agency, Washington, D. C.

            LISA FRIEDMAN, Office of General Counsel, EPA
                           Washington, D. C.

            JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director. Hazardous Waste Management
                            Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA
                            Washington, D. C.

            ALFRED LINDSEY, Chief Implementation Branch Hazardous
                            Waste Management Division, Office of
                            Solid Waste, EPA Washington, D.  C.

            AMY SCHAFFER, Office of Enforcement, EPA, Washington
                          D.C.

            ALAN CORSON. Chief (Section 3001) Guidelines Branch
                         Hazardous Waste Management Branch,  Offlc
                         of Solid Waste, EPA. Washington, D. C.

            JON P. YEAGLEY, Chief, Solid Waste Section, EPA,
                            Region VIII. Denver, Colorado

-------

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

INDEX
WITNESSES
ROGER WILLIAMS
JOHN P. LEHMAN
S. NORMAN KESTEN
HESTER McNULTY
WILEY W. OSBORNE
JIM V. ROUSE
CLARA LOU HUMPHREY
HOWARD RUNION
KENNETH LADD
RICHARD T. DREITH
DR. CARL J. JOHNSON
ORVILLE STODDARD
STEWART H. MILLER
STEVE ALLEN
ROBERT S. HEARON
JOHN G. RE ILLY
EARL R. WHITE
FRANCINE B. KUSHNER
KENT OLSON
RITA E. EWING
REES C. MADSEM
ROBERT H. HEISTAND
DR. JOHN F,. TESSIERI
PAGE NO.
2
7
20
32
40
57
64
71
81
88
98
116
13.7
145
154
167
T73
182
191
216
229
235
239

-------
                     INDEX




WITNESSES   ~~~  ~              PAGE NOT.





WENDALL CLARK                    245





PHILIP W. MORTON                 250




DR. JOHN T. MAKENS               260

-------
                   PROCEEDINGS



            MR. ROGER'WILLIAMS-  I want to officially welcome




you to Denver, and to this particular hearing, which Is the




fourth of five hearings that the Environmental Protection




Agency Is conducting; to consider comments and testimony on our



proposed Hazardous Waste Management program for the nation.




      The hearing Is going to run for three days.   I suspect




there Is going t o be a lot of debate and some controversy and




because of that,  and because I am not really participating In



the hearing, otehr than welcoming you to Denver, I thought I




might start out on a little note.  I want to play  a little



game with you.  We will give you a little quiz.



      I would like to ask you to think about a couple of cities




that I am going to mention In a minute and to try  and Identify




with that city a particular reputation.




      To give you an example, when we think of Washington, D.




C., we think of the Nation's Capitol, or the seat  of our




government, and so forth — at least some people do.  I would



like to name a couple of other cities and give you a minute to




think about them and then I will share with you what my




thoughts are in terms of what I Identify with that city, and




you can compare with my thoughts or you can Just equate




yourselves with your own identify with that city,  ana then we




will go on from that point.




      The first city I would like to mention is Niagara Falls,

-------
New York.  I will give you a couple of seconds to think about



that.  To me Niagara Palls clearly Identifies with the largest



water fall In the United States, and perhaps to some of you In



the audience that are younger  recently married, you might



think It Is quite a place to go on your honeymoon.



      Another city I would like to mention is Louisville,



Kentucky.  I like horse racing, so Louisville, Kentucky means



Churchill Downs, and Kentucky Derby.



      I understand we have a lot of industry representatives



from the mining community.  The next city I mention would be



Butte, Montana.  I am sure  to at least the mining interest



would identify with the richest hill on earth, the Anaconda



Copper Mine In Butte.  Some others might identify it with the



home of Evil Knlevil.



      The next city I will mention Is Denver, Colorado.  I am



sure a majority of you can Identify with Denver, clearly the



Kile High City, or the Ga'teway to the Rockies.



      Now  you probably think I am crazy for running through



that, because I didn't mention anything about hazardous waste,



and  I know that some of you who are familiar with the



hazardous waste problems in this country know that each one



of those cities in recent months, or over the last year, has



identified a major hazardous waste problem.  In some cases,



they have Identified a disaster in those particular areas.



      In terms of the Love Canal In Niagara Falls, New York, th«

-------
phosphate slap In Butte  Montana, the Valley of the Drums



In Louisville, Kentucky, and the radioactive radium  problem



that has surfaced recently within the last three weeks In



Denver.  If you do have an opportunity to take a break In



this hearing and go outside  you will probably see one or two



helicopters flying very low altitude over Denver with



equipment hanging below and doing radlometrlc surveys to



Identify additional sites, where they have found a very



serious radioactive problem associated with the radon from



the radium development Industry back In the 1915 and 1925 era.



      These are Just a few of the problems that are cropping



up all over the country.  I think that they are to be added



with the more than one hundred sites that we already know



about associated with this PCB In the HUdson River, and PCB



along the highways In North Carolina, and the Ketone Problem



In Hopewell, Virginia.  These problems are cropping up every



place, and the list is growing dally.



      These are problems created by past practices, whose



costs to society have come due.  Costs measured in the



hundreds of millions of dollars and perhaps even billions of



dollars when you consider the lawsuits and liability associated



with some of the problems Identified already, not to mention



the unquantlflable costs associated with the lost of lives,



disability and poor health.  It Is too late to minimize these



past problems.  We can only clean them up.

-------
      We are here today at this hearing to focus on the




present and the future, to consider a major regulatory program




to manage and control the country's hazardous waste from




generation to final disposal.




      The Congress directed this action by passing the



Resource Conservation and Recovery Act In 1976, and recognized




that the disposal of the hazardous waste Is a critical health



and environmental probelm which must be controlled, especially



in light of some of these recent problems.  These requirements,



we believe, will close the circle of environmental control




begun earlier with regulsrtory control of air emissions and




discharges of contaminants to our waters and lakes.



      We did not underestimate the difficulty of implementing




these proposed regulations, rather, they reflect the large




amounts of hazardous waste generated, and the complexity of the




movement of hazardous waste In our society.



      These regulations will affect a large number and




diversity of industry ranging from corporate giants to



neighborhood service stations.  Other than non-Industrial source




of waste, such as laboratories, hospitals and commercial



pesticide applicators and transporters of the hazardous waste




will also be Included.



      The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that a




minimum of 270,000 waste generating facilities, and 10,000




transporters will be regulated, although, only about 30,000

-------
of that number will require treatment storage or disposal




permits.  Under this program, approximately 35 million metric




tons per year of haiardous waste, mainly from industrial




sources will be controlled while another several hundred




million tons per year of high volume, low risk waste, such




as certain mining and utility waste will be brought under




limited control, pending further rule making.




      Disposal of the hazardous waste presents special problems,




EPA, and most of the states solid waste agencies are currently



studying this problem and talking with commercial disposal




firms about establishing sites.  The management of the hazardous




waste at commercial off-site facilities is a relatively new



business.  It has experienced increased growth in the last




ten to fifteen years due to emergency public concern and aware-




ness about the environment, and because of new environmental




laws which ban other disposal methods.  With the implementation




of these regulations, greater disposal capacity will be




necessary.  Expansion of the hazardous waste management




industry for both private and public sectors face two ma^or



obstacles.




      First, the availability of the capital necessary to




control, construct, and exoand and start up a facility, and



(2) public opoosition to the siting of the hazardous waste




facility.




      Citizen opposition to the siting of facilities is expectet

-------
to be a major obstacle to the implementation.of these regulatiors.




We are hopeful that these regulations and this type of public



participation like this hearing, and other hearings across




the country, will instill public confidence that these facilitie i




can coexist with other industries and communities without



causing any legal or environmental problem.




      It was the intent of Congress that states assume and




run the hazardous waste programs, using EPA or federal minimum



standards.  We have been working very closely with the states




and expect the majority of them to become authorized to run




this program in lieu of EPA.  The impact of these regulations



will be felt by all segments of society.  It is important that



EPA hear your views, study them and incorporate them into a




reasonable and effective hazardous waste management program



for the nation.




      We appreciate your participation in this hearing.  Thank



you.




            MR. JOHN P. LEHMAN:  Thank you Roger.



      My name is John Lehman and I am director of the Hazardous




Waste Management Division of EPA'a Office of Solid Waste,



in Washington.  Again, I would like to second Roger Williams




welcome to you to our public hearing.  We appreciate your




taking the time to participate in the development of these



regulations which are being issued under the authority of




the Resource Consarvation and Recovery Act— RCRA.

-------
                                                                8






 1         For a brief overview of why we're here—




 2         The Environmental Protection Agency on December 18, 1978




 3   issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of




 4   the Solid Waste Disoosal Act as substantially amended by




     the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976  (Pub.L.




     94-580).  These proposals respectively cover:  (1) criteria




     for identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification




 8   methods, and a hazardous waste list; (2) standards applicable




 9   to generators of such waste for recordkeeping, labeling, using




10   proper containers, and using a transport manifest; and  (3)




11   performance, design, and operating standards for hazardous




12   waste management facilities.



13         These proposals together with those already published




14   pursuant to Section 3003, (April 28, 1978), Section 3006



15   (February 1, 1978), Section 3008 (August 4, 1978), and Section




16   3010 (July 11, 1978) and that of the Department of Transportatio




17   pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act  (May 25,



18   1978) along with Section 3005 regulations constitute the




19   hazardous waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Act.




20         EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for facility



21   permits pursuant  to Section 3005 and for State hazardous




22   waste program authorization pursuant to Section 3006 of the




23   Act with proposals under the National Pollutant Discharge




24   Elimination System required by Section 402 of the Clean Water




25   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 partici-




pation process in the development of this regulatory program.




      First— for the logistics of the meeting— we ask that



smokers sit to the right, where ash trays are located, and



non-smokers may wish to sit to the left.




      The panel members who share the rostrum with me, are:



            Dolothy A. Darrah




            Lisa Friedman



            Alfred Lindsey,




            Amy Schaffer,



            Alan Corson,




            Jon P. Yeagley.



      The responsible  staff person for each section will join




us on the panel.  As noted in the Federal Register our planned




agenda is to cover comments on Section 3001 today. Sections



3002 and 3003 tomorrow, and 3004 the next day.  Also we have




planned an evening session tomorrow, covering all four




sections.  That session is planned primarily for those who




cannot attend during the day.



      The comments received at this hearing, and the other




hearings as noted in the Federal Register, together with the




comment letters we receive, will be a part of the official

-------
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                               10
docket in thia mlemaking process.  The comment period




closes on March 16 for Sections 3001-3004.  This docket may



be seen during normal working hours in Room 2111D, Waterside




Mall, 401 M. Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.  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 at  any of the EPA  libraries. A




list of these locations ie available  at  the registration




table outside.




      With  that as background,  I'd 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 EPA and the  Department of Transportation




are involved.  The puroose of this hearing, as announced  in




the April 28, Hay 25, 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 oreparation of the final regulation.




      This  will not  be a formal arSiudiioatorv hearing  with  the

-------
                                                           11






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




statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presentations.




      Since we are time-limited, some questions by the panel



may be forwarded in writing to the speaker.  His reponse,if




received within a week of the close of this hearing, will




be included in the transcript.  Otherwise, we'll include it



in the docket.




      Due to time limitations, the chairman reserves the



right to limit lengthy questions, discussions, or statements.



We would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement




to make orally, to please limit your presentation to a



maximum of ten minutes, so we can get all statements in a



reasonable time.  If you have a copy of your statement, please




submit it to the court reporter.



      Written statements will be accepted at the end of the




hearing.  If you wish to submit a written rather than an




oral statement, please make sure the court reporter has a



copy.  The written statements will also be included in their




entirety in the record.



      Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have not




made an advanced request by telephone or in writing should




indicate their interest on the registration card.  If you




have not indicated your intent to give a statement and yo.u

-------
                                                                 12






 1    decide to do so, please return to the registration  table,




 2    fill out another card and give it to one of the  staff.



 3          As we call unon an individual to make a statement, he




 4    or she should come up to the lectern after identifying  him-




 5    self or herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or




     her statement.



 7          At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson will




 8    inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to  entertain




 ^    questions from the panel.  The speaker is under  no  obligation




10    to do so, although within the ppirit of th is information




11    sharing hearing, it would be of great assistance to the




     Agency if questions were permitted.



           Our day's activities, as we currently see  them, appear




     like this?




I5          We will break for lunch at about 12:15 and reconvene at




     1:45 p.m.  Then, depending on your progress, we  will either




17    conclude the day's session or break for dinner,  at  about 5:00.




I8    Phone calls will be posted on the registration table at




     the entrance, and restrooms are located outside  to  the  left.




20          If you wish to be added to our mailing list for future




21    regulations, draft regulations, or proposed regulations,



22    please leave your business card or name and address on  a




     three by five card at the registration desk.




           The regulations under discussion at this hearing  are



     the core elements of a major regulatory program  to  manage

-------
                                                           13


and control the country's hazardous waste from generation to

final disposal.  The congress directed this action in the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA),

recognizing that disposal of hazardous waste is a crucial
           •
environmental and health problem which must be controlled.

      In our proposal, we have outlined requirements which

set minimum norms of conduct for those who generate, transport,

treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste.

      These requirements, we believe, will close the circle

of environmental control begun earlier with regulatory control

of emissions and discharges of contaminants to air, water,

and the oceans.

      We do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty

of our proposed regulations.  Rather, they reflect the large

amounts of hazardous waste generated and the complexity of

the movement of hazardous waste in our diverse society.

These regulations will affect a large number of industries.

Other non-industrial sources of hazardous waste, such as

laboratories and commercial pesticide applicators, as well

as transporters of hazardous waste, will also be included.

      Virtually every day, the media carries a story on a

dangerous situation resulting from improper disposal of

hazardous waste.  The tragedy at Love Canal in New York State

is but one recent example.  EPA has information on over 400

cases of the harmful consequences of inadequate hazardous

-------
                                                               14
     waste  management.   These  cases  include incidents of surface

2
     and groundwater contamination,  direct contact poisoning,


     various  forms  of air pollution, and damage from fires and


     explosions.  Nationwide,  half of all drinking water is


     supplied from  groundwater sources and in some areas contaminatl

6
     of  groundwater resources  currently poses a threat to public

7
     health.   EPA studies of a number of generating industries in

8
     1975 showed  that approximately  ninety percent of the potentially

9
     hazardous waste generated by those industries was managed by


     practives which were not  adequate for protection of human


     health and the environment.


           The Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976  was


     passed to address these problems.   Subtitle C establishes a


     comprehensive  program  to  protect the public health and


     environment  from improper disposal of hazardous waste.


     Although the program requirements are to be developed by  the


     Federal  government,  the Act  provides that States with adequate


     programs can assume  responsibility for regulations of hazardous


     waste.   The  basic idea of Subtitle C is that the public


     health and the environment will be protected if there is


     careful  monitoring  of  transportation of hazardous waste,  and


     assurance that such waste is properly treated, stored, or


     disposed of  either  at  the site  where it is generated or


     after  it is  carried from  that site to a special facility  in


     accordance with certain standards.

-------
      Seven guidelines and regulations are being developed




and either have been or will be proposed (as noted earlier)




under Subtitle C of RCRA to implement the Hazardous Waste




Management Program.  Subtitle C creates a management control



system which, for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires




a cradle-to-grave cognizance, including appropriate monitoring




recordkeeping and reporting throughout the system.



      It is important to note that the definition of solid




wastes in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges and




other discarded materials, including liquids, semisolids and



contained gases, with a few exceptions, from both municipal




and industrial sources.



      Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all  solid



wastes, and which will be identified by regulations proposed



under Section 3001, are those which have particularly significant




impacts on public health and the environment.



      Section 3001  is the keystone of  Subtitle C.   Its purpose




is to provide a means for determining  whether a waste is



hazardous for the pruposes of the Act  and,  therefore, whether



it must be managed  according to the other  Subtitle  C regulation!!




      Section 3001(b) provides  tow mechanisms for determining




whether a waste is  hazardous:   a  set of  characteristics of




hazardous waste and a list of particular hazardous  wastes.



A waste must be managed  according to  the Subtitle C regulations




if  it either exhibits any of the  characteristics  set out  in

-------
                                                           16






proposed regulation or if it is listed.  Also, EPA is directed




by Section 3001(a) of the Act to develop criteria for



identifying the set of characteristics of hazardous waste




and for determining which wastes to list.  In this proposed




rule,  EPA sets out those criteria, identifies a set of




characteristics of hazardous waste, and establishes a list




of particular hazardous wastes.



      Also the proposed regulation provides for demonstration




of non-inclusion in the regulatory program.




      Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to generators




of hazardous waste.  A generator is defined as any person




whose act or process produces a hazardous waste.  Minimum




amounts generated and disposed per month are established to




further define a generator.  These standards will exclude




household hazardous waste.




      The generator standards will establish requirements




for:  recordkeeping, labeling and marking of containers used




for storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous waste; use




of aporopriate containers, furnishing information on the




general chemical composition of a hazardous waste; use 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 an authorized



State Agency, setting out the quantity generated and its



disposition.

-------
                                                            17





      Section 3003 requires the development of standards




applicable to transporters of hazardous wastes.  These proposed




standards address identification codes, recordkeeping,



acceptance and transportation of hazardous wastes, compliance




with the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous waste;




spills of hazardous waste and placarding and marking of




vehicles.  The Agency has coordinated closely with proposed




and current TJ. S. Department of Transportation regulations.




      Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners and



operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal



facilities.  These standards define the levels of human




health and environmental protection to be achieved by these




facilities and provide the criteria against which EPA (or



State) officials will measure applications for permits.   Facil-



ities on a generator's property as well as off-site facilities




are covered by these regulations and do require permits;




generators and transporters do not otherwise need permits.



      Section 3005 regulations set out the scope and coverage




of the actual permit-granting process (for facility owners




and operators.  Requirements for the permit application as




well as for the issuance and revocation process are defined




by regulations to be proposed under 40 CFR Parts 122, 123




and 124.  Section 3005(e) provides for interim status during



the time period that the Agency or the States are reviewing




the pending permit applications.  Special regulations under

-------
                                                            18






Section 3004 apply to  facilities  during this intern status




period.




      Section 3006 requires  EPA to issue guidelines under




which States may seek  both full and interim authorization to




carry out the hazardous waste program in lieu of  an EPA-




administered program.  States seeking authorization in




accordance with Section 3006 guidelines need to demonstrate




that their hazardous waste management regulations are




consistent with the equivalent in effect to EPA regulations



under Sections 3001-5.




      Section 3010  equires  any person generating,  transporting




or owning or operating a facility for treatment,  storage,



and disposal of hazardous waste to notify EPA of  this  activity




within 90 days after promulgation or  revision of  regulations




identifying and listing a hazardous waste pursuant to Section




3001.  No hazardous waste subject  to  Subtitle C regulations



ray be legally transported,  treated,  stored, or disposed




after the 90-day period unless this timely notification has




been given to EPA or an authorized State during the above



90-day period.  Owners and operators of inactive facilities




are not required to notify.



      EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under all




sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979.  However, it is




important for the regulated communities to understand that




the regulations under Section 3001 through 3005 do not take

-------
                                                           19






effect until aix months after promulgation.  That would be




approximately June of 1980.




      Thus, there will be a time period after final promulga-




tion during which time public understanding of the regulations




can be increased.  During this same period, notifications



required under Section 3010 are to be submitted, and facility




permit applications required under Section 3005 will be dis-




tributed for completion by applicants.



      With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the proposed




regulations to be considered at this hearing, I return this




meeting to the Chairperson Lisa Friedman.



            CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN:  We have approximately




35 people who want to make oral statements today, so I would




like to ask you to the extent possible, to keep your comments




as concise as possible.  I would like everyone to remember




that this is not the only opportunity that.you will have to




present your views to the Agency, as Jack Lehman stated, we



will consider written prepared testimony which is submitted




at this hearing.  We will also consider any written comments




which are filed prior to the March 14th public comment



deadline.  We will be taking speakers who pre-registered in




the order in which they are listed on this schedule.  Individual^




who did not pre-register, but did today register, will be




taken at the end.




      Our first speaker will be Mr. S. Norman Kesten and he

-------
                                                            20






represents the American Mining Congress.



            MR. S. NORMAN KESTEN:  I want  to  apologize to the




Panel for not having copies of thia presentation.   I will




have them for you by tomorrow or the next  day.



      My name is Norman Kesten of ASARCO,  Incorporated, where




I am assistant to the vice president for Environmental Affairs.




I am also Chairman of the Solid Haste Task Force of the American



Mining Congress, and I appear here today in behalf  of that




group.




      The American Mining Congress is a national association




of companies that produce most of the nation's  supply of




metals, coal and industrial and agricultural  minerals, while




producing these essential materials, the member companies



necessarily generate large quantities of mine waste, rock




waster materials from mining, milling and  other forms of




beneficiation, often called tailings, plus furnace  slags,




and other similar processing waste from later stages of




total processing towards-useable products, as well  as other




waste in relatively minor quantity»



      The American Mining Congress is thus very interested



in and concerned about the economic impact upon the mineral




industry of any regulation promulgated for the  purpose of




implementing provisions of this amendment  to  the Solid Waste



Disposal Act.




      In addition, we want to try to insure that during the

-------
                                                                21
    formulation of such regulations,  the Agency is fully aware




    of the technological limitation that the very nature of its




    waste places upon the industry and takes into account the




    large number bf physical and chemical variables that tend




5   to make each operation unique. In general,  the industry has




    a series of special probems in complying with proposed regulations




7   because of the sheer volume of the waste that are generated,




8   and the large areas of land that those waste must occupy.




          Using copper and copper ores as examples, new mine



    production, including beneficiatidn smelting and refining




    in this country is of a magnitude that there is also produced




    annually about 600 million tons of mine waste crop, 250



    million tons of dry tons of mill tailings,  and perhaps five




    million tons of furnace slag.  If that mine waste were




    distributed in two new waste dumps, each of which covers




    one section of land, and I will pause here  and explain for




    the benefit of anybody here from the East,  that a section of




    land is 640 acres.  Each of which covers one section of land,




    the dumps would be built UD to an average height of 30 feet




    by the end of the year.  If the tailings were deposited in




    one new tailing disposal site, occuoying one section of land,



    the tailings would be built up to a height  about 25 feet in




    a year.  The height of the pile of slag covering a section




    of land would be somewhat less, something like six or eight



    feet.

-------
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8




 9



10



11




12




13




14



15




16



17



18



19




20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                22
      Obviously each type of waste from one year's operation



is not accumulative in one or two mills at individual sites,



but is distributed among, and added to many existing piles.



The accumulative volumes are similar to those described,



depending upon the length of time a particular site has been



operated, and the rate of production of waste.



      Because of these volumes,  the criteria for distinguishing



between hazardous waste and other waste are crucial to the



continued viability of the operations in which the member



companies of the American Mining Congress are engaged.



      I have used copper as an example.  Obviously the underly-



ing principles are applicable to operations involving most



other non-fuel minerals, including mining and beneficiation



of the phosphate rock and mining of uranium ore.  The smelting



of the iron ore generating 24 million tons of slack annually.



Inspite of the draft regulations and proposed regulations



that EPA has made available, member companies of the American



Mining Congress still have no idea what the cost will be of



solid waste disposal under the Act.  If the term open dump



and sanitary landfill are strictly applied, and there will



be those who will bring pressure to bear on the agency t»



apply them strictly, then very many piles of waste tailing



accumulations and slag dumps still being used are to be



classified as open dumps, to be upgraded or closed within



five years.  In many instances,  upgrading may be physically

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5   as hazardous is that there will be no reasonable probability
 6
 7   of uncertainty  is added.  We would be dependent upon somebody'



     assessment of that probability and what is reasonable, and
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23



24




25
                                                                 23
impossible.  Replacement of the new sanitary by new new



sanitary landfills will be so expensive as to greatly impair,



if not destroy the economic viability of the operations.  If



what is required of a disposal site for waste, not designated
     of injury to human health or the environment, another dimension
of how much injury is permissible.  The result of such



assessment could be just as expensive and just as crippling



as the direct application of the term open dump.  If the



criteria for classifying waste as hazardous and the listing



of ways and processing are finalized as now proposed, large



tonnage of waste rock, tailings and furnace slag might very



well be designated hazardous, even though those large tonnages



might be only a fraction of the total tonnage generated.



      The proposed standards of performance aonlies to those



tonnages will again lead to intolerable experiences.  In fact,



except for the paper work for hazardous waste, it might make



no difference to us how these large tonnage wastes are



classified.  Of course, I am speaking of accumulative worst



case situation.



      One frustrating thing is, that we do not know at this



time, nor will be know at the ..time the proposed' regulation



becomes final, just what their effect upon our industries will

-------
                                                            24






be.  In the midst of all this, we feel there is a reasonable



probability that our current budget of the disposal method




will not endanger human health, except in minor, easily



reasonable instances.  In fact  we think that EPA should




make that presumption.




      In addition, we contend and are on record to this effect




that the legislative history of the Acts states unequivocably




that mining waste are at this time exempt from the provisions




of -Solid Waste Regulations.



      I refer you to the comments of the American Mining




Congress on rules proposed under Section 4004 of the Act.




      In most mining waste, the principal property that




determines whether they are hazardous or not is toxicity,




and-these are the— I am referring to the waste with which




our members are most concerned.  For some other waste, it is




radioactivity and the complex matters to be  dealt with in




separate kinds of regulations.  A waste may  not be designated




as toxic by the simple procedure of saying it is so.  It must




be determined to be toxic because of the results ot an




objective scientific test.  EPA proposes a test in Section  350.



13(d)(2), and we do not agree that it is a test that is



appropriate for the punpose.  We believe that it flies in




the face of logic and reason for EPA to even attempt to




establish a single procedure to be applicable nationwide to



all kinds of waste regardless of chemical and physical

-------
                                                           25






environment in which a waste is deposited without going into




the entire history of the proposed test, we should like to




stand with the D19.12 sub committee of the American Society




of Testing and Materials in decrying the unscientific approach




that EPA has followed in creating the extraction procedure.




      We urge strongly that EPA work closely with ASTM to




establish criteria for a test rather than a single test for




extraction procedures.  This would enable a generator or




anyone else who is required to determine toxicity, to devise




a procedure within the framework of the testing criteria




that would be applicable to his waste through the projected




life history of his waste.




      At the very least, a generator should be permitted and




required to set up in his testing laboratory the nearest




approach possible to the chemical and physical environment of




the disposal site.  If the generator does not chose to make




that test, he is free to concede that his waste is toxic




as that term is defined, and therefore hazardous.




      I should like to refer the panel to a strongly worded




letter of last December first to the Administrator from the




Chairman and Secretary of the ASTM sub-committee D19.2, and




to another letter from Professor O.K. Hamm of the University •




of Wisconsin to John Lehman of the Office of Solid Waste,




dated January 24th, 1979.




      My next point is of mostly peripheral interest because

-------
                                                          26






I feel sure the extraction procedure will be changed, either




before promulgation or possibly as a result of the judicial



review sometime afterward.  That point is, that the apparatus




to be used in carrying out the extraction procedure is not




existing standard equipment, nor is it readily available frow



the sole manufacturer listed by EPA.  In Section 250.13(d){l)




are listed pollutants and the threshold values for concentratioi




in the extract which, if exceeded, caase the waste to be



designated hazardous.  The numbers are, of course, ten times




the national interim primary drinking water standard for those




substances, and according to the preamble, they are listed




on the assumption that on the average the natural allutrate(sic)




from a waste will be diluted by a factor of ten before it is




used for drinking water.



      This is another instance of the agency trying to




establish a single standard applicable to all places at all




times.  This, of course, IE indefehsable.  A knowledge of




the number of variables and the degree of the variability at




any one site might make it possible to estimate for that site




the attenuation that takes place between the disposal site




and the present or future drinking water source.  To arrive




at a generalized figure is to perpetuate a nonsense.




      We were astonished when we examine processing generating



hazardous waste, that is 250.14(b)(2) because we find that




most of the listing are not processees, but the substances

-------
                                                          27






generated by certain processes.  We were further surprised




that in that Hat, particularly in the arc's- prefix with the




numbers 33, there are substances which are seldom waste.




Some are invariably, or at least very very often return to




the metallurgical process for capture of the contained metals




or they are stockpiled for shipment to another plant for the




same purpose.  For them to be characterized as waste by




regulation is to throw them into hazardous waste procedures




from which the generator might extricate them only at consider-




able inconvience.




      Section 250.15 discusses how a person might demonstrate




that a solid waste that has been listed as hazardous is not




in fact hazardous.  If there is any serious doubt about the




toxicity or other hazardous characteristics of the substance,




EPA should avoid listing it or avoid putting the generator




or any other person to the expense and inconvenience of




rebutting the presumption.  EPA should rely upon the provisions




of the Subpart G, under Section 3010 of the Act, to insure that




every hazardous waste is identified.  We believe that to some




extent these lists are arbitrary and capricious.




      Section 250.15 does not discuss how a person might rebutt




the presumption on the part of EPA that a haaardous substance



is a waste.  The lack of understanding that exists among some




EPA pesonnel was demonstrated by a staff member who in a




related context included low grade ore in a' list of waste.

-------
  5




  6




  7




  8




  9




 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22
24



25
                                                                 28
 Of course,  this  is  a contradiction  in terms of it seems to




 me that  the Agency  has two  alternatives.   It can leave it




 to the generator or other persons who own or control the




 materials to judge  whether  or not it  has  the potential to




 be used  or  reused,  and therefore whether  or not it is a




 waste or it can  devise a set of reasonable criteria by which



 the material may be judged  to be waste or otherwise.




      Our much longer written comments on proposed Sobpart




 A  will be submitted in due  course.  In general, we urge greater




 clarity  and consistency as  well as  compatibility of the




 regulation  with  actual conditions.  In addition to the points




 that I have just tried to make, we  suggest that EPA's




 presumption that hazardous  waste is mismanaged should be




 rebuttable  on a  case-by-case basis  and that wastes that have




 only a low  level of toxicity and are  therefore only marginally




 hazardous might  be  managed  under less stringent requirement




 than those  for wastes that  significantly  exceed the criteria.




 We  do not feel that any of  the suggestions,  when acted



 upon, will  have  the effect  of reducing the Agency's




 effectiveness to carry out  the directive  of  Congress to




protect human health and the environment  from  injury occasioned



by management of hazardous waste.    Thank you.
23                CHAIRPERSON  FRIEDMAN:   Thank  you,  Mr.  Kesten.
Will you answer questions from the panel?




            MR. KESTEN:  I will try.

-------
 	29




            MR. GODSON:  Let me state if I may, Mr. Resten, a




couple of points, and I would like to make just this, as a




matter of fact, probably more for clarification than perhaps




a.question.  One is the fact that as proposed on December 18th,




we have put mining waste with the exception of uranium, some




of the radioactive waste, which are listed in a special waste




category, which do not require the set of standards normally




required of Section 3004.  I think we further, by way of at




least a misunderstanding I was left with from your comments,




the fact that in our definition of other discarded material,



this provide for some reuse of materials, and that does take




it out of the definition of solid waste entirely.  So therefore,




the subject is not what the regulations propose.  I guess a




further point, and I want to make sure your understanding is




the same as mine.  The purpose for including the section on




non-inclusion was in the event that a waste is listed, and




the person who was generating a product has produced that




waste, has gone to some treatment method, and therefore, his



waste does?hot exhibit the characteristics identified, and the




listing provides a means on a case by case basis for that




person to demonstrate that that waste does not belong in the




system at all.  Obviously the industry, and in your case, the




American Mining Congress, could demonstrate to us by data,




that looking at what we have proposed in our background




document, that maybe some of your waste that have been listed

-------
 3
                                                                  30
should not be there at all.  That is the pupose for our making




a proposal and asking for comments from the industry.



            I do have a direct question.  You indicated




earlier there are some cases where you admit that damage




occurs in certain well recognizable cases.  I am wondering




whether that recognition is available before the disposition




or afterwards?



            MR. KESTEN:  Before.



            MR. CORSES:  Then I would appreciate it if you
10




11




12




13




14



15




16




17



18




19



20



21




22



23



24



25
could with your written comments describe to us what it is




that is recognizable about those waste before you do it for



dispositions, and how that may differ from vhat we have proposec




in our regulations.




            MR. KESTON:  I was speaking of waste produced in



relatively minor quantities as compared with the massive




quantity of other wastes which have constituents which we note




is sufficiently soluable, and that they will fit the criteria



of hazardous waste, and I am not going to identify them now.




We will do so under Section 3010.



            MR. CORSEN:  Thank you.




            MR. KESTON:  I think that 1 and my colleagues are




fully aware of the points that you made, Mr. Corsen.  I don't



think there is misunderstanding.




            MR. LINDSEY:  I have one additional question.



Earlier in your oresentation, you talked about the burden

-------
                                                            31





which the proposed regulations would have on the mining




industry, and that burden would seriously hamper the economic




viability, I guess, of the industry.  Can you be more specific




yith" regard to the other mining waste regulations, that is




the limited set of regulations that are here, which is among




those that create such an intolerable burden on the industry.



We thought we had limited, or eliminated most of the really




heavy burdensome things upon this interim set of regulations.




            MR. KESTEN:  By some quirk, certain furnace slags



are determined to be hazardous, and in fact a slag which ia




not hazardous, which we really believe to be non-hazardous,




is listed as being a hazardous waste, if it turns out to be




a hazardous waste, and the operation goes on for years and




years, there will be millions of tons of that material




generated, and if it has to be disnosed of in a manner compatible




with these regulations, the expense will be very great and




may put that smelter out of business.  Of course, EPA h«s a




great many other ways they can out smelters out of business



and are trying them all.




            MR. LIMDSEY:  I think the point I am trying to




make, and if you are not in a position to address it today,




I would appreciate it if in your written comments, give the




regulations 250.46-5 which is the snecial regulations for




other mining waste.  It is oretty much limited to security




and some recordkeeping and some visual inspection and things

-------
                                                           32






like that, which in our belief, you know, such a huge impact




in itself.  If you could expand unon that in your comment, it




would sure be helpful to us.



            MR. KESTON:  Yes, I wasn't referring as much to




special waste as to the others.  On the other hand, if those




materials that are classified as social waste, if they are




hazardous, if they are not hazardous, involve a tremendous




expense to prevent them from E0A's regulations, and it states




the view from contributing some kind of injury to human health




and the environment.



            CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN:  Thank you very much, Mr.




Kesten.  Our next speaker is Hester P. McNulty from the League




of Women Voters.




            MS. HESTER McNULTY:  I am Hester McNulty and I



will be speaking for the League of Women Voters of the Dnited




States,  our offices are in Washington, D.C.  I happen to




live here in Colorado and that is why I am appearing here




today.  I understand that our Missouri League testified at




the Kansas City hearing, and later this morning our Colorado



League will be testifying.




      The League is a volunteer citizen Organization with



members in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, the




Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.  The League's members in over



1,350 communities are deeply involved in finding solutions



to solid waste Problems.

-------
                                                           33





      We would like to commend EPA for an excellent job in




providing supplementary explanatory information.  Considering




the difficult and technical nature of the regulations, we are




expecially pleased with the lucid introduction to Section 3001.




However, we question the wisdom of dividing the hearings into




spearate days for each section of the proposed reflations.




This means that all those interested in testifying on two or




more sections must appear two or three times.  Such an



arrangement is likely to dampen meaningful public involvement




in the hearing process.




      The League has been involved in the orotection of our



land, air and water resources for a number of years.  Our




members, after two years of study, agreed that wastes which




cannot be reused must be safely disposed of.  The League



supported the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery




Act,...,(RCRA), and were expecially supportive of its provisions




for hazardous waste management.  We have examined the prooosed




regulations in light of the principal objective of the Act—




to protect human health and the environment.




      Our comments are directed primarily to suboarts B




and D of the proposed regulations.  Regarding Section 3001




and Subpart A, we commend you for your lists of specific




materaials and the characteristics of these materials, but we




urge you to constantly update the lists and consider other




materials.

-------
                                                            34
Section 3002
      Subpart B— Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste
      The league does not agree with the exemption from these
regulatory requirements of hazardous waste generators that
produce 100 kilograms or less per raontv..  The League's
opinion on this issue is based on three considerations.  One,
the degree of hazard associated with a particular waste is
often more closely related to concentration than volume.  Two,
the small generator exemption sidesteps a major objective
of RCRA, namely, totrack hazardous wastes from their creation
to their disposal through a manifest system.  Three, there
is no foundation in the Act for a blanket exemption.
      We find no support for this exemption in Section 3002
of RCRA which states that the standards will apply to generator:
identified or listed under Subtitle C of the Act.  In fact,
Section 3002(5) requires that the manifest system be applied
to all wastes identified under Subtitle C:
      ...standards shall establish requirements respecting...
      (the) use of a manifest system to assure that all
      such hazardous waste generated is designed for
      treatment, storage or disposal in.s.facilities
      for which a permit has been issued...
In addition, EPA notes in the explanatory information that it
haa limited data on the numbers of small generators, the amount

-------
                                                           35






and types of wastes generated, and the impact of these wastes




on human health and the environment.  By requiring generators




of 100 kilograms or less per month to comply with the require-m




raents of Subpart B, EPA will acquire the essential information




that it currently lacks.  For instance, the requirements would




allow EPA to pinpoint the small generators' disposal sites to




determine which ones are relied on heavily for disposal of




their hazardous wastes.  So that the requirements under Subpart




B may not be burdensome to generators of 100 kilograms or less




per month of hazardous wastes, we would urge EPA to keep record-



keeping to a minimum to simolify procedures.




      Further, the League believes that prooosed section




250.29(1) which allows small generators to dispose in sanitary




landfills approved pursuant to Section 4004 of the Act is




inconsistent with RCRA.  Subtitle C's section 3002(S)plainly




states, "(A)11 such hazardous waste generated is designated




for treatment, storage, or disoosal in...facilities...for




which a permit has been issued as provided in this subtitle."




It does not include sanitary landfills developed pursuant to




Subtitle D of RCRA.




      Since approximately 67 percent of the hazardous waste




is produced in ten of fifty states, we are also concerned



if generators of 100 kilograms or less per month are allowed




to dispose of their wastes in sanitary landfills as opposed




to hazardous waste sites, some sanitary landfills may receive

-------
                                                            36






many contributions of 100 kilograms or less of hazarous




wastes, thereby becoming in the aggregate major resting places




for these substances.  Because these landfills will not be




as stringently develooe* and managed as hazardous waste sites,




they may pose serious problems to public health and the environ-




ment.



      The proposed regulations (section 250.27) also allow




the hazardous waste generator to request that certain information



be kept confidential.  The regulations should clearly impose




a heavy burden on the disposer to demonstrate the need for




secrecy, lest this section become a loophole for avoiding the



intent of RCRA.




Section 3004.




      Subpart D—Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators




of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities.




      The League agrees with most of the provisions in this




subpart.  -However, we do not believe that the Notes in this



subpart, which substitute Tjerformance standards for environ-




mentally sound facility siting, will accomplish the stated



goals of RCRA.



      We are especially concerned about the Note that allows




a hazardous waste facility to be located in the recharge zone




of a sole source aquifer.  We believe the intent of both the




Safe Drinking Water Act and RCRA would be negated by the locaticn




of any hazardous waste facility in such recharge areas.

-------
                                                            37


      Because tf the limited supplies of drinking water sources

it is imperative that EPA regulations ensure their protection.

      We question that EPA can predict with any certainty
             •
adequate resources over the long term—at either the EPA or

the state level—to ensure that the operation, maintenance,

and monitoring of a facility will protect a sole source aquifer.

The potential social, environmental and economic,costs outweigh

short-term accommodation.   The League strongly urges that no

facilities be permitted in the recharge zone of sole source

aquifers.

      Additionally, we are concerned with the 'facility

exemptions permitted in floodplains, wetlands, and high coastal

areas.  Because of the very nature of hazardous materials,

there will be a latent threat to fragile ecosystems, water

resources, and human health, if facilities are located in

these areas.  Performance standards at the time a permit is

issued cannot ensure future reliability.  We ask that EPA

remove these exemptions from the regulations as the intent of

RCRA is protection o.f human health and the environment.

      We also think that the proposed Notes providing

exemptions for land farms (section 250.45-5) present an

unnecessary risk, particularly to ground and surface water

quality and may lead to possible contamination of public water

supplies.  Demonstration of performance to the regional

administrator when a permit is issued does not preclude future

-------
                                                             38
contamination.  For instance, it is almost impossible to




predict with certainty that there will be no direct contact




with the water table when the treated area is less than five




feet above the historical high water table.



      We have the same concerns with the exemptions for landfii:




(section 250.45-2).  We think that in no instance should a




landfill be closer than 500 feet from a public or private




water supply.  Nor should the natural soil barrier or liner




be less than five feet from the water table.




      It is unclear just how EPA proposes to integrate



hazardous waste regulations with other orograms administered




not.-.only by EPA but also by other agencies— such as the




Strip Mining Act.  It seems to us that this is extremely




important in the implementation of Section 3004 of RCRA.




      Further, the League urges that no part of the hazardous



waste program be turned over to a state unless the state




program is no less stringent, than the Federal regulations and




there is an assurance of sufficiant oersonnel for administratior



Also we encourage EPA, in the interim, to provide an adequate



staff to implement the regulation of hazardous wastes.




      And in conclusion, despite the mandate under RCRA'3




Section 7004(b) that there will be "Public participation




in the...implementation, and enforcement of any regulation...




or program,"  there are no prooosed public participation



guidelines included in the proposed regulations.  We strongly

-------
                                                                 39






    urge EPA to immediately begin the task of developing proposed




    public participation rules for its hazardous waste program and




*   to issue them for public comment so that they will  be




4   included in the hazardous waste rules when they are issued




    later this year in final form. Thank you.




                CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN:  Thank you, very much.  Will




    you answers questions from the panel?




                MS. McNULTY:  Yes.




                MS. DARRAH:  I have a couple of questions.  First




    of all, you suggested that EPA keep recordkeeoing to a minimum




    and simplified procedures for small generators.  WilJ. you




    be providing us with any more specific suggestions as to what




    you think is less burdensome but adequate?




                MS.McNULTY:  If you would like us to, we certainly




    can.




                MS. DARRAS:  Yes.




                MS.McNULTY:  We know from our work, that a small




    generator may not be able to keep up with all of your paper




    work.  We think it is most important to keep track of what




    is happening and get the important.information then to fill




    out reams of paper.




                MS. DARRAH:  Okay.  I take it though that you were




    concerned at we keep an adequate track of this.  If there are



    specific suggestions, you make 'them to us as to how you think




    we can do it adequately to meet your environmental concerns,

-------
                                                                40

    but also obviously everyone's concern that we not have oeople

2
1
    filling out useless forms.
                MS. McNDLTY:   We will certainly get back to you

    before the end of the comment period.

                MS. DARRAH:   I just want a clarification.  You said

    that on confidential information, that the regulations could

    impose a heavy burden on  the disposer to demonstrate the need

    for secrecy, unless this  section becomes a loophole for

    avoiding the intent of RCRA.  What intent are you talking about?

                MS. McNULTY:   The intent of RCRA that the public

    shall know and the EPA shall know.  The secrecy Act also could

    be, we think, misused.

                MS. DARRAHs   Okay,  I guess we understand that

    enough to look at the issue.

                MS. McNULTY:   They really need it.

                MS. DARRAH:   What you are saying, you want the

    public to be informed insofar as possible within the law?
                MS. McNULTY:   Yes.

                MS. DARRAR:   Thank you.

                CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much.  Our

    next speaker will be Mr.  Wiley.W. Osborne.

                MR. WILEY W.  OSBORNE:  I am Wiley W. Osborne,

    Chief, Plans and Programs Branch, Division of Solid Waste

    Management, Texas Department of Health.

          I am pleased to be  able to offer these remarks on behalf

-------
                                                         41






of the Texas Department of Health and Mr. Jack C. Carmichael,




P.E., Director, Division of Solid Waste Management.  Mr.




Carmichael is unable to be here today.  The State Legislature




is in session and a number of legislative actions are pending




that require his attention in Austin.



      Today, I wish to summaiize our concerns regarding all




aspects of hazardous waste management from our perspective.




The State of Texas has, by legislation, delegated the authority




and assigned the responsibility for municipal solid waste




management to the Department of Health.  The State Solid Waste




Disposal Act further assigns to the Department of Health



authority and responsibility that extends to industrial solid




waste where it becomes involved with municipal waste in any




activity of collecting, handling, storing or disposal of




solid waste.



      Our Texas Department of Water Resources has responsibilitj




for solid waste resulting from industrial, agricultural and




mining operations.



      The State Solid Waste Disposal Act also establishes  a



coordinating mechanism between the Departments to allow




review of the  actions of each Department as it may affect




the other.  As the  State Health Agency,  we are responsible




for the health aspects of all solid waste management activities




      I mention our role in solid waste  management so  that




you may be  able to  better evaluate our comments.

-------
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6




 7



 8




 9



10



11




12




13



14



15




16



17



18



19




20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 42
      Texas passed a meaningful solid waste disposal act in




1969 and over the past ten years we have built a workable




solid waste management program which we believe is second to




none.  During our work with the EPA and the NGA, we have




based our comments on our years of experience dealing with




private interprise and municipalities.  We have also stressed




fene real world political problems in dealing with the general




public and State laws regarding public hearings and permitting




requirements.  We believe it is imperative that the EPA in




its promulgation -of regulations under the RCRA recognize




the grass roots implementation problems by providing regulatory




flexibility which allows States to continue on-going safe



and effective programs.  As of this late date, we do not see




sufficient flexibility nor do we see an indication that the




EPA is willing to place trust in the professional competency



of the States, although some flexibility has been added in the



notes of the latest proposed regulations.




      The basic problem always seems to come back to EPA's




basic approach, which in itself is inflexible.  Packaging all




hazardous waste in one bag, regardless of degree of hazard




and then, attempting to regulate the single bag, has not worked



very well and cannot provide the needed flexibility.  Today,




we wish to propose a re-arrangement of the past efforts to




provide a more flexible framework which does not sacrifice any



significant regulatory control.

-------
                                                             43
       We are concerned that closing of the comment period for




 the rules being proposed on Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004,




 prior to publication of proposed rules on Sections 3005 and 300'i,




 will not afford the States the proper opportunity to obtain




 an overall view of the regulations prior to submitting comments




       We therefore, request  iat comments continue to be




 received on the proposed rules until all Subtitle C regulations




 are proposed and'comment periods are closed.




       Within Texas there are 1156 municipal solid waste sites.




 Fifty counties,  of the 254 counties in the State of Texas,




 comprise the twenty-five Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areae



 of the State.   (About 80 nercent of the industries in the  State




 are located  in these 50 counties.)   There are  220 municipal




 solid waste  sanitary landfills  operated in these 50 counties




 which are capable  of safely handling waste which will  become




 hazardous under  the proposed regulations.   We  accomplish this




 through a mechanism of  granting written approval on a  site-




 specific,  waste-specific  basis.   We consider the characteristics




 of  the  waste and its  volume  and  site conditions,  design and



 operations.




      Mr.  Thomas C. Jorling,  in  his  January 20,  1979 memorandum




 to  solid waste directors,  states,  "a cost  effective approach




 to  industrial waste management 'requires effective  State




regulatory programs under  Subtitle D to supplement  Subtitle C




programs."  We heartily concur in this statement.   In Texas, it

-------
                                                         44
is particularly true because it is over 600 miles from many




industries to permitted industrial solid waste sites.



      Under the rules now being proposed, many sites would be




closed to receiving such waste, forcing the movement of waste




over long distances, or the creation of new sites to accommodate




in many cases, low volumes of waste.  This will introduce an




economic burden on industry that has grown to rely on municipal




solid waste disposal facilities, create a proliferation of



disposal facilities, increase transportation of solid waste




and possibly result in the illegal disposal of solid waste that




is presently being handled in a manner that protect the health




and environment.



      Our assessment that these sites will be unable to cost



effectively accept even the less hazardous waste generated by




private enterprise, results from a discussion with several




of the cities' solid waste managers.  Their unanimous response




is that cities will not participate in hazardous waste




activities as presently proposed.  Although this strong reluctan




has not been apparent in previous workshops and public hearings,




we find that the very reasons city officials do not plan to be



involved in hazardous waste are also the same reasons they are




reluctant to take a strong public position regarding proposed



regulations.




      Elected officials are concerned with the political impact




of advocating acceptance of hazardous waste in publicly owned

-------
                                                           45






municipal solid waste aites .  One of our city solid waste




managers states, It would be political suicide to even condone



acceptance .of hazardous waste, much less subject ourselves to




a public hearing required to obtain a permit."  It is near




impossible to convince the public that the issue is limited




to a truck load of rotton lemons, a few drums off.spec, vinegar




outdated, treated seed grain, or a load of sheet rock.  Hazardoup




waste connotes all the evils that are publicized by the "Love



Canals."  The public is influenced by such things as the




political cartoon I have handed you and not the more rational




editorial that appeared in the same issue of the Austin




American-Statesman.




      Unfortunately, RCRA places the hazard label on all solid




waste that is a subject of these regulations.




      These proposed regulations, in identifying hazardous




waste and establishing standards for hazardous waste management,




fail to adequately provide for the flexibility needed to over-



come the objectives of city officials whose cooperation is




so sorely needed to obtain a cost effective approach to




industrial waste management as pointed out by Mr. Jorling.




      The flexibility proposed in the regulations, by defining




generators excluding retailers and farmers, setting arbitrary




quantity limits and allowing exceptions in treatment, storage




and disposal standards, based on demonstration by the owner/




operator that less standards are acceptable, does not adequately

-------
 1



 2



 3




 4



 5



 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14



15




16



17




18




19



20




21




22



23



24



25
                                                             46





address our concern.  When we discuss eliminating retailers




aa a generator, we accept the fact that many retailers potentially




accumulate large volumes of solid waste that we would not want




placed in a municipal landfill without adequate controls.




When a generator is defined by the quantity of waste generated




alone, we are faced with a similar dilema,  We can always find




the exception where the disposal of some waste may be acceptable




at one hundred or even a 1000 kg/month, we would hesitate to




accept other waste at much less quantities.




      At the same time, we see problems requiring the same




standards for treatment, storage or disposal of all hazardous



waste regardless of quantity, concentration and effects.  The




notes accompanying the standards fail to orovide the needed




flexibility.



      My remarks today and during the next two sessions



and our more detailed written comments being submitted at




a later date, are intended to outline acceptable alteratives,




that can be incorporated into these proposed regulations, that




meet the requirement of the Act and provide what we see as




necessary to the implementation of a cost effective hazardous




waste management program.  This involves a basic requirement




to divide hazardous waste into sub-sets, based on the degree




of hazard.  We are recommending identifying two sub-sets



of hazardous waste, establishing standards for generators,




transporters and owner/operators commensurate with the level

-------
                                                           47






of hazard associated with each set of waste.




      In our letter of July 5, 1977 commenting on draft




regulations for Section 3001, we emphasized the need to identify




two levels of hazardous waste.  We reiterate that request today,




      My remaining comments relate to Suboart A of 40 CFR 250




and recommendations related to the requirements of Section



3001, RCRA.




      Comments Subpart A:




      We agree with the preamble statement that Section 3001




is the keystone to Subtitle C.  We find it difficult to discuss




Subpart A without relating to Subpart B and Subpart 0.  And




even more difficult, discussing Subparts B and D without



involving A.




      The premise of our comments on 40 CFR, Part 250, Subpart




A, is to establish a provision within the regulation that




would allow the Regional Administrator or the authorized state




fco^classify hazardous waste into two sub-sets.  We propose the




use of the terms Primary Hazardous Waste and Special Waste.




Primary Hazardous waste refers to the more noxious waste,




while Special Waste is used to refer to waste that meets the




hazardous criteria, but there is no reasonable probability of



significant adverse effect on human health or the environment




unless the waste is improperly managed.




      The Congress, in defining hazardous waste in Section 1004




(5)  of the Act, establishes the requirement for classifying

-------
 1




 2



 3




 4



 5



 6




 7




 8




 9




10



11




12




13




14



15




16




17



18




19




20



21




22



23



24



25
                                                                 48
hazardous waste by its effect and potential hazard resulting




from improper management.



      We propose that the following definition be incorporated




into Section 250.11:



      (b)(3)  "Hazardous Waste" has the meaning given in




Section 1004(5) of the Act as further defined and identified




in this Subpart.



      (i)  "Primary Hazardous Waste" means a sub-set of hazardous




waste which causes, or significantly contributes to, an increase




in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or




incapacititating reversible, illness.




      (ii)   "Special Waste" means a sub-set of hazardous




waste which poses a substantial present or potential hazard




to human health or the envioronment when improperly treated,



stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.




      It should be emphasized that the proposed definitions




will not result in any loss of control.  All waste will be




subject to manifesting, but special wastes on a selected




basis may have greater exempt quantities and/or may not require




as rigid or inflexible construction standards.




      Primary hazardous waste will include waste that have an




accute toxicity criteria with an LD50 value equal or less




than 500 mgAg or an LC50 value equal or less than 100 ppm.




Waste characterized by significant persistence in the




environment, bioassumulation, carcinogenicity, mutagencity  ,

-------
                                                           49






or teratogenicity would be included under primary hazardous




waste.  Hazardous metals in Section 250.13(d) whose extract




levels contain more than 100 times the EPA National Iterim




Drinking Water Standards shall be primary hazardous waste.




      Under Section 250.13, our proposal is to use the following




characteristics of hazardous waste to describe the characteristics



of special waste.




      250.13(a)  Ignitable waste is a special waste if a




representative sample has the characteristics of subsection



(1)(i) and  (1)(ii).




      250.13(b)  Corrosive waste is a special waste if a



representative sample has the characteristics of subsection




(l)(i).



      250.13(c)  Reactive waste is a special waste if a



representative sample has the characteristics of subsection




(1) (ii).



      250.13(d)  Toxic waste is a special waste if the acute




tpxicity LD50 is greater than 500 mg/kg or the LC50 is greater




than 100 ppm.   Heavy metals in Section 250.13(d) whose extract




levels contain less than 100 times the EPA National Interim




Drinking Water Standards shall be considered special waste.




The heavy metals classification is consistent with the final




report of the Hazardous Waste Management Task Force of the




National Governors' Association.  Because of their quantity,




or characteristics/ soecial wastes may become a primary waste

-------
                        	50





if designated by  the appropriate regulatory agency.




      Examples from the list of hazardous waste in Section  250. 4




Subsection (a), that would normally be special wastes are:



      1.  Waste nonhalogenated solvent (such as raethanol,




      acetone, isopropyl alcohol, polyvinyl alcohol, stoddard




      solvent and methyl ethyl ketone) and solvent sludges



      from cleaning, compounding milling and other processes




      (1,0);



      2.  Waste lubricating oil (T,O);




      3.  Waste hydraulic or cutting oil (T,O);



      4.  Paint wastes (such as used rags,  slops, latex




      sludge, spent solvent) (T,I,O);




      5.  Waterbased paint wastes (T).



      Infectious waste is a hazardous waste is it is included




in Class A or Class B, as classified by the Commission on Hosp-



ital certification that will be referenced  in the final report




of the Hazardous Waste Management Task Force of the National




Governors' Association (NGA).  Infectious waste is a special




waste if it is Class B, as classified by the Commission on




Hospital certification.  We noted, at the hearing in St. Louis,




that a number of industry and State agencies spoke to the need



to apply different standards to different levels of waste




quantities, concentrations and effects.  The National Governors




Association Hazardous Waste Management Task Force unanimously




supported this concept.  The EPA regulations do not provide

-------
                                                           51





sufficient flexibility for safe and realistic management of




hazardous waste primarily because EPA does not have flexibility




in its criteria for identification. Significant problems will



be encountered in the application of controls unless the issue




of the level of hazard is addressed.




      A workable system for the identification of hazardous




waste by level of hazard has already been developed by the




Department of Ecology of the State of Washington.  The Texas




Department of Health is actively working upon details of a




system to achieve this purpose.



      What we propose to identify as special waste is not




removed from the hazard category, but offers an opportunity




tjo make a. simple variance in generator requirements and standards




for the treatment, storage or disposal.




      The special waste identified by the characteristics we




have chosen, although representing a lower level of hazard,




should be controlled through the solid waste management chain.




However, as will be evident from our comments on Subpart B




and D, we would on a site-specific basis vary the standards




for special waste from those currently proposed to regulate




all hazardous waste.



      Removing or minimizing the stigma of the term  "hazard"




and identifying more flexible standards for a large portion




of the hazardous waste stream and allowing written approval




for special waste in lieu of reoermitting will make available

-------
                                                           52






municipal solid waste landfills for the continued safe disposal




of a majority of the hazardous waste stream.




      Thank you.



            CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN:  Thank you very much, Mr.




Osborne.  Will you take questions from the panel?




            MR. OSBORNE:  Yes.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Osborne, part of your commentary




involves the recommendation for sub-dividing the regulatory




definition of hazardous waste into two sub-sets.  The question



is, under the current or regulations from the State of Texas,




do you sub-divide the hazardous waste by regulation now into



more than one set, and if so, how does that work?




            MR. OSBORNE:  Yes, we don't have a definition of




hazardous waste.  We have adopted in our statutory provisions




what EPA will define as hazardous waste.  In our industrial




waste, it is classified as a Class I, II, or III waste, and,




of course, municipal waste has no further classification other



than to suggest municipal.  We do have regulatory controls




over industrial waste through the Class I, II, III designation.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Could I pursue that just a little bit.



Which is the most hazardous industrial waste?  Is Class I,



the most hazardous?




            MR. OSBORNEs  Yes.




            MR. LEHMAN:  What is the distiction between Class



I and Class II?

-------
                                                          53





            MR. OSBORHE:  I think that the basic division is



on the LT50 milligrams per kilogram.




            MR. LEHMAN:  If the distinction then is based on




LT50, then JLt is related to some analysis of the waste for



a chemical constitutent?



            MR. OSBORNE:  Yes.




            MR. LEHMAN:  How does one account for the




concentration of those materials in the waste under that



system?




            MR. OSBORNE:  I think what it is, Mr. Lehman,




going back to my earlier remark, the Department of Water




Resources regulates industrial waste.  We regulate any industrii1




waste that goes into a municipal landfill.  If it is in the




Class I category, the owner/operator of that site, must by




our regulation submit a request to receive that specific waste,




and then we will evaluate that specific waste.  It is not




open to all Class I industrial waste, but it is on a waste-



specific and site-specific basis.




            MR. LEHMAN:  So what I gather is that you have no




basic definition of hazardous waste, and everything is done on



a case-by-case basis?




            MR. OSBORNE:  Yes.  Now, it would be in a form of




a special waste category that we would select from your list



of hazardous waste.




            MR. LINDSEY:  One more question on a slightly

-------
                                                             54






different topic.  You indicated that there is roughly some




220 plus or minus municipal land fills in Texas which you




permit on a case-by-case basis to dispose of certain wastes




which would fill the bill of hazardous under our regulations,




and you felt those particular facilities would close as a result




of these regulations.  It seems to me there are three reasons




why such a facility might close.  One, because they don't meet




the minimum standard we have, or can't demonstrate equivalency



or (2) because of the regulatory burden they might chose not




to. And (3) the public participation oroblem of being involved




with hazardous waste.  Is that what you were referring to when




you talked about political problems?




            MR. QSBORNE:  Yes, I think so.




            MR. LINDSEY:  In your system, let me ask you a




question about that.  If that is the basic problem with regard



to these facilities and the reason why the counties or cities,




whoever controls them, would chose not to receive hazardous




waste, how do you handle that then in Texas, because you do




permit those facilities, you said, to handle certain of these




wastes.  Why would our regulation be any different?




            MR. OSBORNE:  In our regulation, we have the




requirement for a permit.  Well, in the Department of Health,




all municipal solid waste facilities go through a public hearing



process under our State Administrative Procedures Act.  Any




waste that is in this top one, that is our highest order of

-------
                                                            55





site, provides for the acceptance of certain classes of




industrial waste, based on a written approval  from  the Departmei




of Health.  Now, we do not 'go back through another  permit



procedure.




            MR. LINDSEY:  I still don't think  I follow that.




For these 220 municipal sites, they have been through a hearing,



right?




            MR. OSBORNE:  Right.




            MR. LINDSEY:  And in that hearing, it came out




they would Jae receiving on a case-by-case- basis certain



industrial waste?




            MR. OSBORNE:  Yes.  It is understood.




            MR. LINDSEY:  That is Class I waste?




            MR. OSBORNE:  It is understood they may.




            MR. LINDSEY:  Well, I f?.il to see  how our regulatior




would impose any additional burden because of  public uproar




then what you are already doing?




            MR. OSBORNE:  I think what this would require,




would be to go back to a public hearing process, and using




the. term hazardous waste, would be of public concern. We are




npit proposing to take this special waste out of the hazardous




category.  We would proooae that this would be defined, to




include only the least hazardous waste.  There is a number of




agencies that have spoken to the need to define waste by level




of hazard,  and we feel this is absolute necessity that you can't

-------
                                                             56
have a requirement to have all sites meet strict requirements




just to receive some of the least hazardous waste.



            MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Osborne, the way I understood




you to say, you are proposing that the terra principal hazardous




waste be used for materials that'have an LD50 of less than 500




milligrams per kilogram; is that correct?



            MR. OSBORNE:  Yes.




            MR. LEHMAN:  And that is the same definition




that you use for Class I industrial waste at the present time




in Texas?




            MR. OSBORNE:  Yes, it is not defined in the




regulations, but I think they use that as a guideline.




            MR. LEHMAN: Well, let's assume that is the same




guideline, and yet you are saying, and from what I can under-




stand from what you are saying then, that Class I waste in



Texas,  you have less problem with public reaction by calling




it a Class I industrial waste then by calling it a hazardous




waste, even though the basic criteria is the same?  That is



what you are saying'




            MR. OSBORNE:  I think the connotation of hazardous



has gotten connected with the Class I waste.  I am not that




familiar with the Department of Water Resources Operations,




but I know they have had a number of difficulties in trying




to permit a Class I hazardous waste, because of public




opposition.  I think some of this we might be able to discuss

-------
                                                            57



 in more detail when we get  into Subpart  D requirements.

            CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN:  Thank you very much.  Our

 next speaker will be Jim Rouse from Envirologic Systems, Inc.


            MR. JIM V. ROUSE:  By way of clarification, would

 you prefer if I addressed strictly 3001  today, and come back

 subsequent days?


            CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN:  You have ten minutes.  You

 can do whatever you want.


            MR. ROUSE:  Let's first off  go to 3001.


      I am grateful for the chance to address this hearing

 to present my views on the effect the regulations, proposed

 December 18thl 1978 under the Authority  of Subtitle C of the

 amended Solid Waste Disposal Act would have on the mining

 industry.


      These comments are not prepared from the viewpoint of

th»ite specific impact on any single facility, but rather reflect
       v
 the views of an individual with a 16 year  history with the EPA

 and its predecessor agencies as a mining waste specialist, now

 serving as environmental consultant to a number of mining

 operations.  The views offered thus draw on experience (resume

 attached)  with regulatory agencies and with industry, and are


 presented in an attempt to develop fair  and workable regulation:

 which will not needlessly damage the industry.


      I recognize the difficult task facing the agency, to

 prepare far-reaching regulations under a short time limit on

-------
                                                            58
the basis of very limited data.  I also recognize,  from reading




the regulations, that the drafters had little or not working




knowledge of the mining industry and its practices.  I  would




recommend that the agency personnel make a tour of  representative




sites prior to the preparation of the final regulations.  I




stand ready to assist in the organization and conduct of




such a tour.



      I had been encouraged by the approach taken in the




February 6, 1978 proposed "Solid Waste Disposal Facilities",




in that recognition of the variations in site conditions and




waste characteristics were allowed, and an allowance ir>*de




for the tremendous capacity of the vadose zone to sorb metals



or raaionuclides from percolating vadose water.  This is




similar to the approach taken by the recently developed New




Mexico Environmental Improvement Division ground-water



protection regulations.




      I then was very disappointed to find that the Subtitle C




regulations did not take this progressive approach, but



rather fell back to a single approach incorporating rigid




design criteria, which does not recognize variations in waste




or site characteristics, or the sorbtive ability of the vadose




zone.  As they now stand, the regulations would require the




same care for radium in a Florida gypsum on limestone, with




no vadose zone and in a sandstone waste rock deposited on




shale in central Utah, with a 2000 ft.  thick vadose zone.

-------
                                                            59






The regulations should be written to allow for waste and site



characteristic variations.




      The design criteria are copied from other regulations




such as tne Texas Railroad Commission, and do not reflect




demonstrated need, or even the practicability of measurements.




I would recommend that specific design criteria be omitted, and




the operator be permitted to tailor the design to the specific




site and waste conditions.




      The designation of "hazardous waste" is highly subjective




and lacking in valid demonstrated hazards.  There are discrep-



ancies between the approach specified in the preamble, and




the wastes listed in 250.14.  tor example, the preamble.'States




wastes will only be listed on the basis of their ignitabillty,




corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, but the first five




wastes listed under 250.14  (b)(2) are listed because of their




proported "radioactivity", which is the subject of a notice




of proposed rulemaking.  Thus it is obvious that EPA has




developed a de facto criteria for radioactivity, a criteria




so stringent a's to include almost all waste generated by the




mining industry.  We would recommend omission of the first




five wastes in 250.14(b)  (2) until a reasonable radioactive




limit is developed.




      The criteria for a "corrosive" waste is defined by




250.13 (b) to include any aqueous waste with a pH equal to or




less than 3.0.  This would include many streams of Rocky

-------
                                                              60
Mountain spring water draining areas of sulfide mineralization




which frequently have pH values of 2.3 to 2.8.  It would




also include Coca-Cola and other similar soft drinks.  A value




of 1.5 pH units would be more reasonable.



      A "reactive" waste is specified by 250.13(c) to include




"cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which can generate toxic




gases, vapors, or fumes when exposed to mild acidic or basic




conditions."  This definition is vague, does not meet the




intent of 250.10(a), and would probably include virtually all




mining waste, depending on how tightly one applies the



definition.  More definitive criteria for reactive wastes are




required.




      Toxic wastes are defined on the basis of an arbitrary




Extraction Procedure, with no attempt to relate the results




to any real hazard.  Two of the listed elements (arsenic and




selenium) are mobile under oxidizing alkaline conditions,



but not under acidic conditions.  This could lead to a false




sense of security, in cases where selenium-bearing waste was




exposed to alkaline conditions.  On the other hand, other



metals might be mobilized under the Extraction Procedure but




not under expected site conditions.  The testing should




duplicate expected field and waste conditions.




      Many of the "wastes" listed in 250.14(b)(2) are not



wastes at all, but rather are returned to the process.  Their




inclusion will needlessly generate requirements of record

-------
                                                            61





keeping without environmental advantages.  Examples include




copper smelter dusts, etc.  This again demonstrates a need to




know the industry.




      Section^ 250.15 provides a mechanism to demonstrate that




a waste is outside the arbitrary EPA criteria, and hence should



not be considered as hazardous.  Within this section, 250.15(5)




provides a mechanism to demonstrate that a waste is not




radioactive (a non-existent criteria under 250.12).  The




waste must contain less than 5 picocuries per gram radium,




which automatically means that all marine shales, granites,




most bricks, etc. are "hazardous".  In fact, almost any basement



excavation in Denver results in the generation of a "hazardous




waste.



      If concentrations are to be used, a limit of 25 5o 30




picocuries per gram would be more consistent with the intent.




However, a better approach would be to use the leach teats, to




see what amount of the radium was subject to leaching, and




hence available to the biosphere.  Such tests should be run prioi




to regulations being drafted.




      The definitions for "Attenuation", "Endangerment", and




"Underground Non-Drinking Water Source", found in 250.41,




indicate that, at one time, the Subpart D regulations envisionec




an approach similar to the Sanitary Landfill Criteria, with



recognition of the attenuation provided by vadose and saturated




zone sorbtion, and allowance for naturally-occurring

-------
                                                             62






contamination.  Unfortunately, these  concepts were omitted




from the proposed regulations, and replaced by  a  rigid set of




design criteria which do not provide  for variations in site




or waste characteristics.  In my opinion,  all necessary




design criteria are contained in Section 250.42-1.  Specific




design should be left to the various  operators, with allowance



made for the concepts as expressed in the  definitions of




"allenuation", "dndangerment", and "underground Non-Drinking




Water Source".



      Many of the subsequent sections of Subpart  D are clearly




not applicable for mining wastes.  Their inclusion under the




requirements of Section 250.46 demonstrates a lack of under-




standing of the mining industry.  Again, we suggest an extension




tour of representative facilities prior to ^reparation of the




final regulations, and offer our assistance in  arranging for



such a tour.




      There is no environmental advantage  associated with the




securit-y requirements, although there are significant environ-



mental and economic disadvantages.  The material  inside the




fence is identical to thousands of tons of similar rock outside




the fence.  Similarly, there is no need for a daily inspection




to see that the rock is still inside  the fence.   The closure




and post-closure requirements are unnecessary except for truly



hasardous materials, which do not include  mining  wastes.




      In closing, I recognize that the agency was faced with

-------
                                                           63
 af;!tough job on preparing far-reaching 'regulations covering a




 number .of industries they did-not understand.  Perhaps time




 precluded becoming familiar with the industry prior to prepa-




 ration of the draft regulations, but it is hoped you can




 become familiar with the industry before you finish the




 final regulations.  I would be glad to assist in this familiar-



 ization.   It is important that you understand the wide




 variation in site and waste characteristics,  and provide




 sufficient flexibility to design around these variations,  raakinc



 use of the sorbtive capacity of the vadose zone.



       Thank you very much.




             CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN:   Thank you  very much.  Will



 you take  questions from the panel?




             MR.  ROUSE:   Yes,  I  will be  glad to.




             MR.  CORSON:   Just wondering,  in terms of your



 concept of site-specificity for definition, were  you looking




 at  a floating system, or were you advocating the same sort of




 thing that Mr. Osborne did, where we put  in a  special category



 subject to less, or whether in  fact that  this  takes it out of




 the  system entirely.  I  am wondering what method  of controls



you would advocate?




            MR. ROUSE:  We will be addressing on Friday some



points we have in mind under the Section 3004, the standards




applicable to disposal sites.  However, the point I am trying



to make at this time under 3001 is, that many of the wastes

-------
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17



18




19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                           64






you are listing are Hgtirig  are  not  truly hazardous.  The




criteria that you have you promulgated are extremely arbitrary,




and I have not seen a demonstrated hazard associated, for




example, with the pH of Coca-Cola, but rather I think you




need to really start seeing  what the nature of this material




is with respect, not only to the waste characteristics, but




to the site hydrogeology, because there is a vast difference



between the radium associated with the phosphate byproduct




of gypsum in Florida, and the sane amount of radium associated




with a sandstone deposited on 5,000  feet of shale in Central




Utah, where it rains four inches a year.  Each approach needs




to be taken.  The site conditions-heed to be taken on a




site specific condition, and you would get around the problem




of the blanket value for radium, for example, if you did use




a testing procedure wherein, you would see a portion of radiun




that would be subject to leaching and movement into the biospher




            CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.




Rouse.  We will take a short recess.




      (Whereupon a short recess  was  taken.)




            CHAIRPERSON FRIEDMAN: Our next speaker will be



Clara Lou Humphrey.




            MS. CLARA LOU HUMPHREY:   Good morning, my name is




Clara Lou Humphrey and I am  speaking for the League of Women



Voters of Colorado.




      The League of Women Voters of Colorado has requested

-------
                                                          65






permission to speak at these hearings because of our special




concern.  The dangers of inadequate hazardous waste handling




were aopaient to us long before there was nationwide interest




in the subject.  Residents not far from this building had their




water services contaminated and subsequently abandoned because



because of disposal oractices at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.




Wildlife and cropland were also harmed when injection was




used as a remedy, the procedure caused the "Denver Earthquakes"




and had to be stopped.  Colorado and Utah are currently involved




in debate over the transportation and disposal of the "Weteye"




bombs currently stores, and in some cases leaking, at the arserujl




The Colorado Department of Health estimates that in Colorado




there are approximate16 6,311 possible generators of hazardous




waste; 195 possible transporters of hazardous waste and 315




possible processors and/or disposers of hazardous wastes.




      A bill (SB 121) introduced this session in the Colorado




legislature states "currently wastes which are hazardous are




being disposed of indiscriminately in sanitary landfills in




the state without regard to the location of such landfills or




the hydrology or geography of the landfill site."




      The League of Women Voters of Colorado under an EPA




grant, presented a seminar on hazardous waste last summer.




The purpose was to raise awareness of the problems and to




explore some of the ways they might be solved.  The overriding




immediate problem identified at the seminar was the lack of a

-------
definition of what will be  considered  hazardous waste and



uncertainty as to what the  standards and regulations will be.



We believe that EPA  should  set  the  standards and agree that the



states are the preferred level  of government for implementation



of this program, so  long as they meet  the minimum standards.



We have both state and national positions that  the states



should be allowed to be more stringent.   We  urge you to adopt



these standards and  regulations as  soon  as possible so that



the states may set their machinery  in  motion to implement.



      Our members found it  very difficult to attend the public



meetings held by the state  and  the  EPA prior to this hearing



and would suggest at least  one  of them should have been held



in the Denver metro  area.   We also  suggest that the structure



of the hearings makes it very difficult  for  people to reach



an understanding of  the total picture.   Shorter sessions,



perhaps three days of the same  general program  might make



citizen participation more  meaningful.



      3001 - In terms of citizen participation  we  request that



public notice be required whenever  the results  of  a demonstratio i



of non-inclusion in  the hazardous waste  system  results  in the



material being excluded.  Perhaps it could be patterned after



the water discharge permit  system in which there is public



notice soliciting public comment.   We do  not  feel  that  a person



must show that he is aggrieved, but only  that there is  a



reasonable doubt as  to the public health  or the environmental

-------
                                                           67






effects of the decision.  This would allow  for the possibility




of new data on harm to human health to be introduced.




      3002 - We are uncomfortable with the 100 KG exemption




as proposed although it may make sense to control the large




amounts first.  Any exemptions should be based solely on the




protection of human health and the environment.  Once the



program has been implemented as proposed, a combination of




option 3 and 5 might be initiated.  The exemption might be




based on the degree of hazard with lesser administrative



requirements for the generators of smaller amounts.  We support




the requirement for annual renewal of exemption.  Since




Colorado has a history of hazardous waste accidents we would




support a requirement for contingency spill plans for generators




which store hazardous waste less than 90 days.  The "cradle




to grave" concept should include inclusive contingency plans.




The plan may be part of the contingency or emergency plan of



the generator.




      3004 - We support the use of the Human Health and




Environmental standards and of design and operating standards




as a way to assist the regulated community.  We do not support




the frequent use of notes authorizing deviations.  We object



to the phrase at the time a permit is issued "in the notes




because of the effects on performance of such variables as




weather, instruction and makeun of the waste stream"  The time




a permit is issued may not be representative of conditions.

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6   the new floodplain  boundaries?




           2.  Recharge  zone of sole source aquifer:   any exemptions



     must be able to demonstrate no  endangerment of the sole source
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                                  68
      Specific notes with which we taHe exception include:




      1.  Floodplain:  The act of building a  structure in a




floodplain would cause that floodplain to change.   If  a




facility is allowed in the floodplain, what protection from



flooding is provided for those structures put in jeopardy by
aquifer at any time in the future.




      Special Wastes:  Colorado currently has problems with




power plant fly ash and with mining wastes.  We're concerned




about how you will handle those wastes.




      Our position is that the federal government should



encourage recycling of oost-industrial and oost-consumer




wastes.  We suoport assistance for recycling facilities and




waste exchanges.



      Thank you.




            CHAIRPERSON FRIF.DMAN:  Thank you very much, Mrs.




Humphrey.  Would you take rruestions from the panel?




            MS. HUMPHREY:  If there are any questions.




            MR. LINDSEY:  Ms; Humphrey, we talked about, or




you talked about being uncomfortable with the small— what




we call the small quantity exclusion, and suggested  that to




some extent that probably should be reduced, but to  make sense




we should have somewhat less administrative burden on generators

-------
                                                              fit)





    category.  I guess the problem I have is in setting up the




    so called administrative controls, that is the recordkeeping



    and manifest, if you will.  We try to cut that to a bare




    minimum, and you will find that that we in fact have less




    recording and so forth than many of the states which already




6   have programs.  I wonder, with the further cuts, if we were



    to incorporate many many more small generators, what controls




    might make sense to cut?  We couldn't cut out the manifest,




    for example, or We wouldn't have any control.  I wonder if



    you have any thoughts on that?




                MRS. HUMPHREY:  First of all, I have not seen all




    the forms that the various and sundry states have, so I am




    only responding to your proposed guidelines, and the cmestion




    that was in there.  Our feeling is, there will be probably a




    need for more paper work for a larger producer; that it is




    possible that there may be a form like the IRS, the short form




    for those that generate small quantities.  I would have to




    look at the soecific form to decide.  We -just wanted to




    support consideration of having some shorten version or easier




    method.




                MR. LI*JDSEY:  If you could in your written comments




    take another look at the control form and the annual reporting




    form of the miscellaneous forms that were involved with




    International shipments and the exception form when a manifest




    is not received, and give us any ideas you may have on what you

-------
                                     	70




     think might be acceptable  for smaller facilities and that would


     not be required  for  smaller  facilities that might be necessary


     for bigger quantities.


                 MS.  HUMPHREY:  Just a wild guess.  I would susoect


     that some of the generators  of smaller quantities would probabl

 6
     be more helpful.  We are especially concerned with more hazard-


     ous waste that any quantity  being tracked very carefully.


                 MS.  SCHAFFER:   I have a question.  Can you give

 9
     us an example of what you mean by inclusive?  What kinds of

10
     things should be included or should we recruire a contingency


     plan for generators, if not  now,  perhaps in your written

12
     comments, we would really apnreciate that.


                 MS.  HUMPHREY:  Well,  again, I am responding to

14
     a specific note  in the guidelines saying that you were consider

15
     ing this, and we would certainly  would have to have a thirty

16
     day period where there is no required olan for emergency.   Our


     history here is  not  real good of  things staying safe while they

18
     are being stored.

19
                 MS.  SCHAFFER:  If you could tell us in your written

20
     comments the kinds of things we should require in the contingeiil

21
     plan, we would really appreciate  that.

22
                 CHAIRPERSON OARRAH:  Thank you.  Our next speaker

23
     is Dr. Carl Johnson  of the Jefferson County Health Departmemt.

24
     la Dr. Johnson here? is Howard Runion of the American Petrol«

25
     Institute here?

-------
                                                            71






            MR. HOWARD RUNION:  Good morning, my name is Howard




Runion and I am currently employed  ^s manager of the Gulf




Oi^^fpofation, Industrial Hygiene and Radiation Department,




Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.  My formal graduate training' includes




a M.A. in Zoology and a MPH in Environmental and Occupational



Health.




      I am here today on behalf of the American Petroleum




Institute (API) to discuss the implications for inudstry and




the country of the proposed regulations under Section 3001 of



the Kesource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as published




in the. Federal Register, on December 18, 1978.



      I am joined today by Dr. Ray Harbison, a Toxicolegist at




Vanderbilt Medical Center, Mr. Jeff Jones, a regulatory policy




analyst with Industrial Technological Associates, Inc., Mr.




John Pitzpatrick, an attorney with Gulf Oil Company, Mr.




Stephen Williams, an attorney and staff member of the American




Petroleum Institute and Dr. Steven Swanson, an Economist and



staff member with API.




      Since the enactment of RCRA, API has been participating




in the development of the proposed regulations through the




submission of comments to and conferences with EPA personnel.




We have been imoressed by the serious commitment of the members




of the Office of Solid Waste to oreoare a regulatory program




which addresses this conrolex health and environmental issue.




Furthermore, we have anoeared in court to suonort EPA in its

-------
                                                             72






 attempts to obtain the requisite time to oromulgate  realistic,




 workable regulations.  However, despite the time granted  by




 Judge Gesell, API has had a scant three months to review




 intensively this new and comprehensive orograra.  The thoughts




 we share with you today require further refinement,  expansion,




 and reinforcement.  We shall seek relief in the form of




 additional time for specific projects underway, however we will




 have substantial input ready for EPA by the March 16, 1979




 deadline



       API views the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act




 as a logical extension of other environmental legislation for



 control of environmental pollution and we are in accord with




- the mandate of EPA to regulate the disoosal, handling and




 storage of industrial residues.  The primary pur-cose of our




 presentation today is to oresent to the EPA our concerns about




 the, process which EPA has oroposed to designate industrial




 residues as hazardous wastes.




       We are particularly concerned that EPA, in a sincere




 attempt to develop "simple" and "inexpensive" methods for




 waste classification, has adopted an approach which  when appliee




 will so dilute industry's and government's scarce resources




 as to compromise efforts to eliminate the serious environmental




 hazards.  API believes that Congress in enacting RCRA, intended



 that a flexible program be developed which (1) identifies




 wastes as "hazardous" based upon the degree of risk  they oos«

-------
                                                               73
    to human health and the environment, and  (2) tailors control



2   efforts that are commensurate with the degree of risk and



    which can be expected to reduce that risk.  Moreover, Congress



    indicate that the  "hazard" a waste presents is a product of



    "its quantity, concentration, or ohysical, chemical or infecti-



6   ous characteristics."  (Section 1004(5)).



          EPA has elected to focus its regulatory scheme on the



    physical and chemical characteristics of waste, thereby fails



    to give proper consideration to characteristics such as volume



    and degradability  which are certainly germane to an assessment



    of risk.  Furthermore, for those wastes listed the Agency



    has neither demonstrated with field experience nor provided



    documentation with epidemiological studies, that the designated



    wastes have significantly contributed to an increase in



    mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitat-



    ing reversible illnesses.  Instead they have relied upon other



    statutes or regulatory programs, and inconclusive incidents



    of "harm" to conclude that the wastes listed "pose a substantial



    present or potential hazard to human health or the environment."



          Under the proposal being advanced by the Agency in



    Section 3001, the  definition section, most, if not all, of the



    petroleum industry's wastes will be designated as hazardous.



    Our industry, like many others will then be forced to comply



    with a series of preordained, costly compliance standards which



    do not differentiate degrees or types of hazard posed by these

-------
                                                            74
wastes.



      The overly broad designation scheme which  EPA has




proposed results at least in part from the Agency's failure



to consider seriously other factors bearing on hazard determi-




nations such as degradability, persistence, dose and probability




of exposure.  For example, exposure considerations  are necessar]




to determine which wastes "significantly contribute to an




increase in mortality and pose a substantial hazard to human




health."



      Section 3001 EPA has:



      Identified a group of characteristics  (i.e.,  toxicity,




      corrosivity, ignitability and reactivity)  to  determine




      whether a waste is hazardous;




      Prescribed a series of tests to determine  whether a




      waste possesses these characteristics;



      Listed a series of wastes which they claim possess some




      or all of these characteristics and then others for




      which tests have not been prescribed  (eg.  mutagenicity,



      teratogenicity.)




      We cannot determine whether the wastes which  are listed




have  failed any of the prescribed test nor any other test for




characteristics for which tests have not been described.  Finall




test  results for the purpose of determining whether a waste is




hazardous are not used to establish a differentiated degree of



risk.  The. disregard for degree of risk stems from  a conceptual

-------
                                                          75






flaw, which is that the proposed regulations do not consider




exposure.




      In light of these criticisms, we feel it is incumbent



on us .{the industry) to offer positive suggestions for correcting




the deficiencies we have identified. For that reason, I'd like




to spend a few moments describing some of the critical elements




of alternative approaches to hazardous waste regulations.  We




are continuing to refine these alternatives as the March 16




deadline approaches so I can only speak generally today.



      In broad terms, the API alternative deoends on a risk




assessment approach to regulation.  Our risk assessment proced-




ures provide in the first phase for a ranking of potentially




hazardous wastes according to chemical and toxicoloerical risk.




Rather than a simplistic hazard/no hazard designation, API




proposes to distinguish more carefully among wastes of widely



varying hazard.  We believe our approach more fully exploits




the results of testing by taking into account all of the



information generated by the prescribed series of tests, in




order to differentiate among degrees of risk.  As currently




proposed EPA uses the tests only to determine whether a waste




passes or fails a hazardous/not hazardous determination.




      In the second phase of our alternative EPA would combine




what I will call exposure factors with first phase results.




By exposure factors I mean particular site, operational, and




management factors.  Our objective in this phase is to overcome

-------
EPA'e across-the-board application of the 10-fold dilution



factor as a substitute for adequate exposure analysis.  We



intend to develop and justify a system that provides  for varyin



exposure factors.  Additionally, we intend that this  type of



exposure analysis will be utilized for all wastes whether they



are listed or not.



      Under the API scheme, once the overall hazard assessment



is complete, EPA would tailor the regulatory requirements to



the degree of hazard.  In other words, just as API proposes



a scale for hazard assessment, we also envision a system that



varies the stringency of regulatory requirements according



to the degree of hazard.



      In addition, to the overall risk assessment approach API



will also propose a procedural adjustment to EPA's listing



process that overcomes the problems discussed earlier.



      To correct these problems API suggests that EPA clearly



identify the criteria and scientific data that were used in



the listing process heretofore.  Further, API recommends that



the initial listing of wastes be a presumptive listing, with



an opportunity for public comment.  During the comment period,



industry would have the opportunity to supply the Agency with



information that might rebut this oresumption.



      We appreciate the opportunity to offer our views in



this forum and we will be working diligently in the next week



to more fully develop the ideas I've discussed this morning.

-------
                                                           77






We are prepared at this time to answer any questions the




panel may have.  Thank you.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much Mr. Runion.




Hill you and the people who have accompanied you accept questions




from the panel?



            MR. RUNION:  Yes.




            MR. CORSON:  I have one question about your last




statement/ Mr. Runion.  You indicate that you recommend the




initial listing be a presumptive listing with the opportunity




for public comment.  I am wondering what you envision different




then what that list currently is, which is a listing for




public comment.



            MR. RONION:  We do not understand all the parameters




surrounding the decision that was made by EPA, and in selecting



the various materials that happen to wind up on that list.



So to be able to address ourselves to subsequent questions we




suggested that.



            MR. CORSON:  One other question.  I am just wonder-




ing, does your risk assessment look at waste individually?




Does it also provide a mechanism?  I am looking forward to




seeing that with great anticipation.  Does it also provide




some means for adding the risk of several waste or is that




part of the exposure model?



            MR. RUNION:  I can't get into the nuts and bolts




of this because in fact, all the nuts have not been put on the

-------
                                                            78






bolts, but essentially, we have three general categories




here.  One is you have the physical chemical properties or




characteristics.  Some material expose with greater ease and




greater, movement,, if you wish, then others, and the same thing




in all these other categories.  One must look at the matrix




of the physical chemical properties, then the biological.




Then looking at all these factors, come up with some decision




as to what the net risks will be.  And part of the concern



that you speak of inescapably then filters into this.  None




of us have the answers to all the questions about synergism




and so forth that come to mind.



            MR. LINDSEY:  I am a little troubled, and I am havii




a little trouble following you through that.  Apparently then




the approach which you are going to propose will include




classes of waste based on some hazard level as the point some




things exclude more readily than others, then that will be




coupled on a case-by-case basis presumably with how the waste




how in fact handled; is that correct?




            MR. RUNION:  You have to look, not only at the




potential of the waste, but you have to, in both respects,




chemical and biological.  You have to look at it in light of




where it is setting, where it is in relation to people, how




it is being managed and so forth, and then you come up with



a bottom line assessment of risk.




            MR. LINDSEY:  The way, as I read the Act that is

-------
                                                           79
set up, is for Section 3001 to decide that there should be




potential harm, and then the individual case-by-case analysis




of risk proposed is handled under the regulation, under 3004,




and then, of course, the permitting requirement that go along




with that.




            MR. RUMION:  As we have evolved our thoughts, we



recognize that.




            MR. LINDSEYi  It doesn't seem fit.




            MR. RONION:  It does it if you look at it from a




total system approach.  It is just the way you have your




regulations written down.  You have to reshape your approach




a little bit, but if you really want to deal with this problem




as a total system problem, then you simply have to rearrange




some of the way that the text of your regulations came out.




            MR. LINDSEY:  It is a big complex operation.




            MR. RONION:  This is a complex problem and complex




problem, as we both know, don't have easy answers.




            MR. LINDSEY:  I will be looking forward to whether




or not you can characterize it.




            MR. RONION:  We will do our very best.  We are




trying to be helpful.  We really are.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Runion, I have a question about




the first part of your proposed scheme.  This is concerning




the ranking in terms of chemical toxicological risk.  Now, this



implies, as I' understand it, any scheme based on that approach,

-------
                                                           80





implies a fairly rigorous chemical evaluation of  the waste for




its constituent followed by an evaluation of the  chemical  and




toxioological evaluation of those  iska.  This implies  a barely




substantial testing cost to do this as opposed to the approach




we were going on.  So it appears to me that we have  a tradeoff




situation here where you are talking about substantial  increase




in the testing cost over what we have proposed.   Would  you




care to comment on that?




            MR. STEVE SWANSON:  I am Steve Swanson and  I am a




member of the API staff.  First of all, I think that one of




the things we tried to make clear in Mr. Runion's statement




was that EPA is not using the results of the tests they have




already prescribed.  So in one sense, you can talk about a




leachate containing some quantity of "X", and the way you se




up 3001,, you have made it a dichotomy determination, it is




hazardous or not hazardous.  So we are saying you can use




the results of tests already prescribed within 3001  to  make




a finer determination of the degree of risk.  It  does not




necessarily imply that you do further testing, that  is, further




in terms of most sophisticated testing.  However, we also oointi




out that the listing of the substance should be rebuttable




resumption, so therefore, if industry choses to attempt to




rebut  that presumption, based oh whatever procedure it wishe*




to follow, there should be that opportunity to rebutt the



presumptions.

-------
                                                                81





                 MR.  LEHMAN:  The way I understand the Act la




     structured,  you  have that opportunity at the present tine




     through Section  250.15, the non-inclusion section, plus the




     section 7002, with respect to petition.




 5               MR.  SWANSON:  You want me to respond to that?




 6               MR.  LEHMAN:  Yes.




 7               MR.  SWANSON:  it seems to me that the path one




     takes,  and I think we have to 90 back to what- Mr. Runion




     said, we don't have all the details down at this point.  We



10   are really trying to make some broad generalization.  I don't




H   think the path to rebut . or a presumption is very clear.



12 '              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Our




13   next speaker is  Mr. Kenneth Ladd of the Utility Solid Waste




14   Activities Group.



15               MR.  KENNETH LADD:  Good morning.  My name is Kenneth




16   Ladd.   I an employed as Senior Environmentalist by the Southwestern




17   Public  Service Company of Amarillo, Texas.  I am also Chairman




18   of the  Resources Recovery & Utilization Technical Committee




19   of the  Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG") . and am




20   appearing today  on behalf of USWAG and the Edison Electric




21   Institute.



          For those  of you not familiar with USWAG, let me




23   briefly describe the group.  USWAG is an informal consortium




24   of electric utilities and the Edison Electric Institute.




25   Currently, over  70 utility operating companies are participants

-------
                                                            82






in USWAG.  These companies own and operate a substantial




percentage of the electric generation capacity *» the  United




States.  EEI is the principal national association of investor-




owned electric light and power companies.




      The Technical Committee that I chair focuses on issues




relating to the reuse of utility by-products, including fly




ash, bottom ash, scrubber sludge, and boiler slag,  Encoura<




of these reuses is both environmentally and economically




significant.  For example, at Southwestern Public Service




Company — a relatively small utility — we generate  400 tons




a day of ash.  If reuse were impossible, we would  be required




to spend — even without RCRA subtitle C requirements — twenty




to forty dollars per ton to dispose of this ash, and  to dedicate




many acres to this purpose.  Fortunately, however, all of this




ash is marketable in our area, and, although we do not makeaa




profit on its sale, we have substantially lowered our "disposal



costs.




       (I might note parenthetically at this point that we



occasionally find it necessary to accumulate ash for  considerab:




periods of time in order to have enough to make marketing




feasible.  This fact seems to have been ignored by Et»A in its




arbitrary proposal of a ninety day cutoff to distinguish when




a person accumulating waste on-site engages in  "storage* and



becomes a TSDP.  At least as to utility by-products,  this




period is totally inappropriate, and would certainly  impede

-------
                                                           83





our resource recovery efforts if implemented.)




      As I mentioned a moment ago, Southwestern Public Service's




activities represent only a small portion of the reuse of




utility by-products.  Reuses have been growing remarkably over




the last ten years.  In 1966, 3.1 million tons of fly ash, bottofn




ash and 8lag were reused; in 1977, this figure had increased




to 14 million tons.




      This represents an increase of from three percent of-the




total material generated to 20.7 percent.  This increase in




reuse has largely been possible because, after great effort,




we have managed to see major, recognized specifications for



concrete products and similar materials revised to allow use




of ash.  This effort has greatly benefited from strong




endorsements of the use of ash from the Federal Highway




Administration, the Army Corpos of Engineers, the Bureau of




Mines, and other Federal and State government agencies.




      Besides the replacement additive for concrete, there




are numerous other uses that have to do with fillers and plastic^



road base, material additives to manufacturing processes,




aggregate, highway icincr control, sheetrock and a number of




other types of reuses that these utility .by-products are used




for.



      I understand that in a number of orevious hearings on




these proposed RCRA regulations, members of the panel have




asked why the utility industry is concerned with the Subtitle

-------
                                                             84






C regulations.  It has been suggested by the panel  that there




is no reason to believe that fly ash and other utility  by-




products are "hazardous", and thus regulated under  these rules,




and that therefore the utility industry should not  be concerned




But let me indicate today one important reason why  we are




concerned:  the proposed regulations on their face  presume




the hazardousness of utility by-products, and have  hung a




label of "hazardous" on them, and thus may severely limit or




even eliminate the reuse of these materials.




      For example, in the preamble to the proposed  regulations,




EPA presupposes the "hazardousness" of fly ash.  The preamble




states that "the Agency  (has) realized that some portions of




certain high volume wastes" — including utility wastes —




"Will be hazardous under Subpart A,"  and continues.  "The




Agency is calling these high volume hazardous waste "special




waste",. . ."(pp. 58991-92).  In short, the EPA is  assuming




that large volumes of fly ash are "hazardous".




      In addition, the proposed interim regulations for utility




wastes are buried in the regulations implementing "section




3004" of RCRA — which regulations apply only to "hazardous




waste."  Again, EPA seems to be endorsing the conclusion that



utility by-products are hazardous, rather then simply indicating




it isn't sure about these materials.




      (We hasten to note that we strongly believe that  the



Agency in fact has no basis for concern with regard to  utility

-------
                                                           85






wastes, which, we submit, constitutes no substantial threat




to human health or the environment whether reused or disposed




of.)




      The result of these proposed regulations is to hang a




public label of "hazardous" on fly ash and other utility by-




products.  This will have a number of inappropriate effects.




First, it will substantially 1 imit the market for these




materials:  one simply cannot expect a home owner to be willing




to use "non-spec readi-mix concrete" in the foundation for his




new home after EPA has labeled a major constituent of the



readi-mix as "hazardous."  Second, it will deter development



of new uses for utility by-products, despite considerable




promising R&D work.  Third, it will deter many potential customers




from even considering the substitution of ash for virgin or



alternative materials, in order to avoid the nighmare of




paperwork that is likely to result under RCRA.




      This paperwork problem is an important one.  When we



try to develop markets for fly ash and bottom ash, we are




competing with other, locally-available products, including,




in some cases, dirt.  We do not have any substantial price




advantage over these alternative products.  Thus, every




additional penny per ton cost that is added to ash, and every




extra regulatory complication, decreases the potential reuse




of this material.



      We believe this result directly contradicts the intent

-------
 1



 2




 3



 4



 5



 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 86
of Congress in enacting RCRA, which was, after all,  to promote



resource conservation and recovery.



      Of course, there HTM substantial regional variations  in



costs of reusing utility by-products.  For example,  a major



element in ash marketing costs are transportation costs.  For



this reason, we strongly object to the portions- of the prooosed



Section 3003 regulations that would require  shipment of fly



ash in specially-designed and placarded vehicles.  There simply



is no need for this.  There generally isn't  even a need for



tarps on top of dump trucks carrying ash, since once wetted,



the ash does not create dust or cause any other environmental



problem.



      Ladies and Gentlemen, there is an enormous potential



market for fly ash and other utility by-products in  the United



States.  Speaking in Atlanta, Georgia, on February 26,  1979,



Ms. Penelope Hanson of the EPA cited figures that indicated



that the reuse of fly ash in federally-sponsored concrete



construction could save tax-payers ten to fifteen percent of



the cost of those projects.  She also indicated that a twenty



percent use of fly ash in cement would result in a fifteen



percent savings in the amount of energy used to produce that



cement.  As a result, a different division of EPA than the



one holding this hearing has put fifty percent of its effort



in developing regulations to promote the use of ash  in Federal



construction.  Yet these policies will be substantially underrt

-------
                                                           87





by the regulations now proposed under Subtitle C of RCRA.



      USWAG will file detailed comments with EPA that will




set forth a number of alternatives to the arbitrary approach




to implementation of RCRA reflected in these proposed regula-




tions.  Le me just summarize a few of our suggestions today:




      Firsti EPA should adopt an appropriate method td define




"hazardous waste,"  based on a recognition that only discarded




materials are wastes, and reflecting realistic consideration




of the actual environmental impacts from disposal of wastes.




      Second, EPA should include in its proposed regulations




a "commercial product standard" that will allow use of




recovered materials in place of virgin materials, if the




recovered materials have no significantly different impact on



the environment than the virgin materials, and that will not




subject the reused materials to any regulatory requirements.




      Third, if EPA concludes that it cannot vet make a




decision as to whether some utility waste products may be




hazardous in some situations, EPA should adopt only such




regulations as are necessary to keep track of utility waste




disposal — at the least possible economic and operational




impact — until the Agency's concerns have been factually




addressed.  The Agency should set forth these regulations in




a subpart of regulations that clearly establishes that no




decision has yet been reached as to the "hazardousness" of




utility wastes, and should assure that no steps are taken in

-------
                                                             88






the interim period, before completion of any review of utility




waste disposal, that will interfere with the marketing and




reuse of environmentally innocuous fly ash, bottom ash, and




other utility by-products.




      I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning, and




would be happy to answer your questions to the extent I am able




      Thank you.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Ladd, for the benefit of the




audience, I think it is fair to say, we have heard essentially




the same presentation in three previous hearings, and rather




than respond at each one, and rather than take the time to do




that here, I think we will -Just pass.



            MR. LADD:  Real fine.  We appreciate it again.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Our




next speaker will be Mr. Richard H. Dreith.




            MR. RICHARD H. DREITH:  My name is Richard H.




Dreith, I am a Staff Engineer in the Environmental Affairs




Department of the Shell Oil Company.  Shell Oil and its



Divisions are pleased to comment on the proposed 'Hazardous




Waste Guidelines and Regulations* appearing in the December




18, 1978 "Federal REgister".  Shell Oil Company is an integrate!




oil company involved in oil and gas production, refining,




chemical manufacturing, transportation, marketing, and raining




activities.  We have facilities for producing, transporting,




manufacturing and marketing of Shell oroducts in forty-four

-------
                                                               89





    of our fifty states.  Activities of our subsidiaries are



    involved with products that range from agricultural chemicals




_   to plastics.  Because of our wide range of activities nationally




 .   we are vitally interested in the development of workable nations



 ,   solid and hazardous waste guidelines and regulations.




          Scope of Shell Comments




          We have participated with the Agency in commenting on




    drafts and proposals throughout the solid waste regulation




    development process.  We are also participating in the preparati




    of comments and recommendations to be submitted by the.American




    Institute and the Manufacturing Chemists Association and other




    industrial associations relating to the December 18, 1978 draft




    of the regulation.  We support the submittals of the API and



    MCA as representing certain general and specific concerns




    held by Shell.  We wish, however, to offer the following




    additional comments and recommendations summarizing Shell's




    views on the proposed hazardous waste regulations.



          Corporate Policy, RCRA and Existing State Programs.




          Our corporation's written public policies state that we



    will strive to attain environmentally acceptable disposal




    techniques for all of our wastes.  In our view Shell's commitmen




    to achieving environmentally acceptable disposal methods is




    consistent with our understanding of the legislative intent




    to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as it




    applies to waste disoosal.

-------
                                                            90






      In addition, our activities  in Texas  and California




are subject to state hazardous waste management regulations.




These state programs are proving to be  effective in maintaining




acceptable control of hazardous waste activities consistent




with the intent of RCRA; therefore, we  support such state




programs.



      General Concern with Proposal Approach




      We have some concerns with specific issues that apoear to




permeate the proposed regulations  and would like to recommend




conceptual changes in the overall  approach  so that the regulati




will reflect more closely the mandate of  the federal iegi-slatio




      Suggest Following Path Similar to Air and Water Act




Implementation.




      Your overview comments state that reliance is olaced on




"waste specific standards versus industry specific standards".




Further, "EPA experts believe that most waste classified as




hazardous requires similar management techniques ... with




respect to performance, design and operating standards for




treatment, storage and disposal facilities".  We suggest a




much more site-specific and industrv-soecific approach to



standards is possible and workable.  Examples of present




performance standards are set forth below:   1)   The Clean Air




Act contains provisions which require that  air emissions




meet existing ambient air standards and establish new limits



where standards do not exist;  2)  Surface  runoff is addressed

-------
                                                          91






under the Clean Water Act; and 3) The Safe Drinking Water Act




when implemented will likely  contain standards relating to




subsurface leachate.  We are suggesting that, under these



existing Acts, waste disposal on and in the land would be



allowed to continue.




      Regulations under RCRA should recognize the assimulation




and retention capacities of soil to receive and retain contami-



nants and that the retention can be verified by monitoring




wells near the disposal site.  The allowable leachate quality




should depend'on site-specific performance standards which




accurately reflect the potential for inflicfe-ing harm to human




health and the environment based unon the specific geological



parameters of the particular site.




      A site-specific based regulatory scheme would need to




grant considerable discretionary authority to administer an




effective waste management program.  The effective use of



this discretionary authority has proven effective in the




implementation of the Clean Air And Water Acts and the Texas




Industrial Solid Waste Management program.  A similar approach




would be effective in administering a workable RCRA program.




      Burden of Proof of Compliance with Site-Specific




Standards, would rest with the Site Operator - Assuming site-




specific standards are established as disposal permit conditions




in order to more accurately reflect the potential for




contamination of usable aquifers, monitoring wells can ensure

-------
                                                           92

compliance with the site-specific leachate standards.  A
hydrogeological study of the area can be used to establish
monitoring well placement and the information obtained from
such wells can be used to check comoliance.  For existing
facilities we recommend that monitoring wells be allowed to
establish compliance with site-specific leachate quality stand-
ards, rather than requiring costly retrofitting of facilities
in order to meet rigid arbitrary liner thicknesses specified
to avoid any groundwater contamination.
      Guidelines for designing new facilities to meet essenti-
ally no contaminant release can specify a liner thickness to
maintain the integrity of the liner and thereby meet a perfoman^s
standard; however, for existing facilities the most oractical
approach is to recognize the contamination release potential
of the specific-site and require retrofitting only for those
facilities which cannot meet the performance standards.
      Suggested General Alterations to Proposal
      Tone is too rigid - While we recognize the "note"  systen
which suggests that "equivalency" to rigid engineering
standards can be demonstrated, we question the legality  and
workability of this approach and orooose a system similar to
that used in Texas be adopted.  The Texas system sets general
performance standards and provides guidelines to meet those
standards.
      In some instances literal comoliance with the proposed

-------
                                                            93





standards appears impossible; i. e. strict requirements of




proving a negative.  In addition, prohibiting wastes to be



stores or accumulated in certain facilities places in jeopardy




thft use of facilities considered acceptable in spill containment




plans called for under the Water Act.




      Hazardous Waste Definition is too Broad - The proposal




defines hazardous waste characteristics so broadly that




essentially all wastes generated in our industry will be




classified as hazardous waste.  We urge a concept of "degree




of hazard" be adooted along with a consistent degree of




environmentally secure disposal.  This approach would allow




greater flexibility in the classification of wastes and the




most effective use of disoosal capacity which may well




become or is the limiting factor in implementing waste manage-



ment programs.




      Specific Issues Summary - The attachments list additional




concerns expressed in summary form and directed to snecific



sections and paragraphs in the oroposed regulations.  A more




detailed presentation of these and other comments will be




discussed in statements submitted by the API and MCA.




      We offer these comments, suggestions and recommendations




with full recognition of the formidable task of promulgating




workable regulations.  The experience with development and



implementation of the air and water regulations and existing




state hazardous waste regulations yields confidence

-------
                                                            94


that the task can be accomplished.  Flexibility in meeting

performance standards coupled with discretionary authority

to allow a site-specific approach to compliance is the most

workable scheme without compromising environmentally sound

waste disposal.

      We look forward to continued involvement in the regulator]

development activity and trust that our participation is

constructive.

      Thank you.

            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Are

there questions?

            MR. BINDSEY:  Mr. Dreith, I have one.  You made

one statement that I just didn't understand.  You said that

some of the requirements which we have would not be possible

to meet.  And the term which you used in describing those
          /
was strict requirement of proving a negative.  Can you

translate that for me?

            MR. DREITH:  A waste can be placed on a hazard

classification, and the testing procedure to declassify are

not available.  So you are saddled with^ the difficulty of

declassifying a waste without the procedures available to

declassified waste.

            MR. LINDSEYs  In other words, the regulations

under 3001, 250.15 demonstrates a non-inclusion hazardous

waste system; which leaves out— in other words what you are

-------
                                                           95






saying, there is no method in here which allows something to




be delisted or certain things, to be delisted?




            MR. DREITH:  Yes, that is correct.




            MR. LINDSEY:  If you could point out which ones




of those kinds of things that are listed, which there is no




way of getting off the list, maybe that would enlighten us.



            MR. DREITH:  We are concerned about the accteptabilil




of testing procedures for it.




            MR. LINDSEY:  The procedures are not here?




            MR. DREITH:  But the acceptability of the procedures




to declassify waste.  Once it is on the hazardous waste list,




how you get the declassified item off and be legally comfortabl




that you have it in fact declassified.  That is a conceptual




statement and we hope the API approach will deal with that




also.  The MCA statements are also dealing with it in particular




            MR. LINDSEY:  The other point I would like to




bring out is, that you very strongly suggested a site-specific




regulatory scheme, which I might add, we endorse, because




basically that was the intent of the note system, which I think




you took cognizance of, and I gather you don't think that the




note system then is sufficiently flexible?




            MR. DREITH:  I use the term that we are concerned




about the legality and workability of that note system, and




I fall back on what we are familiar with, and in our operation




in Texas, and that is a set of regulations with guidelines,

-------
23
                           	96






and they are strictly guidelines, and there is no question




about the equivalency classification.



            MR. LINDSEY:  Let's follow through, if that is




practical.  One of the problems we had in designing these




things, and one of the original approaches we were going to




be using was, to try to set uo some sort, as you put it,




performance standards from maximum contamination of ground




water, for example, say drinking water standards at the fence




line.  We are unable to come up with a scheme ahead of time




which could be used to demonstrate by a company or by EPA or




anyone whether or not a facility would in fact meet that




criteria.  In other words, we could find no modeling scheme




along those lines that would allow those sort of things to



be done.




            MR. DREITH:  I think what I am saying is, that




the expertise that exists in the hydrogological community




can vouch for or discuss the hydrology of an area, the




likelihood that the waters will be used as drinking waters,




and parameters of that source, and with discretionary authority



of the administrator of the program to work out a workable




scheme for that particular site.  For example, if the waters




underneath the sites are on their way to a ship channel with




brakish water, it is inappropriate to protect the ground waters




for drinking water purposes.  It is thus inappropriate to




install significant liner thicknesses when that in fact is

-------
        	97





provable to the degree that hydrogology can prove something,




that water is moving in that direction.  Does that make sense?




            MR. LINDSEY:  That does.  That is the site




specific approacn.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I notice there is a gentleman




in the audience with a question.  Sir, if you have a question,




cquld you please write it on a piece of paper and bring it




up to the panel, or if you like to make a statement, please




register with our registration clerk.  Thank you.




            MR. CORSON:  Just one question, Mr.Dreith.  I




did notice in your statement that you made some comment that




support at least, operating under management programs in




Texas and California.  We heard something on the Texas program




this morning.  I guess my last review of the California program




indicates, that among other things, you do a chemical analysis




of the waste to determine whether or not there are those things




of a list of some 600 chemicals in a quantitative analysis,




that you get percentages of those waste for determining the




toxicity of the waste as the result of the concentration of




these toxic constituents.  I am wondering if you are advocating




that sort of an approach to assessing a degree of hazards as




opposed to what we have done as a threshold system within the




3001 note system, which provides for a broader discretionary



program.




            MR. DREITH:  As far as classifying a waste, I will

-------
                                                               98
     avoid it by saying,  that although all that approach is in
     the regulation,  that the workability and how the administrators
     of the program have applied that to the activity in the instate
     seems to be a workable program.  We have taken many materials
     and classified them as hazardous knowing full well that they
     are not hazardous, and so I will say we have dodged the analysi
7    and have chosen to take the cautious way out, and a material
8    that I will use as an example, cracking catalyst that we
     have data in the industry that the leachability of the heavy
10    metals of that material is quite low, or non-existence.  Howevei
11    it is fine, and we have chose to let it go out as a hazardous
"    waste.  That has been the conservative Shell approach, and
13    we find it workable and acceotable.
14                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  I
15    understand that Dr. Carl Johnson is now present.  Could he
16   please come forward to the lectern.
17               DR. CARL J. JOHNSON.  I wish to thank the panel
18   for allowing me to speak.
19         In reviewing the Federal Register in the outline of the
20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
proposal for hazardous waste, I note that one group of
characteristics contains radioactive items.  I have some intere
in what further details or guidelines are being developed in
relation tp this property of many hazardous waste, namely,
the property of radioactivity.  This is of some importance
because one of the principal constituents of waste from the

-------
                                                           99
nuclear industry is Plutonium.




      A large area of land, primarily to the east and south-




east of the Rocky Flats olant in Jefferson County, Colorado



is contaminated with plutonium  (1-3).  Concentrations in the




respirable dust on the surface of the soil on private land



offsite range as high as 3390 times the background from




fallout due to weapons testing.  Plutonium-239 is the predominan




isotope, but the 238, 240 and 241 isotopes are also present.




Americium 241 is an additional contaminant, and cesium 137



is present in concentrations as high as 83 disintegrations




per minute per gram  (dpm/g) 5.5 kilometers downwind from the




.plant in the surface respirable dust, 17 times greater than in



similar samples collected from other parts of the state.




Uranium has been released by the open burning of over 1,000




barrels of lathe oil used to mill uranium metal.




      In addition to the routine release of plutonium particles




in the exhaust nlumes from plant stacks that began in 1953,




there have been other emissions of plutonium offsite on a




number of occasions, including ma-Jor fires in 1957 and 1969; an<




accidental releases of plutonium to the air in 1968 and in




April of 1974.  Recorded concentrations of plutonium in air




leaving the main exhaust stack of the plant ranged as high




as 948 pieocuries/M3 (pCi/M X, recorded eight days after the




fire in 1957, which burned out the filter system.  This




concentration is about 19,000 times the present United States

-------
                                                           100



Department of Energy guidelines for maximum permissible stack

emissions  (0.05 pCi/M3), and represents the equivalent of

124 million 5 micrometer oarticles of plutonium oxide released,

exceeding federal standards for a fifty year period in a

single day.  There are no records of emissions for the eight

days period during or immediately after the fire.  In the

year after the 1957 fire, the average concentration of

Plutonium in the stack exhaust was 2.18 plcocuries/M3, and

later the average annual concentration was as high as 2.33

pCi/M^ for 1962.  In recent years smaller amounts are being


released, due to an improved filtration system, although

one air sampler on site continued to show 100 to 600 times
                \
the monthly surface air concentration of Plutonium found in

New York City.  Much of the plutonium now present offsite

became airborne between 1964 and 1970 from a spill of lathe

oil containing metal millings of plutonium leaking from

several thousand corroded barrels stored outside at the plant

site.

      Contamination of the large Arapahoe aquifer with nlutoniffl

levels of 2.5 picocuries uer liter (pCi/L) has been reported

as has the contamination of a stream. Walnut Creek  (maximum

recorded level of 209 pCi/L), draining into the Great Western

Reservoir serving the city of Broomfield, which at times has

elevated levels of plutonium (as high as 2.29 pCi/t) in the

"finished water" used in homes.  A recent report confirms

-------
                                                           101



that plutonium dn chlorinated finished water is in the Pu


VI form, rather than the Pu IV form, considered in setting


maximum permissible limits for plutonium in finished water

            •
(1600 pCi/L).  'Animal experiments demonstrate an uptake of


Plutonium from chlorinated drinking water 1570 times greater


than previously thought, as measured by deposits of plutonium


in bone and liver.


      Part of the contaminated area is now utilized for


residential development and extensive further development
       ?
ia planned, which could result in an increase in population


of, the contaminated area by as much as 100,000 people.  There


ia .conmunity concern regarding nossible health effects for


populations living in this area and for the safety of further


residential development near the plant.


      No health effects have been demonstrated previously


for residents of areas contaminated with plutonium.  Based


on work with experimental animals, the effects of low levels


of plutonium on man are thought to include leukemia, neoplasms


of bone, lung, and liver, and genetic injury.  Lymphocyte


chromosome aberrations in plutonium workers have been found


to exceed those of controls in the lowest exposure group


(1-H)%'maximum permissible body burden of olutonium).  Myers


has pointed out that the trachiobronchial lymph nodes could be


considered as a critical organ for inhalation exposure to


Plutonium and, if this were done, a maximum permissible pulmonary

-------
                        	102





dose for insoluble plutonium of 67  picocuries (pCi) could b«



recommended.  Morgan, by  an entirely different approach,  has




also recommended a^maximum allowable does that is similar to




that proposed by Myers.   Inhalation and retention of two




particles of plutonium  oxide of reapirable size (5 micrometers)




would exceed this dose.




      Preliminary epidemiological evaluations of lung cancer




and leukemia death rates  in census  tract areas with measured




concentrations of plutonium (figure 1), indicated that rates




were significantly higher near the  Rocky Plats plant.




Method.




      In order to confirm earlier risk  estimates for health




effects from low concentrations of  plutonium in the environment




and ttie preliminary work with death  rates from leukemia and




lung cancer in persons  living in census tracts with measured




levels of plutonium contamination,  cancer incidence data was




required by census tract  from the Third National Cancer Survey




(1969-1971).  The census  tract data has not been published,




but is available ,in computer storage.   The request was made on




August 5, 1977 and the  data became  available on February 6,




1979.




      The cancer incidence data was evaluated with the same



approach utilized to evaluate lung  cancer and leukemia death




rates (figure 1).  Cancer  incidence rates for each of the 46




separate cancer sites were reported according to levels of

-------
                                                            103
soil plutonium concentration, selecting census tracts within




the appropriate concentration isopleths.  Areas were ranked



according to decreasing levels of plutonium concentrations.




      The position of the concentration isopleths of plutonium




in the soil is indicated in figure 1.  The 0.8 mCiAm2 isopleth



does not appear in Figure 1.  The area between the 1.3 and the




0.3, isopleths was divided approximately midway, following




census tract boundaries (listed in Table 1).  The area within




the concentration range 50-1.3 mixlicuries per square kilometer




(mCi/km ) lies between 2 and 10 miles in distance from the




center of the Rocky Plats nlant site along the principal




wind vector (Figure 2).  The area between isopleths 1.3 to



0.8 mCi/km^ extends from 10 to about 13 miles, the 0.8 to 0.3




mCi/km2 area, from 13 to 18 miles and the 0.3 to 0.2 mCi/km2




area, from 18 to 24 miles from the center of the plant site.




The area outside the last isopleth was utilized as a central




populations comprising the remainder of the Denver Standard




Metropolitan Statistical Area (population 423,866).  Population:




of the study areas are (proceeding from the plant) respectively




4fi,,!857 for area la, 107,313 for area Ib. 194,190 for area II



and 246,905 for area III.   This study represents a 100 percent




sample of a population of 1,019,131 people over a three year




period.




      The levels of plutonium contamination found in the soil




in these areas may be compared to some of the current standards

-------
                                                            104





establishing maximum permissible  contamination concentrations




for areas that provide risks of human exposure.  Only a Russian




standard of 2 millicuries per  square  kilometer (mCi/km2, 100th




of the proposed O. S. Environmental Protection Agency guideline




of 200 mCi/km2 for plutonium in residential  areas,  is in the




same order as the concentrations  of plutonium in three of the




areas studied (Table 2).  Although the isopleth values are




in mCi/Rm2, these are also expressed  in terms of disintegration!




of plutonium per minute per square centimeter or per  gram of




dry soil.  A comparison of units  in common usage to express




soil contamination with plutonium is  given in Table 3.




      The contamination of soil with  plutonium is not the only




source of exposure.  Particulate  plutonium which has  been




released,in exhaust emissions  from the smoke stacks at the




Rocky Flats plant since 1953 are  in large .in the orders of size




smaller than 1 micron.  These  particles are  smaller than many




viruses, and do not settle out to cause appreciable soil




contamination but may be inhaled  by persons  who are in the



exhaust plumes from the plant, no matter how great  the distance




Soil contamination does give some indication as to  the predomia *




direction of these plumes.  A  third route of exposure may be



through the water.




      While the incidence rates of cancer in the more highly




contaminated area near the plant  is of considerable interest,




the population there in the years  studied (1969-1971)  is small

-------
                                                           105
and also is the result of a rapid rate of development and




in-migration.  This results in many persons having an




insufficient exposure to pexmit the expression of increased




rates of cancer because of the long latent period for most




neoplasms, i.e. two to seven years or more for leukemia, seven




to 30 or 40 years for bone cancer.  Although the plant has



bean releasing plutonium to the environment since 1953, any



effect on cancer rates would be more likely to be noticed in




the larger population areas with lower rates of in-migration.




For this reason the 50-1.3 mCi/km  isopleth area was combined




with the 1.3-0.8 isopleth area to form Area I for the comoarison




with the areas of lesser concentration and the control populatio i



      Expected numbers of cancer cases in each category of




age, sex, and exposure status were derived from age-standardizec




rates for all of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area




(SHSA) for comparison with the actual cases observed.  Because




of the higher rates of cancer observed (see results) in each




of the contaminated areas, the number of expected cases of




cancer were predominantly higher than actually observed in




the unexposed population.  Because of this problem, a more




valid comparison must be made with the actual incidence rates




(age-adjusted)  found in the unexposed population.  The




"expected cases" figures in the tables are actually higher




than would be expected from incidence rates in the unexposed




population, in most cases.  Risk rates for neoolasms in each

-------
                                                             106






category are calculated by both methods, but the X2  and probabil ty




values are computed with the number of cases in each category




arid the risk ratio compared to the unexposed peculation.




Results and Comment.




      The relationship between soil levels of Plutonium and




the total Anglo incidence of neoplasms for the 46 categories




of cancer listed in the Third National Cancer Survey are




shown in Table.4.  The control area  (Area IV) consisting of




the Denver S.M.S.A. outside the isopleths of contamination




shown in figure 1, comprised some 423,866 people. There appeared




to be a direct association between concentrations of plutonium




in the soil and the risk ratio for cancer, for Anglo males




and females and for both seses combined.  The risk ratio




increases in each case with greater soil concentrations of




plutonium.  The exception is the small population nearest the




plant, which because of the small numbers, rapid development




and influx of new residents, probably has an average period



of exposure much less than the areas more distant, which include




much of Denver.  These differences are highly significant




when compared to the control population.  Compared to  the




control area outside the isopleths there is an excess  rate




for cancer of 8 percent in men in Area III, most distant




from the plant  (extending as far as 24 miles downwind), 15 per-




cent in Area II, nearer to the plant, and finally, a rate




of 24 percent higher in Area 1, which includes the plant and

-------
                                                               107
    extends to the 0.8 mCi/km2 isopleth, located approximately 13




    miles downwind from the plant.  The corresponding values for




    Anglo females are +4%, +5% and +10%, and for men and women




4   combined, +6%, +10« and +16% for the three year period 1969-




5   1971).  The higher values are statistically significant




     (p
-------
                                                            108






were compared to the unexposed population of 423,806 persons




over a three year period  (1969-1971).   There was a higher




rate of lung and bronchial cancer in the  contaminated area




for men, with a risk ratio of 1.1 compared to the expected




rate (calculated from standarized rates for the S.M.S.A.),




and 1.3 compared to the control, area (X =2.68), but not  for




women.   There were higher rates for  neoplasms of the nasopharynx




and larynx for men and women in the  contaminated area.   This




finding was also reported by Mason and  McKay.  The rate  for




men was of borderline significance compared to the control




area.




      There was a significantly higher  rate of leukemia  among




men  (X^=5.88).  The rates were higher for women in the




contaminated area but the difference was  not significant




statistically.




      Neoplasms of the testis could  be  expected because  of




the demonstrated propensity of plutonium  to concentrate




in this organ.  Rates were higher than  expected in the




contaminated area, and when compared to the control area,




which had a somewhat lower rate than expected,  the difference




was significant (X2=8.90).  Neoplasms of  the ovary were  also



higher than in the control area but  in  this comparison,  the




difference was not great enough to be statistically significant




      Neoplasms of the liver, gall bladder and ."other biliary"




were higher in males but not in females.   The difference for

-------
                                                            109





the males in this comparison was not significant (X2= 2.90).




The rates for cancer of the pancreas were higher in females




but not in mafes.  Again the difference in this comparison



was not significant (X2= 2.40).




      Rates of neoplasms of the stomach were higher in men,




but not in women.  The difference in this comparison was not




significant (X2;2.25).  Rates of neoplasms of the colon and




rectum however, were much higher for both men and women than




for those in the control area (158 cases expected,  203 cases




found, X2=12.86 for men and 6.61 for women).  The rates




compared to those of the unexnosed population were  a highly




significant statistically.  Rates of other types" of gastro-




enteric neoplasms were not significantly higher.




      Neoplasms of the brain and other nervous system




neoplasms were higher in men but not in women.  The difference



was not signifcant, because of the low frequency.




      There was no evidence of elevated rates of neoplasms of




the bone.  This could reflect a longer latent period required




for such tumors to develop.  A higher rate of cancer of the




thyroid was found in women (18 cases exoected, 24 cases found).




The difference was not significant (X2-2.88).  Neoplasms of




the breast were higher in both men and women than in the




control population, but not significantly so.  This same was




true for other types of miscellaneous  neoplasms.



      In Table 7, neoplasms of nine sites are further investigatjed.

-------
                                                            110





Isopleth areas are combined to assist in removing  non-uniformity




in rates of neoplasms of low frequency and  to  examine  the total




rates of neoplasms with higher frequency compared  to the cancer




incidence rates in the control population.   The  incidence of




cancer of the lung and bronchus in the combined  isopleth




area 50-0.3 mCi/tan2  (a 1970 population of 348,360  in an area




extending as far downwind as 18 miles from  the olant)  over the




three year period, 1969-1971, was much higher  than that in




the unexposed area (1970 population 423,866).  This difference




was very significant  (X2;38.44).  When the  entire  area of




Plutonium contamination within all the isopleths (a 1970




population of 595,226 in an area extending  as  far  as 24 miles




downwind from the plant) is compared to the population in the




unexposed area  (1970 nopulation of 423,866)  the  difference




persists, with 497 cases found, 462 exnected.  Because of the




lower-than-expected rates found in the unexposed copulation,




the X2 again is large, 33.93.




      Cancer of the testis for the combined isopleth area,




50-0.3 mCi/km2 was also higher than expected (18 neonlasms




expected, 25 cases found, X2=20.98 compared to the control




population).  The difference was even more  significant when




the total area of contamination was compared to  the unexposed




population (30 cases expected 40 cases found,  X2-31.12 compared



to the control population.)  The same comparisons  made for



neoplasms of the ovary in the entire area of contamination also

-------
                                                            Ill





revealed a significant difference (X2 of 3.80 in the 50-0.3



mCi/km2 area, and 7.51 in the-50-0.2 mCi/km2 area, compared to



the unexposed population.)



      Neoplasms of the liver were higher in the 50-0.3 mCi/km2



area for men compared to the expected rates and for both men



and women compared to the unexposed copulation.  The higher



rates were significant when the total area (50-0.2 mCi/tan2)



was compared to the control population because of the low rates



in the unexposed population.



      Interestingly, cancer incidence rates for tongue,



pharynx and esophagus were significantly higher for both men



and women in both areas conroared to the unexnosed population.



Neoplasms of bones and joints were not significantly different,



nor were the rates for thyroid neoplasms, except for women



in the 50-0.3 cMi/km2 area  (X2=5.36).



      In summary, an analysis of cancer incidence rates over



a three period (1969-1971) found significantly higher total



rates of all neoplasms in the area contaminated with Plutonium,



compared to the unexposed area.  In general, .the higher rates



appeared to have a direct relationship with increasing levels



of plutonium soil contamination.  Thatis, in areas with higher



concentrations of plutonium-in soil- higher incidence rates of



cancer were found.  The excess rates.were as much as 24 percent



higher for men in the 'contaminated area as in the unexpoaed



area.  The rates were higher for women, also, about ten percent

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
                                                             112





higher than for women in the unexoosed  area.



      Sites of cancer most responsible  forthe.increase in




total rates are neoplasms of the  lung and  bronchus,  colon and




rectum, leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma  in  men,  neoplasms  of




the tongue, pharynx, esoohagus, stomach, liver, and  the thyroid




in women.  Neoplasms in sites such as the  brain and  pancreas wer




slightly elevated but rates were-too low to be  significant.  An
 8  observation of  special  concern are the higher rates of neoplasms




 9  of testis and ovary in  the contaminated area.  This corroborates




10  an observation  by Mason and McKay in their investigation of




11  death rates from cancer in the oeriod 1950-1969 (25).




12        These findings indicate the importance of continuing




13  complete surveillance of cancer incidence and death rates in




14  this area.  Some types  of tumors, such as those in bones, have




15  long latent periods before development.  A long period of



16  surveillance is necessary to monitor late effects in this




17  population and  the  investigation should be extended.  A grant




18  application has been filed with the National Cancer Institute



19  to carry out such a study.




20        It is important that a thorough investigation be conducted




21  to determine the adequacy of the filtration system presently




22  in use at the plant,  to determine if sub-micron particles of



23  Plutonium and other nuclides listed in the Rocky Plats Bnviron-




24  mental Impact Statement are not being released in much larger



25  quantities than is  being measured.   This is of soecial concern

-------
                                                            113






in view of plans to markedly increase the operations at the




plant.  Definitive actions should be taken by responsible




agencies to minimize health effects from exposure to low levels




of plutonium, including the establishment by the E.P.A. of




a much more conservative guideline for plutonium contamination




of soil.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Dr. Johnson, I would just




like to interi'uwt you for a moment.  We have had some discussion



up here on the panel, and we are not sure, based on what




you have said so far, that the kind of waste that you are




talking about is even regulatable under RCRA.



            DR. JOHNSON:  Because it is Federal?




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  No, because of the definition




of solid waste, which states that a solid waste is not a



source, especially nuclear or the by-product' material as




defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.  The material that




you are talking about, does that fall into that category?




            DR. JOHNSON:  Source material?  Could you define




that for me?




            MR. LINDSEY:  As we understand the kinds of waste,




the only types of radioactive waste which are even coverable




under RCRA are naturally occurring waste, such as naturally




occurring materials which become waste, such as overburden




and things of that nature.  If they are radioactive, such




things as phosphate slime pits and things like that would be

-------
                                                                 114





     regulatable if we chose  to regulate them, and must be things



     which are generator produced materials and things like that,




     but not materials which  are the result of fission or fusion




     reaction, and military kind of things.




                 DR.JOHNSON:   This wouldn't include then Plutonium




     in waste from a  nuclear  power plant?




 7                MR.  LINDSEY:  No, that would be covered under the




 8    Atomic Energy Act Regulation, which are covered by the




     Department of Energy  and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission




10    as opposed to the EPA, as I understand it.  So it is very




IX    limited.  The kinds of things which we are able to cover here




12    are very small and limited.




13                DR.  JOHNSON:  Milltailings?




14                MR.  LINDSEY:  Well, the milltailings are now




15    covered under the Mill'Tailings" Act.  It was -just passed, in




16    November by Congress, and the recjulations haven*.t been drafted




17    for that, but wastes  from other uranium or radium producing




18    activities that  is 'in the mine tailings, and so on from that




19    sort of activity would be covered, plus things which are the




20    result of the cyclotron  accelerator waste, and that is about



21    it.




22                DR.  JOHNSON:  Then I think that waste would be




23    covered in the language  of the nrooosed guidelines, and would




24   certainly include emitting natural wastes, so the comments i




25   am making do apply to alpha emitters.  I just have one brief

-------
                                                            115






paragraph left.



            MR.  LINDSEY:  Okay.




            DR.  JOHNSON:  The total number of excess cases




of cancer was 501, due mostly to an increase in cancer of




the lung and bronchus, as high as 41 percent in men, leukemia,




40 percent in men, lymphoma and myeloma, 40 percent in men,



10 percent in women, and carcinoma of the colon and rectum,




43 percent in men and 30 percent in women, tongue, pharynx,



esophatus and stomack, mostly in men, and cancer of the testis,



about twice as manv cases, and ovary, about 24 percent higher.



Higher rates were also observed for liver, pancreas, thyroid,




and brain.  In general, the higher rates appear to have a




direct relationship with increasing levels of pluionium soil




contamination.  That is, in areas with higher concentrations




of Plutonium in soil, higher incidence rates of cancer were




found.




      So the point of this is, I think the guidelines should



address all alpha emitting ratioactive waste and would call "for,




I think, a very adequate method of containment, and would also




call for potential exposure to large populations, and a




complete surveilance of cancer incidence rates.  Thank you.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Will




you take questions from the panel?




            DR.  JOHNSON:  Yes.



            MR.  LINDSEY:  Just let me clarify one point, if

-------
  	116




1    I can,  with regard to this discussion we just had  a few moments

2
     ago.   The data which you are reporting here of the increase


     incidence is largely as a result of the proximity  to the


     Plutonium emitted from the Rocky Flats Plant; is that the


     contention, or is it from alpha emitters from home oiles and


     things like that?


                 DR. JOHNSON:  I think this represents  exposure


     to alpha emitters, and there are compounds in that category,


     I think, in nuclear waste to address in these EPA  regulations.


     From that standpoint, I think there is a lesson to be learned


     from the .study.


                 MR. CORSON:  Just one request, Dr. Johnson.  This


     is a chance for a commercial.  At the back end of  our proposal,


     we did have an advance news of proposed rulemaking and we are


     considering a characteristic of- radioactivity to our definitions


     of hazardous waste.  I wish you could take the time in some


     written response to give us the benefit of the translation


     of the data today so it might be an inrolementable  regulation


                 DR. JOHNSON:  Thank you very much.


                 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Our next speaker  will be


     Orville Stoddard of the Colorado Department of Health.


                 MR. ORVILLE STODDARD:  I am Orville Stoddard,


     Engineer with the Division of Radiation and Hazardous Waste


     Control.  I am here speaking for Mr. Hazle, who is the Division


     Director.

-------
                                                           117






     •I-would like to preface my comments with some brief




general comments in a form of a letter, and then go into a




few more specific comments with regard to a proposed regulation.




      The Colorado Department of Health has received the proposed




regulations under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the Resource




Conservation and Recovery Act.  The attached comments include



issues and concerns expressed by members of an ad hoc hazardous




waste committee, comorised of generators, transporters and




site operators,  persons attending four regional public information



meetings, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, several- technical




and professional societies, the Intergovernmental Methane Gas




Task Force, Department staff members and other parties of




interest.




      Public and private entities suoport the needs for




regulatory controls to apply available technology .and improve




hazardous waste  management practices.  All are of the opinion




that regulatory  control measures must be workable, reasonable




and applicable to meet State, local and regional needs.



      The proposed regulations define and list hazardous waste




without providing for categories that differentiate between




hazardous waste  and marginal or moderately hazardous waste.



The exemption of 100 kg/mo, should not be aoplicable to




extremely hazardous waste.  This categorization would enable




the establishment of priorities to effectively control and




manage hazardous waste.

-------
                                                                 118





 1          The format of the prooosed regulations includes "notes"




 2    after requirements that allow for deviation from stated




 3    requirements.  The notes  describe allowable alternatives that




 4    should be included within the regulation.




 5          The proposed "extraction procedure"  to determine toxic




     properties of possible leachate is a laboratory procedure




     designed to simulate  landfill'conditions.   This proposed




     procedure is questioned as the testing of  some special waste




     categories such as utility waste may indicate disposal as




10    a hazardous waste regardless  of actual disposal conditions.




11          The need for perpetual  monitoring and surveillance of




     sites receiving extremely hazardous wastes may require sites




13    and facilities be located on  federal lands with nrovisions




14    for monitoring by a federal agency.




15          The financial requirements for private entities or




16    public agencies and high  costs for operating acceptable




17    treatment, storage and disposal sites and  facilities are




18    significant.  Financial considerations and the ootential risk




19    factors are constraints that  discourage the location and




20    operation of acceptable facilities by either private firms



21    or public agencies.




22          I am concerned  that the total financial impact of these




23    orooosed regulations  has  not  been determined.  This financial




     impact should include the costs of conducting a regulatory



25    program.

-------
                                                           119





      The position of federal agencies that essentially




prohibits the location of hazardous waste treatment storage




and disposal sites and facilities on federal lands has consider-




able impact on the availability of suitable sites in Colorado




as approximately 1/3 of Colorado is under the jurisdiction of




federal agencies.



      1.  Page 58953 reads:




            "For the nurposes of calculating the dilution




            that a leachate  olume would undergo between



            the time it enters the underground aquifer




            until it reaches a well, it was assumed that




            wells will be situated no closer than 500




            feet from the disposal site.  Examination of




            the available data indicated that a 10-fold




            dilution factor, while probably conservative,




            would be reasonable.  It should be emphasized




            that there are instances where dilution has




            been higher as well as cases where it has been




            lower at a distance of 500 feet.




            Based on this model, before human exposure is




            expected to occur, the leachate from the waste




            would become diluted by a factor of 10.  Thus,




            in order to protect human health, the maximum




            allowable contaminant concerntration permissible




            in the EP extract would be 10 times the level that

-------
                                                            120






            would be acceptable  in drinking water.   Con-




            sequently, waste whose EP  extract shows more




            than 10 times the  levels of  certain contaminants




            allowed by the EPA National  Interim Primary Drink-




            ing Water Standards  (40 CFR  Part 141) will be




            considered to be hazardous."




      In groundwater, assignment of "dilution factors" is




questionable because formational variations (i.e. lateral and




vertical facies changes within the formation)  as well as the




fact that the formation could  be completely unreactive whereby




the only dilution is by diffusion.  Conversely,  the "toxic




substances" may be diluted or  detoxified within  a few feet




but the subsequent chain of chemical reactions can  produce new




totally different tpxic substances as  well  as disturbing the




overall useability of the aquifer.




      The plume of contamination has a characteristic, somewhat




bell shaped plot and is dependent upon time and  distance.




In some instances a 10 X peak  may not  be allowable.




      The allowable dilutions  should be  determined  on a site




specific basis and other parameters of measurements in




addition to 10 X.  The drinking  water  standards  should be



considered.




      Section 250.11 (b)(5) page 58955 reads:




            "Representative sample" means any sample




            of the waste which is statistically  equivalent

-------
                                                           121






            to the total waste in composition, and in




            physical and chemical properties.  Representative




            samples may be generated using the •methods set




            out in Appendix I of this Subpart."




      This definition of a renresentative is. neither practical




or achievable in most instances.




      This definition should be modified to include "selected




portions of the components of  the waste which indicate the




physical and chemical properties of the total waste".




      Section 250.13 (a) (ii)  page 58955 reads:




            "Hazardous waste characteristics, (a)  Ignitable




            waste. (1)  Definition - A solid waste  is a




            hazardous waste if a representative sample of




            the waste:




            (i)  Is a liquid and has a flash point  less



            than 60°C (140°P) determined by the method




            cited below or an equivalent method, or




            (ii)  Is not a liquid and is liable to  cause




            fires through friction, absorption of  moisture



            spontaneous chemical changes, or retained heat




            from manufacturing or processing, or when




            ignited burns so vigorously and persistently




            as to'create a hazard during its management, or"



      A non-liquid material..."when ignited burns  so vigorously




and persistently as to  create a hazard during its  management"..

-------
                                                           122


This characteristic could be construed  to apply to non-hazardoui

solid waste such as "corrugated".

      It is recommended the above phrase  be more specific as to

the wastes being referred to or deleted.

      Section 250.13  (d)(1) page 58956  reads:

            "«) Toxic Waste.   (1) Definition  - A solid

            waste is a hazardous waste  if,  according to the

            methods specified in paragraph (2), the extract

            obtained from applying the  Extraction Procedure

            (HP) cited below to a representative sample

            o'f the waste has concentrations of a contaminant

            that exceeds any of the  following  values:

            Contaminant:                    Extract level.
                                            milligrams per litei

            Arsenic     	    0.50

            Barium      	    10.0

            Cadium      	    0.10

            Chromium    ,	    0.50

            Lead	    0.50

            Mercury     	    0.10

            Selenium    	    0.10

            Silver      	    0.50

            Endrin  (l,2,3,4,10,10-hexacloro-6,7,

            Epoxy l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a,-octahydro-l

            thalene     	    0.002

-------
	123




            Lindane      	     (1,2,3,4,5,6-




              hexachlorocyclohexane          gamma



              isomer)    	      0.040




            Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Triohloreoethane)




             2,2-bis  (p-methoxyohenyl)..     1.0




            Toxaphene  (C10 K^  Gig-technical chlor-




             inated camphene, 67-69 percent  chlo-



             rine)      	      0.050




            2,4-D,      (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic



             acid)      	     1.0



            2,4,5-TP    Silvex       (2,4,5-




             Trichlorophenoxyproplonic  acid  0.10




            Note:- Extract levels specified  for the above




            substances  equal ten times  the EPA National



            Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards for




            these substances.  These standards are being




            revised.  Extract levels soecified above will




            be changed  to reflect revisions  to these standards.




            Also, EPA is considering use of  the Water Quality



            Criteria under the Clean Water Act as a basis




            for setting extract levels, in addition, to the



            EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water




            Standards.



      In determining the allowable parameters, it was assumed




 that wells would be no  closer than 500  feet. Examination of

-------
                                                                 124






 1    data indicated a 10 fold dilution would be reasonable.




 2    Therefore, the maximum allowable toxicant concentration




 3    permissible in the extraction procedure would be ten times




     the level acceptable  in drinking water.




           The assumptionsdo not  consider any flow rate in the




     underground aquifer,  permeability and porosity.   There  are




     no exceptions to the  "rule of ten".




 8          Testing solely  for the contaminants listed in drinking




 9    water standards may be too limited.   A hypothetical leachate




10    containing sodium chloride in the range of 1,000 mg/1 would




     be acceptable by this definition.  There are no  limitations




12    on factors such as B.O.D.  (bio-chemical oxygen demand); C..O.D.




13    (chemical oxygen demand); T.O.C.  (total organic  carbons) and




14    free carbon dioxide.



15          it is recommended other chemicals and parameters  be




16    considered.




17          Section 250.13  (D)(E)  page 58957 reads:



18                "(D)  Add to the extractor a weight  of




                 deionized water  equal to 16 times the weight




20                of solid  material added  to the extractor.  This




21                includes  any water used  in transferring the solid




22                material  to the  extractor.




23                (E)  Begin agitation and adjust the  pH of the



24                solution  to 5.0+0.2 using 0.5N acetic acid.




25                Hold the pH at 5.0+0.2 and continue agitation  for

-------
                                                           125





            24+0.5 hours.   If more than 4 mi of acid




            for each gm of solid is required to hold the




            PH at 5, then  once 4 mi of acid per gm has been




            added, complete the 24 hour extraction without




            adding any additional acid.  Maintain the ex-




            tractant at 20-40° C *68-104e)  during extraction.




            It is recommended that a device such as the




            Type 45-A pH Controller manufactured by Chemtrix




            Inc., Millsboro,  Or 97123, or equivalent, be




            used for controlling pH.  If such a device is




            not available  then the following manual procedure



            can be employed."




      The toxic extraction procedure does not explain the



justification for dilution of the waste 1:16 nor is there




justification for selection of pH 5 and the use of acetic acid




in the adjustment of pR.



      This is a crucial test in that special waste categories




such as "utility waste" could leach toxicants and be classified




as a toxic waste.  Acetic  acid does not occur naturally.




      It is requested the  toxic extraction procedure be




amended to allow a closer  simulation of conditions that could




be expected on a site specific basis.



      Section 250.14 (b) Hazardous Waste Sources and




Processes. 1)- Sources generating hazardous waste.  (i) (A)




Health Care Facilities, page 58958 reads:

-------
                                                      126
      "(b)  Hazardous waste sources and processes.




      (1)  Sources generating hazardous waste.  The




      following sources generate hazardous waste




      unless the waste from these sources does not




      contain microorganisms or helminths of CDC




      Classes 2 through 5 of the Etiologic agents




      listed in Appendix VI of this Subpart.




      (i)   Health care facilities. (A)  The




      following departments of hospitals as defined




      by SIC Codes 8062 and 8069, unless the waste




      has been treated as specified in Appendix VII of




      this Subpart.(N)




      Obstetrics department including patients'




      rooms.




      Emergency departments




      Surgery department including patients'




       rooms.




      Morgue




      Pathology department




      Autopsy department




      Isolation rooms




      Laboratories




      Intensive care unit




      Pediatrics department



Wastes from health care facilities normally discharged

-------
                                                            127
into the sewage collection system should be specifically




excluded from autoclaving and incineration requirements.




      The autoclaving and incineration facilities specified




are not available at many health care facilities.  The costs




of providing these facilities will be extensive.




There are potential health hazards pertinent to on site




storage of infectious wastes and transporting to treatment



storage and disposal facilities.  Each generator should be




equipped with appropriate facilities.




      The list of infectious organisms such as E. Coli and Stapl




A. are prevalent throughout health care facilities.  Therefore




the criteria proposed may be excessively stringent as all




wastes from health care facilities (including tissue or




handkerchiefs containing nasal discharge) would be infectious




requiring incineration or autoclaving.




      Section 250.14 (b)   Hazardous Waste Sources and




Processes. 1)  Sources generating hazardous waste,  (i)(B)




Venerinary Hospitals, page 58958 and Apoendix VII - Infectious




Waste Treatment Specifications, "page 58964 readst




            " (B)   The following departments of 'veterinary




            hospitals as defined by SIC Codes 0741 and 0742




            unless the waste has been treated as specified




            in Appendix VII.(N).




            Emergency department




            Surgery department including patients' rooms

-------
                                               128






Morgue




pathology department



Autopsy department




Isolation rooms




Laboratories




Intensive care unit




(ii)  Laboratorities, as defined by SIC Codes




7391, 8071 and 8922, unless the laboratories




do not work with CDC Classes 2 through 5 of




Etiologic Agents as listed in Appendix VI.  (N)




Appendix VII - Infectious Waste Treatment




Specifications




  Infectious waste from departments of health



care facilities as defined in 250.14(b)(i) maybe




rendered non-hazardous by subjecting the waste




to the following autoclave temperatures and




dwell times:




              Steam Autoclave




U)  Trash: 250 P  (121 C) for 1 hour with 15




minutes prevacuum of 27 in. hg.




(2) Glassware: 250 F  (121 C) for 1 hour with



15 minutes prevacuum of 27 in.Hg. for filled




NIH Glassware can.




(3) Liquids: 250 F  (121 C) for 1 hour for



each gallon.

-------
                                                           129






            (4)   Animals:  250 F (121 C)  for 8 hours with



            15 minutes  brevacuum of 27  in.Rg.




            (S)  Animal  Bedding 250 F (121 C)  for 8 hours




            with 15 minutes prevacuum of 27 in.  Hg.




            or equivalent  treatment methods such as gas




            sterilization  or pathological incineration.



            Temperatures and dwell time will vary in relation




            to the volume  of material,  moisture  content



            and  other factors."




      The proposed rules beginning on page 58957 (250.14)




apparently apply to various departments in veterinary hospitals




as facilities that discharge hazardous  etiologic agents



according to CDC classification.  The proposed rule appears




applicable if such a  facility does not'discharge waste into




an approved sewerage  system but does perhaps utilize a trash




pickup service,  then  the requirements on page 58964-Appendix



VII Infectious Waste  Treatment Specifications would apply.




      The various listed departments of veterinary hospitals




would discharge  microbial  agents including bacterial, fungal,




viral, riekettsial and  chlamydial up to and including a Class




III hazard.  Any such patheogens would  have to be treated as




per Appendix VII by steam  autoclave or  equivalent treatment




methods.   This would  require all veterinary hospitals to




install at least an incinerator to process material such as




trash, glassware, liquids, animals, and animal bedding and

-------
                                                           130





render it non-infectious.  The  economic impact of these




proposed rules could result  in  an  investment for each facility




or hospital $3,000 to  $10,000 for  adequate incineration




and/or autoclaving equipment.




      The data base which defines  the present hazard from




etiologic agents in waste effluents  as classified in Appendix




VI is not mentioned.   Observations have been that occupationally




exposed people - the trash collectors themselves - do not




Appear to suffer any higher  disease  rate than other people



in the public sector.  Our epidemiological investigations




generally have not revealed  disease  transmission that has




occurred 'from waste material whether properly improperly




disposed of, but it is admitted that a potential hazard exists




in a sanitary landfill disposal- system for disease transmission




      Nevertheless, the need for these proposed rules is




questioned based on the actual  incidence and subsequent




reporting of disease.  Also, other problems such as air




pollution may be created by  drastically increasing the




number of incinerators necessary to  adequately treat such



hazardous waste.




      Section 250., Subpart  A,  Appendix XI page 58966 regarding




the per si stance of chemicals.   What  is a biodegradation assay




and does it really represent conditions of actual release?




No biodegradation assay is specified.  Certain compounds with




allegedly short half lives have inexplicably persisted

-------
10



LI




12




13




14



15




16



17



18




19



20



21



22




23




24



 25
                                                            131







(ex.chemical five incident and parathion) over a period of




years.




      It is recommended the degradation option be deleted




until more data is obtained.




      Section 250.15 pages 58959-60.  Demonstration of




Noninclusion in the Hazardous Waste System.




      1.  Wastes from certain manufacturing process and




other sources listed are considered hazardous unless proven




non-hazardous by the generator.




      2.  The testing procedures listed-are extensive and




specific.  It would be costly for generators, especially




small generators without laboratory testing capabilities to




conduct tests to confirm or deny the genefatj'—-_ of hazardous




wastes.  There are few if any private laboratories equipped




and capable of performing the tests specified.




      3.  When in doubt generator may be expected to consider




the waste generated as hazardous rather than perform' tests.




This will place a considerable burden on hazardous waste




treatment, storage and disposal facility and require more




testing by the facility operator.




      Thank you.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Would you answer




questions from -the panel?




            MR. STODDARD:  Yes.




            MR. LINDSEY: I have one point I would like to get

-------
                                                           132





clarified.  You mentioned that you were prohibiting location




on Federal land.  These regulations don't do that.  Is that




correct?



            MR. STODDARD:  No, they do not.  This is more or




less a governmental policy that we have been confronted with




in Colorado.  The BLM, for instance, certainly has taken a




position that they do not want this disposed of on their land,




            MR. YEAGLEY:  That is  specifically listed in BUM




regulations.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAHs  Thank you very much.  Our




next speaker will be Stewart  H. Miller from  the Electro-Phos




Corporation.



            MR. STEWART H. MILLER:  Mr. Chairman and ladies




and gentlemen, my name is Stewart  H. Miller.  I am manager




of Electro-Phos Corporation's phosphorus furnace facilities




at Pierce, Florida.  I appreciate  the opportunity to speak



to you today.  I missed you in Washington.  Unfortunately, the




weather was inclimate.




      I propose to address my comments to the classification




of phosphorus furnace slag as a hazardous waste under 40 CPR




Part 250 subpart A of the proposed regulations.  In addition




to the remarks I will make here, I am attaching a more detailed




analysis of our position, with support documentation, to be




considered as electrophos corporations official statement of




record.  I agree that indiscriminate and irresponsible disposal

-------
                                                          133






of hazardous  wastes must be prevented,  and I commend the EPA




for their  efforts  in  this regard.   However,  I must point out



what I consider  to be significant  errors in the identification




and listing rationale in 40 CFR Part 250 Subpart A.




      First,  I submit that calcium silicate slag from electric




furnace smelting of phosphate rock is not a waste.  Electro-



Phos Corporation co-produces calcium silicate slag in the




approximate ratio  of  8.5 tons of slag per ton of elemental




phosphorus produced.   All of the slag produced at Electro-




Phos is sold  to  a  processing and marketing company as produced.




The slag rock coproduced in the manufacture of phosphorus




is very hard  and durable.  It is chemically inert in soil



acids and  weathers well  in surface applications.  It is also




easily wettable  with  asphaltic compositions.  These attributes,



plus the fact that there is no other locally available aggregate




possessing these superior qualities within 500 miles of the




producing  area make calcium silicate slag the first and sometimes




only choice in Central Florida.for:




      Highway paving  and roadbed stabilization




      Railroad Ballast and Roadbeds.




      Septic  tank  Drainage Fields.



      Commercial and  utility use -for roadways. Sub-stations




      and  soil stabilization.




      Municipal  sewage treatment plants




      Parking lot  and driveway paving

-------
                                                            134
      Private use for Driveways, patios  and drainage




      Built up roofing aggregate




      Concrete products uses.




      Of special interest is the use  of  coarse slag in the




filter beds of Tampa, Florida's, new  municinal sewage treatment




plant which incorporates the very  latest technology for




treatment of waste effluents entering Tampa Bay.




      Assuming the currently proposed regulations  are interpret*




so as to remove slag from the market  place  the economic impact




will be at least three-fold.




      A vital three million dollar aggregate processing and




marketing industry will be eliminated with  the direct loss of




thirty  (30) jobs and an immediate  write  off of capital inveatuen




      The Central Florida area will feel ripple effects from:




      Loss of truck driving jobs associated with distribution




      and hauling of slag.




      Higher costs to consumers for imported out of state




      aggregate materials.




      Loss of revenues to the local service industry and




      heavy machinery business.




      There will be a net cost t6  Electro-Phos of  approximately




      $1.0MM per year, an inflationary increase which the




      ultimate consumers would have to bear.




      Second, I submit that calcium silicate slag  from electric



furnace smelting of phosphate rock is not a hazard.

-------
                                                            135






      The EPA final draft document, "identification and listing




of hazardous radioactive waste pursuant to the resources




conservation and recovery Act of 1976", expresses a concern



for airborne radiation from radon gas and its progeny in




h omes built on reclaimed land.  The EPA measured radium




concentration in soil materials and attempted to relate these




measurements to interior radiation working levels that might




be anticipated in structures built upon these soils.  However,




the data upon which the subject regulations are based apparently



does not include the latest EPA studies, and does not adequately




define such a relationship.  The EPA's graph purporting to show




such a correlation shows extreme data point scatter and an




almost meaningless correlation factor.




      Among the many factors affecting the precision of a




correlation of radium content and radon gas flux is the



emanating power of the particular material involved.  The




emanating power may be defined as the ratio of the radon gas




escaping from a material to the total amount of radon gas



being generated in the material from the decay of radium 226.




If for example, we take two different materials each with the




same radium concentration, but different emanating powers, the




one with the lower emanating power will give off or diffuse




a lower amount of radon gas into the atmosphere.




      Since the measure of airborne radiation is a measure




of the amount of radon gas and its progeny, it is evident that

-------
                                                           136
we have to look at the total radon  flux present to properly




evaluate health exposure risk.  This  is especially significant




in evaluating slag as a health  exposure risk!   Industry data




shows that slag has an extremely  low  emanating power,  ranging




from 16/1000 of one percent to  42/100 of  one percent depending




on material sizing.  Compared to  the  proposed  standard of




5 PCI per gram for soil, on which the standard was based, to




obtain an equivalent radon flux from  slag would require that




the,slag contain a minimum of 227 PCI per gram 'for fine




particles) and up to 6000 PCI per gram for  lump aggregate,




relating this to the real world in  Central  Florida; slag




which nominally contains radium 226 at a  level of 50-70 PCI




per gram has a radon flux equivalent  to soil at well under 1




PCI per gram.




      Further, the results of independent studies on airborne




radiation at phosphorus furnaces, where the accumulation of




slag is many times greater than any known commercial or private




use site, indicate working levels 1/10 to 1/20 of the  nuclear




regulatory commission standard  of 0.03 WL.  Obviously, it is




completely irrational to classify calcium silicate slag as a



hazard.




      In summary,




      Calcium silicate slag is  not  a  solid  waste and therefore




cannot under the provisions of  the  Act be declared a hazardous



waste.

-------
                                                           137




      The proposed radiation activity level of 5 PCI/GM.




was derived from reclaimed land measurements primarily for




protection against indoor airborne radiation and is not



applicable to the vast majority of Florida slag use.




      No allowance or consideration was made in establishing




the 5PCI/GM. standard for the extremely low emanating power




of dense slag.




      Airborne radiation working level measurements made at




plant sites with heavy slag concentrations are well below




the NRG limit 0.03 WL for continuous public exposure 1168




hours per week).




      The potential $1.0MM/year increased production cost




impact on elemental phosphrous due to the classification and




regulation of slag is inflationary.




      The proposed classification and regulation of slag




could shutdown the vital slag aggregate industry in Florida,




eliminating 30 jobs and increasing aggregate costs for Central




Florida consumers.



      We believe the above technical and socio-economic




conclusions form an overwhelming basis for the elimination of




the classification of slag as a hazardous waste.  No evidence



has yet come to our attention indicating that Florida slag




poses anything other than a perfectly acceptable health risk




to radiation exposure.




      Thank you.

-------
                                                           136






            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.   Will you answer




questions for the panel?




            MR. MILLER:  Yea.



            MR. LINDSEY:  Let me see if  I understand this




correctly.  Your problem is with the fact that  it is listed




as a hazardous waste and listed as a hazardous  waste presumably




because of the five PicoCtiries.



            MR. MILLER:" Yes.




            MR. LINDSEY:  Do you feel the five  PicoCuriea



per gram is Hoo strict?  I think the, figure-you used is  220.




            MR. MILLER:  I think the five PicoCurtes per gram




is arbitrary number and does not take into account the e




account of the various materials.



          MR. LINDSEY:  How would we set a standard.  How do




yo« .aet a standard?  I ant not a nuclear  engineer, but how do




you consider them eiffanaeine '• power?



            MR. MILLER:  There are tests which  are known




and proven which can evaluate emanating • power  of material.




That is how we got our data.




            MR. LINDSEYs  Would you in ypur written pr.esentatloi




or maybe now, if you can, discuss what significant or rather



appropriate concentration levels or eroanatinfT-  oower level,




or whatever you «all the emission level  would be?




            MR;'MILLER:  I have not'included recommendations,




in that within the Appendices, which indexes  the various items

-------
                                                           139






I used in the report.   However, I will try and get back within



the next week and comment on that.




            MR.  LINDSEY:   If you would, it would be helpful.




            MR.  CORSON:  I have one question, Mr, Miller, and



I am just wondering,  because you didn't indicate in both your




earlier remarks  and your  summary of the relationship to our




concern about protecting against indoor airborne radiation.



I agree that is  our concern.  Now, it would just seem to me




without some level of control, some of the uses to which you




cite in your comments, that slag might be used, could possibly



end up causing some of-these problems, because once you allow




it, for example, in these concrete or whatever, there is no




way to ensure that does not become the base for a house.  I




am wondering if  you would suggest that perhaps for those



concrete placed  in this fashion, there should be some restricted




use categories?



            MR.  MILLER:  If the basic problem is indoor, and




by the way, I understand  EPA is currently undergoing., and I




alluded to this, but  they are doing a tremendous amount of




additional testing in the Florida area.  There is a serious




question as to whether the original data, which was found,




which was very limited, is actually and factually correct.




But the basic data that was taken was based agaon on reclaimed




land, and had nothing to  do, and had no relevancy with slag




at all, and I am told, and I feel you can indicate in some

-------
                                                           140






manner that slag and radiation from slag does pose a problem.




Then it really should not be regulated.  If you can find it




does pose a problem, then I think you should severely limit




or completely eliminate its potential use withint the home




market.  Ninety percent of the slag used in Florida is not




used in home building today.  It is used for road paving and




a lot of other areas.




            MR. CORSON:  That leaves me with an interesting




ten percent that I am very concerned about.  If ninety percent




is not used, that implies that perhaps the ten percent is



used in home building.




            MR. MILLER:  There is another gentleman here today




who I hope can fully clarify that for you, but I am not going




to say, because I don't positively know that the other ten




percent is used in the home building market, or if it is even




a problem.  If it is used in that market, I think that is what



needs to be determined.




            MR. CORSONs  Following up on Fred's question with




regards to the fact we didn't show these damages came from




slag as opoosed to reclaimed land, I am wondering if in




addition to the emanating power, there is some difference




between the radioactivity from the phosphorous slag as opposed



to whatever else there was in Florida.




            MR. MILLERS  There is different concentrations



of radium within, for example, overburden slime, slag and all

-------
                                                            141





the various chemicals, and the point being made is, it is not




really how much is chemical, but what is it emanating oower




and how much is given off, and that is the point I alluded to




in stating thai; it was based on five PicCuries, which supposedly



equates to a working level of .03,  but does not take into




account the emanating power.



            MR. YEAGLEY:  in order  to consider your concerns




as far as emanating power, would you be satisfied with the




standard that was an either/or type standard, either five




PicoCuries per gram or say .03 working level?




            MR. MILLER:  I would suggest that since our main




concern is in environment, that the working levels of the



material really ought to he the criteria, if our concern, truly




is for the environment and health protection, why not set the




standards based on what would people's exposure be as opposed




to what the material might contain.



            MR. YEAGLEY:  One other cdmment relative to the




ninety percent of material today that is not being used in



housing or construction related. The fact that the radium




has a half life of 1600 years, can  you give some assurance




that property which is used in effect for roadbeds and railroad




beds, once in the future time it will not be used for residential




construction?




            MR. MILLER:  Basically, and here again, I am not




an expert In that area, there is somebody here who deals in that

-------
                                                            142






area, but you are dealing with different  sized  aggregate,




based on its end use, and primarily  something that size in




not necessarily or could readily be  used  for another type.




I don't think anybody can give that  kind  of  assurance.   Nobody




can guarantee anything 1600 years from now.




            MR. LINDSEY:  Leaving for a moment  the question'




of whetner or not this kind of way should or should not be




listed, as you pointed out, there is a number of  studies going




on, including within the Agency, and by others  concerning




this whole thing, and hopefully that will clear that up.




However, let's assume for the moment that it is listed, and




we feaye- me special -waste' Regulations.    You indicated  earlier




that tnese .pedal wastes that the regulations, if implemented,




and I presume you are talking about  the special waste regulatioi




would cause your waste not to be reused,  and that would cost




your company a million dollars a year?



            MR. MILLER:  You keep on referring  to what  is a



waste product, which we sell..




            MR. LINDSEY:  Whatever.  The  point  is, that you



then said that the material which you sell has  something like,




I think you said one-fifth or one-tenth of .03  working  level




unit.  If that is the case, I don't  see which of  these  standard!



are going to cause you any problem.




            MR. MILLER:  in fact, two things combined.   What




I said was, that there had been studies at phosphorous  furnace

-------
                                                          .143






locations, which obviously, by the nature of. their production,




contains large volumes of slag, which have been there for many




many years, and then in tests run at those areas, including




our .plant, the working, level was found to be from one-tenth




to one-twentieth of the WRC regulations.  I am talking about




a building which houses the offices at the Electro-Phos Corpor-



ation, which sets on about three feet of slag, and the emanatioi




studies were run inside of that building, and found working




levels, as I'say, one-tenth to one-twentieth below Federal



requirements.




            MR. LINDSEY:  Well, even if it was listed, none




of-the regulations would limit the use of those things.



            MR. MILLER:  You can go back to the five PieoCuries




            MR. LINDSEY:  No, you would still be listed in the




frontend, but the regulations under 250.46.-3, which say what




you can do with It wouldn't apply.



            MR. MILLER:  These sbecify specifically five Pico-




Curiea.



            MR. LINDSEY:  They specify .03 working levels.




            MR. MILLER:  They specify both, unless I misunder-




stand.




            MR. LINDSEYs  Well, the listing itself is based




on the five PicoCuries-, .but then the regulation with regard




to what you can do with the waste once it is listed, and as




I read this anyway— let me suggest something.  Why don't you

-------
                                                           144
go through 250.46.23, and for your company, determine in your




own mind, and then let us know whether or not any of these




create the problem that you are talking about.




            MR. MILLER:  I can see one problem, which I can




address right now, and which I think one of the former speakers




mentioned, and that is simply the fact of classifying this




material as a hazardous waste,, and then going out and trying




to seel that material and trying to use that material.  That




right there presents a major problem.




            MR. LINDSEY:  It is guilt by association as opposed




to any standard or requirement there.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  We




will recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:45.




      (Whereupon the noon recess was taken.)

-------
                                                           145






                      AFTERNOON SESSION








            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We can now begin our afternoon




session.  Our first speaker is Mr. Steve Allen, President of



Southern Stone Company.




            MR. STEVE ALLEN: I am Steve Allen, President of




the Southern Stone Company and SI Minerals, both of which



are wholly owned subsidiaries of Southern Industries of Mobile,




Alabama.




      My comments will be on the expansion of the speaker that




was right before lunch, Mr, Miller's comments concerning



phosphorus  furnace slag.




      Southern Industries commends the EPA in its endeavors




to limit or eliminate any irresponsible disposal or hazardous




wastes, however, based upon scientific and technical studies




conducted by various producers and others in the Florida




and Tennessee areas, we feel that phosphorus furnace slag




cannot be classified under 40 CFR Part 250 Subpart A as a




hazardous waste.




      There are two reasons for this:




      1.  Phosphorus furnace slag is not a "waste".




      2.  Phosphorus furnace slag is not hazardous.




Slag is Not A "Waste"



      At the present time Southern Industries purchases 100




percent of all phosphorus furnace slag generated by two

-------
                                                            146






elemental phosphorus producers in Florida and two elemental



phosphorus producers in Tennessee.  The combined annual tonnage




amounts tb approximately 1.3 million tons.  Before  selling this




material into a diversified market, which will be outlined be-




low, it is crushed and sized into several different grades or




sizes, each supplying a vital product source ror its particular




market.  To process this material for market required a sub-




stantial outlay of capital investment in land, plant equipment




and material inventories.  It also requires the services of 78




employees, along with many outside contractors and  industrial



supply Vendors.




      In 1978, Southern Industries sold phosphorus  furnace




slag into the following market areas:




      1.  Railroad .Ballast               236,907 tons  18%




      2.  Road Aggregates                788,740 tons  60%




      3.  Sewage Treatment               154,018 tons  12%




      4.  Concrete Blocks                 90,498 tons   7%




      5.  Roofino                         40,034 tons   3%




      6.  Misc. (Driveways, etc)             877 tons




                                      1,311,074  tons 100%




      This «onnage represents approximately 70%. of  all



phosphorus furnace slag in Tennessee and 100% of all phosphorus




furnace slag in Florida that is generated.by the various



elemental phosphorus producers.




      Gross sales of phosphorus furnace slag in 1978 amounted

-------
                                                           147





to $5,934,206.




      Phosphorus furnace slag is marketed and shipped in




Florida, Alabama, Tenn., Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana,



Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Indiana by SI




Minerals and Southern Stone Company, both wholly owned



subsidiaries of Southern Industries.




      Unlike limestone, which is the primary construction




aggregate in the Southeastern United States, it has non-




polishing characteristics and is specified in lieu of limestone




by the Federal Bureau of Roads for use in non-skid bituminous




wearing surface pavements.  This greatly enhances the safety




characteristics of asphalt highway pavements.




      Another unique feature of slag versus limestone is




the non-cementing properties which is possesses.  This is a




very important quality when used as railroad ballast.  This



feature insures good drainage on railroad beds and greatly




increases the life expectancy of RR crossties and railroad




track life, which in turn is a ^definite safety factor.



      If the 1.3 million annual tons of phosphorus furnace




slag is witheld from the marketplace, not only will the




replacement cost be exorbitant, but, in some cases, an aggregat*




of equal quality is simply not available.




      How could a vital product such as .this be designated as




a "waste"?




      Slag is not "Hazardous".

-------
                                                           148





      The EPA evidently lists phosnhorus furnace  slag  as




hazardous because of its concern for airborne radiation from




radon gas and its progeny, arising1 from earlier EPA studies




of the phosphate industry, and in particular homes built on




reclaimed land.



      Since Florida slag.shows a higher radium 226 decay




activity (40-70 pci per gram), than Tennessee slag (3-5 pci




per gram), our comments are directed to results of studies




relating to phosphorus furnace slag generated by  Florida




elemental phosphorus producers.




      A major contributing factor concerning the  concentration




of radon -gas in a particular area is a direct function of the




emanating power of the particular material involved.  The




emanating power is defined as the ratio of the radon gas




escaping from a material to the total amount of radon gas




being generated in the material, from the decay of radium 226,




      A study made by one Florida comoany reveals the following



conclusion as we quote:




      "Data available to us shows that slag has an extremely




low emanating power, ranging from.l6/100r»ths of 1 percent to




42/l,OOths of 1 percent, depending on material sizing.  Compared




to the proposed standard of 5 pci per gram for soil, on which




the standard was based, to bbtain an equivalent radon flux



from slag would require that the slag contain a minimum of 227




pci per gram (for fine particles) and -up to 6000  pci per gram

-------
                                                           149


for lump aggregate.   Conversely, slag which nominally contains

radium 226 at an activity level of 40-70 pci per gram would

have a radon flux equivalent to soil at well under 1 pci

per gram."

      Three other studies of airborne radiation were made,

including one in 1976 by U.S.E.P.A. with the following results:

University of Florida     New York University    U.S.E.P.A.
      (External)         (External & Internal)  (Internal)

      .003 WL                 .0012 WL             .0006 WL

      .007 WL                 .0011 WL             .005  WL

      .0006WL                 ,0022 WL             .003  WL

                              .0011 WL             .005  WL

                              .0010 WL

                              . OOB3- WL

      The results of these studies made at phosphorus furnace

sites where the accumulation of slag is many times greater

than any commercial or private use site, shows airborne,

radiation at working levels 1/10 to 1/20 of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission standard of 0.03 WL for continuous

public exposure (168 hours per week).

      A further study to determine the concentration of

radium 226 in water at a particular elemental phosphorus plant

site gave the following results:

      Sample Identification          Radium 226 pei/liter

      1.  Floridan aquifer well             0.25

      2.  Hawthorne aquifer well            0.79

-------
 	150





      3.  Reciroulated oond water            0.08




      4.  Slag cooling water                 6.12




      5.  Slag Processing water              0.25



      6.  Leachate "from slag storage area    4.30




      These results are well below the 50 pel/liter proposed




standard and all but one is below the 5 pci/liter EPA standard




for drinking water.




      Other tests have been conducted by the University of




Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences on sugareani




fields in the South Florida area.  These tests indicate no




trace of any measurable radiation in sugarcane fields where




phosphorus furnace slag had been applied to  the soil to




increase sugarcane production per acre.




      In Summary, Southern Industries maintains that:




      1.  EPA has no authority under RCRA to regulate slag




aoia as a product since it is not a solid waste.




      2.  EPA has no authority to list slag  as hazardous




because of radioactivity without first establishing appropriate




radioactivity hazardous waste characteristic criteria.



      3.  The classification of slag as a hazardous waste would




eliminate slag from vital markets creating:



      a.  The loss of 78 jobs




      b.  Substantial assets to be written off




      c.  The loss of $5,900,000 in annual gross sales to



          Southern Industries.

-------
                                                            151





      d.   Loss  of revenue to outside contractors and



          industrial  vendors




      e.   Loss  of jobs and revenue to small private trucking



          firms.




      f.   An increased inflationary cost of vital construction



          aggregates.




      g.   An increased inflationary cost to elemental phosphorus




          producers which may deopardlze their continued



          operation and thus the source of our business.




      Thank you.




            MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER:  My name is Robert Gallagher



and I am president of Applied Health Physics in Pittsburg,




Pennsylvania.   I  have worked in this phosphate industry,




radiological aspect for some thirty years.  The EPA evidentially




lists phosphorus  furnace slag as hazardous because of its




concern for public exposure to airborne radiation from radon




gas, and the progeny,  the so called radon daughters.



      Now, their  concern was the result of ah admitted inconclusj-




ive earlier study, which is still continuing in Florida,and




in particular homes,  and especially those homes in Florida



which were built  on reclaimed land.  However, from a review




of the documents  purported to prove the scientific justificaion




or rationale for  EPA's inclusion of the phosphate slags as



hazardous and has radioactive, and further as waste, it fails




to indicate any measurements of radon from phosphates slag,

-------
                                                                152





 ,    neither has the EPA's  laboratory in Las Vegas, or Montgomery,



 2    Alabama, ever been  asked  to measure radon from phosphates slag.



 3    I think it is important for us  to realize that the five Pico
 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
Curies per gram limit, which has  been established by the  EPA,



is the main criteria as to whether or not the slag would  be



included as a radioactive material,  has  been derived on the
                                                      /


materials ability to release radon,  and  inert radioactive gas



from the amount of  .03 working  levels.



      Unfortunately, the EPA has  not' done the necessary



analysis to prove or disprove that other radium bearing



materials do or do  not emit  radon to the same extent.   Our



own tests show that radon remains trapped to varying degrees



on several orders of magnitudes less than the material then



they have indicated as the basis  for their supposition  of



five PicoCuries per gram limit.



      Our major concern here must be addressed to the ability



of the material to  release radon.  The so called emanating



power, which the previous speaker, Mr. Stewart Miller defined  i



it more correctly as the ratio  of gas escaping from the wateri*! I



to the total amount of radon gas  being generated in that



material into radon ,226.



      We have found on the basis  of numerous test that  the



low emanating power of phosphate  slag can be 1600-thousanths



of one percent to 42/100th of one percent, depending uoon the



moisture, particulate size,  temperature  and go on of the  materill

-------
                                                          153
being evaluated, and we need to have a factual scientific basis




for'claiming something is hazardous, not an assumption



predicated on the administrator's judgment. When you think




the slag that we are talking about here normally contains




from 40 to 70 PicoCuries per gram, the material to release



.03 working levels of radon, would have to be from 127 Pico




Curies per gram up to 6^000 PicoCuries per gram.  We have




conducted airborne radon studies, and have found a few




measurements that the EPA field people made, but never bothered




to include in their reports, which further emphasize the




fact that the highest working level of radon that they found



over several feet of phosphate slag was from .03 to .006 working




levels, well within the standard.




      So, to continue, we also checked the amount of radium



that would come from these phosphate slags.  They are fired




at very high temperature.  Their ability to release soluable




radium into the water stream is miniscu-le.  in fact, well




within the limit that the EPA has postulated.  Our study will




be included in a formal presentation within the deadline.




      We have also done tests and followed the test by the



University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural




Science on sugarcane fields in Southern Florida.  These test




indicate that no trace^of measurable radiation in sugarcane



field were phosphorus furnace slag had been applied to the




field to increase sugarcane production ner acre.

-------
                                                            154





      In conclusion the technical asnects,  we feel the EPA




has no authority under RCRA to regulate  slag to be sold as




a product, since it is not to be considered a solid waste.




      Secondly, the EPA has no authority to list slag as




hazardous because of its radioactivity without first establishiig




appropriate radioactive hazard characteristics, and that as




a technically valid finding which can be confirmed by independ-




ent scientific tests.




      Thirdly, that slag is not released in any way shane




or form as uncontrolled waste product.   Thank you.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Mr. Gallagher, will you




accept questions .




            MR. GALLAGHER:  Yes.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I guess there aren't any




questions.  Our next sneaker is Mr. Robert  S.  Hearon




representing the International Minerals  and Chemical Corporatia




            MR. ROBERT S. HEARON:  My name  is Robert Hearon




and I represent the Florida Phosphate an£ Mining Division of




the International Minerals and Chemical  Corooration.




      We have been mining in Central Florida s-ince 1907,  and



last year we produced right at 13 million tons of bhosphate




rook, which makes us the larges independent producers of



phosphate rock, in the world.  During the course of that product!




we generate or or less on a one-to-one basis,  13 million tons




of phosphate, and move or disturb approximately 20 million tons

-------
                                                            155



of sandy soil overburden in getting to the ore matrix.  So we


are talking about,  as you can see, millions of tons on an


annual basis of materials which have been, as of December 18th,


classified as hazardous waste.


      At the same time, we are reclaiming about 7,000 acres


a year of land as required by law.  We are required to reclaim


every acre that we mine, so that much of the phosphate tailings


and other materials are either just redistributed where they


were initially disturbed, or recycled directly from the plant


back to the mine site for active reclamation.


      About four years ago we were visited by the Office of


Radiation Program,  probably as one of their initial contacts


in this study of reclaimed land in Florida, and cooperated


quite extensively over a two-year neriod.  At the same, or


following that initial contact, we were already contacted


by Federal environmental scientists who were doing a study


for EPA on mining and waste progiems.  We sat oatiently for


those reports for almost two years, and instead of those
                                j

reports being published, were presented with the regulations


as you saw on December 18th.


      The EPA states in 40 CPE Part 25o Subpart D of the


proposed regulations that "The agency has very little information


on the composition, characteristics, and degree of hazard


posed by these wastes, nor does the agency yet have data on the


effectiveness of current or notentiai waste management

-------
            ^	156




    technologies or the technical  or  economic practicability of


2 II
    imposing the Subpart D  standards  on facilities managing such


    waste,"  The phosphate  industry agrees  with this statement
  ii

  "  and submits that any "rule of  reason" would require that this
  n

  "  information be compiled and evaluated by the EPA before


    standards are proposed  even under a limited "special waste"


    designation.


          The EPA states in a final draft document entitled


    "Identification and Listing of Hazardous Radioactive Waste


    Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCPA)


    of 1976"  (December, 1978}, that:


          "Data are not available  to  demonstrate unequivocably


          a linear, non-threshold  dose-effect relationship at


          doses as low as those usually found in the environment.


          However, the data from the  miner  studies are


          consistent with a linear non-threshold hypothesis


          down to the higher levels measured in some structures



          in Grand Junction, Colorado,  and  in Central Florida,


          It is therefore prudent  to  assume that on the basis


          of this as well as more  general experience with



          radiation exposure, that individuals occupying


          structures containing elevated levels of radon are


          subject to a potential hazard from lung cancer


          industion in proportion  to  the total accumulated


          exposure.'

-------
                                                            157





      This  comment points  out  several  facts  which the phosphate



industry feels  are critical:




      None  of the materials generated  during the  mining of




      phosphate ores present any significant hazard to the



      environment or to public health  so long as  they remain




      confined  on industrial property.  The  word  "significant"




      in this case implies any risk  that would exceed the




      variability of the natural radiation background, assuming



      that  any  radiation exposure represents some risk.   The




      assignment of a hazardous waste  label  to mining waste




      because of the definition written into RCRA has a




      punitive  effect on industry far  greater than is warranted




      The word  "hazardous" connotes  to the general public some-




      that  that is immediately dangerous to  life  or health,




      whereas low levels of radioactivity should  be considered




      in terms  of remote chances of  detrimental health effects.




      The EPA*s proposed application of Section 250.43-2




      security  provisions  to mining  wastes illustrate the ease



      with  which individuals lose sight of the relative risks




      involved.




      The evaluation of historical epidemiological surveys and




      the calculation of extrapolated  health risks are both




      subject to the application of  "qualifying factors: and




      assumptions.  Their  assigned significance depends to




      a large degree on the individual doing the  study.

-------
                                                                158





 1          A by-product of the Natural Radiation Exposure Assessment




 2          being conducted on the phosphate   area by the  University




 3          of Florida is a graduate dissertation by  Darrell  Reed




 4          Fisher entitled "Risk Evaluation  and  Dosimetry for




 5          Indoor Radon Progeny on Reclaimed Florida Phosphate




 6          Lands,"  Mr. Fisher presents a detailed discussion




 7          on the data on uranium miners and other radon  daughter




 8          related cancer research with the  conclusion:




 9            "-The--strong evidence of' the- important role "of




10   ,          uranium- dust, other-carcinogens in uranium




11             minesy and smoking on the incidence of lung




12             cancer among uranium miners refutes the claim




13             that the additional lung cancer mortality




14             resulted from the inhalation of radon  daughters




15             alone.  This is an important concept which  must



16             be remembered when applying uranium miner risk




17             data to non-mining populations exposed to radon




18             progeny.   For extension to the general population,




19             a risk coefficient determined  from uranium



20             miner data probably estimates  a cautious over-




21             estimate rather than a nearest approximation of



22             the biological effects of the  inhaled  radioactivity."




23          Also certain health risk "factors" were ignored by the



24          EPA in their calculations.  For instance, health  statistic



25          e°r uranium miners to be related  to the general public

-------
                                                      159





should address the fact that their exposure included




"heavy work" respiration rates and mine atmosphere



particulate loadings.  Working respiration rates calcu-




lated to be approximately three times normal were applied



on a twenty-four hour basis in the EPA risk evaluation.




This already conservative epidemiological data is when




subjected to additional exaggerated calculations by the



EPA to support the proposed limitations.  For instance,




instead of calculating excess cancers and years of life




lost on the basis of 100,000 people exposed to 0.03



working level for a lifetime, it would be much more



realistic to calculate the health detriment to a population




of 100,000 in which the maximum exposure might be 0.03




working level, but the average might be one-tenth of



that.




He disagree that the data from miner studies are consistent



with a linear non-thofeshold  hypothesis.  In the




Lundin study of American uranium miners, no increase




in lung cancer mortality was found in the group with a



cumulative exposure of less than 120 WLM, and the




possibility of a threshold does was suggested.  We recog-




nize  the possible existence of some risk at lower




exposure levels and that work published since the




Lundin study has indicated lower thresholds.  The




point is that existing epidemiological data on uranium

-------
                                                           160





      miners and its  application to the general public is




      not as black  and white as the EPA seems to indicate




      at times.  One  must  realize that at levels this close




      to background,  the health effects are stochastic, I.E.,




      the kind of health effects in which a probability of the




      effect occurring may be calculable, but for which there




      is no way of  determining when or where the effect will




      occur.  We are  talking in terms of statistical additions




      or substractions from statistical lives or health, not




      from the health or well-being of any identifiable




      individuals.  This is illustrated by the fact that,




      after ninety  years of phosphate mining in Polk County,




      Florida, the  county  ranks 31st (41.3/100,000_ among




      the 67 Florida  counties with respect to the average




      annual age-adjusted  mortality rates due to malignant




      neoplasm of the trachea, bronchus and lungs (ICD 162 & 16:




      for the years 1950-1969 as reported by the National




      Institute of  Health.   The porjected health effects




      have thus not been supported by epidemiological -studies




      of the population at large even though thousands of



      the people in Polk County have been exposed as employees




      in the industry in addition to living in the area since



      the late 1800's.




Perhaps the most significant point which must not be lost in




the pages of supporting documentation, especially when

-------
	161





 developing  regulations  under Section 3004, is that the exposure




 route under consideration is long term radon orogeny inhalation



 in residential  or other structures constructed on radium



 bearing soil (primarily reclaimed land) or the use of radium




 bearing by-products  in  home construction.   The key words here




 are structure and long  term.



       The attempt to establish secondary standards (i.e.,




 external gamma  exposure rates or radium concentrations in




 materials)  in order  to  control exposures to airborne radon




 progeny leads to a regulation that is. both unfair and unscientif




 Recognizing that indoor radon progeny concentrations are



 determined  by a larqe number of variables, the EPA insists on




 oversimplifying to a point that makes the standard almost




 meaningless. Adding to this the fact tnat the proposed criteriz




 levels are  only slightly above natural background, the appli-




 cation.of proposed levels on a site or material specific




 basis is undefined and  the limits are being applied prior to




 land reclamation and potential residential development,




 industry must conclude  that the regulations are unwarrented




 and essentially unsupported by existing data.  The EPA draft




 development document states:



       "It is recognized that measurement error (+25%'for




       TLD air sampling) and the relatively small sample




       size  are  qualifying factors in drawing firm con-



       clusions  as to a  defined correlation between soil

-------
                                                            162






      radium and radon progeny concentrations in structures.




      However, the relationship is sufficiently defined to




      permit broad projections for radium concentrations




      in excess of 5 pCi/g."



"Sufficiently defined" is a subjective  opinion which the



industry does not share with the author.




      Similar correlation work done  by  the University of Florid;



on the relationship between surface  soil  radium-226 and indoor




radon progeny levels showed considerable  data scatter (degree




of FIT R2= 0.64) and a significantly different line slope.




The question is should a relationship "sufficiently defined




to permit broad projections" be utilized  to set standards




slightly above background to meet health  risk projections based




on many "qualifying factors" at cost of hundreds of thousands




of dollars to the industry?  We think not.




      It should be noted that a small number of houses on




high activity overburden or debris reclaimed land accounted




for 38 percent of the total population  exposure identified in



the Polk County study.  In term "debris"  identifies the type



of coarse waste product generated by the  industry prior to




the advent of froth flotation in the late 1940's.  Technological




advances in metallurgical recovery techniques in recent years



have resulted in higher and higher plant  recoveries leaving



less and less radioactive material  (complexed with the phosphati




in plant waste streams.  Land reclaimed with these materials

-------
                                                           163






should continue to exhibit lower soil radium content and any




effect on present and future mining is of a considerably




lower magnitude than wyould be inferred by merely reviewing



survey data from existing Central Florida structures.




250.43-1 General Site Selection - new sources.




      The phosphate industry would feel safe in saying that



virtually no other industrial concern receives any more



environmental surveillance than a new phosphate mine in Florida




Floodplain concerns, wetlands, endangered species, recharge



zones, property line setbacks, reclamation, dam construction




and many other areas are covered in detail both in the Federal




Environmental Impact Statement and the Florida Department of




Regional Impact Document.   Recent new source mines have




averaged close to four years time and spent in excess of three




million dollars each just to address environmental questions



and obtain the necessary permits.  We feel strongly that




another layer of permitting and reporting under RCRA is




redundant, unnecessary,  inflationary, and in direct opposition



to the stated policy of the Federal Administration.




250.43-2 Security




      On the basis that the only hazard tentatively defined



for mining waste involves  long term occuoancy of structures




constructed on reclaimed land, it is ludicrous to require




security measures against unauthorized entry above the normal



posting procedures emoloyed.

-------
	16






 250.43-5  Manifest System, Recordkeeping and  Reporting




       The reclamation of all lands mined by the  industry have




 been mandatory since 1975.  The sand tailings generated  in




 the process are returned in a continual basis to the mine sites




 to meet this requirement.  Clay wastes are Dumped to settling




 areas which are reclaimed on a longer timetable  using  one of




 several techniques.  All reclamation is controlled and super-




 vised as to the location and type by the county  and Florida



 Department of Natural Resources.  Detailed maps  are submitte




 on an annual basis and site specific criteria must be  approved




 before initiation of individual projects.



       We feel this is sufficient to document  reclamation




 such that no additional reporting or recordkeeping is  required,




 250.43-6 Visual Inspection




       Visual inspections are conducted on all clay settling




 areas on a minimum of once per week by trained personnel.




 Active area* receive almost constant surveillance by various




 personnel during the regular course of various duties, i.e.,




 recycle water control, normal mine traffic.   Detailed




 inspections are conducted once a year by a professional




 consulting engineer with appropriate records  and reporting




 of each phase.  All of this is in compliance  with existing




 state regulations.  Specific state requirements  must also be



 met for abandonment or reclamation of the older  settling areas.



 250.43-7 Closure and Post-closure

-------
                                                            165





      State  and county reclamation regulations are very specific



and stringent enough to cover any closure or post-closure



considerations of the proposed applicable subsections.




250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring




      Very little factual basis for groundwater monitoring exists




when the radium-226 content of mining recycle water including




that in the  settling areas is within the EPA Drinking Water




Standard. None of the recent studies on radiation has provided




a rationale  for this requirement.  It should be deleted.




250.46-3(c)(1)  Reference Maps



      Reference maps of reclaimed areas are currently submitted




to the State on an annual basis as previously stated.




250.46-3(c) (2)  Residential Development




      The industry feels that the 0103 working level unit above




background restriction is.reasonable as a limit for homes on




reclaimed land and supported by work by the Florida Department




of Rehabilitative Services.  The proposed regulations are not



clear, however, as to whether the 0103 WL is intended to be an




individual dose limit and if so, how it could be predicted




with any degree of certainty before construction, monitored




or enforced  in most situations.  An exposure to 0.03 WL for




60 years at  25.WLM per WL-yr= 45 WLM as the lifetime exposure.




Accepting the relative risk of 3 percent per WLM applied to



lifetime accumulated exposure, -this maximum exposure would




indicate an  increase of 135 percent in lung cancer risk after

-------
                                                             16





 sixty years.   In other words, at this proposed upper limit for




 continuous exposure, the risk of lung cancer death would




 approximately double.  However, the risk of lung cancer prior




 to  age sixty would be rather small because of the extended




.induction-latent period that appears to be related to low




 concentration-exposures, beyond age sixty, the risk of death



 from all causes increases rather rapidly so .that the increase




 in  risk of lung cancer, is not such a large fraction of the




 total risk.   Considering today's mobile society, it is also



 highly unlikely that an individual would spend sixty years




 in  the same residence.




       We have not reviewed any information or recommendations




 in  background or supporting documents to justify the 5 uH/hour




 gamma restrictions other than the EPA's goal of exposure as




 low as reasonably achievable (A&ARA).  The correlation between




 gamma levels and indoor radon progeny is even poorer than the




 soil radium correlation; no definition is given for measurement




 location (indoor or outdoor) or methodology and gamma- expoPi



 is  only mentioned briefly in general terms in the EPA back-




 ground document.




       An addition of 5 uR/hour represents an approximate




 doubling of the Central Florida background.  Specification




 of  this limit with respect to an individual industry is




 discriminatory in that there are lilely to be instances of




 building and fill materials from non-phosphate sources that

-------
                                                           167





result in indoor levels exceeding this value including a




large percentage of the beach sand in the State.  An exposure




level of 5 uR/hour is,  in effect, an order of magnitude more



restrictive than the National Council on Radiation Protection




and Measurements (NCRP)  recommended maximum dose above back-




ground for individuals  of the general public.




      I would also like to say I agree and back up the comments




made by the Phosphate Council at the hearing in Washington.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.



            MR.  CORSON:   Will you be providing us some support



data of the material that you referenced in your oral comments




today with your  written material?



            MR.  HEARON:   It depends on which particular point.




            MR.  CORSON:   You said there was some reports in




ther e that may or may not be part of our background documentati<




and I think.in order for us to consider it in any reevaluation




we should have those before, and some further citation to




enable us to get those  reports.




            MR.  HEARON:   If you will let me know.  It is




Dr. Fischer's report, or something like that, I will be glad




to provide you with a copy.



            CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  Thank you.   Is Mr. J. E. Reill?




here?




            MR.  J.  G, REILLY:  My name is John G. Reilly, I




am Director of Environmental Control, Mining Division, St. Joe

-------
                                                            168






Zinc Company, and in this instance,  I  am representing St. Joe




Minerals Corporation.



      St. Joe Minerals Corporation operates mine,  mills  and




smelters in the lead and zinc industries,  and operates mines




and processing facilities in the coal  industry.




      We are seriously concerned with  some of the  aspects of




the proposed hazardous waste regulations,  which  can seriously




and unnecessarily impact our present and future  operations.




      Some of our particular concerns  are in  the potential




requirements for compliance with hazardous waste regulations,




for waste which are not hazardous.   Those portions of the




proposed regulations that are more stringent  than  necessary




according to the Act.  We appreciate the difficulty and  the




task undertaken by the Agency in developing regulations  to




cover all of the solid waste situation in the entire United




States.  It is understandable, and therefore, that conditions




and situations exist where the proposed regulations are  not




applicable, not effective or not practical.   Some  of the defecti




are identified in our comments and suggestions which have been



made, where we think they may be of  help.  It is our intent to




be included within the context of the  more extensive comments




submitted by the American Mining Conference,  except where those




comments might conflict with our own.   We will be  sending you




our detailed comments by the deadline  period.




      I have a few more important aspects of  the proposed

-------
                                                            169





regulations that I would like to address at this time.




      In our comments that we will be submitting to the EPA,



we have also tried in each case to give suggestions on how




we thought they might be improved.  This is off the record.




      (Whereupon a discussion was had off the record.)'




      In Section 250.13(d) hazardous waste characteristics,



toxic waste, and this section the Agency has proposed a defini-




tion' and identifying methods with toxic waste.  We are strongly



objecting to the methods proposed in defining and identifying




toxic waste.  As an operator of mines, mineral processing and




smelter facilities, we are particularly concerned with proposed




criteria regarding metals leaching from waste piles.  The



method proposed to determine toxic waste and subsequent




assignment of hazardous waste categories goes beyond the



purpose stated in the Act, which attacks human health and the




environment.




      The reason that the proposed toxic test for metals is




more stringent than necessary, is because it is based on a




serious worst case assumption.  The assumption was applied




that the facility was improperly managed, and arbitrary factor




of ten compared to drinking water standards was selected and




stated to be "probably conservative"-  A drinking water well




was assumed to be located within 500 feet, and lastly, the




proposed leach extraction test assume an acid pH of five would




develop within those waste oiles similar to a garbage dump.

-------
                                                            170






This test for toxic determinability makes no allowance for




relative site conditions  as to whether or not a waste is actual,




hazardous or not.  For example,  no opportunity was proposed




to consider the location  that  the distance to populated areas




and underlying soils and  rock  conditions, rainfall, the




existence of and the characteristics of an aquifer, of any,




the degree of toxicity and so  forth.




      Our suggestion is,  that  a  provision should be Included




in the' existing section 250.15,  which is entitled, "Demonstrate




of non-inclusion in the Hazardous Waste Category.*  And this




would be to allow the right to demonstrate by considering all




the facts that are particularly  waste, althought "Determined




to be Toxic" by extraction leach screen test is not .a hazardous




waste.  In other words, we are suggesting that by whatever



method a hazardous waste  is identified, a person may have the




opportunity to show that  in his  site for his waste and for




his conditions, this is not a  hazardous waste.   This is what



we are suggesting.




      Our second major point in  this section is all those numbeiji




there in the extraction procedure.   This section describes




proposed extracted leach  test  procedure which would determine



whether a waste is toxic, and  therefore is subject to hazardous




waste regulations.  We are objecting to the proposed extraction




tests because it is unrealistic  and compounds the worst case




definition assumed in the definition of a toxic waste.  The

-------
                                                            171






test has not been scientifically evaluated, and the most



unrealistic feature of the test is duplicated landfill and



open dumps, which specified the solution of a pH of five with




acetic acid during 24-hours.




      Our Missouri tailing piles consisting principally of



dolometic limestone will turn acidic.



      Our New York tailing piles contain major quantities of



calcite, which neutralize any acid forming tendencies.  -



      Number three is the silicate comprising the lead blast



furnace, slag pile are not acid forming.  I won-'t go any



farther into this, except to tell you that we have tried to




run simulated EPA leach test with our various waste piles,



and we compared them in some cases to water leach tests.
                        /^


We were concerned in most cases with lead and cadmium.  We



have found that our dolometic tailings in the Missouri area



will report to be hazardous waste by using acetic acid,



according to the definition given in the guidelines, perhaps




ten parts per million of lead in the leachate.  We went out



to an old tailings pile that runs pretty near as much lead



in that old tailings pile as our current tailings pile, and



we got a real7leachate that was running out underneath the pile




and we find it to be less than .1 milligrams per liter.




      Now, that is a real live situation, but if that tailings




pile was to be judged under this leach system, it would be



hazardous waste, and here it is less than a tenth, of a percent-

-------
                                                            172





pardon me, less than a tenth of a millimeter per liter of lead.




      Another extreme example was a lead smelter blast furnace




slag which is a two million ton pile,  which have been accumulat




ing since the'' early 1900's, and very similar to this phosphate.




It is a glass type calcium silicate furnace product.  It does




have some lead in it with  a simulated EPA leach test, we got




100 milligrams per liter of lead;  One lab got that, and another




lab got 22, and yet we run a similar water leach test to it,




and we are getting .5 and  less.




      Here again is the situation with a pile that will never



turn acidic.  Mo way that  it can.  This data will be submitted




with our comments.



      I am going to say a  couple of things about part 3 004.




One of our major thrust will be to ask that EPA consider to




have the furnace slag products be incorporated with special




waste.  They all into every category of factors for which




the waste that were put into special waste.  We are talking




about some very large piles and we don't consider them to be




toxi
-------
11   you.
                                                               173





          For example,  if a background quality for lead was




    determined to be non-detectable, and in the course of our




    operation of a facility, the lead content was found to be



    .02 milligrams per  liter, which is well under the drinking




    water standard, the operation could be shut down because it




    showed that the water was significantly different from backgroun




          I thank you for letting me use my ten minutes and I will




    be happy to answer  any questions if you have any.



                CHAIRPERSON DARRAHs  Thank you for summarizing




    your remarks for us.  I guess there are no questions.  Thank
          Our next speaker is Earl R. White.



                MR. EARL R.  WHITE:  Good afternoon.  I would like




    to welcome the out of state panel members and out of state




    members of the audience  to our beautiful State of Colorado.




          My name is Earl R. White.  I am the Health and Regulatory




    Affairs Chemist for Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc. located in Boulder




    Colorado.  Arapahoe Chemicals is a manufacturer of bulk




    Pharmaceuticals and fine organic chemicals with facilities




    located in Boulder, Colorado employing 273 people and in Newport




    Tennessee, employing 206 people.




          Arapahoe Chemicals is committed to the concept of social




    responsibility that includes active and convincing participation




    in national policymaking.   We have also made commitments of




    responsibility in our relationships with 
-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 e




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18



19




20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 174
employees and our community.   In responding to these proposed



measures we do not wish to  imply that we are fighting the



concept of social responsibility, nor are we blind to the



real causes of environmental  insults.



      He appreciate the difficulties  in writing responsible



regulations to enforce the  technicalities of reasonable



legislation.  Especially recognizable are the difficulties



encountered when dealing in the  highly complex area of



environmental protection.   We believe that public policy should



be based upon an informed view - one  that is far-sighted, fiscally



responsible, realistic, supportable and non-selfserving.  He



believe in facing this regulatory dilemma squarely without



resorting to exaggeration and overstatement of the possible



ramifications to EPA's proposals - a  tactic which we recognize



would polarize the exchange of ideas.  Furthermore, we believe
that responsible business can play  a  constructive role  and not



just a defensive one in the  formulation of regulatory policy.



     •In the comments to follow we  have identified and  responded



to certain technical, legal  and economic issues which we  feel



will have a profound impact  on our  business.   Equally important



however, is the fact that neither RCRA nor the proposed imple-



menting regulations deal with the scarcity of hazardous waste



treatment and disposal facilities or  the extreme difficulties



faced by government and private industry in siting additional



facilities.  It is clear that these regulations, if finalized

-------
                                                           175






in their present form,  would place many generators in the




position of having no feasible means of disposing of some or




all of their waste.  There is a good possibility that there




will be no approved hazardous waste disposal sites (landfills)



in either Colorado or Tennessee.  Furthermore, the legislatures




of both states may refuse to fund another expensive Federal




program.  The Colorado Legislature took that posture this past




year when it stopped funding COSH, the State arm of the Federal




OSHA program.




      Arapahoe Chemical's principal concerns with the proposed



regulations contained in Section 3001 are discussed first




and our detailed comments fol&ow in a section-by-section format




In the opinion of Arapahoe Chemicals, there are three basic



problems with the proposed Section 3001 hazardous waste




regulations.  These include:




      (1)  The potentially high cost, in both time and money,



           of performing the tests to determine whether or




           not a waste  is hazardous.




      (2)  The exceptionally broad definition of a solid




           waste, and



      (3)  The proposed controversial Extraction Procedure.




      Our first concern centers around EPA's proposal beginning




with




Section 250.10(d)(1)(i) :



      "Generators of solid waste may elect to declare their

-------
                                                           176





waste hazardous and subject to the  regulations  of  this  Part.




In these cases, generators need not perform the specified




evaluation."




Arapahoe's Comments:




      Since the cost, in both time  and money, of performing




the tests to classify industrial wastes  is  so high and  since




the penalty for not being in compliance  is  so great, the




tendency for small and medium sized generators  is  going to




be to declare all industrial wastes as hazardous.   This in




turn is going to put an unnecessary and  greater burden  on the




approved hazardous waste landfill sites  in  the  country  and




consequently decrease their useful  life, resulting in the



wasting of a valuable natural resource.  Furthermore, as the




easily accessible sites are filled  and it becomes  necessary




for industry to haul its wastes greater  distances, the  $35 to




$4200 per metric ton EPA disposal cost estimate, which  is




approximately four to 436 times our current disposal cost,




will be greatly exceeded.




      He recommend that EPA develop and  adopt less expensive




and easier tests to make the determination  of whether or not




a waste is hazardous.  This would surely be a good use  of



public money.




      Our second concern-centers around  EPA's proposal



beginning with



Section 250.13(a)(1)(ii)j

-------
                                                           177






      "A solid waste is a hazardous waste if a representative




sample of the waste:...when ignited burns so vigorously and



persistently as to create a hazard during its management."




Arapahoe's Comments:




      It is the intent  of this section to regulate non-domestic



waste paper, cardborad, wood scraps, sawdust, etc., as




hazardous wastes?  Certain wastes, such as waste paper from




office facilities of chemical conroanies may be non-hazardous.



These, .should not be classified as hazardous merely because of




the source,'nor should  companies have to justify by testing




that their waste paper  is not hazardous.  Waste paper from




the office facilities of chemical companies should be treated



no differently than normal household refuse  (Refer to Page




58969, Column 3 of these proposed regulations, which addresses




the intent of Congress).




      •The clause "or when ignited burns so Vigorously and




persistently as to cause a hazard during its management" should



be stricken from the regulations:



      Our third major concern centers around EPA's proposal




beginning with Sec. 250.13(d)(1) :



      " A solid waste is a hazardous waste if, according to




the method* specified in paragraph  (2), the extract obtained




from applying the Extraction Procedure  (EP)  cited below to




a representative sample of the waste has concentrations of




a contaminant that exceeds any of the following values

-------
	178





 e.g., cadmium at 0.10 mg/1."




       And Sec. 250.13(d)(2)(E):




       "Begin agitation and adjust the pH of the solution to




 5.0 + 0.2 using 0.5 N acetic acid."




 Arapahoe's Comments.



       It appears that the intent of this section is to




 incorporate discarded concrete, piping, ductwork and other



 construction discards to the EP test.  Therein, it appears




 that building contractors, wreckers, etc. would be classed




 as generators of solid waste and -would be required to apply




 the EP to determine if their solid waste were hazardous.




 A classic example being a fragment of concrete from drain




 tile, an aqueduct, a dam, a bridge, a highway, an airport



 runway, a skyscraper, a neighborhood sidewalk, the foundation




 of a home, or the storage pad of a chemical plant which, when




 subjected to the proposed EP results in a "leachate" containing




 cadmium in escess of 0.10 mg/1.




       The EP test appears scientifically unsound in that:




 (a)  This laboratory test may not be indicative of actual



 environmental situations;  (b)  Two chemicals used in the




 test, namely acetic acid and deionized water, are not commonly




 found in nature;  (c)  Disposal of acid waste is not considered




 state-of-the-art practice by industry;  (d)  The proposed




 acid-extraction procedure will not provide a valid indication




 of a waste's characteristics when landfilled in the normally

-------
                                                           179




alkaline soils found in the arid and semi-arid Western two-




thirds of the nation;  and (e)   No consideration of soil types




or characteristics (other than acidity)  was acknowledged or




dealt with in this section.




      This concludes our public statement of concerns relative




to Section 3001.   W,e appreciate the opportunity to have present-



ed our concerns,  opinions and suggestions.




      Thank you.   I will be open for questions.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAR:  Thank you very much.




            MR..LINDSEY:  Mr.  White, one of the comments you




made earlier on was that you felt that the cost of running



the tests, which  we put in here as far as the criteria goes,




would be very high, and this would potentially cause many



companies to simply decree their waste hazardous rather than




running these tests.   This is a little different than what




the information we have is,  in that the information we have,




and I forget the  exact figures, but it indicates that tests




cost would run in the neighborhood of about $400 or something




along those lines.  Do you have any .information that indicates



that?




            MR. WHITES  We just received the Arthur D, Little




Economic Impact Analysis the day before yesterday.  In there,




it is my understanding that 450 to 500 dollars is an average,




that it could go  to $1900, depending upon .the type of business




you are in.

-------
                                                          180





            MR. LINDSEY:  Depending on the number of waste that




you have to test, if you have a lot of different waste?




            MR. WHITE:  Right.




            MR. EINDSEY:  And presumably it would be  some




multiple of 450; is that what the  figure was?




            MR. WHITE:  Yes.




            MR. LINDSEY:  I would  assume that would be some




multiple, and you figure that is like a one shot operation,




isn't it, to determine whether it  is hazardous?




            MR. WHITE:  I fail to  comment up front that




Arapahoe Chemical is in the business of batch operation rather




than continuous processing.  This  is why this would affect




us particularly hard.




            MR. LINDSEY:  That would certainly multiply your




situation, but let me ask you this, can a batch speciality



operation— how many distinct kinds of waste do you have?




In other words, every batch you run is not distinctly different




from every other batch?  You must  produce certain product lines




in each one of those, which has a  waste that is characteristic




that product line? is that the way it works?




            MR. WHITE:  We could have.  I am going to use some



ballpark figure, anywhere from six to twelve waste streams to




deal with over a period of time.




            MR. LINDSEY:  It would be distinctly different?




            MR. WHITE:  If we had  to go through this  testing

-------
                                                           181






requirement,  we would have to isolate these separate waste




treatment; and separate storage facilities and hold on to these




until we got  the testing results back, and in a batch operation



where maybe you may have 600 gallons of a waste stream off of




one plant process,  it may be 3,000 a day off of another one,



this becomes  very burdensome to keep track of each process




and keep the  waste  separated and to monitor the testing that




would be required for this.



           MR. LINDSEY:  Dnder your current practice, that




is to simply  mix all these waste streams together, and since




you run different processes simultaneously, you would have on




a day to day  basis  a waste stream that would be varying?




           MR. WHITE:  Our current process is to segregate




as much as possible solid and organic solvents.  We are trying




to reclaim the organic solvent.




           MR. LINDSEY:  They wouldn't be covered?




           MR. WHITE:  It is aquesus material.- that will give



us the most fits under the proposal,



           MR. LINDSEY:  What do you do with that material




now?  Is it put in  drums and hauled away or what?




           MR. WHITE:  The makeup of our aquesus material is




usually 95 percent  or better water, and the remainder is made




up of mixed salts.   To concentrate aquesus waste is a very




complex and sensitive procedure.  Right now we haven't




considered our acraesras waste as toxic or hazardous.  If they

-------
                                                           182






are contained properly at a disposal site, which we are doing




under license now.




            MR. LINDSEY: .It is a land disposal facility?




            MR. WHITE:  Yes.




            MR. LINDSEY:  On-site?




            MR. WHITE:  Yes.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Our




next speaker is Ms. Francine Bellet Kushner.




            MS. FRANCINE BELLET RUSHNER:  Good afternoon,




my name is Francine Bellet Kushner, Associate Director for




Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Chemical Specialties




Manufacturers Association.  CSMA is a voluntary non-profit




organization consisting of more than 400 member  companies




engaged in the manufacture, processing and distribution of




chemical specialty products.  Production processes in the




manufacture and formulation of members' products generate




substances that are directly affected by the proposed regulation




for identification and listing of hazardous -wastes as well



as the proposed standards tor generators and owner/operators




of treatment, storage and disposal facilities.  Accordingly, .




CSMA offers the following comments regarding the hazardous




waste regulations proposed under 3001 of the Resource




Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA).  These points and




others will be further developed in our subsequent written



submission.

-------
                                                            183





      We welcome this opportunity to present our views to




the Environmental Protection Agency on issues raised by .these




hazardous waste regulations which will have significant impact




on our industry.  The vitality of the chemical specialties




industry is dependent upon the opportunities for constant



innovation.  We are concerned that the proposed hazardous




waste regulations will have a negative impact on essential




process and product innovation and will impact disproportionately



on small companies.




Identification Criteria should Reflect Degree of Hazard




      The proposed regulations create but one category of



hazardous waste and lump all wastes identified as hazardous




in the category regardless of the differing degree of hazard,




persistence, degradability and bioaccumulation exhibited by



the wastes actually classified as hazardous.  EPA'9 failure




to consider degree of hazard in identifying and classifying




hazardous wastes violates the provisions and intent of RCRA




and will result in an irrational regulatory scheme which




vastly over-regulates many wastes while possibly under-




regulating others.




      Both the legislative history and RCRA itself indicate




the degree of hazard should be considered in setting standards




for hazardous waste management.   Section 1004(5) of RCRA




indicates Congressional intent to consider relative hazard




in its definition of hazardous waste as a "solid waste, or

-------
                                                                 184



    combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,


    concentration, or physical chemical or infectious character-


    istics...".   Section 3004 of RCRA recognizes that financial


    responsibility should be based on degrees of risk.  This


    section refers to "assurances of financial responsibility


    and  continuity of operation consistent with the degree and


    duration of risks associated with the treatment, storage, or


    disposal of specified hazardous waste".


           Any designation of hazardous waste as such, because of


    the  management standards created by the RCRA regulations,


    should be according to relative degree of hazard.  This concept


    of relative degree of hazard has been recognized in state


    hazardous waste management programs of many states, including


    Washington and Maryland, as well as in the designation of


    special wastes under 250.46 of these regulations.  Any regulator


    system based on relative degree of hazard must recognize factors


    of persistence, degradability, concentration- form, quantity,


    and  exposure.-


           A regulatory system assessing relative degree of hazard


    is also necessary in establishing an exemption mechanism.  It


    is more realistic to key the exemption mechanism under 250.29


    to relative degree of hazard than to provide a blanket exemption


    An exemption system based upon relative degree of hazard would


    be more likely to afford greater protection against hazardous

nc
    waste mismanagement than an exemption system based on an across-

-------
                                                               185
    the-board exemption level.   Such a ystem would provide signif-


    icant relief from extraordinary economic and technical burdens



    imposed by the  regulatory structure for less hazardous wastes



    and would reduce the number of insignificant generators


    covered by the  regulation,  thereby avoiding a shortage in


    treatment, storage and disposal capacity while not reducing


    protection from hazardous waste mismanagement. A management


    and exception system based upon relative degree of hazard


    would also improve oversight of hazardous waste management by


    freeing the Agency to concentrate on those wastes which exhibit


    truly serious hazards and would establish priorities for


    hazardous waste management review.


    Criteria for Designation as Hazardous Waste Should be


    Consistent with DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations


          EPA criteria for designation of a substance as a


    hazardous waste should be consistent with the DOT criteria


    for hazardous substances.  CSMA urges that these criteria be


    consistent because the entire industry approach to hazardous


    materials is based on the DOT regulations.  Industry has


    already geared  up to deal with the DOT criteria.  Any


    deviation from  the DOT criteria would not only necessitate


22
    a massive reeducation effort on the part of those involved


23
    in the hazardous waste management chain but would also be

24*
    significantly complicated by any further deviation from the

25
    criteria instituted in state programs.

-------
                                                            166






      For example, 250.13(a) designates  as an ignitable waste




subject to these regulations any  substance with a flashpoint




less than 60"C  (140°F) determined by a specified method.




EPA should adopt a definition of  hazard  based upon the DOT




designation of  flammable substances  as those with a flashpoint




of less than 100°F and of combustible substances as those




with a flashpoint between 100°F and  200eF.  Such a definition




would be consistent with existing DOT regulations and wouj.^




also recognize  relative degrees of hazard.  As another example,




both EPA and DOT establish as corrosive  any substance which




corrodes steel  in excess of one-quarter  inch per year.   Never-




theless, EPA has gone beyond existing DOT regulations to identi'




PH, in and of Itself, as an indication of corrosivity.




Section 250.13(b) adds an additional criterion for designation




of a waste as corrosive a pH of less than three or greater




than twelve.  The invalidity of pH as an indicator of corrosive




hazard has been recognized by the Consumer Product Safety




Commission and  by its predecessor Bureau of Product Safety




within the Food and Drug Administration  in detergent toxicity




surveys.   Therefore, EPA should  delete  pH as a criterion



for corrosive waste.




Definition of "Other Discarded Material"




      The Section 250.10(b) definition of "other discarded



material" includes substances or  wastes  that are reused,




reprocessed, recycled or recovered,  including materials treated

-------
                                                           187





prior to reuse.   The extension of the definition to such




substances is clearly not contemplated by RCRA.  The legislative



history (H.  Rept. No. 94-1491, Part I) states that the term



"other discarded materials" is not to include reused waste.




"Much industrial and agricultural waste is reclaimed or put




to new use and is therefore not a part of the discarded




materials disposal problem the committee addresses".




(H.Rept. No. 94-1491, Part I, p.2).  Materials that are reused,



regardless of how, are not subject to regulation under RCRA.




This inclusion of material having economic value in the term




"other discarded material" is also inconsistent with the




ordinary usage of the term "discarded".




      The proposed regulations should recognize that, by




definition,  a waste has no commercial or economic value, and




any used substance with commercial or economic value should




not be subject to these requirements.  And, thi
-------
                                                           188






facility subject to the design standards proposed under 3004




and the permit requirement of 3005.  Such a result was not



contemplated by Congress.  Accordingly, the definition of




"other discarded material" should be amended to clarify that




reprocessed, recovered, or returned reusable chemicals do




not constitute waste subject to regulation under RCRA and that




treatment of wastes prior to reuse is not subject to regulation




under 3004 of RCRA.



      Regulatory treatment under RCRA of reused, recycled,




or reprocessed waste should be consistent with rules under




5 of the Toxic Substances Control ACt  (TSCA) which recognize




that AXDloitation of full potential of a waste or end product




does not constitute sufficient basis for regulation.  For




example, 40 CFR 720.13(d), a rule under 5 of TSCA, does not



classify co-products as chemical substances subject to TSCA




"if the only commercial purpose is for sale to municipal or




private organizations who burn it as a fuel".  Accordingly,




waste materials burned primarily for heat recovery should




not be considered "other discarded material" for ourposes




of disposal under 3004 regulations of  RCRA.




      In summary, the proppsed regulations under 3001 of RCRA




should be amended to reflect CSMA's major concerns, which are;




      1.  Identification criteria and  listings to designate




          hazardous waste should reflect relative degrees



          of hazard.  The regulatory system and any exemptions

-------
                                                           189






          thereunder should incorporate relative degrees of



          hazard.




      2.   Criteria  for designation as hazardous waste should



          be  consistent with criteria under DOT hazardous




          materials regulations.




      3.   The definition of "other discarded material" should




          not include  wastes that are reused, reprocessed,



          recycled, or recovered, including materials treated




          prior to  reuse.



      CSMA appreciates this opportunity to share our views




and we offer  our  firm  commitment  to work with the Environmental




Protection Agency toward development of viable hazardous



waste management  regulations.




      I would just  like to  state  our membership ranges in




size from small chemical producers with sales in the neighborhood



of four to five million dollars a year on up to very very




large chemical companies, many of which produce commodity




chemicals as  well.




      Thank you.  I will now answer questions.




           MR. LINDSEY: The last of the three items had to




do with the definition of other discarded materials, and I




think maybe it is not  clearly written, and maybe that is our



problem,  but  by in  large, unless  your use constitutes disposal,




recycle,  reclaimed, reused  materials are not subject to this.



That is what  that says.   If you would like to identify or

-------
                                                           190






suggest wording which would make this  clearer,  sometimes we




can't see the forest for the trees,  but we know what we are




saying, but maybe it doesn't always  come through  that way,




that would be helpful.  I might go so  far as  to say that as




far as use constituting disposal, you  recommended, for example,




that rather than have this kind of language,  that we use an




economic value as a criterion, and we  did consider that, and




I will lay out for you the problem we  had and see if you can




suggest maybe some other way we can  get around it, if it




still bothers you.  There have been  a  number  of cases where




wastes materials significantly hazardous materials that we




have examples of, have been used to  oil down, if  you will,




various dusty areas.  One of the most  explicit cases where




all those horses were killed by the  use of a  material containin




waste, and oiling materials, and that, had an  economic value




in that case.  That is one, among other cases which caused




this act to be passed in the first place.  We have to see if




we can keep this kind of thing in the  system.



            MS-. KUSHNER:  Well, I would like  to call your




attention to certain elements in the legislative  history.




It indicated that the purpose of the legislation was tvofoid,




and it was to encourage resource conservation and resource



recovery.  We think that clarification of  reprocess, recycle




is not contemplated but would only encourage  that purpose.




•That is recovery of the material.

-------
                                                             191






            MR.  LINDSEY;   But you don't in your category of




recovery,  you don't mean  the spreading of materials on the




ground,  and say  we  are using them for oiling, if you will?




            MS.  KUSHNER:   Absolutely.




            MF.  LINDSEY:   Then I think we are in agreement.




We may not be in agreement with how the wording should be




snelled, but that is essentially what this says or meant to




say.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Our




next sneaker is  Mr. Kent  Olson of Rio Blanco Oil Shale




Comnanv,,




            MR.  KENT OLSON:  Good afternoon, my name is Kent




Olson and I am an attorney, and I am here representing Rio




Blanco Oil Shale Comnany.  Rio Blanco is a creneral partnership




comprised of Standard Oil Company of Indiana, and "ulf Oil




Corporation.  Those two companies are the lessees of Track cA




Oil Shale Lease  out in the "iceance Basin in Northwestern




Colorado,  and it is a Federal prototyne oil shale type program.




      I do have  copies of our written submittal, which was




mailed today to  Mr. Lehman.  A copy has-been given to the




court reporter.   However, if any member of the panel would like




to have a copy now, I will be glad to distribute them now.




I did attend to  have one  of our exnerts present, who is out




of town today, with me, if you get into some questions I




can't answer, we can either file an' addendum to our written

-------
                                                             192






 comments or reapnear on Friday.



       Rio Blanco finds itse3.f  in the posture of at beat,  to




 eat a half a loaf, and maybe we  should be content with the




 half a loaf rather than a  full loaf, and we certainly apnreciati




 the soecial waste category, and  other mining waste subcategorie




 Those of us out here who follow  the Broncos, would know what




 I mean when I characterize it  as "Lou Sabin's half a load."




       By necessity, I have to  emphasize the negative because




 I pick out tho-e things that are most concerned to us in  the




 ten minutes alloted to me.  I  don't mean to be, or create the



 impression of being unduly negative.  I think EPA did a fine




job on the Subpart B regulation on generator.  We do have  about




 four comments under those, and depending on the time, I may




 refer to a counle of those comments.  I also will- not treat




 in my verbal remarks here  the  trust fund concent.  I think




 there is another way to skin that cat, and that is also treated




 not in lieu of your trust  fund,  but as a supplement to it.




 That is treated in our written presentation as well.  Even thou
-------
is not known  to be  hazardous or -none-hazardous, you do not




presently regulate,  but if EPA should suddenly under Section



8002 of the Act,  whereas EPA'g apparent philosophy as reflected



in these proposed regulations, it seems to me that mining




waste is not  known  to be hazardous, then you regulate in part



by creating a special waste category, and then carrying out



a sub-category called uranium mining waste or other other minim




waste, or what have you.  And until the particular minina



industry involved accumulates data at its cost, rather than




as Congress has mandated EPA should accumulate that data as




narti. of this  study  at its cost.



      Mining  waste,  the basic argument is, that it should be




presently subject only to the 8002 (f) study.




      With regard to oil shale in particular, I would read



this portion  of our presentation, and that is, these oil shale




operations, and I am speaking only of the Federal prototype




oil shale lease operations, not any private oil shale operations



that might be anticipated in the future, that these operations




including any generation, transportation, storage, treatment




and disposal  of the solid waste and hazardous waste are and




have been from their inception, regulated by numerous stringent




lease stipulations  and permits, both Federal and State.  These




operations are closely scrutinized by the area oil shale




supervisor of the USGS in freauent consultation with the Oil




Shale Environmental advisory Panel, which did meet quarterly,

-------
                                                            194





I believe until this moratorium,  and now it is going to resume




meeting quarterly,  I understand this April.  To superimpose




another layer of regulation  on  these already regulated operation,




in my view, would be the example  of the kind of situation that




Congress did not intend to be subject to regulations like the




three proposed.




      Our second point is mining  overburden is not a solid




waste, "and the legislative history  is verv clear on that.




      In 43 Fed. Rea 58946 - 59022  (Dec 18, 1978), the O.S.




Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) caused to be published




certain proposed regulations under  paragraph 3001 (691),




3002  (6922) and 3004  (6-924)  of  the  Solid Waste Disposal Act,




as amended by  the  Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act (SCRA)




which.was passed by Congress on October 21, 1976.  Submission




of written comments on these prooosed regulations has been



invited by EPA and  are due on or  before March 16, 1979.




      In response to this invitation, Rio Blanco Oil Shale




Company, a general  partnership  comprised of Standard Oil  Companj




a general partnership comprised of  Standard Oil Company



(Indiana) and Gulf  Oil Corporation  (RBOSC), would like to take




this opportunity to submit our  written comments thereon for




EPA'3 consideration.  In addition,  by letter under date of




February 23, 1979 to Mrs. Reraldine Wyer of EPA, RBOSC has



requested an opportunity to  make  an oral presentation on  these




proposed regulations at the  Denver  hearino scheduled March 7-9,

-------
                                                           195






1979.   A copy of this letter will be submitted as part of that



hearing record.   Mr.  Kent *>. Olson will make RBOSC's oral




presentation.



      Before addressing RBOSC's specific concerns, perhaps




some background  information on how our written comments are



organized would  be helpful.  We have elected to treat the




outset certain fundamental legal questions which we believe




affect all three of these proposed regulations.  For this reason,



these legal comments do not "identify the regulatory docket




or notice number" as requested in EPA's invitation to comment,



but they should  be understood to aoply to paragraph 3001  (6921)



3002 (6922) and  3004 (6924) collectively.  Thereafter, we will




present our specific comments, whenever practical, in the



order in which these proposed regulations appear in the Federal



Register and in  the chronological order in which they appear




within each such proposed regulation.  Where, fo'r example, a




comment on some  feature of the proposed regulation under



paragraph 3001 (69211)  would also pertain to a concern of



ours on an aspect of the proposed regulation under paragraph




3002(6922) and/or paragraph 3004 (6924), we will attempt to



coordinate those comments and cross-reference the appropriate




subsections in a manner so as to avoid any confusion or repetit-



ion.




     • Fundamental Legal Comments.




      1.  It is  premature to presently include "mining waste"

-------
	196





 within the coverage of paragraph 3001  (6921),  3002  (6922) and




 3004 (6924) of RCRA and within any  regulations promulgated




 thereunder.  The definition of "solid  waste" in paragraph 1004




 (27) (6903) (27)) of RCRA could be read as  suggesting  (erroneous




 that, because discarded material from  "mining...operations"




 is "solid waste," such waste may be presently  regulated under




 these three sections of RCRA.  However, the legislative history




 of RCRA refutes that suggestion and makes  it clear that Congress




 intended that any such regulatory effort must  be  preceded by




 the study, reporting and consultation  procedures  in paragraph




 8002(f) (6982(f)).




       "Further, there are other aspects of the discarded




        materials problem, namely mining wastes and sludge,




        that could pose significant  threats to  human life




        and the environment.  Because of a  lack or (sic)




        information, the Committee is unable to determine




        the hazards associated with  the improper management




        of these wastes.  The Committee has therefore




        directed the Environmental Protection Agency to



        study the sources and composition of these wastes;




        the existing methods of disposal; and the  potential




        dangers to human health and  the environment caused




        by the improper management of these wastes.




       "Three areas in particular are of such a nature'as to




        require either a special study  or a special program.

-------
                                                     197
 These three areas are: mining waste, sludge, and



 discarded automobile tires.




" A thorough study of mining waste is essential




 because mining eastes represent 1.8 billion tons




 of waste a year.  (The second largest waste generated




 by volume is agriculture at 687 million tons,



 industrial at 200 million tons, followed by




 municipal waste at 135 million tons.)




 The traditional theory regarding mining waste has



 been that it is generally inert.  However, a few




 recent studies indicate that some mining wastes can




 be harmful; some particularly so when mixed with



 water.   Other mine tailings, oarticularly those




 containing heavy metals may be inert but nonetheless




 toxic even in their elemental form.  Committee




 information on the potential danger nosed by




 mining waste is not sufficient to form the basis




 for legislative action at this time.  For this




 reason, the Committee has mandated a study of




 mining wastes.



"EPA will undertake a study of mining easte, its




 sources, and volumes,  oresent disposal practices




 and will evaluate the potential danger, to human




 health  and environmental vitality.   EPA will study



 surface runoff  or leachate from mining wastes and

-------
                                                	 198





       air pollution by dust, as well  as  alternatives




       to current disposal methods  and the costs of




       such alternatives..."




      "The intent is for EPA to look at all mining waste




       disposal practices, past and present, identify the




       adverse effects of such wastes  on  the environment,




       including people and property located beyond the




       boundary of the mine, evaluate  the adequacy of those



       practices from a technical standpoint,  including




       the adequacy of governmental regulations governing




       such disposal, and make recommendations for




       additional R6D, for imorovement of such practices




       and, where appropriate, for  the development and




       utilization of alternative means or methods of




       disposal that are safe and environmentally sound.."




      Until these paragraphs 8002(f)  (6982(f))  procedures are




met, thereby giving to EPA the information Congress found




lacking, to reasonably and non-arbitrarily regulate that




"mining waste" which is "hazardous,"  "mining waste" cannot be




so regulated as though it were "hazardous."  In considering



H. R. 14496, whose provisions in this regard were essentially




those of RCRA as finally passed, the staff of the Subcommittee




on Transportation and Commerce of the  House Interstate and




.Foreign Commerce Committee  (which was  the subcommittee that



reviewed this bill) requested and received from EPA copies

-------
   	199





of all the damage reports, totalling some 400 reports, for




the express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from




what kinds of activities and facilities should be covered



in RCRA's definition of "solid waste."  Not one of these




reports involved "raining waste," nor could EPA then  (as it



probably could not now if requested under the Freedom of




Information Act)  produce any information on "mining waste"  for




that exhaustive sub-committee .staff effort.  It was precisely



for this lack-of-information reason  that Congress mandated




EPA to conduct the paragraph 8002(f) (6982(f)) study on "mining




wastes."




      This is not to say thatEPA is precluded from finding now



that specific mine wastes from a specific site' are "hazardous,"




but rather that any finding that certain mining wastes generally



are "hazardous" can occur only "at some time in the future,"




after the paragraph 8002(f)(6982(f)) procedures are met.




By this method, Congress sought to give EPA the latitude to




formulate the scientific basis and data by which "hazardous"




"mining wastes" thereafter could be so regulated by EPA without




the necessity of  EPA's having to return to Congress to obtain




the requisite regulatory authority; once EPA has met these




paragraphs 8002(f)  (6982(f))  procedures, it then can promulgate




regulations under paragraphs  3001 (6921), 3002(6922) and




3004 (6924)  for such "mining  wastes" without any further




legislation.

-------
                                                             200





      With respect to  RBOSC's oil shale operations relative




to Federal Prototype Oil  Shale Tract C-a in Rio Blanco County,




Colorado, these operations,  including any generation, transpor-




tation, storage, treatment and disposal of "solid waste"




and"hazardous waste" are, and have been from their inception,




regulated by numerous  and stringent lease stipulations and




permits  (federal and state).   Moreover, such operations are




closely scrutinized by the Area Oil Shale Supervisor in




frequent consultation  with the Oil Shale Environment Advisory



Panel.  To superimpose yet another layer of regulation over




these already regulated operations would be an example of the




kind of situation Congress did not intend should be subject



to regulations like the three proposed, unless, in implementing




the paragraph 8002 (f)  (6982 (f))  study procedures, a regulatory




"hazardous waste" hiatus  in  this federal prototype oil shale




program was unexpectedly  discovered.




      2. _Assuming, arguendo, that paragraphs 3001 (6921),




3002 (6922) and 3004  (5924)  of RCRA presently are applicable




to "mining waste," and that  EPA may promulgate regulations




thereunder, it is SBOSC's understanding that oil shale mining




waste, including processed  (retorted) shale, falls under the



proposed "other mining waste" subcategory in paragraph 250.46-5.




If this, however, is not  EPA's intent, RBOSC would appreciate




prompt notification thereof  and would hereby request, without




prejudice to any of the fundamental legal comments herein,  that

-------
   	       201






    a separate  "oil  shale mining waste subcategory," which would



    include processed  (retorted) shale be created under the "special




    waste  standards" category  in paragraph 250.46.  Oil shale



    development,  like many  other kinds of mining, includes extractiojn,




    crushing, handling, processing and transporting steps, and



6   therefore should be treated equitably with other mining.



          3.  It  is unclear if EPA intends to regulate overburden




    under  the "other mining waste" subcategory in paragraph 250.46-5




    as it  proposes to do for certain enumerated "mining eastes."



    If so, any  such  regulation would have no basis either in RCRA




    or in  the legislative history  thereof.  The term "Solid waste"



    is defined  in RCRA to mean only certain kinds of "discarded




    material'.'"  Therefore,  unless  a material is "discarded," it




    never  is a  "solid waste" under RCRA,  nor can it ever be a




    "hazardous  waste" under RCRA,  because the term "hazardous




    waste" is defined in RCRA  to mean only certain kinds of




    "solid waste."  Nor can EPA's  proposal to expansively redefine



    both the RCRA term "hazardous  waste"  (by defining this term



    to mean not only what RCRA says it means but also "as further




    defined and identified  in  (this Subpart by EPA)" and the




    language "other discarded  material" in the RCRA term "solid




    waste" (by  incorporating a "reuse" concept) circumvent this




    basis  statutory definition. Normally, such overburden is




    stockpiled  and protected for eventual return to the mine or




    other  use.  It is not "discarded." Moreover, even assuming,

-------
                                                            202





arguendo, that raining overburden in certain isolated instances



were "discarded,"  such  discarded overburden would have to meet




the paragraph 1004(5)  (6903(5))  "hazardous" test in RCRA




before it would come within paragraph 3001 (6921), 3002 (6922)




or 3004  (6924) of  RCRA  or  any regulations promulgated there-




under.




      4.  The data collection and reporting procedures proposed




to be made applicable to "other  mining waste" are at variance




with the paragraph 8002 (f)  (6982(f))  study procedures.




Those procedures require the EPA Administrator to "conduct"




this study, "in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior




and, upon' completion thereof, to "publish a report of such




study and... include appropriate findings and recommendations



for Federal and non-Federal actions..."  There- is no requirement




in RCRA that a generator or transporter of "hazardous waster"



or the owner/operator of a  facility for the treatment, storage




or disposal of "hazardous waste,".prepare or participate in




that study or that report,  or collect any raw data therefore,




either at the sole cost ofEPA or,  as  EPA proposes, at the




generator's, etc.  sole  cost.   In effect,  EPA proposes to force




a generator, etc..to work for EPA in  the preparation of this




study free of charge to EPA.   The cost of such forced labor




to the generator,  etc.  will inflate the cost of mineral



development.




      5.  EPA has  failed to follow the requirement in paragraph

-------
^__	203





 3001(b)  (6921(b))  of RCRA that any regulations "listing



 particular  hazardous wastes" and "identifying the characteristi4s



 of hazardous waste"  be "based on the criteria promulgated




 under subsection (a) of this section."  The legislative history



 clearly discloses  that Congress had three specific reasons




 why this bifurcation, in kind and chronology, of the development




 of criteria, on the  one hand, and the identification and listint




 of "hazardous  wastes," on the other hand, was adopted.  For



 example, EPA has identified the characteristics of "hazardous




 waste"  and  made them applicable to "mining waste."  Yet, no




 criteria have  been promulgated upon which such identification



 are supposed to be based.   It would appear that EPA already




 has decided on such  characteristics and then, after the fact,




 will prepare first the proposed, and then the final, criteria




 required by paragraph 3001(b) (6921(b)) of RCRA.




       6. RBOSC is concerned that these proposed regulations,




 if promulgated as  presently written, could inadvertently




 create  a federal cause of action in tort between a "generator,




 etc. and third-parties, and, if so, that a violation of




 the standard could be negligence per se and/or the liability




 therefor could be  absolute.   Present state case law and




 statutes adequately  cover such a cause of action, and the




 creation of such a federal cause of action could overwhelm an




 already overburdened federal -Judiciary.  Nothing in the




•legislative history  of RCRA even suggests this was Congress'

-------
                                                           204






intent.  BPA's final regulations should make this  crystal-clear




      7.  EPA1s use of "notes" throughout  these proposed




regulations is,.at worst, legally confusing and, at  best,




cumbersome.  It is RBOSC's understanding that these  "notes"




would be a part of the final regulations and therefore on an




equal legal footing with the other portions of these regulation




To avoid the potential unintended result that a court might




rule otherwise, and to clean up this awkward syntactical




approach, EPA should incorporate each  "note" into  the body




of the regulation to which it pertains through the use of




"unless" language or something similar, and delete the intro-




ductory-language portion of the "note."




      Specific Comments.




      Without waiving, abandoning or diluting any  of the




fundamental legal comments hereinbefore, RBOSC would like to




show its desire to be h elpful with respect to EPA's invitation




to comment by now addressing certain specific aspects of the




proposed Subpart A, B and D Regulations.




      Proposed Subpart A Regulations  (3001 (6921)  of RCRA):




      1.  250.14(b)  The "source/orocess"  distinction for




listed "hazardous waste" is confusing.  Why is such  a



distinction made?  Isn't the bottom line whether a particular




"solid waste* is or is not "hazardous," regardless of whether




it comes from a "source"or a "process"?




      Proposed Subpart B Regulations  (3002 (6922)  of RCRA):

-------
                                                           205






      In general,  RBOSC finds these nroposed regulations




well-written and balanced,  and we would like to compliment




EPA on a fine job.   Our specific comments are as follows:




      1.  Reference is made on page 58972, column 1, to the



obligation of the  "generator" to report to EPA if it fails




to receive a copy  of the manifest "within 30 days."



Presumably, this relates to the requirement in 250.43-5(a)(2),




page 59003.  But how does a "generator" know what this 30-day



period is and when it expires?




      2.  250.20(c)(l) — Similarly, how is a "generator" to



know if a "permitted hazardous waste management facility"




really is permitted?  By asking that facility?




      3.  A "generator's" obligation to principally shoulder



the operation of this manifest system should not be expanded




into the area of enforcement by EPA's adopting the four




options under consideration which are described on page 58973,




column 3, especially those  in the fourth option, quoted




immediately hereinafter:




            "(4)   Requiring that a generator who has not




              received the  original manifest from the




              facility designated on the manifest within




              35 days after the date of shipment, or who




              determines that the returned manifest is




              inconsistent  with the original manifest,




              must.:

-------
                                              206
"(a)  Take all actions necessary  to




determine the cause of non-receipt or




inconsistency;




"(b)  Assure that all steps are being




taken to locate and receive the manifest




and to assure that -the waste  is  properly




disposed of;




(c)  If he has been unable to accomplish




his requirements under  (a) and  (b) above,




within 30 days, the generator must prepare




and submit a report to the Regional



Administrator.  This report must  be submitted




within 65 days after the date of  shipment,




and must contain the information  required




in 250.23(c) except (2).  In addition,




this report must include:




 "1.  The name, address and identification




code of the designated facility;




 "2.  The actions which have'-been or will




 be taken by the generator to determine




 the reason the original manifest was not




 retuned;




"3.  The results of the generator's




investigation, including any and  all



information involving the shipment and

-------
                                                           207






              cause of non-receipt? and




              "4.   The identity of all parties who may




              be responsible for the non-receipt of the



              manifest."




It is one matter for a "generator to be required to reasonably




keep records and report to EPA, and quite another matter for



a "generator" to be comoelled to work  for free as a policeman




for EPA.   In this connection, please see also the last sentence



in 250.43-5(a) (4).




      4.   250.20(c)(2)   Storage of a "hazardous waste" by a




"generator" for more than 90 days should not necessarily



mean that that "generator" is an "owner/operator of a facility




for the  storage of hazardous waste" under paragraph 3004




(6924)  and 3005 (6925)  of RCRA and thus subject to all of the




Subpart  D and E Regulations.  In this connection, please see




also paragraph 250.41(b)(83).  Some flexibility should be




injected into this absolute "90-day standard," especially in



view of  the far-reaching implications of one's being subjected



to the sweeping Subpart B, D and E Regulations if this "90-day




standard" is absolute,  instead of only the Subpart B Regulationi




      Proposed Subpart  D Regulations (3ff04 (6924) of RCRA):




      1.   The following  four comments pertain to the paragraph



          250.41(b)  definitionss




          (a)  "contamination" (19)  — To define this term




solely as a "degradation" is vague, overly broad and simplistic.

-------
                                                          208






           (b)  "fugitive dust"  (36)  —  For consistency,  this




term should be defined identically  to the definition thereof




in EPA1s PSD Regulations and  in EPA's " Emission Offset




Interpretative Ruling."




           (c)  "hazardous waste facility personnel"  (40)  —




This term is defined, in part,  as those nersons "whose actions




or failure to act may result  in damage  to human health or the




environment"  This "damage" standard is vague,  overly broad,




and ignores the definition of "hazardous waste" in RCRA,




which uses the qualifying language,  inter alia, "significantly



"serious" and "substantial."




           (d)  It would be helpful  if paragraph 250.41 (b) inclufl




a definition of "landfill"  (cf. definition of "surface




impoundment"  (85)).




      2.  250.43(f)  RBOSC fails to see any reason for




determining in detail what the  chemical or physical  properties




of any waste rock might be, because the only change  in the




waste rock from its natural state is its location.



      3.  250.43-1— with respect to this "general site




selection" requirement, it should be recognized that, unlike




most sited facilities, a mineral developer does not  have




much, if any, flexibility in  "selecting" a site.  It is



difficult enough to find a commercial ore body; the  "selection1




of a site  follows the "find," not vice-versa.  These standards




should reflect this reality.   Also, the term "new sources"

-------
                                                            209





should be very carefully defined and should exclude all mining




activities currently in existence and any expansion of such



existing activities.




      4.  250.43-2(a)  — The requirement herein for a "2-meter




(6 foot) fence completely surrounding the active portion of



the facility capable of preventing the unknowing and/or




unauthorized entry of persons and domestic livestock" or




"a natural or artificial barrier" equivalent thereto is




unrealistic.  Flexibility should be provided for those mining




sites which are remote and isolated, which is usually the case.




Is it KPA's intent that this fence be constructed to "float,"




i.e., to move with the "active portion of the facility" as




mining progresses?  If so, this will greatly inflate mining



costs.




      5.  250,43-6(a)  — RBOSC fails to see the need for a




detailed daily inspection of materials which EPA lists or




requires to be characterized as "mining wastes."  Most mines




are in operation seven days a week, 24 hours per day, so the




"facility" is in use.   In the semi-arid regions of the West,




frequent inspections during the rainier months might prove to




be desirable, but daily visual inspections are unnecessary.




      6.  250.43-7(b)  — An "operator" is without any legal




right to insert such a covenant in an "owner's" deed.



      7.  250.43-8(a)  Note — This proposed regulation properly




recognizes there may be times when the rigorous requirements

-------
                                                           210





of 250.43-8(a) are unnecessary to  ensure  groundwater is  being




properly protected.  However, the  Note  provides relief only




where there is no potential  for  a  discharge to groundwater.




If there is not such potential,  no monitoring is necessary.




The provision for a lesser degree  of  monitoring should apply




when there is a low potential for  contamination.  RBOSC  suggesti




the addition of the words "little  or" after the word "indicate




at the end of line 7 of the  Note.




      8.  250.43-8(c) — This requirement would entail much




unnecessary work and expense.  Section  250.43(f) requires




a detailed analysis of the waste to be  treated, stored or




disposed of.  It seems unreasonable to  require such comprehensive




constituent data on groundwater  background when the possible




pollutants may be only certain items.  It would appear to be




more useful to require a background determination only on




those constituents that have caused the wastes in question




to be classified -"hazardous."  Certainly  the determination of




the long laundry - list of interim primary and proposed



secondary drinking water standards for  dirt and rock that is




merely being relocated will  generate  a  lot of data that  will




be of little or no value.




      9.  250.43-8(c)(4) —  RBOSC  would recommend that a




different identification of  "a statistically significant




amount" be utilized.  The student's T singletailed test  at




the 95% confidence level is  too  restrictive.  Very minute

-------
                                                           211






fluctuations in baseline levels not attributable to the facilif



would be encompassed by this level of significance.  One




consideration which makes the T-test inappropriate here is



that to use a T-test, it has to be assumed that the mean




background level is constant over time so that all of the




variation in sampling for the background level comes from



special variation,  because otherwise there would not be




independent sampling.  This is particularly severe because the




proposed rules require three monthly samples to establish the



background levels.   This is much too short a time period to




determine sampling  error where there are seasonal variations,




no matter how the data is analyzed.  Another problem with the




method here is that the confidence level of 95%'is too low.




Even assuming there were independent samples and that there




was no change from  the background levels after the facility



went into operation, Tyoe I error would occur 5% of the time.




In other words, because there are six measurements to be made




quarterly and an additional six to be made annually, it would



be expected that about once or twice a year there would be




a significant result and the provisions of this subsection




would go into effect, including the requirement in (c)(4)(iii)




that the "facility" discontinue operation until the EPA



Regional Administrator determines what actions are to be taken.



      10.  250.43-8(c)(4)(iii) — the "Owner/operator"  should



not be required to idefinitely  ("until the Regional Administratolr

-------
                                                            212





determines what actions  are  to  be  taken")  shut down the




"facility" without due process, e.g.,  a hearing, unless an




emergency situation exists.




      11.  Although the  "trust  fund"  financial security




concept for closure and  post-closure  of a  "facility" in paragrapi




250.43-9 is not proposed to  be  made applicable to "other mining




waste" by 250.46-5, RBOSC would resoectfully offer the




following comments on this "trust  fund" concept in case EPA




finds them helpful:




      (a)  An  "owner/operator"  should  be given the option of




posting a surety bond.   EPA's fear that no one would qualify




for such a bond is unfounded.   If  an  "owner/operator" can




qualify therefore, the proof is in the pudding; if not,  then



the "trust fund" concept should kick in.   EPA's further fear




that surety bonds are subject to year-to-year renewal and




therefore are  insecure can be overcome by  requiring that



such a surety  bond provide for  no  cancellation without  30




days' prior written notice to EPA.   Following receipt of any




such cancellation notice by  EPA, the  "owner/operator" would




have to comply with the  "trust  fund" concept.




      (b)  Re  post-closure secruity, no funds should be release!




to EPA upon notice of a  violation,  as  provided in 250.43-9(a)




(2}(ii); due process, e.g.,  a hearing, first must be afforded



the "owner/operator."




      (c)  Provision for a 2% annual  inflation factor in

-------
                                                          213







calculating the amount of both the closure and post-closure




"trust funds" is unrealistic.   It is noteworthy that EPA,




relative to re-evaluating the adequacy of the amount in these




"trust funds" would require a bi-annual evaluation.  The




annual inflation factor should  be tied to an escalator,




realistic at the outset and adjusted bi-annually, based on




the actual inflation rate.




      RBOSC appreciates this opportunity to submit these




written comments to EPA, and we hope that EPA will give them




its most serious consideration.  Thank you.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Will you answer questions?




            MR. OLSON:  Yes.




            MR. LINDSEY:  The whole question of oil shale,




as it fits under these regulations is something which I guess




we can own up to that we haven't fully considered.  In order




to be covered, it would have to fail one of the criteria,




or the test under whatever that section is, 250.13.  In other




words, it would have to be the ignitable, which the waste




isn't, or the explosive or reactive, which it wouldn't be.




            MR. OLSON:  If it meets one of those tests, it




should have been listed by EPA?




            MR. LINDSEY;  It wouldn't necessarily have to be




listed, but it would be covered whether or not it is listed.




In other words, if a waste meets these criteria.




            MR. OLSON:  Are you talking about the first four?

-------
                                                            214






            MR. LINDSEY:  Yes.




            MR. OLSON:  Okay.




            MR. LINDSEY:  Plus toxicity.




            MR. OLSON:  Explosiveness and reactive?




            MR. LINDSEY:  Yes, as I recall, the oil shale




industry, this is an in
-------
                                                           215
Take it all up above ground and retort.




            MR.  LINDSEY:   Then it would be, I imagine the




waste which is left over  from those above ground retorting,




that would be what we are considering here?




            MR.  OLSON: You would not be considering the




waste left over  from below ground retorting.  Do I read that



into your question?




            MR.  LINDSEY:   That is a very good question.



I will reserve an answer  to that.




            MR.  OLSON: That was just a question. It wasn't



cross examination.




            MR.  LINDSEY:   I am not sure we can respond to




that right away,  but anyhow, you can give us whatever




information you  can give  us on these retorting processes



and it may help  us make up our own minds on it.




            MR.  OLSON: We regard the whole thing part and



parcel of the mining and  retort as one process, if you will,




and in the definition of  other mining wastes, you use the




term extraction/  beneficiation and processing of ores and




minerals, and that seems  to me what we are doing by your




very own language,  but I  would surely like some confirmation




on that, because if I have to deal with all of the Subpart




B and D regs,  then we are in surface impoundment and some




other problems.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Our

-------
                                                           216





next speaker is Rita E. Ewing representing Utah International,




Inc.




            MS. RITA E. EWING:  Good  afternoon, my name  is




Rita Ewing.  I am Senior Environmental  Supervisor at  Utah




International, Inc., whose headquarters are located in San




Francisco, California.  Thank you  for the  opportunity to




appear before you today.




      Utah International Inc. is an diversified mining




company with surface mining operations  in  the western United



States.  We shall be submitting written technical contributions




addressing the Proposed Hazardous  Waste Guidelines and




Regulations.  Today we would like  to  offer our  general comments,




giving a few specific examples relating to the  proposed




regulations.




      Before beginning our comments,  we would like to express




our appreciation to EPA for the tone  and format which the Agencj




has offered in soliciting constructive  public comment.   We




fully support the premise that the disposal of  hazardous waste




is a crucial environmental and health problem that, if




regulated, must be regulated by a  sound and balanced  program.




We h ope the following comments will  assist in  formulating




the most desirable strategy for phasing implementation of the




Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  of  1976.




      Our comments today address the  following  issues:



Subpart A - Identification and Listing  of  Hazardous Wastes.

-------
                                                           217
      1.   Extraction  Procedure




      2.   Definition  of  a Toxic Waste



      3.   Uranium Mining Waste Rock and Overburden




Subpart B -  Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous




Waste



      1.   Conditional Exclusion Based on Volume of Waste



          produced per Month.




      2.   Alternative Means of Regulating Small Quantities



          of Wastes




Subpart D -  Standards Applicable to Treatment, Storage and




Disposal  Facilities




      1.   "Notes" Category for Standard Deviation




      2.   Duplication in the Regulation of Mining Wastes




      3.   Conflict between Regulations



      4.   Assurance of Post-Closure Costs




A recurring  theme in  our comments is the need for standards




based on  the degree of hazard which depends on the character-




istics of specific wastes and the environment in Which they



are deposited.




Subpart A — Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes




      1.   Extraction  Procedure




      The legislative history of the Resource Conservation




      and Recovery Act of 1-976 makes it evident that EPA




      is  responsible  for determining and listing all hazardous




      wastes using criteria developed by EPA (see e.g., H.

-------
                                                    21°




Report 94-1491,pp5,25).




While in some cases it may be appropriate to require




industry to determine which wastes are hazardous




according to EPA criteria, we feel that industry




should also be afforded the flexibility to use




alternative tests, methodologies and techniques




which, in fact,'may be more appropriate for a particu-




lar waste and also meet the EPA criteria.




We cite the "Extraction Procedure" specified in 250.13




(d)(2) as an example.  This Procedure has been




designed to "model" improper management by




simulating the leaching action of rain and ground-




water in the acidic environment present in open




dumps and landfills.  However, this "model" 3ust



does not reflect all possible conditions, circumstances




or processes.  Mining wastes, for example, are usually




disposed of without the mix of non-mining wastes as




in the case of public landfills.  In fact some mining




operations have alkaline rather than acidic wastes.




Therefore, the flexibility of allowing alternative




tests should be included in the regulation.




2.  Definition of a Toxic Waste




The proposed identification criteria define a broad




array of materials as hazardous based upon reactivity,




ignitability, toxicity and corrosivity.  These various

-------
"hazardous substances" are all subject to the same



performance standards.  However, some of the




identification, design and operating standards




as presently drafted are based on certain assumptions



and, specific conditions which are not necessarily




universal for all kinds of hazardous wastes and




disposal environments.




For example, a waste is defined as toxic and therefore




hazardous if application of the specified Extraction



Procedure to a representative sample of the waste




yields an extract having concentrations of contaminants




that exceed ten times the National Interim Primary




Drinking Water Standards for those particular



substances.  The attenuation factor of 10 is



qualified in the preamble as being based upon the




assumption that the waste is in a "nonsecure landfill"



located over a fresh water aquifer and that a pumping




well -is located 500 feet down gradient.  These




assumptions may not, in fact, be correct or



appropriate for analysing other disposal circumstances.




Therefore, we recommend that the identification




procedures and performance standards be made specific




to the waste and the disposal environment.




3.  Uranium Mining Overburden




The procedure under which uranium mine waste is

-------
                                                     220


regulated as a hazardous waste  needs  clarification.

At present, waste rock  and overburden from uranium

mines are listed as hazardous because of. inherent

radioactivity.  A "non-hazardous"  classification

can only be attained  if tests show that a

representative sample has an average  concentration

of less than 5 PicoCuries per gram.

We believe that a judgment of the  allowable measure

of radioactivity based  on a single radium concentration

value is questionable,  because  overburden characteristics

such as density, moisture content,  particle size and

soil type all effect  the amount of radon emanation

and the gamma dose generated by uranium mining

waste.  These factors must be considered in forecasting

the degree of radiation hazard.

The Muclear Regulatory  Commission  recently made this

same observation in the issued  Branch Position paper

entitled, "interim Land Cleanup Criteria for

Decommissioning Uranium Mill Sites."   The paper states,
 V
and I quote, "The interrelationship between radium

226 soil concentrations, radon  222 flux and gamma

dose rates is a complex function of many factors—

therefore, since no simple numerical  criteria in

terms of radium 226 concentrations in soil is applicable,

no attempt has been made to express criteria directly

-------
                                                          221






     in terms of radium 226."




     EPA also makes this same observation  in the background




     document for radioactive waste.  Your agency  states




     that the relationshio between soil radium concentrations




     and the resulting radiation levels observed in




     Florida phosphate lands  (on which the 5 PicoCuries




     per gram criterion was based)   "may not", and I




     quote, "be representative of radium/indoor radon




     progeny relationships in a more extensive sample




     obtained from a wide geographic area."




     I might add that the preamble  (p. 58950) states




     and I quote, ."EPA proposes to rely only on consid-




     eration of the first four characteristics because




     those are the only ones for which the Agency




     confidently believes test protocols 'are available."




     Radioactivity is not one of these; therefore, we




     would argue that the radiation criterion as proposed




     is inappropriate.




     We recommend that radon fiux and gamma dose be




     designated as the limiting factors in setting the




     radiation standard to circumvent the  proven




     difficulties of relating radium concentration




     to actual radon and gamma levels.




Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous




Waste.

-------
                                                     222
1.  Conditional Exclusion based on Volume  of  Waste



    Produced.




We feel that determination of conditional  exclusion




on the basis of waste volume produced  should  be




replaced by a more scientific determination based




on the characteristics of the specific substance,




and the conditions under which those substances




will be disoosed.




A broad range of wastes have been identified  as




hazardous, and within this category, toxic ootentials




vary widely.  We believe that the amount of toxic




waste that can be disoosed of legally  should  be




determined on the basis of the level of hazard




inherent in ta specific waste.  Further, the site for




waste disposal should also be considered in determin-




ing appropriate levels.



For example, one hundred kilograms oer month  of a




specific substance-may be an appropriate lirait in an




industrial metropolis where thousands.of industrial



facilities may cumulatively affect the same hydrologic




and air quality systems.  However, the effect of




disposing of that same one hundred kilograms  might




be minimal and insignificant in a more remote, less



industrialized area that does not have to  accommodate




large amounts of hazardous wastes.

-------
                                                    223






Further, the degrees of danger involved in disposing




of 100 kilograms of waste oil per month is very




different from the danger inherent in disposing




of the same amount of PCB's per month.




We recommend that the regulations be altered to




reflect both site-specific and waste-specific




conditions.  Moreover, we feel that the individual




states have a better idea of local tolerances and




that each state should be given the flexibility




to administer and enforce a hazardous waste disposal




program that not only meets the environmental




intent of RCRA but also considers the economic




impact on the specific disposal site.




2.  Alternatives Addressing Regulation of Small Quantitie:




    of Hazardous Waste.




In response to your invitation for comment on the six




alternatives, addressing small quantities of hazardous




waste, we propose a combination of alternatives three




and four, which would provide for:




   Unconditional Federal exemption for small quantities




   of hazardous wastes.




   Cutoff quantities based on degrees of hazard.




   State responsibility for regulations of exempted




   waste groups under the approved state plan and




   regulatory program under Subtitle D of RCRA.

-------
                                                             22
 Subpart D - Standards Applicable to Treatment, Storage and




Disposal Facilities




      1.  "Notes"  Category for Standard Deviation




      In the preamble, EPA admits that very specific




      requirements "might" discourage the development of new




      technologies or that different design and operating




      requirements might be necessary for a particular




      facility which is disposing of only one kind of




      waste".



      Recognizing this problem, EPA has >offered the "Notes"




      category to allow for standard deviation.  We find




      this approach unsatisfactory.  Although a note may




      have the same degree of legal significance as the




      regulation it follows, the oractical effect is



      to subordinate the note to the regulation.  A clearer




      procedure would be to incorporate the body of the




      note into the standard qualified by the word "unless".




      A specific example demonstrating this suggestion (as




      it relates to 250.43-1(g)) will he provided in our




      written comments.




      2.  Duplication in the Regulation of Mining Waste.




      The tone and format of the EPA invitation for comment




      imply that EPA agrees with industry's sense of




      operating in an environment of over-regulation.



      EPA appears to be seeking to remedy this situation,

-------
                                                     225





but we feel that the guidelines and regulations




may actually have the effect of compounding the




over-regulation problem.




The guidelines and regulations as proposed require




mine and mill ooerators to obtain hazardous waste




disposal permits for certain mine wastes, including




overburden in the cases of uranium and phosohate




mining.  The permits would be conditioned by




compliance with EPA's proposed "Standards for Owner




and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment/ Storage




and Disposal Facilities."




In the case of coal mining activities, some of the




requirements duplicate the Surface Mine Control




and Recalamation Act regulations administered by




the Department of Interior.  Duplication of regulations




and thus of industry permit applications also exist




because several states already have reclamation




programs that adequately address the disposal of all




mining wastes, toxic or otherwise.  In fact, some




state laws require that open pits be backfilled




by returning overburden to the pits and this may bet




be acceptable under RCRA.




We believe that additional regulation in this area




by RCRA is a duplication of effort.  Additional




regulation will cause more work for both the public

-------
                                                    226
sector and private sector, perhaps without sub-




stantive benefit to either.  Thus, we urge EPA




to function as a coordinator among the Department




of the Interior and the various states to avoid




this duplication with other regulations.




3.  Inconsistency with Other Regulations




In addition to the problem of duplication of




regulations, there is also inconsistency and conflict




between the proposed regulation and other existing




regulations.



Sections 250.43  (c), 250.44-1, -2 and 25.45 - 3(d)




(2), for example, specificy a 24 hour-25 year design




storm, which conflicts with the 24 hour-10 year storm




required by the Clean Water Act regulations (40




CFR, Subchapter N, Effluent Guidelines and Standards).




As a result, an approved treatment oond desigried




pursuant to an MPDES permit would still be in non-




compliance with the hazardous waste regulations  This




kind of inconsistency should be avoided.




4.  Assurance of Post-Closure Costs




We would be remiss without mentioning the necessity




for a provision to allow for the assurance of post-




closure costs by alternative means aich as the use




of surety bond guaranties.  Although eligibility




for surety bonds is often regulated stringently,

-------
        	227





     and is thus limiting to many owners and operators,




     we believe that owners and operators who can obtain



     bonding should not be handicapped by a provision




     that assumes bonding will not be available.  In




     reality, the availability of insurance covering



     "non-sudden and accidential occurrences", as



     required by regulation, is equally difficult to




     obtain.



     Although we recognize that the responsibility of




     developing a viable insurance market does not rest




     with EPA, inherent in the proposed regulations is



     the requirement that owners and operators obtain




     "non-sudden and accidental" insurance policies which




     are very difficult, if not impossible, for. most owners




     and operators to acquire.  It would therefore be ex-




     tremely helpful as we attempt to cornnly with the




     regulation if insurance cbnroanies, through government




     encouragement, were educated on the positive cost/




     benefit ratio of providing this coverage on a less




     restricted basis.




In summarizing our general comments today, we urge the EPA




to be more specific in addressing the hazardous levels of




specific wastes and factor into your regulations, consideration




for the disposal site.  We urge you to function as the coordi-




nator among Federal Departments and State agencies to achieve

-------
 1
 2
 3
 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17



18




19



20




21



22




23



24



25
                                                                228
a Hazardous Waste program that does not duplicate other




regulations and result  in more work for both the private and




the public sector.  We  urge  you to create regulations




appropriate fop the environmental  goals you are trying to




achieve, and regulations  that are  anoropriate for the sub-




stances addressed and feasible for the companies that must




work with the regulations to disoose of hazardous wastes.




We again refer you to our technical written comments, and




we thank you for the opportunity to assist you in the formulation




of these regulations.



      Thank you for your  time.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Will you




answer questions?




            MS. SWING:  Yes.




            MR. I/EHMAN:   Ms.  Ewing, you mentioned in your




opinion some of the requirements in the proposed regulation




duplicate those of the  Office of Surface Mining Regulations.




We have made an attempt to make  sure that didn't happen.  In




other words, we reviewed  their regulations, and they have




reviewed ours, but evidentially  you feel that you found




places where there are  duplications, and so I would just  urge




you to highlight those  in any written submission that you make




to us.  If you will cite  chapter and verse so we can ferret
those out.
                 MS. EWINGs  We  should submit additional comments

-------
                                                           229






before March 16th?




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Yes.  Thank you very much.




Let's take a recess.




      (Whereupon a recess was taken.)




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Mr. Prank Lee, Independent




Petroleum Association.   Is he here?  I guess he is not here.




I will next call Mr.  Rees Madsen of the White River Shale




Project.



            MR.  REES  C. MADSEN:  Good afternoon, my name is




Rees Madsen and  I am  manager of the White River Shale Project.



Our office is located in Vernal, Htah at this time.




      The purpose of  my appearance here is to transmit our




comments  concerning the subject proposed rules as published




in the 43 CFR, 58946  on December 18th, 1978.  Our review




has shown that the proposed rules pose -a. severe potential




impact on our planned shale oil production operations.




      By  way of  background, the White River Shale Project




(WRSP) is a joint venture of Phillips Petroleum Company,




Sohio Natural Resources Company and Sunoco Energy Development




Company.   WRSP was formed by these companies in order to




develop two Federal oil shale leases located in Utah.  No




processing operations are currently occurring on the leases.



But plans have been prepared for the construction and operation




of a 100,000 barrel-per-day commercial shale oil production




facility.  Such  a facility would require the underground mining

-------
                                                            230






crushing and processing of 160,000 tons  per day of oil shale




rock.




      Processing the rock involves heating the crushed material




to over 930°F in some type of equipment.   At this temperature




most of the organic material in the  rock separates from the




inorganic matrix and is recovered.




      The rock, holding much less organic material than before,




will then be discharged for ultimate disposal.   Aboutl29,000



tons-per-day of processed shale rock will need to be disposed




of under WRSP's planned 100,000 barrel-per-day shale oil




production rate.  This processed shale will be disposed of



above ground on WRSP leases near the shale oil production




facility.



      The processed shale, -in our opinion, constitutes a low




risk nonhazardous'waste, the disposal of which can be  adequate!;




handled under existing and proposed  mine waste disposal




regulations.




      However, the proposed Subpart  A regulations under Section




3001 "identification and listing of  hazardous  wastes"  could




erroneously show processed shale to  exhibit a  hazardous waste



characteristic.




      This characteristic is "toxicity"  as established by




the proposed "extraction procedure"  for  determination  leachate




concentrations of- several contaminants.   The fundamental




problem with the extraction procedure is that  it assumes an

-------
                                                           231





acidic environment in the waste pile.   As noted in the preamble




"The EP (extraction procedure)  that is included in the proposed




rulemaking has  been designed to 'model' improper management



by simulating the leaching action of rain and groundwater in




the acidic environment present in landfills or open dumps."



      We recognize that some screening mechanism is necessary.




But we have a real concern with the acidic assumption, since



processed shale,  or raw shale fior that matter, produces




alkaline leachate waters.   This is important because the.



leachability of the contaminants of interest are generally



affected by the pH.




      A report  distributed by Region VIII of the Environmental




Protection Agency in May 1977 entitled "Trace Elements




Associated with Oil Shale and Its Processing" discussed the




leachability of several trace elements.  The report noted



that data showed  Selenium, Molybdenium, Boron and Fluoride




are present in  processed shale in only partially soluable




forms.  This is primarily because these materials can form



water soluble anionic species under alkaline conditions




(e.g., Se04=, Mo4=, Bo3  ,F~) .   In contrast. Cadmium, Arsenic,




Chromium, Copper, Zinc and Iron are present in essentially




insoluble* forms.  ' Th is is so because, except for Arsenic,




these elements  form insoluble hydroxides, oxides, or sulfides.



It is generally understood that as the alkalinity of the



leachate as produced by processed- shale materials increase.

-------
                                                            232






most metals exist in less  soluble  forms.




      It should also be  recognized that the oil shale rock




is a common material found in Utah and Colorado.  Nature is




eroding oil shale formations  continuously.   It is important,




in ouroopinioh, to recognize  the similarities in quality




between the leachate from  a processed" shale pile and the leacha




or runoff produced from  natural dissolution of the extensive




parent rock formations around.the  disposal  area.  It would be




unreasonable, in our opinion,  to severely regulate a processed




shale disposal site when natural deposition of similar material




is occurring on a large  scale all  around  the site.




      For these reasons  we take strong exception to the  use of




the extraction procedure as proposed in Part 250, Subpart A




250.13(d), for determining whether processed shale exhibits




a hazardous waste characteristic.



      Further to this concern of ours, we note that EPA  feels




a quantitatively stringent extraction procedure "is necessary,



because only waste designated as hazardous  is subject to




transport controls as well as disposal controls." Apparently,




EPA desires to be conservative in  identifying and regulating




hazardous waste sources  so as to prevent  serious accidents




during transport even though  ultimate disposal could be



adequately regulated for some "hazardous" wastes under Subtitle



D of RCRA, Section 4004.




      In this regard we  would like to point out that processed

-------
                                                           233






shale will not  be transported  far.  Handling costs are too




great.  In the case of WRSP,  for examole, the material will




be diposed of near the oil production facility on WRSP leases.




SO a stringent extraction procedure is not required, in the




interest of getting processed shale under the "hazardous"




waste umbrella for the ouroose of insuring the rocK reaches




a disposal site safely.




      It seems advisable for  the EPA to build more flexibility




into the toxicity hazardous waste characteristic test.  We




suggest EPA consider providing for alternate tests that can




be shown to more closely duplicate the actual disposal condition!




expected.




      At this time we have no specific comments regarding




Part 250, Subpart B, regarding proposed regulations pursuant




to Section 3002 (Standards Applicable to Generators of




Hazardous Wastes) .




      However, bur review of  Part 250, Subpart D, oursuant




to Section 3004 (Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators




of Hazardous' Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities)




did result in some comments.




      First, i£ processed shale were to be classified as a




hazardous waste, we assume it would be handled as some type




of special waste,  and more specifically some type of an




"other mining waste" as described in 250.46-5.  It would




seem that a unique classification comprised of a modified

-------
    	234


"soeoial other mining wastes" tyoe would  be  advisable.  We

understand that ruleraaking concerning  treatment,  storage

and disposal of special wastes will be developed  in  the

future.  We very much want to have the chance  to  participate

in this development.

      We fully exoect processed shale  to  not be considered as

a hazardous material.  This should occur  if  the "toxicity

characteristic" is evaluated vising a realistic procedure that

recognizes processed shale's alkaline  nature and  the

continuously occurring natural decomposition of shale rock

in the disposal area vicinity.  The disposal of processed

shale should be adequately controlled  by  applicable  regulations

for disposal of nonhazardous wastes and State  mining waste

handling regulations.

      We appreciate your consideration of our  comments.

Thank you.  I will be happy to respond to questions.

            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.
                                 i
            MR. LINDSEY:  You seem to  have reason to believe

that the toxicity test method that spent  shale would fail

the toxicity requirement for heavy metals.   Do you have data

on that, or what makes you reach that  opinion?

            MR. MADSEN:  I think it is more  uncertainty at

this point time time.  The work we have done has  been done

using natural waters or distilled water,  letting  the pH fall

where it will during leachate test.  I have  no data  on pH 5,

-------
                                                            235






EPA extraction procedure,  but the fear is that the EPA procedure




as proposed would  erroneously result in exceedence.  We have




no data to show  that  would be the case, but we are also




concerned that this material  is  expected to be used for other




tests beyond  just  comparison  with drinking water standards,




and it seems  advisable  at  this point to set up a test which




will resolve  in  a  most  realistic leachate water being developed.




           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you very much.  I will




next call Mr. R. N. Heistand, Vice president Development




Engineering,  Incorporated.




           MR.  ROBERT  N.  HEISTAND:  T am Robert Heistand,




president of  DEI,  Development Engineering, Inc., which is




a subsidiary  of  Paraho  Development Corporation.




      Since 1973,  DEI has  been engaged in oil shale retorting




research at the  Anvil Points  Oil Shale Research Facility.




This research has  proved the  operability of the Paraho retort




and has produced 100,000 barrels of crude shale oil for




refining into fuels for further  testing arid research.  The




next step in  the development  of  the Paraho technology is the




construction  and operation of a  module which could produce




6,000 barrels of shale  oil per day.




      During  the past five years of research and production,




many retorted shale studies have been directed towards the




evaluation of its  chemical and physical properties and the




assessment of disposal  techniques.  DEI has been directly.

-------
                                                           236


involved in many of  these studies and has cooperated with

many researchers and investigators working under contract

with the EPA and other  government agencies (see references).

Our comments expressed  in this letter are based on our experiem
             •
and knowledge of Paraho retored shale properties and the geograjhy

of the Colorado-Wyoming-Utah shale country and the data

obtained from studies of the Paraho operations at Anvil Points.

       (A)  The proposed•extraction procesure (EP)  outlined in

Section  (P250.13) used  distilled water maintained to pH=5.0 + 0

This criterion is unreaslistic for oil shale operations in

Western U.S.  First,  the pH  of various ground and surface

waters range from 7i5 to 8.1.   Second, the leachate from

vegetation lysimeters using  Paraho retorted shale and Colorado

River water and from laboratory studies ranged.from pH=6.5 to

11.6.

      tfi)  Retorted  shale, as  produced by the Paraho operations


is not a hazardous waste.  It  does not apoear in lists

presented in P 250.14 of the proposed regulations.   Paraho

retorted shale does  not have the characteristics of a hazardous

waste as identified  in  P 250.13 of the proposed regulations.

       (P 250.13a)  Paraho retorted shale is not an ignitable

waste.  No autoignition potential was noted.   During a one-

year monitoring program,  temperatures within a compacted shale

disposal site ranged  from 45°F to 85°F.

       (P 250.13b)  Paraho retorted shale is not a corrosive

-------
       	237


waste.   The pH leachates, obtained under three sets of

conditions, ranged from 615 - 11.60.  These data meet EPA

proposed specifications.

      (P 250.13c)   Paraho retorted shale is not a reactive

waste.   It is not normally unstable rior capable of detonation.

Under normal conditions of handling/ compaction, and contact

with air and water, it is an inert material.  As noted previous

it is an inert material under normal temperatures and pressures

      (P 250.13d)   Paraho retorted shale is not a toxic waste.

Available data from lysimeter leachates show that Paraho

retored shale meets the proposed EPA Toxic Waste Standards.

Most of these data even meet the more restrictive Primary

Drinking Water Standards.  Although the natural pH of these

leachates was about pH = 11, leachates from succeeding seasons

from these lysimeters have pH = 5 and even lower concentrations

of the toxic metals than those shown.  More evidence that Parah

retorted shale is not a toxic waste is found in its chemical

  /                 ,
composition.  Assuming 100 percent solubilization under the

proposed EPA extraction procedure for hazardous wastes,

cadmium, mercury,  and silver would meet the proposed EPA

Toxic Waste Standards.  Since the listed chlorinated hydrocarbo

are not naturally occurring substances and are not used in


the Paraho retorting process, they are not present, in Paraho

retorting process, they are not present in Paraho retorted

shale.

-------
                                                           238





      The foregoing comments are based on  research  results




and experience gained by DEI during the Paraho oil  shale




operations conducted at Anvil Points.  Because Paraho




retorted shale is not classified as a hazardous waste under




the proposed regulations, we reserve comments on Subparts B-G




of the proposed regulation.  Should there  be any substantive




changes or additions to the proposed regulations, we would like




to be informed so that we could make comments at that time.



      Thank you.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Will you answer




questions from the panel?




            MR. HEISTAND:  If I can.




            MR. LEHMAM:  Mr. Heistand, you are basing your




contention that oil shale is an unhazardous material based




on a number of research and development findings, but I




wonder if you actually applied the extraction procedures as




proposed in the December 18th Federal Register against the




shale and what you found?  Did you'do that?




            MR. HEISTANDt  We have not, but I would like to




point out that I think the metals, based on their chemical




composition, if they were 100 percent soluable, would still




meet it.  The other metals were not more than two times over



that threshold, so that even assuming a 100 percent soluability




of the target metals, they would come quite close as far as



we can tell.

-------
           	239




               MR. LINDSEY:  But you do plan to do that?



               MR. HEISTAND:  Yes, we do.



               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.   I



   wilji next call Dr.'John E. Tessieri.



               DR. JOHN E. TESSIERI:  I am John E. Tessieri,



   Texaco Inc's Vice President of Research, Environment,  and



   Safety.  Texaco appreciates th is opportunity to comment on



   the regulations being proposed by EPA for the Resource



   Conservation and Recovery.Act.



         Texaco personnel have participated with the American



   Petroleum  Institute in the review of early drafts of  these



   regulations and I would like to conmend the EPA staff  with



   whom we have worked for their cooperative attitude and their



   willingness to listen to our suggestions.  Many of our suggest-



   ions have already been incorporated into these proposed



   regulations to make them adaptable to the needs of our industry



   This encourages us to believe that you will view our input durin|g



   this comment period'with the same positive attitude you have



   shown in the past.



         Texaco is preparing detailed written comments which will



   be presented before the March 16 deadline, so I will not  cover



   those details today.  Instead, I would like to limit my
                                               i


   comments to only one issue.  This issue has been raised by



   many others and we believe it to be of prime importance,  and

o
   to be fundamental to almost every detailed point about which

-------
                                                           240




we are concerned.




      The issue I want to address  here  has  to  do  with  Degree




of Hazard.  That is, we must  find  a  mechanism  by  which we can




apply a control-technology  that  is anpropriate for the




particular class of waste being  managed and its potential




hazard to the environment.  Otherwise/  there will be a




devastating effect on our industry's ability to produce




needed energy and on our nationwide  inflation  problems problems




without producing a significant  environmental  protection benefit



      Texaco agrees with the  wholeheartedly endorses the




philosophy that extremely hazardous  wastes  should be controlled




in a very strict manner.  We  have  little argument with the




basic approach presented in these  proposed  regulations for that




type of waste.  But we cannot endorse the application  of the




same degree of control as would  be used to  manage a dioxin,




PCB, or similar highly toxic  material to a  waste  which fails




the criteria test simply because of  the presence, for  example,




of a minor amount of one of the  drinking-water-standard




metallic species.




      Thus, the proposed acidic  extraction  classification




criteria based upon the Philosophy of possible mismanagement




in a municipal waste disposal system, has no place in  many




industrial waste disposal situations.  For  instance, for



exploration operations in remote areas  there is no possibility




that drilling wastes will be  disposed of in a  municipal

-------
                                                               241






    landfill, thus the criteria which applies an acidic extraction



    test because municipal landfills are acidic is totally



    inappropriate.  In a similar manner, on-site disposal at




    refineries never involves municipal wastes so the acidic




    extraction is again applying an inappropriate test of potential



    hazard.




          As a result of this type of classification criteria




    we find that a vast range of our operations will, inappropriate



    require full compliance with these regulations as though we




    were handling highly toxic wastes.




          Our industry is studying the impact of these proposed



    regulations.  The first results of those studies will be




13   presented to these hearings by the American Petroleum Institute




    spokesman so I will not repeat those details, but I would



15   like to reiterate the basic conclusions.  Those studies




    indicate that the cost for our industry alone to comply with




17   RCRA regulations will be several orders of magnitude higher



    than EPA's estimate for the total cost of the 17 industries




    EPA studied.  One impact of th is cost burden would be against




    many stripper wells which could not afford the cost of nit




    lining and cash deposits for closure.   (Average stripper well




22  production was 2.9 barrels per day in 1977.)  This could mean




23  a loss of as much as 1 million barrels per day of crude




24  production, over 12 percent of our 1977 domestic production.




25  Many shallow exploratory and development wells would not be

-------
                                                           242






drilled should the costs of pit lining, monitoring, and



closure be added to marginal profitability parameters.  Yet,




these wells contribute significantly to industry's effort to




arrest the annual decline in domestic production.  Also,




the committment of large cmounts of capital  in  cash funds




will seriously affect the ability of other segments of the




industry to meet the country's energy needs.




      The most significant point here, however,  is that these




losses of energy resources would be caused by the fact that




wastes of extremely low potential hazard have to be handled




with the same strict methods as the most hazardous waste,




while in fact, the potential damage to health and the environmei




in these cases is insignificant.



      We recognize that the  "note" mechanism written into the




regulations allows for modifications to the  requirements on




a case-by-case basis, but we feel that the effort required



for the demonstrations to convince the administrator that no




hazard exists is in itself in many cases a wasteful burden.




      We disagree with EPA's .position that this issue of




degree of hazard is too complex to be handled.   You have




yourself taken a first step  in that direction by establishing




the "Special Wastes" category in the prooosed regulations.




There are several other oossible accroaches .available.  We




direct your attention to the several states  which are



incorporating degree of hazard in their classification criteria

-------
                                                            243
We endorse the categorization scheme being proposed by the




American Petroleum Institute.  We also suggest that a type-




of-industry categorization similar to that used in the water



regulations could be applied to provide appropriate disposal




technology for each level of hazardous waste.



      Consideration of the degree of hazard will provide the




additional benefit of reducing the initial regulatory load




with which EPA will be faced as the regulations take effect.



This will allow a more adequate coverage of the extremely




hazardous waste disposal problems and will provide time for




EPA to give further consideration to approaches for managing



the less serious wastes.




      I thank you for your attention and 'trust that you will




seriously consider this issue and work to provide a sound




approach so that efforts may be aoolied to the most serious




problems without needlessly expending resources on programs




which provide little health or environmental benefit.




      Thank you.  I will be willing to respond to questions




as well as my colleague, Wehdall Clark.




            MR. LINDSEY:  Yes, Mr. Tessieri, one of your




comments which was a little disturbing was that we— well,




you felt there Was a good chance we would close down the




stripper wells, which as you point out, produce one million




barrels of crude.   I think maybe you don't understcrtd.  Is




there some waste,  which is generated as a result of that oil

-------
                                                           244






field activity which does not come under the category of gas




and oil drilling mud and oil and production brines?




            DR. TESSIERI:  Brines would be the thing we would




be dealing with besides  some of amount of oil that gets




involved with these fluids.   Many of these wells use much




more water than they do  oil, so you have a considerable volume




to handle, but these brines  would contain materials which




we think would classify  them in the hazardous area.




            MR. LINDSEY:   What do you do with those now;




do you reinject them?




            DR. TESSIERI:  They are held on the surface for




some period of time, yes, and then reinjection takes place,




and we have other regulations that deals with that reinjection




and control.



            MR. LINDSEY:   Is it within the special category




then, since that would be the category which these wastes



would fall under, which  causes you so much economic problem?




            DR. TESSIERI:  Special waste categories still




requires foreclosure recordkeeping, and also monitoring, so




that twenty year period  is still there.  Now, although in




the exchange that i have seen that you started, you are talking




about removing the  frontend money, the deposit money, so it



certainly would be  a burden that would be intolerable in many




cases, but there still is the eventual commitment of money.




            MR. LINDSEY:   it is an annual sampling and analysis

-------
                                                            245







of that sample  that is  a tremendous burden?




            DR. TESSIERI:  You have to drill a well.  You




would have to sample periodically.




            MR. LINDSEY:  That would be enough of a burden




to cause these  things to close down?




            DR. TESSIERI: Every time you start increasing a




cost on a well, and there is 600,000 of them in the United




States, some of them you are going  to trigger off the economic




list.  If you were to identify a burden, which ia only some




number, which we need not identify, as you progressively raise




that, the effect on the wells would increase, so yes, extra




holes that must be drilled, the monitoring that would be




required in handling, certainly would start the triggering




process, at least on the most marginal wells.  Mr. Clark is




a coordinator for the Department of Environmental Affairs




of Texaco.




            MR. WENDALL CLARK:  I am Wendall Clark, Texaco




Environmental Coordinator.  I just  wanted to add one point.




There are other brine pits that have to take over when there




is a shutdown or some problem with  the well.  I don't think this




gets included in that exclusion of  brine pits, and that is a




very large number of pits.




            MR. LIlfoSEY:  What goes into those, crude?




            MR. CLARK:   It would be crude.




            MR. LINDSFY:  I don't think crude would meet the

-------
                                                           246






category of a waste.




            MR. CLARK:   It  is  ignitable.




            MR. LINDSEY:  But  it  is  not  a  waste  under 250.10.




            MR. CLARK:   When you  empty the pit,  you have a




waste oil like dirt.



            MR. LINDSEY:  You  have something left over after




you use it then?



            MR. CLARK:   If  it  ends up-being  an oily slop pit,




which has to be handled  in  some manner.  Therefore, you have




to have a safe pit, if you  want to call  it hazardous, and



you got to have a safe pit, and it requires  all  the requirement^




of safe disposal.



            MR. LEHMAN:  Dr. Tessieri, the later part of




your testimony, you made some  remarks that I would like to get




some clarification or some.amplification on. Let me just




read it: "Consideration  of  the degree of hazard  will provide




the additional benefit of reducing the initial regulatory




load with which EPA will be faced as the regulations take




effect.  This will allow a  more adequate coverage of the



extremely hazardous waste disposal problems  and  will provide




time for EPA to give further consideration to approaches-for




manageing the less serious  wastes"-



      Now, by that,,do you  eraply  that you  would, or  are you




suggesting by this statement that we should  regulate only the




most serious, or the highest class of hazardous  waste  at this

-------
                                                          247



time,  and defer regulation of the less serious hazardous waste


until  later on; is  that the implication?


            DR. TESSIERI:   Certainly we are suggesting that


the most serious ones  be emohasized to start with.  If we get


a degree of hazard  which is what we are nrooosina, so rather


than having two categories, either in one of or the other,


you have a better listing  of the degree of exr>osure, then you


could  apply that technology reouired to solve that particular


problem and not aoply  technology that requires the most


hazardous case, and in this resoect, that would take more


time.   So from that standpoint,  yes, we would be saying to


focus  on the most difficult ones.  We do not believe that most


of our industry would  have to be handled in the way hazardous


material would have to be  handled.  Petroleum in one respect


is a finite, it gets dirty, but  it is not a hazardous material


as defined as chlorinated  materials are, arid manv of the others


that are of a real  concern.


            MR. COnsON:  Jutst one Question.  When you indicated
                                        /

about  the level of  hazard, I an  -just wondering how many levels


do you see that we  might have in terifs of degree of hazard?


Many states that you have  referred to today will really have


two levels of hazardous  and extremely hazardous or dangerous


and extremely hazardous.


            DR. TESSIKRI:   Texas has throe.


            MR. CORSON:  You refer several times, and I get

-------
                            	248





     the implication that maybe you are thinking of lots.  I am




     just wondering  if you want to file lots.




                  DR. TESSIERI:   I will ask Wendall to comment




     on this.   In my own thinking/ I would think we would get to




     the category of four or  five.




                  MR. CLARK:  Yes, I agree with this.  We are not




     looking for  a continum.  We are looking for something other




     than yes  and no.   Some states have said two categories, and




     some three,  and the AIP  has developed a criteria technique




10   which gives  you a ranking  for each criteria on a-range of




11   one to ten or one to five, and then you add up all these




12   things and come up with  an overall ranking, and then I think




13   you would have  to take blocks of that ranking and say what I



14   want to do is two categories or three categories or whatever.




15                MR. LINDSEY:   I think the question with regard




16   to that,  once having made  these categories he presupposes




17   you are going to do something with each category.




18                DR. TESSIERI:   That's right.



19                MR. LINDSEY:   what specific kind of things would




20   we do with extremely hazardous, hazardous, somewhat hazardous,




2i   whatever  we  might call them?  What kinds of regulatory controls




22   would be  relaxed or eliminated or increased or whatever?



23                DR.  TESSIERI:   I think you would find in many



24   cases the procedures which we  are currently using to dispose




25   °f these  materials in our  operation would be acceptable.

-------
                                                           249





Therefore,  we  would not need to anply the hazardous material




criteria.   You still must prevent it from discourse indiscrim-




inately into nature or to find its way into a system where




later on it would reappear and cause problems.  We feel that




under the other regulations that we are already dealing with




that.  We have worked out technology which allows us to handle




these in a reasonable way.  Commensurate with a tyoe of




toxicity or exposure to either people or environment, that




the degree of  danger it represents.




            MR. LINDSEY:  That is the point of the note




system under our Section 3004 is to allow that.




            MR. TESSIERI:  We are suggesting you are now in




the process of setting up regulations to handle these, and




that if we would take the time to try to get more than just




duplicated, we could save a lot of the note orocessing activity.




You have been  living with them longer and would respond, but




we don't believe this would take a great deal of effort and




delay your rulemaking to that extent.  Now, you may have




later categories and come back to say, all right, I am going




to focus on the top of this and I will take a little longer




for the others.  You may have to come back to that situation.




I don't know what your time table will allow from that stand-




point.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  In addition to the classification




that API is going to propose, it also has been proposing a

-------
                                                            250






 variety of 3004 'standards which it believe  could be  used to




 handle the different categories adequately.




             MR. OLARK:, As you are well  aware,  this  is a very




 complex subject and we haven't had time  to  answer that thorough!




 but in the back of our mind, we think, yes, we  should come up




 with some sort of categorization of type of treatment and




 technology to match the characteristics  and degree of hazard.




 Maybe we can't do it.  You haven't done  it  and  maybe we can't,




 but we think we haven't put enough effort in  trying  to do it




 because of the time constraint you have  been  under.




             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.   I  will  next call



 on Mr. Phillip W. Morton of Gulf Mineral Resources Company.




             MR. PHILIP W. MORTON:  Ladies and gentlemen of




 the panel, before I start my statement,  I do  have a  copy of



 the written comments that we have put in the  mail thie morning




 to Mr. Lehman from Gulf Mineral Resources Company.




             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Why don't  you  go ahead with



your statement.  At the end, if you want  to  give us a copy,




 we will be happy to look at it.



             MR. MORTON:  My name is Philip  W. Morton, of




 Gulf'.Mineral Resources Company, a division  of Gulf Oil




 Corporation.  GMRC has a great interest  in  all  aspects



 of the proposed Title  40, Part 250 of the Code  of Federal



 Regulations as published on December  18   1978.   However, today




 my testimony will be limited to those aspects of the proposed

-------
                                                            251






Subpart A,  of Part  250,  issued under authority of Section 3001



of the Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 that




  pa   to impact on GMRC's  uranium rainincr operations presently




being conducted  in  New Mexico.




      First,  perhaps I should'make sure everyone here under-




stands exactly what our  concern is.  In paragraph 250.14(b)(2),



the Environmental Protection Agency, which I will hereafter



refer to as "the EPA", has  chosen, erroneously we believe,




to list all "waste  rock" and "overburden" from uranium mining




as hazardous  waste.  Since  neither Congress, in the legislation,




nor the EPA,  in  their proposals, has specifically defined the




terms "waste  rock"  or "overburden", I will use the terms as




generally used by the mining industry:



      Waste Rock -  that  dirt and rock, usually from underground




      mining, that  must  be  moved to gain access to an ore



      body.




      Any mineral content of interest would be of such




      low concentration  that it would not be economically




      feasible,  at  present, to recover it.




      Overburden -  almost exclusively used in surface or




      strip mining, is the  soil and rock that covers a




      mineral deposit that  must be"moved to gain access




    1  to the  ore body.



The term "waste" is also somewhat of a misnomer.  Waste,




as used by  the mining industry, means simply material that

-------
                                                           252




has no economic value for mineral recovery.  It may or may




not be discarded to then  become "waste" or "discarded material



in a sense generally accepted by the public.




      It is these items that  I will be discussing today.   I




am in no way referring to mill tailings,  which are the "waste"




(in mining terms) from the processing of  the  ore.  Uranium




mill tailings are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Comnissioi




under the Atomic ' Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Uranium




Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,  ana are not within




the scope of RCRA.  GMRC  does believe there is some potential




for hazard to health associated with tailings and supports a




reasonable, workable regulatory control of these tailings.




      GMRC contends there is  no basis for including any




mining overburden intended for return to  the  mine site in any




listing of hazardous waste, as is done in Section 250.14.




Congress was very explicit in its intent  regarding mining




overburden and mining waste.   Specifically, Congress has




exempted overburden intended  for return to the mine site,




and other mine reclamation activities, from regulation under



RCRA.




      It is, therefore, not within the scope  of the EPA's




statutory authority to even regulate mining overburden.  The




EPA did recognize its lack of statutory authority in the




preamble to the proposed  Section 3001 regulations, but then




erred in reading the referenced House Report.  As stated by

-------
                                                           253






the EPA on page 58951 of the December 18th proposals




      "However, the House Committee Report also states



      certain mining overburdens may be considered




      hazardous;  thus some are listed in Section 250.14."




      (43 PR 58951)




The referenced House Report actually states, on pages 2-3:



      "Similarly,  overburden resulting from mining operations




      and intended for return to the mine site is not



      considered to be discarded material within the




      meaning of this legislation." (HR Rep No. 94-1491,




      94th Cong.,  2nd Sess.3(1976))



      GMRC further contends it is nremature to presently




include "mining waste" or "waste rock" within the coverage




under Sections 3001, 3002, or 3004 of RCRA, or within any



regulations promulgated thereunder.  Congress, in Section




8002"(f) of RCRA,  excluded mining wastes from RCRA coverage




until the completion of a "detailed and Comprehensive study




on the adverse effects of solid wastes from active and



abandoned surface and underground mines on the environment".




Further this study, in "consultation with the Secretary of



the Interior", is to be conducted by the Administrator of the




EPA, who shall then "publish a report of such study and shall




include appropriate findings and recommendations for Federal




and non-Federal actions concerning such effects ."   Thus,




it is clear that Congress intended that any regulatory effort

-------
                                                            254





must be preceded by the mandated study,  consultation and




reporting procedures.




      Until these procedures  are met,  thereby providing to




EPA the information Congress  found lacking to reasonably




and non-arbitrarily regulate  that "mining waste" is "hazardous"




"mining waste" cannot be regulated as  though it were "hazardous




In considering H.R. Bill 14496,  the staff of the Subcommittee




on Transportation and Commerce of the  House Interstate and




Foreign Commerce Committee  (which was  the subcommittee that



reviewed this bill) requested and received from EPA copies




of all damage reports, totaling  some 400 reports, for the




express purpose of ascertaining  what kinds of waste from




what kinds of activities and  facilities  should be covered




in RCRA's definition of "solid waste".   Not one of these



reports involved "mining waste", nor could EPA then produce




any information on "mining waste" for  that exhaustive sub-




committee staff effort.  It was'precisely for this lack-of-




information reason that Congress mandated EPA in Section 8002




(f) to conduct the study on  "mining wastes".




      The EPA, further, has  failed to  follow the requirement




in Section 3001(b) of RCRA that  any regulations "listing



particular hazardous wastes"  and "identifying the characteristic




of hazardous waste" be "based on the criteria promulgated under




subsection (a) of this section".  The  EPA has recognized this




proper approach, in its draft proposals  of December 22, 1978

-------
	     255





 for Part 122, Title  40  CFR,  the  go-called "One-step Permitting



 Program", thusly:  (I quote from  Section 122.27(a))s




       "Section  3001  of  RCRA  requires the Administrator to



       'develop  and promulgate  criteria for identifying the




       characteristics of  hazardous  waste and  for listing




       hazardous waste,  which should be subject to the




       provisions of  this  subtitle...1  and to  'promulgate



       regulations identifying  the characteristics of



       hazardous waste,  and listing  particular hazardous




       wastes...which shall be  subject to the  nrovisions




       of th  is  subtitle..' based upon the criteria."




       However,  the EPA  then  proceeded to list a "hazardous




 waste", based on "the criterion  of  Section 250.12(b)(2) because




 the waste contains radioactive substances."  Also, the EPA




 has identified  the characteristics  of "hazardous waste" and




 made them applicable to "mining  waste".  Yet, no criteria have




 been promulgated upon which  such listing and  identification




 are supposed to be based.




       It would  appear that EPA already has decided on such




 lists and characteristics and  then, after the fact, will



 nrepare first the proposed and then the final criteria




 required by  Section  3001(b)  of RCRA.  More specifically,




 looking at the  category of "Uranium Mining" in the "Special




 Waste" table in 43 Fed. Reg. 58992  as illustrative, the EPA




 has concluded (listed?) that 150 million metric tons per year

-------
is  "hazardous",  and thus proposed to regulate such "special



waste" under certain portions of the Subpart D regulations.



Yet,  in view of  the questions raised by the EPA itself, and



•the complete lack of any data or information referenced in



the proposed regulatory oackage, how was this, conclusion



derived?



      In view of the above, and lacking the mining wastes



study discussed  earlier, GMRC urges that all "processes"



listed because of radioactivity in Section 250.14, all



references  to levels of soecific Radium isotopes in Section



250.15, and Appendix VIII be eliminated from the proposed  rules.



In  the preamble  to the December 18th proposals on page 58950,



the EPA states that only the first four of eight listed



hazardous waste  characteristics will be relied upon because



"those are  the only ones for which the Agency confidently



believes test protocols are available."  Further, "The



characteristics  that EPA plans to use immediately are relatively



straightforward, the tests are well developed, inexoensive,



and recognized by the scientific community, and they cover



a large proportion of the total amount of.hazardous waste  the



EPA believes should be controlled.  Generators will not be



required to test for characteristics of waste outside these



characteristics  for purposes of determining if the waste is



hazardous wastes using all the candidate characteristics."



      If the test protocol for radioactivity is not reliable

-------
	257





 enough to be  included,  it  is unconscionable for the EPA to




 determine any specific  waste is  hazardous on this count,



 and further use this unreliable  protocol as the only means




 to demonstrate non-inclusion of  a waste within- the hazardous




 waste system.



      GMRC is not  aware of any instance where uranium mine




 wastes have caused or significantly contributed to an increase




 in mortality  or an increase in serious irreversible, or




 incapacitating reversible, illness; or posed a substantial



 present  or potential hazard to human health or the environment.




 After more than 20 years of large scale uranium mining, none



 of the above  cited conditions  have been demonstrated.  Uranium




 mining wastes should therefore be considered to be outside




 the ambit of  the Section 1004(5)  definition.  EPA's admission



 of the low risk and the fact that these wastes have never




 caused any harm through their  radioactivity are conclusive.




 Thus, these materials should not be listed, as EPA proooses.




     EPA's use of  "notes"  throughout these proposed regulations




 is, at worst,  legally confusing  and, at best, cumbersome.  It




 is GMRC's understanding that these "notes" would be a part of




 the final regulations and  therefore on an equal legal footing




 with the other portions of these regulations.  To avoid the




 potential unintended result that a court might rule otherwise,



 and to clean  up this awkward syntactical approach, the EPA




 should incorporate each "note" into the.body of the regulation-

-------
                                                           258





to which it pertains  through the use of "unless" language




or something similar,  and delete the introductory-language




portion of the  "note".




      In summary,  GMRC urges serious consideration be given




to the following points in the formulation >of any final  rules:




      1.  Overburden  is not included within coverage of  RCRA.




      2.  Mine  waste  should not be included within coverage




      of RCRA until completion of the Section 8002(f)  study.



      3.  No material  be listed in 250.14 until criteria for




      identifying  the  characteristics of hazardous waste




      have been developed and promulgated.




      4.  Discontinue  the use of "notes" throughout the




      regulation.




      I thank you  for  this opportunity to present Gulf Mineral




Resources Co.'3 comments on the pronosed regulations.  Mr.



Kent R. Olson or I will be happy to answer any questions you




may have regarding the  issues raised in this testimony.




      Thank you.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.



            MR. LEHMAN:   Mr.  Morton, I think at one point in



your testimony  you stated that there were no criteria for




listing a hazardous waste that was not backed up by a charac-




ristic, but I call your attention to Section 250.12 of the



proposed regulation which has a set of criteria for identifying




a characteristic,  and  another set of criteria for listing a

-------
                                                            259





hazardous  waste.   And one of the criteria for listing is that




a waste posesses  one of the characteristics that are defined—



one of the four characteristics.  However, it goes on that the




waste meets the definition of a hazardous waste found in Sectioi




1004 of the Act,  a finding by, the Administrator of the EPA



regardless of the existence of a characteristic that the waste




in fact is a hazardous waste by statutory definition.  So




there are  two criteria for listing, and I believe you only




recognized one in your testimony.




            MR. MORTON:  That is more than likely true.  We



have only  recognized the one, and that is certainly how we



feel.  How can you have different criteria to determine whether




a waste, which is hazardous or non-hazardous.  Either it is




or it isn't.  To  have a criteria to put it on a list or to




have a criteria to meet characteristics, that is the same




criteria.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Well, not necessarily.  I don't want




to get into a debate on it at this point.




            MR. MORTON:  Somewhere I got lost in this two




method system to  be very honest with you.



            MR. LEHMAN:  All right.  I just wanted to point




that out.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I had a question.  I recognize




that you as quoting the legislative history about overburden




returned to the mine, but then you somehow say, okay, all

-------
                                                            260





overburden should be outside  of RCRA is what you are saying?



All overburden is returned  to the mine?




            MR. MORTON:  Ho,  I did not say that.




            CHAIRPERSON 0ARRAH:  Am I correct in saying that




your statement says that overburden should be exemot or should




not be regulated at this-time?  You say overburden is not




included within coverage, of RCRA, but at the same time you




quote from the legislative  history which says overburden




returned to the mine is what  the Committee'was talking about.




            MR. MORTON:  Yes,  I quoted the Committee, which




said overburden resulting from mining operations intended to




be returned to the mine site  is not considered to be discarded




material within the meaning of this legislation.  Yes, I said




that.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRHH:  Okay.  Thank you.  Our next




speaker is Dr. John T. Makens.



            DR.JOHN T. MAKENS:  Madam Chairman and members of




the panel, I am John T. Makens and I am President of the




Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, and I am here to




represent the Veterinarian  in the State of Colorado as well




as the proxy veterinarians"in Minnesota.   I hope I speak for




all veterinarians concerning  our aspect of this law.



      I have listened to eight hours of information today,



most of which, I do not understand.  I am going to take about




two minutes of your time, and I guarantee you will all understaiS

-------
                                                           261





what I have to say.   Please do not interpret my brief remarks




as correlating with  our lack of concern.  This issue has raised




more concern in the  veterinary field than anything I have




encountered in sixteen years of practice.




    •  There are those studies which establish the fact that



the waste from veterinary hospitals, clinics and associated




premises is a greater threat to the environment or human health



than other forms of  common waste matter if handled in the



presently accepted manner for general waste disposal.




      We are not generators.  We generate nothing.  The




veterinarian takes your pet, and we take the material you



bring to us and we transport it to our garbage can in a




sanitary manner and  get rid of it.  We have over the years,




and it is the policy of all veterinarians societies to push,



to encourage, to conjole the most sanitary handling of




contaminated waste,  the type of contaminated waste that we




deal with of any industry, should we say, in the country.




      We ask that veterinarian hospitals as defined in the




law now be exempted  from the regulations entirely.  Can you




imagine how a veterinary hospital, and there are probably—




I am going to guess, 10,000 individual veterinary hospitals




in this country, and most of them with a gross income of




$100,000 spread throughout every little town in this country,



can afford to have either an autoclave in which we can steam




sterilize up to a 3,000 pounql bull with many tons of bedding

-------
        	262





for eight hours.  There  is  no equipment available in the




first place to do that.   We cannot use sanitary landfills.




That is already taboo.   We  cannot in most instances use




incineration.  For one thing, as you define incineration,




the incinerator must create 1,000 degrees centigrade and




maintain that to incinerate this creature.




      Again, take the instance of a 1,000 pound horse or a




3,000 pound bull, it is  impossible without an atomic explosion




to create the temperatures  you require to sterilize or to




dispose of this creature.   I think if you are considering




toxic waste, and there is toxic waste associated with'veterinary




practice, but that is not our veterinary practices, that is the




research institute in this  country, which is dealing with




new creatures, new bacterium, and new viral agents, manufacturin




reproducing those creatures.   We don't do that in practice.




Those agencies are already  doing that.



      I would estimate ninety-nine percent controlled by Federal




regulations.  They are establishing the criteria for destroying




these agents.  They are already controlled.




      The average veterinary practice does none of this.  In




conclusion, I would just like to say that this regulation will




have such a profound effect,  as we see it, on the veterinary




practice, that the advantages we don't see, it could be




devastating to veterinary medicine.  I thank you all.  I "ill



answer any questions.

-------
                                                           263




           MR. LINDSEY:   Dr.  Makens you indidated that you




can't autoclave a dead  bull.   1  am not trying to be humorous,




you can incinerate  it and  you  can't landfill it, what do you




do with it?



           DR. MAKENS:  At  the  present time, dead animals are




either incinerated,  bnt not  in the equipment that you are



specifying in the regulation or  taken to a rendering plant.




Now, most large animals are  taken to a rendering plants.




That is a special process, of  course for eliminating animal




waste.  The greatest thing about it, even though some people



don't like to think  of  it, it  is all recycled.




           MR. LINDSEY:   So it  wouldn't be covered under




these regulations,  I don't think.



           DR. MAKENS:  They  would become covered because




if they come out of  a veterinary hospital, but if they are




agricultural—



           MR. LINDSEY:   If they were reused, I don't think




it would be covered  under  these  regulations.




           DR. MAKENS:  If  your wife's little poddle dies,




don't tell her it is going to  be reused, please.




           MR. LINDSEY:   That is true (laughter).  Let me




ask you another question.  And I gather your answer is there



can be no problem with  diseased  animals is what we are talking




about.  Let's say there was  an indiscriminate disposal of it.




Is there any hazard? You  said there is no studies, and I

-------
                 	264





believe that is probably  true.   Is there any hazard in your




opinion that can come to  man from wandering around dumps and




so on, that happen to dispose of these kinds of materials.




Not everybody is scrupulous, is the point I am trying to make.




            DR. MAKENS:   That is true, except in everyday life,




you contact the same organisms.  I wouldn't go nuzzling around




a certain dead animal.  But as I say,  those are not allowed




at the present time, at least in our state, to be put in landfiljl



That is against the law.   That has to be destroyed, either by




burial in a burial area.   If you have a brucellosis cow, and



underlating fever is still a serious disease of both animals




and people.  There is a program the Government has been working




on for forty to fifty years to try to eliminate brucellosis.




The procedure here will not even, in the slightest, help to




do that, but those animals, if identified, are carefully




monitored from the time they are identified until the time they




are properly disposed of, and properly disposed of is what they




have been doing for forty years.  So that type of animal is




eliminated already.  Even the normal dead animal is no worse




in a landfill, if they are buried, but no, we don't want them




out because other animals are going'to come and eat them.




I think we are more worried about other animals transmitting




these things and keeping  them going.




            MR. LINDSEY:   You then feel what you are saying is.




that the current rules of Colorado for handling waste from

-------
                                                           265






veterinary hospitals and so forth are sufficient.  Do you know




if most states have those kinds of rules like Colorado's?




            DR. MAKENS:  As far as I know.  At least you know




the largest city areas, they do, and again with all the concern



about polluted water, polluted environment, the landfill,




because of the special nature of a dead animal, as far as I




know, do not accept them, and I think that is pretty well




nationwide.  But I think that the American veterinary medical



association can probably answer that for you from this stand-




point.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  We



will recess the hearing and reconvene tomorrow morning at




8:30 a.m. in this room.



      (Whereupon the hearing was recessed until the above time




and dates indicated.)

-------
BRUCE KING
  GOVERNOR

LABHY KEHOE
  SECRETARY
                             STATE OF NEW MEXICO
                ENERGY AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT
                           OIL CONSERVATION DIVISION
March 6, 1979
                                   POST omcE BOX 2oea
                                 STATE LANO OfFd BUILDING
                                 SANTA Ft NEW MEXICO B7501
                                     EOS sa&at
          Hazardous Waste Management Division
          Office of Solid Waste  (WH565)
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Washington, D.C.  20460

          Gentlemen:

               Members of our staff have  reviewed  the various
          Hazardous Waste guidelines,  regulations,  proposals, etc.,
          set out in the December 18,  1978, Federal Register.  We
          find these proposals extremely  comprehensive and  their
          potential negative effect on oil and natural gas  develop-
          ment and production a  source of great concern.  As a
          State body responsible for the  regulation of the  drilling
          for and production of oil and gas we are  concerned with
          the effect of a number of the proposals;  however, the high
          level of drilling activity experienced in the last few
          years as well as a variety of new federal programs imposed
          upon this agency has strained our ability to devote the
          time and manpower necessary  to  properly review and respond
          to this proposal.  We would  hope that EPA could extend the
          comment time for items related  to oil and gas drilling and
          production for 12 months.  It is felt that any proposal
          which could have a severe negative  impact on our  energy
          base in this critical time of shortage should receive
          thorough study.  It should be noted  that  most major oil and
          gas producing states and the U.S. Geological Survey have
          prohibited the uncontrolled  surface  disposal of all but
          negligible volumes of oil field brines and that we know
          of no instance where drilling mud disposed of at  the well
          site has leaked or caused problems.

               Other preliminary comments and  questions are attached.

                                    Yours very truly.
                                    JOE D. RAMEY
                                    Director
          JDR/RLS/fd
          enc.

-------
                       PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
250.43-1
(b) (c) (d)
(e)
   (g)
Hazardous Haste, Guidelines, Regulations, Proposals
F3 12-18-78	

Comments
   is not clear if tank bottoms or sediment oil accumu-
lated in lease crude oil tanks and/or sediment oil
treating plants are covered by the regulations.

We feel that such oil, if covered, should initially be
classed as a special waste to permit the gathering of
data as to the volume, constituents, and potential for
harm of such oil.

Such oil is often reclaimed, used in drilling muds,
and used in road construction.

Oil and gas drilling and production Special Wastes should
only be subject to rules requiring reporting of how much
of what was disposed of where and how for some period to
permit evaluation of the potential hazard of such wastes
or disposal practices.

Wherever the regulations require X feet of soil with a
permeability of 10~? cm/sec or less, provision should be
made for substitution of a greater thickness of soil
with greater permeability which would provide an
equivalent degree of protection.

These regulations do not appear practical'as to oilfield
Special Wastes,  Oil and gas wells are drilled in  flood
plains, etc., and must have drilling mud and fluids
stored at the site in order to operate.  Further,  it
would not be feasible to move oil and gas production
facilities out of flood plains, "etc., and as the primary
"contaminant" disposed of at such facilities is salt
water any flood waters reaching such site would dilute
such waters to the point of their not being a hazard.

Prohibition of disposal of oilfield Special Wastes in "
sole source aquifers  should not apply until proper
studies of such wastes are completed.

Should change the minimum facility  to property line
distance to 30 meters to provide  flexibility in oil
field operations due  to well location requirements.
                                                                                     Section     Comments
                                                                                     iiiO.43-2    The  gate  and  sign requirements of these sections seem
                                                                                     (b)(c)      inappropriate to drilling mud or salt water pits in
                                                                                                remote  largely uninhabited areas such as found  in our
                                                                                                oil  field areas.  Signs at salt water disposal  pits
                                                                                                seem valueless as people won't drink the water  and
                                                                                                animals can't read.

                                                                                     250.43-5    The  rules as  to oilfield Special Wastes do not  require
                                                                                     (a)         a  manifest system yet much of this section deals with
                                                                                                such manifests.  These requirements must be clarified
                                                                                                before  appropriate comments may be made.

                                                                                     (b)(2) (i)   We do not find names or numbers to be assigned  oilfield
                                                                                                Special Wastes for purposes of the required log.

                                                                                     (b){6-7}    We presume these requirements do not apply to on site
                                                                                                disposal.   Is this correct?

                                                                                     250.43-7    Only these three paragraphs apply to oilfield Special
                                                                                     fk)(1)(m)   Wastes  yet they refer to all other paragraphs in the
                                                                                                section.   Separate less demanding closure and post
                                                                                                closure requirements should apply to such wastes
                                                                                                until adequate studies have been completed.

-------
                   STATEMENT OF S.  NORMAN
ASSISTANT TO  THE VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, ASARCO INC.
              ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS
                 WATER QUALITY CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE
         CONCERNING REGULATIONS  40 CFR PART 250, SUBPART A
         PROPOSED ON DECEMBER 18,  1978,  UNDER AUTHORITY OF
        SECTION 3001 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
    BEFORE  THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY, IN DENVER,
                            MARCH 7,  1979

-------
Ladies and Gentlemen of  the  panel:



    My name is S. Norman  Kesten,  of ASARCO,  Incorporated, where



I am the Assistant to the  Vice  President for  Environmental Affairs.



I am also Chairman of the  Solid Waste Task Force of the Water



Quality Control Subcommittee of the American  Mining Congress and



I appear here today on behalf of that group.



    The American Mining Congress  is a national association of



companies that produce most  of  the nation's supply of metals,



coal,  and industrial and agricultural minerals.  While producing



these  essential materials  the member companies necessarily generate



large  quantities of mine waste  rock, waste materials from milling



and other forms of beneficiation often called tailings, plus fur-



nace slags and other similar processing wastes from later stages



of total processing toward useable products,  as well as other



wastes in relatively minor quantities.  The American Mining Congress



is thus very interested  and  concerned about the economic impact



upon the minerals industry of any  regulations promulgated-for the



purpose of implementing  provisions of this amendment to the Solid



Waste  Disposal Act.  In  addition,  we want to  try to ensure that



during the formulation of  such  regulations the Agency is fully



aware  of the technological limitations that the very nature of



its wastes-places upon the industry and takes into account the



large  number of physical and chemical variables that tend to make



each operation unique.   In general, the industry has a series of



special problems in complying with proposed regulations because



of the sheer volume of the wastes  that are generated and the large



areas  of land that those wastes must occupy.

-------
      Using copper and copper ores as examples,  new mind production,



 including beneficiation, smelting and  refining,  in this country is




 a magnitude that there is also produced annually about  600 million



 tons of mine waste rock, 250 million dry  tons of mill tailings



 and perhaps million tons of furnace slag.



      If that mine waste were distributed  in  two new waste dumps



 each of which covers one section of land,  the dumps would be




 built up to an average height of 30 feet  by  the end of  a year.



 If tailings were deposited in one new  tailings  disposal site oc-




 cupying one section of land, the tailings  would be built up to a



 height of about 25 feet in a year.  The height  of the pile of



 slag covering a section of land would  be  somewhat less  during



 year, something like 6 or 8 feet.  Obviously, each type of waste



 from one year's operations is not accumulated in one or two piles



 at individual sites but is distributed among and added  to many



 existing piles.  The cumulative volumes are  similar to  those des-



 cribed defending upon the length of time  a particular site has



 been operated and the rate of production  of  wastes.  Because of



 these volumes, the criteria for-distinguishing  between  hazardous



• wastes and other wastes are crucial to the continued viability



 of the operations in which the member-companies  of the  A.MC are



 engaged.



      I have used copper as an example.  Obviously the underlying



 principles are applicable to operations involving most  other non-



 fuel minerals, including mining and beneficiation of phosphate



 rock and mining of uranium ore.  The smelting of iron ore gener-



 ates 24 million tons of slag annually.

-------
     In spite of the draft regulations and proposed regulations



that  EPA has made available, member companies of the American



Mining Congress still have no  idea  what the cost will be of solid



waste disposal under the Act.   If the terms "open dump" and



"sanitary landfill" are strictly applied (and there will be a



great deal of pressure upon  the Agency to apply them strictly)



then  very many piles of waste  rock, tailings accumulations and



slag  dumps still being used  might have to be classified as open



dumps, to be up-graded or closed within 5 years.  In many instances



up-grading may be physically impossible.  Replacement by new san-



itary landfills would be so  expensive as to greatly impair if not



destroy the economic viability of the operations.



     If what is required of  a  disposal site for wastes not de-



signated as hazardous is that  there be no reasonable probability



of injury to human health or the environment, another dimension



of uncertainty is added.  We would  be dependent upon someone'"



assessment of that probability and  of what is reasonable and of



how much injury is permissible. The result of such assessment



could be just as expensive and just as crippling as the direct



application of the term "open  dump".



     If the criteria for classifying waste as hazardous and the



listing of waste and processes are  finalized as now proposed,



large tonnages of waste rock,  tailings and furnace slags might very



well be designated as hazardous even though those large tonnages



might be only a fraction of  the total tonnage generated.  The



proposed standards of performance applied to these tonnages will



again lead to intolerable expense.   In fact, except for the paper-



work involved for hazardous  waste,  it might make no difference



to us how these large-tonnage  wastes are-classified.

-------
     Of course, I am speaking of  cumulative worst case situations.



One frustrating thing is that we do  not  know at this time,  nor




will we know at the time the proposed  regulations become final,



just what their effect upon our  industries will be.   Amidst all




of this we feel there is a reasonable  probability that our  current



methods of disposal do not damage human  health or the environment




except in minor, easily recognizable instances.  In  fact, we



think that EPA should make that  presumption.   In addition,  we con-



tend, and are on record to this  effect,  that the legislative



history of the Act states unequivocally  that mining  wastes  are



at this time exempt from the provisions  of solid waste regulations.



I refer you to the comments of the American Mining Congress on



rules proposed under Section 4004 of. the Act.



     For most wastes with which  our  members are concerned,  the




principal property that determines whether they are  hazardous or



not is toxicity; for some others it  is radioactivity, a comples



matter to be dealt with in separate  comments.   A waste may  not



be designated as toxic by the simple procedure of saying it'is



so; it must be determined to be  toxic  because of the results of



an objective, scientific test.   EPA  proposes a test  in Section



250.13(d)(2) and we do not agree that  it is a test that is  appro-



priate to the purpose.  We believe that  it flies in  the face of



logic and reason for EPA to even attempt to establish a single



procedure to be applicable nationwide  to all kinds of wastes



regardless of the chemical and physical  environment  in which a



waste is deposited.  Without going into  the entire history  of

-------
the proposed test we  should  like to stand with the D19.12 Sub-



committee of the American  Society of Testing and Materials in



decrying the unscientific  approach that EPA has followed in



creating the extraction  procedure.  We urge strongly that EPA




work closely with ASTM to  establish criteria for a test rather



than a single  test or extraction procedure.  This would enable



a generator, or anyone else  who is required to determine toxicity,



to devise a procedure within the framework of the testing criteria



that would be  applicable to  his waste through the projected life



history of his waste.  At  the very least a generator should be



permitted and  required to  set up in his testing laboratory the



nearest approach possible  to the chemical and physical environ-



ment of the disposal site.  If the generator does not choose to



make the test, he is  free  to concede that his waste is toxic, as



that term is defined, and  therefore hazardous.



     I should  like to refer  the panel to a strongly worded letter



of Denver 1, last, to the  Administrator, from the chairman and



the secretary  of the  ASTM  Subcommittee D19.12, and to one from



Professor D. K. Ham of the University of Wisconsin to John Lehman



of the Office  of Solid Waste dated January 24, 1979.



     My next point is of peripheral interest only, because I feel



sure that the  extraction procedure will be changed either before



promulgation or, possibly  as a  result of judicial review, some-



time afterwards.  That point is that the apparatus to be used in



carrying out the extraction  procedure is not existing,  standard



equipment not  is it readily  available from the sole manufacturer



listed by EPA.

-------
     In Section 250.13(d)(1) are  listed  pollutants  and  the



threshold values for concentrations  in the  extract  which, if



exceeded, cause the waste to be designated  "hazardous."  The



numbers are, of course,  ten times the National  Interim  Primary



Drinking Water*Standards  for those substances and,  according to



the preamble, they are listed  on  the assumption that  on the average



the natural elutriate from a waste will  be  diluted  by a factor



of ten before it is used  for drinking water.  This  is another



instance of the Agency trying  to  establish  a single standard



applicable to all places at all times.   This, of course, is in-



defensible.  A knowledge of the number of variables,  and the de-



gree of variability, at  any one site might  make it  possible to



estimate for that site the atteenuation  that takes  place between



the disposal site and a  present or future drinking  water source.



To arrive at a generalized figure is to  perpetrate  a  nonsense.



     We were astonished  when we examined "Processes Generating



Hazardous Wastes" in 250.14(b)(2)  because we find that  most of



the listings are not processes but the substances generated by



certain processes.  We were further  surprised to find in that



list, particularly in SICs prefixed  with the numbers  33, sub-



stances which are seldom wastes.   Some are  invariable or very



often returned to the metallurgical  processes for capture of the



contained metals or are  stockpiled for shipment to  another plant



for the same purpose.  For them to be categorized as  waste by



regulation is to throw them into  the hazardous  waste  procedure



from which the generator might extricate them only  at considerable



inconvenience.

-------
    Section 250.15 discusses how  a  person might demonstrate



that a solid waste that has been listed  as hazardous is not,



in fact, hazardous.  If there is any serious doubt abgu the



toxicity or other hazardous characteristics of a substance,



EPA should avoid listing it and avoid putting the generator



or any other person to the expense and inconvenience of rebut-



ting the presumption.  EPA should  rely upon the provisions of



Subpart G, under Section 3010 of the Act,  to ensure that every



hazardous waste is identified.  We believe that to some extent



the lists are arbitrary and capricious.



    Section 250.15 does not discuss how a person might rebut



the presumption of'the part of EPA that  a hazardous substance is



a waste.  The lack of understanding  that exists among some EPA



personnel was demonstrated by a staff member who in a related



context, included  "low grade ore"  in a list of wastes.  Of course,



this is a contradiction in terms.  It seems to me that the Agency



has two alternatives:  it can leave  it to the generator or other



person who owns or controls the material to judge whether or not



it has the potential to be used or reused and therefore whether



or not it is waste; or it can devise a set of reasonable criteria



by which the material may be judged'to be waste or otherwise.



    Our written comments on proposed Subpart A will be submitted



in due course.  In them we urge greater  clarity and consistency



as well as compatability of the regulations with actual conditions.



In addition to the-points that I have just tried to make, we sug-



gest that EPA's presumption that hazardous waste is mismanaged

-------
should be rebuttable on a case-by-case basis and  that wastes



that have only a low level of toxicity and  are  therefore only



marginally hazardous might be managed under less  stringent re-



quirement than those for wates that significantly exceed the



criteria.  We do not feel that any of the suggestions, when



acted upon, will have the effect of reducing the  Agency's



effectiveness to carry out  the directive of Congress  to pro-



tect human health and the environment from  injury occasioned



by management of hazardous waste.

-------
              STATEMENT ON PROPOSED  HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES




                               AND REGULATIONS




               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY




                                     F,T




               HESTER MCMJLTY, NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR




               LFAGtJE OF HOIEH VOTERS OF  THE UNITES STATES




                   PUBilC  HEARING— DENVER, COLORADO.




                               MARCH 7, 1979








I ara Hester McNulty, speaking for the League of Women Voters of the United




States,  tie are pleased to have this  opportunity to comment on the proposed




hazardous waste guidelines and regulations.






The League is a volunteer citizen organization with members in all fifty




states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.  The




League's members in over 1,350 communities are deeply involved in finding




solutions to solid 'Taste problems.






!!e would like to commend EPA for an excellent job in providing supplementary




explanatory information.  Considering the  difficult and technical nature of




the regulations, we are especially pleased with the lucid introduction to




Section 3001.  However, we-question the wisdom of dividing the hearings into




separate days for each section of the proposed regulations.  This means that




all those Interested in testifying on two  or more sections must appear two or

-------
 Chree times.  Such an  arrangement  is  likely to dampen meaningful public
 Involvement in the hearing  process.

 The Leapue has been  Involved  in the protection of our land, air and water
 resources for a number of years.   Our members, after two years of-.study,
 agreed that wastes which cannot be reused oust be safely disposed of.   The
 Leapue supported  the passage  of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 (P.CRA), and were  especially supportive of its provisions for hazardous waste
 management.  We have examined the  proposed regulations in light of  the
 princinal objective-iof the  Act ~  to  protect human health and the environment.

 Our comments are  directed primarily to Subparts B and D of the proposed regu-
 lations.  Regarding  Section 3<">01 and  Subpart A, we commend you for  your lists
 of specific materials  and the characteristics of these materials, but  we  urge
 you to constantly update the  lists and consider other materials.

 Section 3"02
 Subpart 5 — Standards Applicable  to  Generators of Hazardous Haste

 The Lea-rue does not  apree with the exemption from these regulatory  requirements
~of TiazaVdtSus waste" generators'that produce1 100 kiloerams br: less per~mohth.
 The Leapue's opinion on this  issue is based on three considerations.   One,
 the derree of hazard associated with  a particular waste Is often more  closely
 related to concentration than volume.   Two,  the small generator exemption
 sidesteps a major objective of RCRA,  namely,  to track hazardous wastes from
 their creation to their disposal through  a manifest system.  Three, there is
 no foundation In  the Act for  a blanket exemption.

 We find no support for this exemption in  Section 3002 of RCRA which states

-------
that  the standards will apply  to  generators identified or listed under

Subtitle C of the Act.  In  fact,  Section 3102(5) requires that the manifest

system be applied to all wastes identified under Subtitle C:

          ...standards/shall establish requirements respecting...
          (the) use of a nanifest system to assure that all such
         hazardous waste generated  is designed for treatment,
         storage or disposal  in...facilities for which a permit
         has been  Issued....


In addition, EPA notes In the  explanatory information that it has limited

data  on the numbers of small generators,  the amount and types of wastes gen-

erated, and the impact of these wastes on human health and the environment.

By requiring nenerators of  100 kilograms or less per month to comply with  the

requirements of Subpart T!,  EPA will.'acquire': the essential: information'that: it

currently lacks.  For instance, the  requirements would allow EPA to pinpoint

the snail generators' disposal sites  to determine which ones are relied on

heavily for disposal of their  hazardous wastes.  So that the requirements

under Subpart B may not be  burdensome to generators of 100 kilograms or less

ner month of hazardous wastes, we would ur^e EPA to keep recordkeeping to  a

minimum and to simplify procedures.


Further, the League believes that proposed section 251.29(1) which allows

small penerators to dispose in sar.itarv landfills approved pursuant to Section

4004  of the Act is inconsistent with  RCltA.   Subtitle C's section 3002(5)

plainly states, "[A] 11: 'Such .hazarddus-.waste generated is designated-for -

treatment, storage, or disposal in...facilities — for which a permit has

been  issued as provided in  this subtitle."  It does not include sanitary landf:

fills developed pursuant to Subtitle  D of RCHA


Since approximately 67 percent of the hazardous waste is produced in ten of

-------
the fifty states, we  are  also  concerned that if cenerators of 100 kilograms

or less per month are allowed  to dispose of their wastes in sanitary landfills

as opposed to hazardous waste  sites,  some sanitary landfills 'may receive

many contributions of 100 kilograms or less of hazardous wastes, thereby

becominf in the aggregate major  resting places for these substances.   Because

these landfills will  not  be  as stringently developed and managed as hazardous

waste sites, they may pose serious problems to public health and the ^""iron-

environment .


The oroposed regulations  (section 250.27) also allow the hazardous waste

generator to request  that certain information be kept confidential.  The

regulations should clearly impose a heavy burden on the disposer to demonstrate

the need for secrecy, lest this  section become a loophole for avoiding the

intent of 1CRA.


Section 3""A
Subpart I) — Standards Applicable  to  Owners  and Operators of Hazardous

             'Taste Treatment,  Storape,  and Disposal Facilities


The League agrees with most- of the provisions  in this subpart.  However, we

do not believe that  the ?'OTES  In this subpart, which substitute performance

standards for environmentally  sound facility siting, yill accomplish  the

stated foals of P.CRA.


"e are especially concerned  about  the TOTE that allows a hazardous  waste

facility to be located in the  recharge  zone  of a sole source aquifer.  We
                                                                          L
believe the intent of both the Safe Drinking Water Act. and UCRA would be

negated by the location of any hazardous waste facility in such recharge areas.

-------
 Because of the limited supplies of drinking water  sources, it is imperative




 that F.PA regulations ensure .their protection.






 He question that EPA can predict with any certainty adequate resources over  the




 Ion?, term — at either the EPA or the state level  — to ensure that the




 operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a facility will protect a sole




 source aquifer.  The potential social, environmental and economic costs




 outweiflh short-term accoraodation.  The League  strongly urges that no facilities




 be remitted in the recharge zone of sole source aquifers.






 Additionally, we are concerned with the facility exemptions permitted in




 floodplains, wetlands, and high hazard coastal areas.  Because of the very




 nature of hazardous materials, there will be a latent threat to fragile




 ecosystems, water resources,narid" human health,-'if "facilities-are'located




 in these areas.  Performance standards at the  time a permit is Issued cannot




 ensure future reliability.  Ve ask that EFA renove these exemptions from the




 regulations as the intent of RCRA 'is protection of human health and the




 environment.






 lie also think that the proposed NOTES providing exemptions for land farms




 (section 250.45-5) present an unnecessary risk, particularly to ground and




 surface water quality and may lead to possible contamination of public water




 siiDDlles.  Demonstration of performance to the regional administrator when




 a permit is issued does not preclude future contamination.  For instance,




 it is almost impossible to predict with certainty  that there will be no




 direct contact with the water table when the treated area is less than five




' feet above the historical hiph water table.

-------
T7e have the  sane  concerns with the exemptions for landfills  (section 250.45-2),




He think that  in  no  Instance should a landfill be closer than  500  feet




from a public  
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

      HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS AND
PROPOSAL ON IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING

  FEDERAL REGISTER, DECEMBER 18, 1978
           GENERAL COMMENTS

      40 CFR,  Part 250   Subparc A
                  By
      Texas Department of Health

                to the

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agenfey
  Hazardous Waste Management Division
        "Office of Solid Waste
            Public Hearing
           Denver, Colorado

            Marcn 7,  1979

-------
STATEMENT;






Introduction:







     I am Wiley W. Osborne,  Chief,  Plans and Programs Branch, .Division of Solid







Haste Management, Texas Department  of Health.







     I am pleased to  be able to  offer these remarks on behalf of the Texas







Department of Health  and  Mr.  Jack C.  Carmichael, P.E., Director, Division of







Solid Waste Management.   Mr.  Carmichael is unable to be here today.  The State







Legislature is  in session and a  number of legislative actions are pending that







require his attention in  Austin.







     Today, I wish  to summarize  our concerns regarding all aspects of hazardous







waste management from our perspective.  The State of Texas has, by Legislation,







delegated the authority and assigned the responsibility for municipal solid







waste management to  the Department  of Health.  The State Solid Waste Disposal Act







further assigns  to  the Department of Health authority and responsibility that







extends to industrial solid waste where it becomes involved with municipal waste







in any activity  of  collecting,  handling, storing or .disposal of solid waste.







     Our Texas-Department of Water  Resources has responsibility for solid waste






resulting from  industrial,  agricultural and mining operations.

-------
     The  State  Solid Waste Disposal Act also establishes a coordinating mechanisi






between the  Departments to allow review of the actions of each Department as it







may affect  the  other.  As the State Health Agency, we are responsible for the






health aspects  of all solid waste management activities.







     I mention  our role in solid waste management so that you may be able to






better evaluate our comments.






     Texas  passed a. meaningful solid waste disposal act in 1969 and over the







past 10 years we have built a workable solid waste management program which






we believe  is second to none.  During our work with the EPA and the NGA, we







have based  our  comments on our years of experience dealing with private Enter-







prise and municipalities.  We have also stressed  the real world political






problems in dealing with the general public and State laws regarding public







hearings and permitting requirements.  We believe it is imperative that  the







EPA in its  promulgation of regulations under the  RCRA recognize the grass roots







implementation  problems by providing regulatory flexibility which allows States






to continue on-going safe and effective programs.  As of  this late date, we do







not see sufficient flexibility nor do we see an indication that the EPA  is







willing to place trust in the professional competency of  the States, although






some  flexibility  has  been added  in the  notes of the latest proposed regulations.

-------
     The basic problem always  seems  to  come back to the EPA's basic approach,







which in itself is inflexible.  Packaging all hazardous waste in one bag,







regardless of degree of hazard and  then,  attempting to regulate the single bag,







has not worked very well  and cannot  provide the needed flexibility.  Today,







we wish to propose a re-arrangement  of  the past efforts to provide a more







flexible framework which  does  not sacrifice any significant regulatory control.







     We are  concerned  that closing of the comment period for the rules being proposed







on Sections  3001,  3002, and 3004, prior to publication of proposed rules on Sections






3005 and 3006, will  not afford the States the proper opportunity to obtain an  overall







view of the  regulations prior  to  submitting comments.







     We therefore  request that comments continue to be received on the proposed







rules until  all Subtitle  C regulations  are proposed and comment periods are closed.







     Within  Texas  there are 1156  municipal solid waste sites.  Fifty counties, of







the 254 counties  in  the State  of  Texas, comprise the 25 Standard Metropolitan







Statistical  Areas  of  the  State.  (About 80% of the industries in the State are







located in  these 50  counties.) There are 220 municipal solid waste sanitary







landfills operated in  these 50 counties which are capable of safely handling






waste which  will become hazardous under the proposed regulations.  We accomplish

-------
this  through  a  mechanism of granting written approval on a site-specific,






waste-specific  basis.   We consider the characteristics of the waste and its






volume and  site conditions, design and operations.







     Mr.  Thomas C.  Jorling, in his January 20, 1979 memorandum to solid waste







directors,  stated,  "a cost effective approach to industrial waste management







requires effective  State regulatory programs under Subtitle D to supplement







Subtitle C programs."  We heartily concur in this statement.  In Texas, it is







particularly true because it is over 600 miles from many industries to permitted






industrial solid waste sites.






     Under the. rules now being proposed, many sites would be closed to receiving




such waste, forcing the movement of waste over long distances, or the creation of new






sites to accommodate, in many cases, low volumes  of waste.  This will introduce







an economic burden on industry that has grown to  rely on municipal solid  waste







disposal facilities, create a proliferation of disposal facilities, increase







transportation of solid waste and possible result  in  the illegal disposal of






solid waste that is presently being handled in a manner that protects the health







and environment.






     Our assessment that these sites will be unable  to  cost effectively  accept







even  the less hazardous waste  generated by private  enterprise,  results  from  a







discussion with several of  the cities'  solid waste managers.   Their  unanimous

-------
response is chat cities will not participate  in  hazardous  waste activities as

presently proposed.  Although  this strong  reluctance has not been apparent in

previous workshops and public  hearings,  we find  that the very reasons city officials

do not plan to be involved  in  hazardous  waste are also the same reasons they are

reluctant to take a strong  public  position regarding proposed regulations.

     Elected officials are  concerned with  the political .impact of advocating

                                                 !.
acceptance of hazardous waste  in publicly  owned  municipal  solid waste sites.


One of our city solid waste managers stated,  "Tt would bo  political suicide Co


even condone acceptance of  hazardous waste, much less subject ourselves to a


public hearing required to  obtain  a  permit."   It is near impossible to convince

the public that the issue  is limited to  a  truck  load of rotten lemons, a few drums

off-spec, vinegar, outdated,  treated seed  grain, or a load of sheet rock.  Hazardous

waste connotes all the evils  that  are publicized by the "Love Canals."  The public

is influenced by such  things  as  the  political cartoon I have handed you and-not


the more rational editorial that appeared  in  the same issue of the Austin American-

Statesman.


     Unfortunately, RCRA places  the  hazard label on all solid waste that is a

subject of  these regulations.

-------
                    --o	>  -••  --•-"i.^.'.j j-m, i.oijtuuua I>U;>LI= duu escaDiishing


standards for hazardous waste management,  fail  to  adequately provide for the


flexibility needed to overcome  the objectives  of city officials whose cooperation


is so sorely needed  to obtain a cost effective  approach to industrial waste manage-


ment as pointed out by Mr. Jorling.


     The flexibility proposed in  the regulations,  by defining generators through

<+Cl«l»i''<*
nrrliQ-ifffi rr* retailers and farmers,  setting arbitrary quantity limits and allowing


exceptions in treatment, storage  and disposal  standards.based on demonstration by


the owner/operator that less standards  are acceptable, does not adequately address


our concern.  When we discuss eliminating retailers as a generator, we accept the


fact that many retailers potentially accumulate large volumes of solid waste that


we would not want placed in a municipal landfill withoug adequate controls.  When a


generator is defined by the quantity of waste  generated alone, we are faced with a


similar dilemma.  We can always find the exception where the disposal of some


waste may be acceptable at 100  or even  a 1000  kg/month, we would hesitate to accept


other waste at much  less quantities.


     At  the same  time, we see problems  requiring the same standards  for  treatment,


 storage or disposal  of all hazardous waste regardless of quantity, concentration


 and effects.  The notes accompanying the standards  fail  to provide  the needed


 flexibility.

-------
     My remarks today and during  the next  two sessions  and our more  detailed written







comments being submitted at a later date,  are intended  to outline  acceptable alterna-







tives,  tha£ can  be incorporated  into  these proposed  regulations,  that  meet the require-







ment of the Act and provide what  we see as necessary  to the  implementation of a cost







effective hazardous waste management program.   This  involves  a basic requirement to







divide hazardous waste into sub-sets,  based on  the degree of  hazard.  We  are recommending







identifying two sub-sets of hazardous  waste, establishing standards  for generators,







transporters and owner/operators  commensurate with  the  level  of  hazard  associated







with each set of waste.







     In our letter of July 5, 1977 commenting on  draft  regulations for  Section







3001, we emphasized the need  to  identify  two levels  of  hazardous waste.  We







reiterate that request today.







     My remaining comments relate to Subpart A  of 40 CFR 250 and recommenda-







tions related  to  the  requirements of Section 3001,  RCRA.

-------
    Austin Amorican-.Slatesman

    A10           Thursday, March 1. 1979

   Jim Fain, Publisher        Ray Mariotti, Editor
    Governors  ignore


    good energy plan

    The  national wire services  say the na-
   tion's governors reacted with collective in-
   difference to the Texas energy plan, a bi-
   partisan recommendation presented them
   by Gov. Bill Clements. That's sad, because
   if they took their heads out of the sand, they
   might realize the Texas plan has more vir-
   tues than faults.
     The plan may disdain environmental con-
   trols too broadly, but it recommends dere-
   gulation of the oil industry and the channel-
pi ing of all windfall  energy profits into n:-
Pv search and development,  nnd advocates
I- •--^—--
              conservation and development of "exotic"
              energy sources,

                Clements asked Tor screams of  protest
              wt.en he suggested Texas might — stress
              the word — might be able to accommodate
              a  r.uclear waste disposal site, something
              r.-.=.ny states want to avoid.
                Tut if Texas is offering an energy plan,
              or.r  which advocates diverse sources in-
              cluding nuclear power, it would be less than
              credible to announce, m effect, "nuxes, yes;
              wastes, no."
                There may  be  no place in Texas which
                ••uld  make  a good waste disposal  site.
              Tests are going on but with little encourage-
              ment. A better place might be in Nevada on
              old federal atomic test sites. Clements did
              say he agreed with two governors who sug-
              gested the federal government put  its haz-
              ardous wastes on its own land.
                The governor's nuclear dump statement
              was so dotted  with ifs;buts, maybes and the
              like, it looked like a fruitcake. And that is a
             | proper approach to the  qucstio-n, hesitant
             . and cautious.  But it recognizes the problem,
              which is ,1 !,:t more than some other states
              have managed. >
    >X ALL I
TTW SOMEBODY ATTHIS
                IS TO
'SEND ITCM OVER"—
                                                                                    t!
                                              /    / —=•, /      l     • •':' ••-' ''-.I-
                                              \u~'A     !'    ?f"^^!   W
                                              3 \ *, '•'•'-?^     !  —.^lij^-l1'   re»
                                              7-r^S^V\ I)  /''^-;' ^      ir--^

-------
Comments Subpart A:

     We agree with the preamble statement  that  Section 3001 is the keystone to

Subtitle C.  We find it difficult  to discuss  Subpart  A without relating to  Subpart

B and Subpart D.  And even more difficult,  discussing Subparts B and D without

involving A.

     The premise of our comments on 40  CFR, Part  250, Subpart A, is to establish
                                                            a- & a*Aas''*G/ -Snife
a provision within the regulation  that  would  allow the Regional Administrator\to

classify hazardous waste  into  two  sub-sets.   We propose the use of the terms

PRIMARY HAZARDOUS WASTE and  SPECIAL WASTE.  PRIMARY HAZARDOUS WASTE refers

Co the more noxious waste, while SPECIAL WASTE  is used to refer to waste that meets

the hazardous criteria, but  there  is no reasonnble probability of significant

adverse effect  on  human health' or  the  environment unless the waste is improperly

managed.

     The Congress, in^defining hazardous waste  in Section 1004(5)  of the Act,

establishes the requirement  for classifying hazardous waste by its effect and

potential  hazard resulting  from improper management.

     We propose that the  following definition be incorporated into Section 250.11:

      (b)(3)   "Hazardous Waste" has the  meaning  given in Section 1004(5) of the

Act as  further  defined  and  identified  in this Subpart.

-------
     (i)   "PRIMARY  HAZARDOUS  WASTE" means a sub-set of hazardous waste which causes






or significantly  contributes  to,  an increase in mortality or an increase in serious






irreversible,  or  incapacititating reversible, illness.







     (ii)   "SPECIAL WASTE" means  a sub-set of hazardous waste which poses a sub-







stantial present  or potential hazard to human health or the environment when im-







properly treated,  stored,  transported,  or disposed of, or otherwise managed.






     It should be emphasized  that the proposed definitions will not result







in any loss of control.   All  waste will be' subject to manifesting, but special






wastes on a selected basis may have greater exempt quantities and/or may not







require as rigid  or inflexible construction standards.







     Primary hazardous waste  will include waste that have an acute toxicity







criteria with an  LD50 value equal or less than 500 mg/kg or an LC50 value equal







or less than 100  ppm.  Waste  characterized by significant persistence  in the







environment, bioaccumulation, carcinogenic!ty, mutagenicity, or teratogenicity






would be included under primary hazardous waste.  Hazardous metals in  Section






250.13(d)  whose extract levels contain more than 100  times  the EPA National







Iterim Drinking Water Standards shall be primary hazardous waste.







     Unucr Section 250.13, our proposal  is to usu  the  following characteristics







of hazardous waste to describe the characteristics of  special waste.

-------
     250.13(a)  Ignitable waste is a special waste  if  a  representative  sample







has the characteristics of subsection  (l)(i) and  (l)(ii).







     250.13(b)  Corrosive waste is a special waste  if  a  representative  sample







has the characteristics of subsection  (1)(i).







     250.13(c)  Reactive waste is a special waste if a representative sample







has the characteristics of subsection  (1) (ii).







     250.13(d)  Toxic waste  is a special  waste  if the  acute toxicity LD50 is







greater than  500 mg/kg or the LC50 is  greater than  100 ppm.   Heavy  metals in







Section 250.13(d) whose extract levels contain  less than 100 times  the  EPA







National Interim Drinking Water Standards shall be  considered special waste.







The heavy metals classification is consistent with  the final report of  the







Hazardous Waste Management Task Force  of  the National  Governors'  Association.







Because of  their quantity, or characteristics,  special wastes may become a primary







waste  if designated by  the appropriate regulatory agency.






     Examples  from  the  list  of hazardous  waste  in Section 250.14, Subsection (a),







that would  normally be  special wastes  are:







     1.   Waste nonhalogenated-solvent (such n.s mcthanol,  acetone,  LsopropyL







          alcohol,  polyvinyl alcohol,  stoddard  solvent and methyl ethyl ketone)







          and  solvent sludges from cleaning, compounding milling and  other







          processes (1,0);

-------
    2.   Waste lubricating oil (T,0);



    3.   Waste.hydraulic  or cutting oil (T,0);



    4,   Paint wastes  (such as used rags, slops, latex sludge, spent solvent)


         (T.I.O);



    5.   Waterbased  paint wastes (T) .



    Infectious waste is a hazardous waste if it is included in Class A or

                                                 £cs///
-------
     A workable system for  the  identification  of  hazardous waste by level of







hazard has already been developed by  the  Department of Ecology of the State of







Washington.  The Texas Department of  Health  is actively working upon details of







a system to achieve  this.purpose.







     What we propose  to  identify as special  waste is not removed from the hazard







category, but offers  an  opportunity  to  make  a  simple variance in generator re-







quirements and standards  for  the  treatment,  storage or disposal.







     The special waste identified by  the  characteristics we have chosen,  although







representing a lower  level  of hazard, should be controlled through the solid waste







management chain.  However,  as  will be  evident from our comments on Subpart B and D,







we would on a site-specific basis vary  the standards for special waste from those







currently  proposed  to regulate all hazardous waste.







     Removing or minimizing the stigma  of the term "hazard" and identifying more







flexible standards  for a large portion  of the hazardous waste stream and allowing






written approval  for special waste  in lieu of repermitting will make available






municipal  solid waste landfills for   the continued safe disposal of a majority of






the  hazardous waste  stream.

-------
JohnB.Ivey                                                             155So.Mndi*anSt
Pmidenl                                                                Dtnver. Colorado
Jim V. Rou«                                                                   «0209
ViccPiMident                                                              (303)321-6057
G«n. M«n«er
Curtit L Amuedo



                   ENVIROLOGIC SYSTEMS  INC.
                       ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO THE MINEKAL INDUSTRY
             Comments  of  Jim V.  Rouse before Public Hearing,

            Proposed Section 3001,  3002, and 3004 Regulations
                 Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by
                 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

                    Denver,  Colorado, March 7-9, 1979


           I am grateful  for the chance to address this hearing,  to

      present my views on the effect the regulations, proposed  Decem-

      ber 18, 1978 under  the authority of Subtitle C of the  amended

      Solid Waste Disposal Act,  would have on the mining  industry.

      These comments are  not prepared from the viewpoint  of  their

      specific impact  on  any single facility, but rather  reflect  the

      views of an individual with a 16 year history with  the EPA  and

      its predecessor  agencies as a mining waste specialist, now

      serving as environmental consultant to a number of  mining oper-

      ations.  The views  offered thus draw on experience  (resume

      attached) with regulatory  agencies and with industry,  and are

      presented in an  attempt to develop fair and workable regula-

      tions which will not needlessly damage the industry.

           I recognize the difficult task facing the agency, to pre-

      pare far-reaching regulations under a short time limit on the

      basis of very limited data.  I also recognize, from reading

      the regulations, that the  drafters had little or no working

      knowledge of the mining industry and its practices.  I would

-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 2

recommend that the agency personnel make  a  tour  of  representa-

tive sites prior to the preparation of  the  final regulations.

I stand ready to assist in the organization and  conduct of

such a. tour.

     I had been encouraged by the approach  taken in the Febru-

ary 6, 1978 proposed "Solid Waste Disposal  Facili-ties", in that

recognition of the variations in site conditions and waste char-

acteristics were allowed, and an allowance  made  for the tremendous

capacity of the vadose zone to sorb metals  or  radionuclides from

percolating vadose water.  This is similar  to  the approach taken

by the recently developed New Mexico Environmental  Improvement

Division ground-water protection regulations.

     I then was very disappointed to find that the  Subtitle C

regulations did not take this progressive approach,  but rather

fell back to a single approach incorporating rigid  design cri-

teria, which does not recognize variations  in  waste  or site

characteristics, or the sorbtive ability of the  vadose zone.

As they now stand, the regulations would  require the same care

for radium in a Florida gypsum on limestone, with no vadose

zone and in a sandstone waste rock deposited on  shale in cen-

tral Utah, with a 2000 ft. thick vadose zone.  The  regulations

should be written to allow for waste and site  characteristic

variations.

     The design criteria are copied from  other regulations such1

as the Texas Railroad Commission, and do not reflect demonstrated

-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9,  1979
Page 3

need, or even the practicability of measurements.  I would

recommend that specific design criteria be omitted, and the

operator be permitted to tailor the design to the specific

site and waste conditions.

     The designation of "hazardous waste" is highly subjective

and lacking in valid demonstrated hazards.  There are discrep-

ancies between the approach specified in the preamble, and

the wastes  listed in 250.14.  For example, the preamble states

wastes will only be listed on the basis of their ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, but the first five wastes

listed under 250.14 (b) (2)  are listed because of their proported

"radioactivity", which is the subject of a notice of proposed

rulemaking.  Thus it is obvious that EPA has developed a de_

facto criteria for radioactivity, a criteria so stringent as to

include almost all waste generated by the mining industry.  We

would recommend omission of the first five wastes in 250.14 (b)

(2) until a reasonable radioactive limit is developed.

     The criteria for a "corrosive" waste is defined by 250.13

(b) to include any aqueous  waste with a pH equal to or less than

3.0.  This  would include many streams of Rocky Mountain spring

water draining areas of sulfide mineralization, which frequently

have pH values of 2.3 to 2.8.  It would also include Coca-Cola

and other similar soft drinks.  A value of 1.5 pH units would

be more reasonable.

-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 4
     A "reactive" waste is specified by 250.13  (c)  to include
"cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which can generate toxic gases,
vapors, or fumes when exposed to mild acidic or basic conditions."
This definition is vague, does not meet the intent  of 250.10(a),
and would probably include virtually all mining waste, depend-
ing on how tightly one applies the definition .  More definitive
criteria for reactive wastes 'are required.
     Toxic wastes are defined on the basis of an arbitrary Ex-
traction Procedure, with no attempt to relate, the results to
any real hazard.  Two of the listed elements (arsenic and se-
lenium) are mobile under oxidizing alkaline conditions, but not
under acidic conditions.  This could lead to a false sense of
security, in cases where selenium-bearing waste was exposed to
alkaline conditions.  On the other hand, other metals might be
mobilized under the Extraction Procedure but not under expected
site conditions.  The testing should duplicate expected field
and waste conditions.
     Many of the "wastes" listed in 250.14 (b)(2) are not wastes
at all, but rather are returned to the process.  Their inclusion
will needlessly generate requirements of record keeping without
environmental advantages.  Examples include copper  smelter dusts,
etc.  This again demonstrates a need to know the industry.
     Section 250.15 provides a mechanism to demonstrate that
a waste is outside the arbitrary EPA criteria, and  hence should
not be considered as hazardous.  Within this section, 250.15(a)(5)

-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9,  1979
Page 5

provides a  mechanism to demonstrate that a waste is not radio-

active (a non-existent criteria under 250.12).  The waste must

contain less than 5 picocuries per gram radium, which automati-

cally means that all marine shales, granites, most bricks, etc.

are "hazardous".  In fact, almost any basement excavation in

Denver results in the generation of a "hazardous" waste.

     If concentrations are to be used, a limit of 25 to 30

picocuries  per gram would be more consistent with the intent.

However, a  better approach would be to use the leach tests, to

see what amount of the radium was subject to leaching, and hence

available to the biosphere.  Such tests should be run prior to

regulations being drafted.

     The definitions for "Attenuation", "Endangerment", and

"Underground Non-Drinking Water Source", found in 250.41, indicate

that, at one time, the Subpart D regulations envisioned an ap-

proach similar to the Sanitary Landfill Criteria, with recogni-

tion of the attenuation provided by vadose and saturated zone

sorbtion, and allowance for naturally-occurring contamination.

Unfortunately, these concepts were omitted from the proposed

regulations, and replaced by a rigid set of design criteria

which do not provide for variations in site or waste character-

istics.  In my opinion, all necessary design criteria are con-

tained in Section 250.42-1.  Specific design should be left to

the various operators, with allowance made for the concepts as

expressed in the definitions of "attenuation", "endangerment",

and "Underground Non-Drinking Water Source".

-------
Public Hearing Comments
March 7-9, 1979
Page 6

     Many of the subsequent sections of Subpart D are clearly

not applicable for mining wastes.  Their inclusion under the

requirements of Section 250.46 demonstrates a lack of under-

standing of the mininx industry.  Again, we suggest an extensive

tour of representative facilities prior to preparation of the

final regulations, and offer our assistance in arranging for

such a tour.

     There is no environmental advantage associated with the

security requirements, although there are significant environ-

mental and economic disadvantages.  The material inside the

fence is identical to thousands of tons of similar rock outside

the fence.  Similarly, there is no need for a daily inspection

to see that the rock is still inside the fence.  The closure and

post-closure requirements are unnecessary except for truly haz-

ardous materials, which do not include mining wastes.

     In closing, I recognize that the agency was faced with a

tough job in preparing far-reaching regulations covering a num-

ber of. industries they did not understand.  Perhaps time

precluded becoming familiar with the industry prior to prepa-

ration of the draft regulations, but it is hoped you can

become familiar with the industry before you finish the final

regulations.  I would be glad to assist in this familiarization.

It is important that you understand the wide variation in site

and waste characteristics, and provide sufficient flexibility

to design around these variations, making use of the sorbtive

capacity of the vadose zone.

-------
JohnB.Ivey
Prwdmt
Jim V. Howe
Vice President
G«D. Manager
Curtu L. Ajnuedo
Secretary-Treaeurer
                                               156 So. Madison St
                                                Denver, Colorado
                                                      80209
                                                  (303)321-6057
                      ENVIROLOGIC  SYSTEMS  INC
                           ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO THE MINERAL INDUSTRY
                               PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS  STATEMENT
       NAME:   Jim V. Rouse

       BUSINESS ADDRESS:

            Envirolooic Systems,  Inc.
            155 South Madison Street
            Suite 239
            Denver, Colorado    80209
        303/321-6057
       HOME ADDRESS:
            1528 South Lee
            Lakewood, Colorado
80226   303/986-1787
       EDUCATION:
            Professional Degrea,  Geological Engineering, Colorado School
                 of Mines, 1961
            M. S., Hydrology,  Stanford University,  1968

       SPECIAL TRAINING:

            U. S. Government training courses:

                 Water Quality Studies
                 Control of Oil and Other Hazardous  Materials
                 Geohydrologic Relationships in Water Pollution

       PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:

            Society of Mining  Engine^-' - AIME
            National Water Well Asso  ition   Tech.  Section
            Association of Engineer: :., Geologists
            Colorado Mining Association

       TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE:

       September, 1977 to Present

       General Manager, Envirologic Systems, Inc.    Environmental consultants for
       the mineral industry.   During project planning, address such  factors as

-------
baseline data collection and analysis, impact mitigation, and project design to
minimize impacts and reduce costs.  Serve as client representative during nego-
tiations for permits and licenses, and advise on potential regulations.  For
operating facilities, assist in compliance monitoring and in relicensing and
repermitting of plant.  Serve as expert witness in public hearings on environ-
mental impact of proposed facilities or practices.

1971 to September, 1977

Environmental Protection Technologist - Mining/Milling, Physical Science
Specialist, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, Denver, Colorado.

Specialist in heavy-metals and radiochemical pollution.  Assignments included:
preparation of interim effluent guidance for mining and other industries,
investigation of radiochemical pollution from phosphate mining, specific waste
surveys of gold, iron and uranium mines, development of agency policy on sub-
surface injection of waste, investigations of subsurface movement of landfill
leachate, and others.

1968 to 1971

Colorado P.iver Basins Office, F.W.Q.A.

Team Leader responsible for water quality investigations involving acid mine
drainage, underground nuclear detonations, oil field brines, salt springs,
and uranium milling wastes.

1964 to 1967

Colorado River Basins Salinity Project, U.S.P.H.S. and F.W.Q.A.

Responsible for field personnel conducting investigations of sources of
saline pollutants.  Conducted special studies of salt springs and acid mina
drainage.  Utilized hydrologic techniques in design of sampling network and
analysis of data.

1964

Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Assoc., Staff Geologist

Staff geologist responsible for design, construction, and testing of large-
capacity water wells for sub-divisions, municipalities, and industries.

1961 to 1963

Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins Project, U.S.P.H.S.

Geologist responsible for ground-water availability and rural land-use studies
in Great Lakes and Illinois River Basins.

-------
PUBLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS:

The Effect of Mining and Milling Wastes on Water Quality (1967) Colo. Mining
Assoc.  Meeting-Denver.

Mineral Springs and Other Natural Point Sources of Saline Pollution (1967)
FWPCA open-file report.

Nature, Location, and Magnitude of Salinity Sources in the Colorado River
Basin (1967) FWPCA open-file report.

Mine Drainage and Other Sources of Heavy Metal Pollution in the San Juan
Mountains and Other Portions of the Colorado River Basin (1970) FWPCA, Colo.
River-Bonneville Basins Office.

Mining and Milling Effluent Guidance (1972) Office of Permits Programs, EPA.

Acid Mine Drainage from Hardrock Mines of the West (1972) in Air and Water
Pollution Proceedings, Colo. Assoc. Univ. Press.

Hydrologic Relationship of Jefferson County Landfill Leachate and Merramec
Heights Area Springs, Jefferson Co., Missouri (1973) EPA, NFIC-D.

Mineral Pollution in the Colorado River Basin (July 1973) Journal WPCF.

Environmental Aspects of In-Situ Mining and Dump Leaching (1974) Proc. AIME
Solution Meeting.

Radiochemical Pollution from Phosphate Rock Mining and Milling (1974) Proc.
AWRA Water Resources Problems Related to Mining.

Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Waste, Presented at the ASCE Annual
Convention, November 1975.

Radiochemical and Toxic Pollution of Water Resources, Grants Mineral Belt,
New Mexico, Presented at the 105th AIME Annual Meeting, February 1976,
Las Vegas, Nevada.

Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Waste (October 1976) ASCE Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division, Vol. 102, No. E.E5, Proc.
Paper 12447, pp. 929-936.

EPA Requirements with Regard to Water Pollution, Presented at Mackey School
of Mines, Ground Water Hydrology and Mining Short Course, October 11-15,  1976.

Applicable Regulation of In-Situ Mining of Uranium, Presented at 26th
Annual Meeting, Rocky Mountain Section, AAPG, April 3, 1977.

-------
EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY:
October 1971   Enforcement Conference, Cheyenne River, South Dakota
February 1973  Deposition, Reserve Mining Co., Federal Lawsuit
October 1973   Deposition, Jefferson Co. Landfill Leachate Pollution,
               Private Lawsuit
January 1975   Public Hearing, New Mexico Ground-Water Pollution Regulations
November 1975  Public Hearing, New Mexico Ground-Water Pollution Regulations
Feburary 1976  Public Hearing, Colorado Water Quality Control Coimrission,
               amendments to Subsurface Injection Regulations
February 1976  Public Hearing, South Dakota Pollution-Control Agency,
               modification of Whitewood Creek Stream Standards
June 1976      Public Hearing, New Mexico Ground-Water Pollution Regulations
August 1976    Public Hearing, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission,
               proposed uranium in-situ mining operation license
April 1977     Cluff Lake (Sask) Board of Inquiry, proposed uranium mine/mill
               license

-------
                                                     The League of Women Voters of Colorado
                                                                       1600 Race Street
                                                                     Denver, CO. 80206
                                                                        303 - 320-8493
                                     STATEMENT

                                      of the

                           LEAGUE OP WOMEN VOTERS OF COLORADO

                         on Proposed Guidelines and Regulations

                                Public Hearing in Denver
                                  March 7, 8, 9, 1979

     The League of Women Voters of Colorado has requested permission to speak

at these hearings  because of our special concern.  The dangers of inadequate

hazardous waste handling were apparent to us long before tiv?re was nationwide

interest in the subject.   Residents not far from this building had their water

services contaminated and subsequently abandoned because of disposal practices

at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.   Wildlife and cropland werp also harmed when

injection was  used  as a rsnsdy, the procedure caused the "Denver Earthquakes"

and had to  be  stopped.    Colorado and Utah are currently involved in debate

over the transportation and disposal of the "weteye" bombs currently stored,

and in some cases  leaking, at the arsenal.  The Colorado Department of Health

estimates that in  Colorado there are approximately 6,311 possible generators

of hazardous waste;  195 possible transporters of hazardous waste and 315

possible processors  and/or disposers of hazardous wastes.

     A bill (SB 121) introduced this session in the Colorado legislature states

"currently  wastes  which are hazardous are being disposed of indiscriminately

In sanitary landfills in the state without regard to the- location of such

landfills or the hydrology or geography of the landfill site."

-------
     the League of Women Voters of Colorado under an EPA grant,  presented a
seminar on hazardous waste last summer.  The purpose- was to raise awareness of
the problems and to explore some of the ways they might  be solved.  The over-
riding immediate problem identified at the seminar was the lack  of a definition
of what will be considered hazardous waste and uncertainty as to what the
standards and regulations will be.  We believe that EPA  should set the- standards
and agree that the states are the preferred level of. government  for implementa-
tion of this program j so long as they meet the? minimum standards.  We have both
state and national positions that the states should be allowed to be more
stringent.  We urge you to adopt these standards and regulations as soon as
possible so that the states may set their machinery in motion to.implement.
     Our members found it very difficult to attend the public meetings held by
the state and the EPA prior to this hearing and would suggest at least one of
them should have been held in the Denver metro area.  We also suggest that the
structure of the hearings makes it very difficult for people to  reach an under-
standing of the total picture.  Shorter sessions, perhaps three  days of the
same general program might make citizen participation more meaningful.
     3001 -  In terms of citizen participation we request that public notice be
required whenever the results of a demonstration of non-inclusion In the
hazardous waste system results In the material being excluded.   Perhaps it
could be patterned after the water discharge permit system in *4iich there is
public notice soliciting public conraent.  We do not feel that a  person must show
that he is aggrieved, but only that there is a reasonable doubt  as to the public
health or the environmental effects of the decision.  This would allow for the
possibility of new data on harm to human health to be introduced.
     3002 -   We are uncomfortable with the loo KG exemption as  proposed although
It may make sense to control the large amounts first.  Any exemptions should
be based solely on the protection of human health and the environment.  Once

-------
the program has  been ijiplemented as proposed, a combination of option 3 and 5
might be initiated.   The exemption might be based on the degree of hazard with
lesser administrative requirements for the generators of smaller amounts.  We
support the requirement for annual renewal of exemption.  Since Colorado has a
history of hazardous waste accidents we would support a requirement for con-
tingency spill plans for generators which store hazardous waste less than 90
days.  The "cradle to grave" concept should include inclusive contingency plans.
The plan may be  part of the contingency or emergency plan of the generator.
     3004 -   We support the use of the Human Health and Environmental standards
and of design and operating standards as a way to assist the regulated community.
We do not support the frequent use of notes authorizing deviations.  We object
to the phrase at the time a permit is issued "in the notes because of the effects
on performance of such variables as weather, instruction and makeup of the
waste stream/' The time a permit is issued may not be representative of
conditions.
     Specific notes with which we take exception include:
     1. Ploodplain:  The act of building a structure in a floodplain would cause
that floodplain  to change.  If a facility is allowed in the floodplain, what
protection from flooding is provided for those structures put in jeopardy by
the new floodplain boundaries?
     2. Recharge zone of sole source aquifer: any exemptions must be able to
demonstrate no endangerment of the sole source aquifer at any time in the future.
     Special Wastes:  Colorado currently has problems with power plant fly ash
and with mining  wastes.  We're concerned about how you will handle those wastes.
     Our position is that the federal government should encourage recycling of
post-industrial  and post-consumer wastes.  Wr support assistance for recycling
facilities and waste exchanges.

                                         -3-

-------
                    Statement  of Howard Runion
                           on  behalf of
                 the American  Petroleum Institute
                            before the
                 Environmental  Protection Agency
                       Office  of Solid Waste
                          Denver,  Colorado
     My name is Howard  Runion  and  I  am currently employed as Manager
             Oil t**f                       T* tttJJH **s #* lit" * f A*#>dr»
Snitnges Department,  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.   My formal graduate   *f&
training includes an  MA in  Zoology and MPH in Environmental  and
Occupational Health.

     I am here today  on behalf of  the  American Petroleum Institute(API]
to discuss the implications  for industry and the country of  the
proposed regulations  under  Section 3001 of the Resource  Conservation
and Recovery Act  (RCRA)  as  published in the Federal Register,  on
                                                  i
December 18, 1978.
      I am joined today by Dr.  Ray Harbison,  a Toxicologist  at
Vanderbilt Medical Center, Mr.  Jeff  Jones,  a regulatory  policy
analyst with Industrial  Technolo'gical  Associates,  Inc.,  Mr.  John
Fitzpatrick, an attorney with  Gulf Oil Company,  Mr.  Stephen
Williams, an attorney and staff member of  the American Petroleum
Institute and Dr. Steven Swanson,  an economist  and  staff member
with API.

     Since the enactment of RCRA,  API  has  been  participating in the
development of the proposed regulations  through the  submission of
comments to and conferences with EPA personnel.   We  have been
impressed by the serious commitment  of the  members  of  the  Office of
Solid Waste to prepare a regulatory  program which addresses1

-------
                               -2-



health and  environmental issue:  Furthermore, we have appeared in

court  to  support  EPA in its attempts to obtain the requisite time

to promulgate  realistic, workable regulations.  However, despite

the time  granted  by Judge Gesell, API has had a scant three months

to review intensively this new and comprehensive program.  The

thoughts  we share with you today require further refinement,

expansion,  and reinforcement.   We shall seek relief in the fprm of

additional  time for specific projects underway, however we will have

substantial input ready for EPA by the March 16, 1979 deadline.


    API  views the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as a

logical extension of other environmental legislation for control of

environmental  pollution and we are in accord with the mandate1 of EPA

to regulate the disposal,  handling and storage of industrial residues.

The primary purpose of our presentation today is to present t'o the

EPA our concerns  about the process which EPA has proposed to

designate industrial residues  as hazardous wastes.


    We are particularly concerned that EPA, in a sincere attempt

to develop  "simple" and "inexpensive" methods for waste classification,!

has adopted an approach which  when applied, will so dilute industry's

and government's  scarce resources as to compromise efforts to

eliminate the  serious  environmental hazards.  API believes that

Congress  in enacting RCRA,  intended that a flexible program be

developed which (1)  identifies wastes as "hazardous" based upon the

degree of risk they pose to human health and the environment, and
                         +*»V v*.
(2) tailors  control efforts.commensurate with the degree of risk
                           ^

and which can  be  expected  to reduce that risk. Moreover, Congress

-------
                                 -3-
  indicated that  the  "hazard" a waste presents is a product of "its
  quantity,  concentration,  or physical, chemical or infectious
  characteristics."  (Section 1004(5)).

       EPA has  elected to focus its regulatory scheme on the physical
  and  chemical  characteristics of waste, thereby itneving mini
'ft characteristics  such as  volume and degradability which are^germane
 to an  assessment of risk.   Furthermore, for those wastes listed
                                                           •
 the Agency has neither demonstrated with field experience nor provided
 documentation with epidemiological studies, that the designated
 wastes have significantly  contributed to an increase in mortality
 or an  increase in serious  irreversible or incapacitating reversible
 illnesses.   Instead they have relied upon other statutes or regulatory
 programs,  and inconclusive incidents of "harm" to.conclude that the
 wastes listed "pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
 human  health or  the environment."

      Under the proposal  being advanced by the Agency in Section 3001,
 the definition section,  most, if not all, of the petrpleum industry's
 wastes will be designated  as  hazardous.  Our industry, like many
 others will then be forced to comply with a series  of preordained,
                                                        \          \
 costly compliance standards which do not differentiate', degrees of
 types  of hazard  posed by these wastes.
      The overly  broad designation scheme which EPA  has proposed
 results at  least  in part from the Agency's failure  to consider
 seriously  other  factors  bearing on hazard determinations such as
 degradability, persistence, dose  and probability of exposure.   For
 example, exposure considerations  are necessary to determine which
 wastes "significantly contribute  to an increase in  mortality, .-id
 and pose a  substantial hazard to  human health."

-------
                                4-
     In  Section  3001  EPA  has:
         •   Identified  a  group of characteristics (i.e., toxicity,
            corrosivity,  ignitability.and reactivity) to determine
            whether a waste  is hazardous;
         •   Prescribed  a  series of  tests to determine whether a
            waste possesses  these characteristics;
         •   Listed a  series  of wastes which they claim possess some
                                              •#(*>
            or all of these  characteristics and others for which
            tests have  not been prescribed (eg.  mutagenicity,
            teratogenicity.)

     We  cannot determine whether  the  wastes which are listed have
failed any of the prescribed test nor any other test for character-
istics for which tests  have not been  described.   Finally, test
results  for  the purpose of determining whether a waste is hazardous
are  not  used to establish a differentiated degree of risk.   The
disregard for degree  of risk stems  from a conceptual flaw,  which
is that  the  proposed  regulations  do not consider exposure.

     In  light of these  criticisms,  we feel it  is incumbent  on'us^f*1
to offer positive suggestions  for correcting the deficiencies we
have identified.  For that reason,  I'd like to spend a few  moments
describing some of the  critical elements of alternative approaches
to hazardous waste regulation.  We  are continuing to refine these
alternatives as the March 16 deadline approaches so I can only speak
generally today.

     In broad terms, the API alternative depends on a risk  assessment
approach  to regulation.   Our risk assessment procedures provide in

-------
the first phase  for  a  ranking of potentially hazardous wastes
according to chemical  and  toxicological risk.  Rather than a
simplistic hazard/no hazard designation,  API proposes to distinguish
more carefully among wastes of widely varying hazard.  We believe
our approach more  fully  exploits the results of testing by taking
into account all of  the  information generated by the prescribed series
of tests, in order to  differentiate among degrees of risk.   As
currently proposed EPA uses the tests only to determine whether a
waste passes or  fails  a  hazardous/riot hazardous determination.

     In the second phase of our alternative EPA would combine what
I will call exposure factors with first phase results.   By  exposure
factors I mean particular  site,  operational,  and management factors.
Our objective in this  phase is  to overcome EPA's across-the-board
application of the 10-fold dilution factor as a substitute  for adequate
exposure analysis.   We intend to develop  and justify a system that
provides for varying exposure factors.  Additionally,  we intend
that this type of  exposure analysis will  be utilized for all  wastes,
whether they are listed  or^not.
     Under the API scheme,  once the overall hazard assessment is
complete, EPA would  tailor the  regulatory requirements  to the degree
of hazard.  In other words,  just as API proposes a scale for  hazard
assessment,  we also  envision  a  system that varies1 the  stringency of
regulatory requirements according to the  degree of hazard.

     In addition to  the overall  risk assessment approach API  will
also propose a procedural  adjustment to EPA's listing process that
overcomes the problems discussed earlier.

-------
                               -6-





     To correct  these problems  API  suggest!that EPA clearly identify



the criteria and scientific  data that were used in the listing process^



Further, API recommends  that the initial listing of wastes be a



presumptive listing, with  an opportunity for public comment.  During



the comment period,  industry would  have the opportunity to supply



the Agency with  information  that might rebut this presumption.





     We appreciate the opportunity  to offer our views in this;



forum and we will be working diligently in the next week to more



fully develop  the ideas  I've discussed this morning.  We are prepared



at this time to  answer any questions the panel may have.

-------
                Statement of Kenneth Liunu
                     on behalf of
          The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
                           ana
                Edison Electric Institute

          Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations to
            Implement Sections 3001—3004 of the
        Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                       March 7, 1979
                      Denver, Colorado

          Good morning.  My name is Kenneth L-add.  I am

employed as Senior Environmentalist by the Southwestern

Public Service Company of Amarillo, Texas.  I am also

Chairman of the Resource Recovery & Utilization Technical

Committee of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

("USWAG"), and am appearing today on behalf of USWAG and

the Edison Electric Institute.

          For those of you not familiar with USWAG, let me

briefly describe the group.  USWAG is an informal consortium

of electric utilities and the Edison Electric Institute.

Currently, over 70 utility operating companies are partici-

pants in USWAG.  These 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.

          The Technical Committee that I chair focuses on is-

sues relating to the reuse of utility by-products, including

fly ash, bottom ash, scrubber sludge, and boiler slag.  En-

couragement of  these reuses is both environmentally and eco-

nomically significant.  For example, at Southwestern Public

-------
Service Company — a relatively small utility — we generate



400 tons a day of ash.   If reuse were impossible, we would be



required to spend — even without RCRA subtitle C requirements



— $.lc-^o per ton to dispose of this ash, and to dedicate many



acres to this purpose.  Fortunately, however, all of this ash



is marketable in our area, and, although we do not make a pro-



fit on its sale, we have substantially lowered our "disposal11



costs.



          (I might note parenthetically at this point that



we occasionally find it necessary to accumulate ash for



considerable periods of time in order to have enough to



make marketing feasible.  This fact seems to have been ig-



nored by EPA in its arbitrary proposal of a 90 day cutoff



to distinguish when a person accumulating waste on-site en-




gages in "storage" and becomes a TSDF.  At least as to



utility by-products, this period is totally inappropriate,



and would certainly impede our resource recovery efforts



if implemented.)



          As I mentioned a moment ago, Southwestern Pub-



lic Service's  activities represent only a small portion



of the  reuse of utility by-products.  Reuses have been



growing remarkably over the last ten years.  In  1966,  3.1



million tons of fly ash, botton ash and slag were reused;



in 1977, this  figure had  increased to 14 million tons.

-------
This represents an increase of from 3% ot" the total material



generated to 20.7%.  This increase in reuse has largely been



possible because, after great effort, we have managed to see



major, recognized specifications for concrete products and si-



milar materials revised to allow use of ash.  This effort has



greatly benefited from strong endorsements of the use of ash



from the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of En-



gineers, the Bureau of Mines, and other Federal and State gov-



ernment agencies.



          I understand that in a number of previous hear-



ings on these proposed RCRA regulations, members of the panel



have asked why the utility industry is concerned with the Sub-



title C regulations.  It has been suggested by the panel that



there is no reason to believe that fly ash and other utility



by-products are "hazardous," and thus regulated under these



rules, and that therefore the utility industry should not be



concerned.  But let me indicate today one important reason



why we are concerned: the proposed regulations on their face



presume the hazardousness of utility by-products, and have



hung a label of "hazardous" on them, and thus may severely



limit or even eliminate the reuse of these materials.



          For example, in the preamble to the proposed re-



gulations, EPA presupposes the "hazardousness" of fly ash.



The preamble states that "the Agency [has] realized that some



portions of certain high volume wastes" — including utility

-------
wastes — "will be hazardous  under  Subpart  A,"  and  continues.



"The Agency  is calling  these  high volume  hazardous  waste



"special waste".  . .  "(pp.  58991-92).   In short,  the  EPA  is



assuming that large volumes of  fly  ash  are  "hazardous."



          In addition,  the  proposed interim regulations  for



utility wastes are buried  in  the regulations implementing



 "section 3004" of RCRA  --  which regulations apply only to



"hazardous waste."  Again,  EPA seems to  be endorsing the




 conclusion  that utility by-products are hazardous,  rather



 then  simply indicating  it  isn't sure about  these materials.



           (We hasten  to note  that  we strongly believe that



 the Agency  in fact has  no  basis for concern with regard  to



 utility wastes, which,  we  submit,  constitute no substantial



 threat to  human health  or  the environment whether reused or




 disposed  of. )



           The  result  of these proposed  regulations is to



 hang  a public  label  of  "hazardous"  on fly ash and other uti-




 lity  by-products.  This will  have  a number  of inappropriate



 effects.   First,  it  will substantially  limit the market for



 these materials:  one simply cannot expect a home owner to be



 willing  to use  "non-spec readi-mix concrete" in the foundation



 for his new home  after  EPA has labeled  a major constituent of




 the readi-mix  as  "hazardous." Second, it will deter develop-



 ment  of new uses  for utility byproducts, despite considerable

-------
promising R&D work.  Third, it will deter many potential cus-



tomers from even considering the substitution of ash for vir-




gin or alternative materials, in order to avoid the nightmare



of paperwork that is likely to result under RCRA.




          This paperwork problem is an important one.  When




we try to develop markets for fly ash and bottom ash, we are



competing with other, locally-available products — including,




in some cases, dirt.  We' do not have any substantial price



advantage over these alternative products.  Thus, every



additional penny per ton cost that is added to ash, and every



extra regulatory complication, decreases the potential re-



use of this material.



          We believe this result directly contradicts the



intent of Congress  in enacting RCRA, which was, after all,




to promote resource conservation and recovery.



          Of course, there are substantial regional variations




in costs of reusing utility by-products.  For example, a



major element in ash marketing costs are transporation costs.




For this reason, we strongly object to the portions of the



proposed Section 3003 regulations that would require shipment




of fly ash in specially-designed and placarded vehicles.



There simply  is no  need for this.  There generally  isn't even.



a need for tarps on top of dump trucks carrying  ash, since



once wetted,  the ash does  not create dust or cause  any other



environmental problem.

-------
          Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  there is an enormous potential



market  for fly  ash  and  other utility by-products in the United


                                           f-&^
States.   Speaking in  Atlanta, Georgia, on jloroh 26, Ms. Penelope



Hanson  of the  EPA cited figures  that indicated that the re-



use of  fly ash  in federally-sponsored concrete construction



could save tax-payers 10-15% of  the cost of those projects.



She also indicated that a 20% use of fly ash in cement would



result in a 15% savings in the amount of energy used to pro-



duce that cement.  As a result,  a different division of EPA



than the one holding  this hearing has put  50% of its effort



in developing regulations to promote the use of ash in Federal



construction.   Yet these policies will be  substantially under-



cut by the regulations now proposed under  Subtitle C of RCRA.



          USWAG will  file detailed comments with EPA that will



set forth a number of alternatives to the  arbitrary approach



to implementation of  RCRA reflected in these proposed  regula-



tions.   Let me just summarize a few of our suggestions today:



          First,  EPA  should adopt an appropriate method to



define "hazardous waste," based on a recognition that  only



discarded materials are wastes, and reflecting  realistic



consideration of the  actual environmental  impacts  from dis-



posal of wastes.

-------
          Secand, EPA should include in its proposed regula-
tions a "commercial product standard" that will allow use of
recovered materials in place of virgin materials, if the
recovered materials have no significantly different impact on
the environment than the virgin materials, and that will not
subject the reused materials to any regulatory requirements.
          Third, if EPA concludes that it cannot yet make a
decision as to whether some utility waste products may be
hazardous in some situations, EPA should adopt only such
regulations as are necessary to keep track of utility waste
disposal — at the least possible economic and operational
impact — until the Agency's concerns have been factually
addressed.  The Agency should set forth these regulations in
a subpart of regulations that clearly establishes that no
decision has yet been reached as to the "hazardousness" of
utility wastes, and should assure that no steps are taken
in the interim period, before completion of any review of
utility waste disposal, that will interfere with the market-
ing and reuse of environmentally innocuous tly ash, bottom
ash, and other utility by-products.
          I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning,
and would be happy to answer your questions to the extent I
am able.

-------
                 STATEMENT

                    OF

             SHELL OIL COMPANY
              PUBLIC HEARING
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           HOLIDAY INN - AIRPORT
             DENVER, COLORADO
            MARCH 7, 8, 9, 1979
         SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
      SECTIONS 3001, 3002, 3003,  3004

-------
          My name is Richard H. Dreith, I am a Staff Engineer in the
Environmental Affairs Department of the Shell Oil Company.  Shell Oil
and its Divisions are pleased to comment on the proposed "Hazardous
Waste Guidelines and Regulations'1 appearing in the December 18, 1978
"Federal Register".  Shell Oil Company is an integrated oil company
involved in oil and gas production, refining, chemical manufacturing,
transportation, marketing, and mining activities.  We have facilities
for producing, transporting, manufacturing and marketing of Shell products
in forty-four of our fifty states.  Activities of our subsidiaries are
involved with products that range from agricultural chemicals to plastics.
Because of our wide range of activities nationally, we are vitally
interested in the development of workable national solid and hazardous
waste guidelines and regulations.
     Scope of Shell Comments
          We have participated with the Agency in commenting on drafts
and proposals throughout the solid waste regulation development process.
We are also participating in the preparation of comments and recommendations
to be submitted by the American Petroleum Institute and the Manufacturing
Chemists Association and other industrial associations relating to the
December 18, 1978 draft of the regulation.  We support the submittals of
the API and MCA as representing certain general and specific concerns
held by Shell.  We wish, however, to offer the following additional
comments and recommendations summarizing Shell's views on the proposed
hazardous waste regulations.
     Corporate Policy, RCRA and Existing State Programs
          Our corporation's written public policies state that we will
strive to attain ^mnronmentally acceptable disposal  techniques for  all

-------
of our wastes.   In  our  view  Shell's  committment to achieving environmentally
acceptable  disposal methods  is  consistent with our understanding of the
legislative intent  of the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
as it applies to waste  disposal.
         In addition,  our activities in Texas and California are subject
to state hazardous  waste management regulations.   These state programs
are proving to  be effective  in  maintaining acceptable control of hazardous
waste activities consistent  with  the intent of RCRA; therefore, we
support such state  programs.
     General Concern with  Proposal Approach
         We have some  concerns with specific issues that appear to
permeate the proposed regulations and would like to recommend conceptual
changes in  the  overall  approach so that the regulations will reflect
more closely the mandate of  the federal legislation.
     Suggest Following  Path  Similar to Air and Water Act Implementation
Your overview comments  state that reliance is placed on "waste specific-
standards versus industry  specific standards".  Further, "EPA experts
believe that most waste classified as hazardous requires similar management
techniques  . .  . with respect to  performance, design and operating
standards for treatment, storage  and disposal facilities".   We suggest a
much more site-specific and  industry-specific approach to standards is
possible and workable.   Examples  of present performance standards are
set forth below:  1) The Clean  Air Act contains provisions  which require
that air emissions  meet existing  ambient air standards and  establish net-,
limits where standards  do  not exist;  2) Surface runoff is  addressed under
the Clean Water Act; and 3)  The Safe Drinking Water Act when implemented

-------
will likely contain standards relating to subsurface leachate.  We are
suggesting that, under these existing Acts, waste disposal on and in the
land should be allowed to continue.
          Regulations under RCRA should recognize the assimulation and
retention capacities of soil to receive and retain contaminants and that
the retention can be verified by monitoring wells near the disposal
site.  The allowable leachate quality should depend on site-specific
performance standards which accurately reflect the potential for inflicting
harm to human health and the environment based upon the specific geological
parameters of the particular site.
          A site-specific based regulatory scheme would need to grant
considerable discretionary authority to administer an effective waste
management program. The effective use of this discretionary authority
has proven effective in the implementation of the Clean Air and Water
Acts and the Texas Industrial Solid Waste Management program.  A similar
approach would be effective in administering a workable RCRA program.   ^
     Burden of Proof of Compliance with Site-Specific Standards.with
     the Site Operator - Assuming site-specific standards are established
as disposal permit conditions in order to more accurately reflect the
potential for contamination of usable aquifers, monitoring wells can
ensure compliance with the site-specific leachate standards.  A hydrogeological
study of the area can be used to establish monitoring well placement and
the information obtained from such wells can be used to check compliance.
For existing facilities we recommend that monitoring wells be allowed to
establish compliance with site-specific leachate quality standards,

-------
rather than  requiring  costly retrofitting of facilities in order to meet
rigid arbitrary  liner  thicknesses, specified to avoid any groundwater
contamination.
          Guidelines for designing new facilities to meet essentially no
contaminant  release can specify a liner thickness to maintain the integrity
of the liner and thereby meet a performance standard; however, for
existing facilities the most practical approach is to recognize the
contamination release  potential of the specific-site and require retrofitting
only for those facilities which cannot meet the performance standards.
     Suggested General  Alterations to Proposal
     Tone is too rigid   While we recognize the "note" system which
suggests that "equivalency" to rigid engineering standards can be
demonstrated, we question the legality and workability of this approach
and propose  a system similar to that used in Texas be adopted.  The
Texas system sets general performance standards and provides guidelines
to meet those standards.
          In some instances literal compliance with the proposed standards
apoears impossible; i.e. strict requirements of proving a negative.   In
addition, prohibiting  wastes to be stored or accumulated in certain
facilities places in jeopardy the use of facilities considered acceptable
in spill containment plans called for under the Water Act.
     Hazardous Waste Definition is too Broad   The proposal defines
hazardous waste characteristics so broadly that essentially all wastes
generated in our industry will be classified as hazardous waste.  We
urge a concept of "degree of hazard" be adopted along with a consistent
degree of environmentally secure disposal.  This approach would allow

-------
greater flexibility in the classification of wastes and the most effective
use of disposal capacity which may well become or is the limiting
factor in implementing waste management programs.
     Specific Issues Summary - The attachments list additional concerns
expressed in summary form and directed to specific sections and paragraphs
in the proposed regulations.  A more detailed presentation of these and
other comments will be discussed  in statements submitted by the API and
MCA.

          We offer these comments, suggestions and recommendations with
full recognition of the formidable task of  promulgating workable regulations.
The experience with development and implementation of  the air and water
regulations and existing state hazardous waste regulations yields confidence
that the task can be accomplished.  Flexibility  in meeting performance
standards coupled with discretionary authority to allow a site-specific
approach to compliance is the most workable scheme without compromising
environmentally sound waste disposal.
          We look forward to continued involvement in  the regulatory
development activity and trust that our participation  is constructive.

-------
                    Issues On Subpart  A-Section 3001

             Identification And  Listing  of Hazardous  Waste
250.10 (b)(2)(a)  Definition  of  "Waste"  -  "other discarded material"
should be  redefined  to  exclude  waste such as "waste oil"  for which
a commercial market  exists or has  heating value.

250.10 (d)(1)(i)  Arbitrary Declaration  of Hazardous Haste - The DOT
regulations pursuant to 49 CFR,  Part 170-189 and proposed regulations
published  in "Federal Register"  of May  25, 1978,  do not permit a
shipper to arbitrarily  classify materials as a hazard subject to
its regulations.

250.13 Definition of "Hazardous" - Too  broadly defined such that
many common materials will be classified  as hazardous.  Degree of
hazard should  be  considered  in  setting  applicable standards.

250.13 (a)(2)  Inconsistent Testing Requirements   This section
omits the  Tag  Closed Tester  (ASTM D-56-70) as an identification
method that  is now authorized by the DOT  in 49 CFR and 173.115 (d).

250.13 (d) The Toxicant Extraction Procedure - This procedure has
not been verified by the Scientific Community as a valid test
procedure.

250.14 Addition of List of Exempted Wastes - There should be incorporated
into the listing  of  waste a  category for  substances which, are
exempt from  the hazardous waste regulation.  Possibly, the wastes
could be classified  as  nonhazardous, relatively low hazard, and
hazardous.

250.14 (a),  (b)(2) Broad Category of Listed Wastes - EPA has
identified only four criteria to determine whether a waste is
hazardous, yet it has identified wastes which have been placed on
the list for other criteria  ie  mutagenic, toxic organic, radioactive,
infectious etc.

250.15 (a)(b)  Procedure for  Biological  Testing of Wastes   These
procedures are not and  have  not been demonstrated to be ready for
routine daily  use.  Even the Agency requests comments on these
tests in the December 18, 1978  Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

250.5 (c)(4) Certification of Laboratory  Analysis - The certification
should read  "to the  best of  my  knowledge, information, and belief"
because the  person signing  the  certification may not have been
intimately involved  in  running  the tests.

-------
              Issues On Subpart B-Section 3002
    Standards Applicable To Generators Of Hazardous Waste
General - Degree of Hazard - The regulations should reflect degree
of hazard waste.The TOO kg/month exclusion should be adjusted
accordingly.

250.20 (b) State Program Requirements - States should not supplement
the manifest format.  The Agency should strive for a uniform system
nationwide.

250.20 (c) Declaration - Generators should be allowed to declare
themselves subject to the regulations.

250.20 (c) (2) The 90-Day Storage Exclusion - Should be adjusted
upward to allow time to accumulate economic shipment quantities.

250.21 (a) General Definitions - All definitions should be spelled
out in the regulations in their entirety instead of referring to
the Act.  This leads to great confusion, requiring generators to
refer to a number of different sources for compliance with regulations.

250.21 (b)(9) Definition of Generator - The term generator needs
further clarification to show that "person" means and pertains only
to a facility that produces in excess of 220 pounds per month of
hazardous waste.  Other facilities owned by the same entity but
producing less than 200 pounds should not be considered generators
in this part.

250.21 (b)(18) On-Site - Should be extended to sites under generators
control but not contiguous to generators plant in remote locations.

250.22 Co-Publish with DOT - These regulations should be published
by DOT in 49 CFR to avoid confusion and misunderstanding in attempting
to comply with both DOT and EPA regulations.

250.22 (f)(3) Multiple Shipments - On multiple shipments the
hazard class of each part of a shipment should be listed on the
manifest and also clearly labeled.

250.22 (h)(5), (h)(6), (h.)(7) Manifest Requirements for Laboratory
Wastes - For miscellaneous laboratory wastes, the identification of
each hazardous waste is impossible as presently proposed.  General
identification based on DOT classifications could be made workable.

250.22 (h)(3) Format Variance on Manifest - Directions for action
to be taken in case of emergency should be allowed as an attachment
to the manifest instead of an absolute requirement that it be on_
the manifest.

-------
250.22 (h)(8)  and (9)  Ihteragency Coordination 1n Spill Notification -
EPA should coordinate  with other Governmental Agencies so that only
c>ne_ Agency need  be notified of an incident and other agencies would
be notified by the Central Receiving entity (i.e. Coast Guard
Emergency Assistance).

250.22 (h)(9)  Manifest Spill Requirement - The manifest should
caution the transporter to comply with applicable DOT and Water Act
Spill  notification requirements.

250.23 Reporting - Should clearly allow reports from each plant
site.

250.23 (b)(9), (c)(9), (d)(9), (g)(9), h(9) Certification - The
certification should read "to the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief".

250.23 (c)(8)  Exception Reporting   This section should be revised
to require the generator to show'that a hazardous waste shipment
was accepted by  a licensed carrier and it is the carrier's responsibility
to fulfill the requirements of locating the final disposition of
the waste.

250.25 Containers - Storage on-site for later shipment should not
require DOT specified containers but only environmentally sound
containers.

250.25 (a) Inconsistency with DOT Regulations - This section omits
labeling requirements  of other DOT title 49 CFR Part 172.

250.26 (a) Inconsistency with DOT Regulations - This section requiring
Generators to placard  each shipment is in contradiction to DOT
regulations in DOT title 49 CFR Part 172.

250.26 (b) Labeling Practices - This section needs to be clarified
and the reference to 49 CFR part 172 corrected.

250.29 (a) Exemption   This section exempts any person who
produces and disposes  of no more than 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste in any one month period.  It should be based on a yearly
average to minimize the burden on those generators who may only
have an occasional excursion above the 100 Kg limit.

-------
              Issues On Subpart C-Section 3003
   Standards Applicable To Transporters Of Hazardous Waste
250.30 (c) Consistent with DOT Regulations - This section omits DOT
regulations under 49 CFR part 172 and 173 which must be complied
with.

250.31 (j) Definition of "Spill" - This term should be consistent
with the definition given in 250.21 (b)(26).

250.34 (e) Container Condition - This section states that a transporter
shall not transport containers which are leaking.  It should be
changed to "shall not accept for transportation or transport",
because the containers could become damaged and leaking in transit.

250.35 (c) Consistent Manifest Format - The manifest described here
and in 250.22 (h) are not the samelOne or both of these sections
should be revised to be consistent with each other.  Also, the
format should be suggested only and allowances made for variation
in format or use of a computerized format.

250.35 (c)(l)(i) Consistency with other Sections - This section
does not require the delivery document to show the transporters
identification code whereas 250.32 (c) does.  Both should be identical.

-------
              Issues On  Subpart D-Section 3004

    Standards  For  Owners And Operators Of Hazardous Waste

         Treatment, Storage And Disposal  Facilities
Preamble 43 Federal  Register 58984,  Column 2 Inactive Facilities -
While inactive  facilities  are to be  exempted portions of active
facilities  that are  currently inactive should also be exempted.

250.40 (c)(2)(VI!I)(A)  and (B) Interim Status Requirements -This
paragraph reauires each owner/operator of a facility receiving
hazardous waste to provide a cash deposit equal to the closure cost
and the estimated cost  of  complying  with the post-closure monitoring
and maintenance on the  effective date of these regulations.

It is recommended that  additional time be given to existing facilities
to provide these cash deposits because it is anticipated that
significant changes  in  the proposed  regulations will occur.  Alternate
language suggested is:  "Each owner/operator of a facility receiving
hazardous waste as defined in subpart A on the effective date of
these regulations shall provide a cash deposit equal to the entire
amount of the estimated closure costs of the facility and the post-
closure monitoring and  maintenance requirements at the time a
permit application is submitted for  approval."

250.41 (a)(2) Definition of Disposal - The term "disposal" has been
given the meaning as found in the Act.  However, it is recommended
that the word "intentional" be inserted before "discharged" since
many "non-intentional"  incidents will fall under the catch-all term
"disposal".  It is our  belief that only those willful Acts of
"spilling"  and  "leaking" were to be  regulated.

250.41 (83) Storage  Facility - Temporary storage time of 90 days
should be extended to allow accumulation of economic quantities for
shipment.

250.41 (b)(28)  Distinction Between New and Existing Facilities
Flexibility should be provided to allow existing facilities which
may not fully meet equivalent EPA design and operating standards to
continue operating until compliance  can be reached after a reasonable
time period.

250.42 Inclusion of  Regulations Under Other Statutes - RCRA should
not incorporate unknown future reaulatory changes under other
statutes.

250.42-2 Double Jeopardy - Facilities being operated pursuant to
this section would potentially be liable under both RCRA and CWA.
There needs to  be a  separation of responsibilities between these
two laws.

-------
250.43 Storm Water Runoff Contaminant - This section requires
diversion structures for surface water runoff from 24-hour, 25-year
storm which is inconsistent with OSM Regulations for detention time
requirements of such surface water runoff (30 CFR Section 816.46).

250.43-250.45-6 Variances or Alternative Standards - Should allow
greater flexibility through a general variance for a facility not
meeting the design and operating standards if it can meet health
and environmental "standards or equivalent performance.

250.43-1 General Site Selection - Standards too restrictive and
rules out many industrial areas in river valleys and the Gulf
Coast.

250.43-1 Facility Siting - The restriction of facility siting in
coastal high risk areas, 500-year flood plains, wetlands, is
unwarranted.

250.43-2 Security Requirements - Security requirements for
six-foot fence and control gates are unnecessary where operations
are manned 24-hours-a-day.  For remote locations, where the possibility
of public exposure is very limited, minimal fencing to keep livestock
and other wildlife out should more than adequately suffice.

250.43-5 (a), (b)(l), (b)(6), (c)(5), (c)(6) Pipeline Transportation
of Waste - To avoid unnecessary paperwork for Agency and permitters
alike, the requirement for manifesting brine delivered by pipeline
from one lease to a central plant on another lease should be eliminated.
Brine transported by truck should be manifested.

250.43-9 (a)(l)(ii) Flexibility in Financial Responsibility for
Facility Closure - Alternatives such as self-certification, surety
bonds or letters of credit should be allowed.  In addition, a
stipulated maximum level for all similar funds nationwide should be
established so that inordinate amounts of capital are not unavailable
for productive investments.

250.43-9 (a)(2)(ii) Flexibility in Financial Responsibility for
Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance - Same discussion as above.

250.43-9 (b)(l)(i) and (b)(1)(iii) Clarification of Insurance
Needs - As presently written, this section calls for a facility
to show evidence of financial responsibility per occurrence per
site.  The "per site" should be omitted since insurance policies
are normally written on a per occurrence basis for any site belonging
to the insured.   In addition, the proposed rules placed an annual
aggregate of $10 million for non-sudden occurrences, however,
aggregate limits for sudden occurrences were not addressed.  It is
recommended that an annual aggregate limit of $50 million be
established for sudden and accidential occurrences.

-------
For multiple sites, it is recommended that financial responsibility
of an maximum annual  aggregate limit of $50 million for ten or more
sites be established which parallels proposed rules by the US Coast
Guard for setting rules to implement the DCS Pollution Liability
and Compensation Act.  In addition, the limitation of self-insurance
to 10% of owners equity should be deleted for companies with more
than 10 sites.

250.45-3,4,6 Coverage of NPDES Facilities - NPDES facilities should
be regulated under the Water Act and at most should be subject to
less stringent standards proposed for special wastes.

250.45 Inappropriate Use of OSHA Standard - The American Congress
of Governmental Industrial Hygienist have prefaced the use of TLV's
by stating "these limits are intended for use in the practice of
industrial hygiene and should be interpreted and applied only by a
person trained in this discipline.  They are not intended for use,
or for modification for use 1) as a relative index of toxicity, 2)
in evaluation or control of community air pollution nuisances...".
Thus the agency which developed the list specifically provided that
it not be used for the purpose as proposed in this section.

250.45-2 Consistency with Other Regulations - Siting and operation
of landfills need to be consistent with both existing 208 plans
under the Clean Water Act and any regulations promulgated by RCRA.

250.45-3 Monitoring - Monitoring requirements of RCRA should be
consistent with monitoring requirements of OSM (Office of Surface
Mining) regulations (30 CFR Section 780.21).

250.45-3 Duplication of Coverage - It is inappropriate to apply
RCRA standards to hazardous waste impoundments which are subject to
pretreatment standards and/or a NPDES permit especially if such
impoundments show no signs of leaching to groundwater.  In addition,
this would constitute duplicative regulations in violation of
Section 1006 of the Act.

250.46-6 Inconsistencies for Special Waste - This section should be
amended to eliminate inconsistencies in the record  keeping and
monitoring for oil field wastes.

250.46-6 Special Waste Standards - The scope of facilities covered
should be extended to surface impoundments used in  the oil field
for emergency and safety purposes.  Other types of  impoundments
found in the oil field operations of less than one-fourth of an
acre should be exempted.

-------
                                                                   February 9,  1979


Epidemiological Evaluation of Cancer Incidence Rates for the Period 1969-1971 in Areas.
of Census Tracts with Measured Concentrations of Plutonium Soil Contamination Down-
wind from the Rocky Flats Plant*

                        Carl J. Johnson, M.D., M.P.H.**

     A large area of land,  primarily to the east and southeast of the Rocky Flats

plant in Jefferson County, Colorado is contaminated with plutonium (1-3).  Concen-

trations in the respirable dust on the surface of the soil on private land offsite range

as high as 3390 times the background from fallout due to weapons testing (4).  Plutonium

239 is the predominant isotope, but the 238, 240 and 241 isotopes are also present.

Americium 241 is an additional contaminant, and cesium 137 is present in concentrations

as high as 83 disintegrations per minute per gram (dpm/g) 5.5 kilometers downwind

from the plant in the surface respirable dust, 17 times greater than in similar samples

collected from other parts of the state (5).  Uranium has been released by the open

burning of over 1,000 barrels of lathe oil used to mill uranium metal (6).

       In addition to the  routine release of plutonium particles in the exhaust plumes

from plant stacks that began in 1953, there have been other emissions of plutonium

offsite on a number of occasions, including major fires in 1957 and  1969, and accidental

releases of plutonium to  the air in 1968 and in April of  1974  (6-8).  Recorded concen-

trations of plutonium in air leaving the main exhaust stack of the plant ranged as high
                   3        3
as 948 picocuries/M  (pCi/M  ),  recorded eight days after the fire in  1957, which


  *  A  report to the  Jefferson County Board of Health, the Colorado Board of Health,
    and the  National Cancer Institute, N.I.H., P.H.S., U.S.D.H.E.W.
**  Dr. Johnson is Director of the Jefferson  County Health Department, 260 S. Kipling
    Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226

-------
                                                                                      -2-

burned out the filter system.  This concentration is about 19,000 times the present

United States Department of Energy guidelines for maximum permissible stack emissions

(0.05 pCi/M ), and represents the equivalent of 124 million 5 micrometer particles

of plutonium oxide released, exceeding federal standards for a fifty year period in a

single day (9).  There are no records of emissions for the eight day period during or

immediately after the fire.  In the year after the 1957 fire, the average concentration
                                                     2
of plutonium in the stack exhaust was 2.18 picocuries/M , and later the average

annual concentration was as high as 2.33 pCi/M  for 1962. In recent years smaller

amounts are being released, due to an improved filtration system, although one air

sampler on site continued to show 100 to 600 times the monthly surface air concentration

of plutonium found in New  York City.  Much of the plutonium now present offsite be-

came airborne between 1964 and 1970 from a spill of lathe oil containing metal mill-

ings of plutonium  leaking from several thousand corroded barrels stored outside at the


plant site.

      Contamination of the large Arapahoe aquifer with plutonium levels of 2.5 pico-

curies per liter (pCi/L) has  been reported, as has the contamination of a  stream. Walnut

Creek (maximum recorded level of 209  pCi/L),  draining into the Great Western Reservoir

serving the city of Broomfield, which at times has elevated levels of plutonium (as

high  as 2.29 pCi/L) in the "finished water" used in homes. A recent report confirms

that plutonium in chlorinated finished water is in the Pu VI form, rather than the  Pu

IV form, considered in setting maximum permissible limits for plutonium in finished

water (1600 pCi/L) (10).  Animal experiments demonstrate an uptake of plutonium

from  chlorinated drinking water 1570 times greater than previously thought,  as measured


by deposits of plutonium in bone and  liver.

-------
      Port of the contaminated area is now utilized for residential development and




extensive further development is planned, which could result in an increase in pop-




ulation of the contaminated area by as much as 100,000 people. There is community




concern regarding possible health effects for populations living in this area and for




the safety of further residential development near the plant.




      No health effects have been demonstrated previously for residents of areas




contaminated with plutonium.  Based on work with experimental animals, the effects




of low levels of plutonium on man are thought to include leukemia, neoplasms of




bone,  lung, and liver,  and genetic injury (11-12).  Lymphocyte chromosome aberrations




in plutonium workers have been found to exceed those of controls in the lowest ex-




posure group (1-10% maximum permissible body burden of plutonium)  (13).  Myers has




pointed out  that the trachiobronchial lymph nodes could be considered as a critical




organ for  inhalation exposure to plutonium and,  if this were done, a maximum per-




missible pulmonary dose for insoluble plutonium of 67 picocuries (pCi) could be rec-




ommended (14).  Morgan, by an entirely different approach, has also recommended




a maximum allowable dose that is  similar to that proposed by Myers (15).  Inhalation




and retention of two particles  of  plutonium oxide of respirable size (5 micrometers)




would exceed this dose  (16).




      Preliminary epidemiological evaluations of lung cancer and leukemia death




rates in census tract areas with measured concentrations of plutonium  (figure 1), in-




dicated that rates were  significantly higher near the Rocky Flats plant 07-20).




Method




      lh order to confirm earlier risk estimates for health effects from low concentrations




of plutonium in the environment, and the preliminary work with death rates from

-------
leukemia and lung cancer in persons living in census tracts with measured levels of


plutonium contamination, cancer incidence data was required by  census tract From


the Third National Cancer Survey (1969-1971)  (21). The census tract data has not

been published,  but is available in computer storage.  The request was made on


August 5, 1977 and the data became available  on February 6, 1979.


      The cancer incidence data was evaluated with the same approach utilized to


evaluate lung cancer and leukemia death rates  (figure  1) (22).  Cancer incidence


rates for each of the 46 separate cancer sites were reported according to levels of


soil plutonium concentration, selecting census tracts within the appropriate concen-


tration isopleths (2).  Areas were ranked according  to decreasing  levels of plutonium

concentration (Table 1).


      The position of the concentration isopleths of plutonium in the soil  rs in-
                                   2
dicated in figure 1.  The 0.8 mCi/km  isopleth  does not appear in Figure 1.  The


area between the 1.3 and the 0.3 isopleths was divided approximately midway,


following census tract boundaries (listed in Table 1).  The area within the concentration


range 50-1.3 millicuries  per square kilometer (mCi/km ) lies between 2 and 10 miles in

distance from the center of the Rocky Flats plant site along the principal wind vector
                                                           2
(Figure 2) (3).  The area  between isopleths 1.3  to 0.8 mCiA™  extends from 10 to
                                     o
about 13 miles, the 0.8 to 0.3 mCi/km  area, from 13 to 18  miles and the 0.3 to 0.2


nCiAm  area, from 18 to 24 miles from the center of the plant site.  The area outside


the last isopleth was utilized as a control population comprising the remainder of the


Denver Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (population 423,866).  Populations of


the study areas are (proceeding from the plant) respectively,  46,857 for area la,


107,313 for area Ib,  1 94,190 for area  II, and 246,905 for area III. This study represents


a 100% sample of a population of 1,019,131 people over a three year period.

-------
      The levels of plutonium contamination found in the soil in these areas may be


compared to some of the current standards establishing maximum permissible contamination


concentrations for areas that provide risks of human exposure.  Only a Russian standard of

                                         2
2 millicuries per square kilometer (mCiAm )/  100th of the proposed U.S. Environmental
                                           o
Protection Agency guideline of 200 mCi/km  for plutonium  in residential areas, is in

the same order as the concentrations of plutonium in three of the areas studied (Table 2).
                                          o
Although the isopleth values are  in mCi/km ,  these are also expressed in terms of dis-


integrations of plutonium per minute per square centimeter or per gram of dry soil.  A

comparison of units in common usage to express soil contamination with plutonium is


given in Table 3.

      The contamination of soil with plutonium is not the only source of exposure.  Par-


ticulate plutonium which has been released in  exhaust emissions from the smoke  stacks


at the Rocky Flats plant since 1953 are in large part in the orders of sizes smaller than

1 micron.  These particles are smaller  than many viruses, and do not settle out to cause

appreciable soil contamination but may be inhaled by persons who are in the exhaust

plumes from the  plant, no matter how great the distance.  Soil contamination does give


some indication  as to the predominant  direction of these plumes. A third route of ex-

posure may be through the water.

      While the incidence rates of cancer in the more highly contaminated area near


the plant is of considerable interest, the population there in the years studied 0 969-

1971) is small and also is the result of  a rapid rate of development and in-migration.

This results in many persons having an  insufficient exposure to permit the expression

of increased rates  of cancer because of the  long latent period for most neoplasms, i.e.

two  to seven years or more for leukemia, seven to 30 or 40 years for bone cancer.

Although the plant has been  releasing  plutonium to the environment since 1953, any

-------
effect on cancer rates would be more likely to be noticed in the larger population

                                                                      n
areas with lower rates of in-migration.  For this reason the 50-1.3 mCiAm  isopleth


area was combined with the 1.3-0.8 isopleth area to form Area I for the comparison


with the areas of lesser concentration and the control population (Table 4).


      Expected  numbers of cancer cases in each category of age, sex, and exposure


status were derived from age-standardized rates for all of the Standard Metropolitan


Statistical Area (SMSA) for comparison with  the actual cases observed.  Because of


the higher rates of cancer observed (see results) in each of the contaminated areas,


the number of expected cases of cancer were predominantly higher than actually


observed in the  unexposed population.  Because of this problem, a more valid com-


parison must be  made with the actual incidence rates (age-adjusted) found in the un-


exposed population.  The "expected cases" figures in the tables are actually higher


than would be expected from  incidence rates in the unexposed population, in most


cases.  Risk rates for neoplasms in each category are calculated by both methods,

         2
but the X and probability values are computed with the number of cases in each


category and the risk ratio compared to the unexposed population.


Results and Comment


      The relationship between soil  levels of plutonium and the total Anglo incidence


of neoplasms for the 46 categories of cancer  listed in the Third  National Cancer Survey


are shown in Table 4. The control area (Area  IV) consisting of the Denver S.M.S.A.


outside the  isopleths of contamination shown  in figure  ), comprised some 423,866


people.   There appeared to be a direct association between concentrations of plutonium


in the soil and the risk ratio for cancer, for Anglo males and females and for both sexes


combined.  The risk ratio increases in each case with greater soil concentrations of

-------
 plutonium. The exception is the small population nearest the plant, which because




 of the small numbers,  rapid development and influx of new residents, probably has




 an average period of exposure much less than the areas more distant, which include




 much of Denver (figure 1).  These differences are highly significant when compared




to the control population.  Compared to the control area outside the isopleths there is




 an excess rate for cancer of 8% in men in Area III, most distant from the plant (ex-




 tending as far as 24 miles downwind), 15% in Area II, nearer to the plant,  and




 finally,  a  rate 24% higher in Area I, which includes the plant and extends to the




 0.8 mCi/km  isopleth, located approximately 13 miles downwind from the plant.




 The corresponding values for Anglo females are +4%, +5%  and +10%, and for men




 and women combined, +6%, +10% and +16% for the three year period 1969-1971.




 The higher values are statistically significant (p <0.01 to p  < 0.005) with the exception




 of the females in the most distant isopleth area  (Area III) who had cancer rates only




 4% higher than females in the unexposed population.




      A  tentative classification of the relative sensitivity of organs and tissues to




 cancer induction by radiation as suggested by the International  Commission  on  Radiation




 Protection  is summarized in Table 5 (23).  In this investigation, it was felt that lung




 cancer,  leukemia and  bone cancer might be prominent, since plutonium is known to




 be a potent pulmonary carcinogen, is concentrated in lymph nodes, and is a bone




 seeker.  The minote particles of plutonium are carried great distances in exhaust plumes




 from the smoke stacks at the plant, and the irritant effects of smog can result in a much




 greater respiratory deposition rate of such very small particles (as much as 60% greater




 in animal studies) (24).




      Becuase of the small population in subarea a, and the rapid rate of development

-------
                                                                                     _c



and in-migration, it was combined with subarea b to form Area I extending as far as



13 miles downwind from the plant. This area had a 1970 population of 154,170 (Table



6). Rates for all classes of neoplasms in this area were compared to the unexposed



population of 423,806 persons over a three year period (1969-1971).  There was a



higher rate of lung and bronchial cancer in  the contaminated area for men, with a



risk ratio of 1.1 compared to the expected rate (calculated from standardized rates

                                                        2

for the S.M.S.A.),  and 1.3 compared to the control area (X =9.68), but not for women.



There were higher rates for neoplasms of the nasopharynx and larynx for men and women



in the contaminated area.  This finding was  also reported by Mason and McKay (24).



The' rate for men was of borderline significance compared to the control area.



      There was a significantly higher rate of leukemia among men (X =5.88).  The



rates were higher for women in the contaminated area but the difference was not significant



statistically.



      Neoplasms of the testis could be expected because of the demonstrated propensity



of plutonium to concentrate in this organ.  Rates were higher than expected in the con-



taminated area, and when compared to the control area, which had a somewhat lower


                                                 2
rate than expected, the difference was significant (X - '6.90).  Neoplasms of the ovary



were also higher than in the control area but in this comparison, the difference was not



great enough to be statistically significant.



      Neoplasms of the liver, gall bladder and "other biliary" were higher in males but



not in females.  The difference for the males in this comparison was not significant



(X »2.90).  The rates for  cancer of the  pancreas were higher in females but not in males.


                                                         2
Again the difference in this comparison was  not significant (X =2.40).



      Rates of neoplasms of the stomach were higher in men, but not in women.  The

-------
                                                                                    -9-

difference tn this comparison was not significant (X =2.25).  Rates of neoplasms of the


colon and rectum however, were much higher for both men and women than for those


in the control area (158 cases expected, 203 cases found, X =12.86 for men and 6.41


for women).  The rates compared to those of the unexposed population were highly


significant statistically.  Rates of other types of gastro-enteric neoplasms were not


significantly higher.


      Neoplasms of the brain and other nervous system neoplasms were higher in men


but not in women.  The difference was not significant, because of the low frequency.


      There was no evidence of elevated rates of neoplasms of the bone.  This could


reflect a longer latent period required for such tumors to develop.  A higher rate of


cancer of the thyroid was found in women (18 cases expected, 24 cases found). The


difference was not significant (X =2.88).  Neoplasms of the breast were higher in both


men and women than  in the control population, but not significantly so.  This same was


true for other types of miscellaneous neoplasms.


      In Table 7, neoplasms of nine sites are further investigated.  Isopleth areas are


combined to assist in  removing non-uniformity in rates of neoplasms of low frequency


and to examine the total rates of neoplasms with higher frequency  compared to the cancer


incidence rates in the control population.  The incidence of cancer of the lung and

                                                    2
bronchus in  the combined isopleth area 50-0.3 mCiAm  (a 1970 population of 348,360


in an area extending as far downwind as 18 miles from the plant) over the three year


period, 1969-1971, was much higher than that in the unexposed area (1970 population


423,866).  This difference was very significant (X2=38.44). When the entire area of


plutonium contamination within all the isopleths (a  1970 population of 595,226 in an


area extending as far  as 24 miles downwind from the plant) is compared to the population

-------
in the unexposed area (1970 population of 423,866) the difference persists, with


497 cases found, 462 expected. Because of the lower-than-expected rates found

                                2
in the unexposed population, the X  again is large, 33.93.

                                                                    2
      Cancer of the testis for the combined isopleth area, 50-0.3 mCi/lc™  was also


higher than expected (18 neoplasms expected, 25 cases found, X =20.98 compared


to the control population). The difference was even more significant when the total


area of contamination was compared to the unexposed population (30 cases expected,

                2
40 cases found,  X =31.12 compared to the control population).  The same comparisons


made Wr neoplasms of the ovary in the entire area of contamination also revealed a


significant difference (X  of  3.80 in the 50-0.3 mCtAm2 area, and 7.51 in the 50-0.2


mCi/\arP area, compared to the unexposed population).

                                                           2
      Neoplasms of the liver were higher in the 50-0.3 mCi/km  area  for men compared


to the expected  rates and for both men and women compared to the unexposed population.

                                                                2
The higher rates were significant when the total area (50-0.2 mCi/1
-------
cancer were found.  The excess rates were as much as 24% higher for men in the con-




taminated area as in the unexposed area.  The rates were higher for women, also, about




10% higher than for women in the unexposed area.




      Sites of cancer most responsible for the increase in total rates are neoplasms of the




lung and bronchus, colon and rectum, leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma in men, neo-




plasms of the tongue, .pharynx, esophagus, stomach,  liver, and the thyroid in women.




Neoplasms in sites such as the brain and pancreas were slightly elevated but rates were




too low to be significant.  An'observation of special  concern  are the higher rates of




neoplasms of testis and ovary in the contaminated area.  This corroborates an observation




by Mason and McKay in their investigation of death rates from cancer in the period




1950-1969(25).




      These findings indicate the importance of continuing complete surveillance ttf




cancer incidence and death rates in this area. Some types of tumors, such as those of




bone, have long latent periods before development.  A long period of surveillance is




necessary to monitor late effects in this population and the investigation should be ex-




tended.  A grant application has been filed with the  National Cancer Institute to cany




out such a study (26).




      It is important that a thorough investigation be conducted to determine the adequacy




of the filtration system presently in use  at the plant,  to determine if sub-micron particles




of plutonium and other nuclides listed in the  Rocky Flats Environmental Impact Statement




are not  being released in much larger quantities than is being measured. This is of special




concern in view of plans to markedly increase the operations at the plant.  Definitive actions




should be taken by responsible agencies to minimize health effects from exposure to low




levels of plutonium, including the establishment by the E.P.A. of a much more conservative

-------
                                                                                    -15-



guideline for plutonium contamination of soil.
Acknowledgement:  Valuable assistance of Colorado Regional Cancer Center staff (Dr.




John Berg and Dr. Jack Finch) who developed the computer program to retrieve,




collate, and age-adjust cancer incidence data by census tract from  the computer




archives of the National Cancer Institute's Third National Cancer Survey of




1969-1971, and Kathryn Van Deusen, who assisted with the analysis of the data.

-------
 References

 1.     Poet, S.E. and Martell, E.A.:  Plutonium 239 and Americium 241 contamination
        in the Denver area.  Health Physics 23: 537 (1972).

 2.     Krey, P.W. and Hardy, E.P.;  US AEC Publ. HASL-235 (1°70).

 3.     Johnson, C.J., Tidball, R.R. and Severson, R.C.: Plutonium hazard in respirable
        dust on the surface of the soil.  Science 193; 488 (August 6, 1976).

 4.     Johnson, C.J.:  Offsite distribution of plutonium in the respirable dust on the
        surface of the soil in the vicinity of the Rocky Flats plant.  Unpublished report
        to the Jefferson County Board of Health, Laleewood, CO 80226 (March 30,  1977).

 5.     Johnson, C. J.:  Distribution of cesium 137 in the surface respirable dust in the
        vicinity of the Rocky Flats plant: Final report.   Unpublished report to the Jefferson
        County Board of Health, Lake wood, CO 80226 (March 18,  1978).

 6.     Anon:  Omnibus environmental assessment for the Rocky Flats plant of the U.S. Energy
        Research and Development Administration.  U.S.E.R.D.A., Rocky Flab plant,
        P.O. Box 888,  Golden, CO 80401  (1975).

 7.     Thompson, M.A. and Hombacher, D.D.:  Annual environmental monitoring report.
        U.S. Energy Research and  Development Administration, Rocky Flats plant (1970,
        1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975)  Dow Chemical Company, P.O. Box 888, Golden,
        CO 80401.

 8.     Anon.:  Rocky Flats Environmental Monitoring Results, P.O. Box  888, Golden, CO
        80401 (May, 1970).

 9.     Anon.:  Report of investigation of serious incident in building 71, on September 11,
        1957.  Unpublished report of the Dow Chemical Company, Rocky  Flats plant, Golden,
        CO 80401 (October 7,  1957).

10.     Larsen, R.P. and Oldham, R.D.: Plutonium in drinking water: Effects of chlorinotion
        on its maximum permissible concentration. Science 201:  1008-9, September 15, 1978.

11.     Anon.:  Proceedings of  public hearings on plutonium and other trans-uranium elements.
        Vol.  l-lll  (No.  ORP/CSD-75-1,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
        D.C.  (1975).

12.     Vaughan,  J.:  Plutonium - a possibleleukemic risk. Unpublished report. The Bone
        Research Laboratory, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, England (1976).

13.     Brandon, W., Bloom, A.,  Saccomanno, G., Archer,  P., Archer, V., Bistline, R.,
        and Lilienfeld, A-v-Spmatic cell chromosome and sputum cell cytology changes  in
        humans exposed to     Radon and     plutonium. Progress Report, D.O.E. Contract

-------
 References - cont.

13.(cent.) No. E (2902)-3639 Rockwell Intemotional, Rocky Flats Division,  Health Sciences
        Group.  P.O. Box 888, Golden, CO 80401 (June 30, 1976).

14.     Myers, D.S.: A plea for consistent lung burden criteria for insoluble alpha-
        emitting  isotopes.  Health Physics 22: 905 (June, 1972).

15.     Morgan,  K.Z.:  Suggested reduction of  permissible exposure to plutonium and
        other transuranium elements.  Am. Ind.  Hyg. Ass. J. 567-574 (August, 1975).

16.     Johnson, C.J :  Evaluation of the hazard to residents of areas contaminated with
        plutonium.   Proceedings of the IVth International Congress of the International
        Radiation Protection Assoc.,  in Paris. 2:  243-246 (April 24-30, 1977).

J7.     Johnson, C.J.:  Death rates from lung cancer in the eight census tracts near Rocky
        Flats and in Golden, and in nineteen census tracts at the south end of Jefferson
        County.  Unpublished report to the Jefferson County Board of Health, Lakewood
        CO 80226 (November 20, 1977).

16.     Johnson, C.J..  Leukemia death rates of residents of areas contaminated with
        plutonium.  Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Public
        Health Association, Washington, D.C. (November 1, 1977).

19.     Johnson, C.J.: Lung cancer death rates of residents of areas contaminated
        with plutonium.  Proceedings of the 145th National Meeting of the American
        Association for the Advancement of Science, in Houston, Texas, 3-8 January,
        1979.

20.     Johnson,  C.J.: Rates of leukemia,  lung cancer and congenital malformations
        by census tract in  areas contaminated with plutonium.  Proceedings  of the First
        International Congress on Human Ecology, in Vienna, Austria, October 26-31,
        1978.

21.     Anon.: Third National  Cancer Survey:   Incidence Data. National  Cancer
        Institute Monograph 41, March, 1975 DHEW Pub. No. (NIH) 75-787 U.S.
        DHEW, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health,  National  Cancer
        Institute, Bethesda,  MD. 20014.

22.     Anon.: U.S. Bureau of Census, Population and Housing:  1970 Census Tracts,
        Final Report PHT (l)-56 Denver, CO SMSA, U.S. Government Printing Office,
        Washington, D.C.,  1972.

23.     Anon.: Radiosensitivity and spatial distribution of dose.  I.C.R.P.  Publication
        *14 (1969).  Published for the International Commission on  Radiological Protection
        by the Pergamon Press.

-------
References - cont.

24.      Fail-child, G.A., Stulz, S. and Coffin, D.L.:  Sulfuric acid effect on the
         deposition of radioactive aerosol in the respiratory tract of guinea pigs.  (1975)
         U.S. E.P.A.,  National Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle
         Park, North Carolina 27711.

25.      Mason, T.J. and McKay, F.W.:  U.S. Cancer Mortality by County,  1950-1969,
         DHEW pub. (NIH) 74-615, Public  Health Service, National Insitutes of Health,
         National Cancer Institute, Bethesda , Maryland.

26.      Johnson, C.J.: Evaluation of rates of leukemia and neoplasms of the lung and
         other organs in a general population living in an area contaminated with low
         levels of plutonium. A grant application (CA 25729-01, July 20, 1978) to
         the National Cancer Institute, N.I.H., P.H.S., U.S. D.H.E.W.

27.      Seed, J.R., Calkins, K.W., Illsley,  C.T., Miner,  F.J., Owen,J.B.:  Committee
         evaluation of soil levels within and surrounding U.S.A.E.C.  Installation at
         Rocky Flats, Colorado.  Unpub.  rep. RFP-INV-10 Dow Chemical Corp., Rocky
         Flats Division,  P.O. Box 888, Golden,  CO 80401

-------
                                              Figure!                                                  -l6~
Denver area census tracts within isopleths for soil contamination with plutonium downwind from
                                     the Rocky  Flats plant (°'b)
                                     SCALE   H    MILES
Fig. 2. Rose diagram showing average direc-
tion and velocity of wind ai Rocky Flats Tor
1953 to 1970. Arrows point in the direction of
wind movement; velocity (miles per hour) is
given at the end of each arrow; concentric cir-
cles show frequency of wind direction (2)

-------
                                                                                                           • (sCi/kB2)
              9801
              9802
              9803
              9805
             10201
             10202
             10301
             10302
 101
 lOii
 201
 202
 301
 302
 303
 401
 402
1101
1102
9302
9303
9305
9401
9402
9501
9502
 9601
 96O2
 9700
 9750-
 9804
104O2
io4oi
10451
10601
10651
12704
13101
13102
III.
0.8 - 0.1
lot
701
702
800
10OO
1102
1500
1600
1701
1702
l800
1900
2000
21OO
2300
24O1
2402
2500
2601
2602
27O1
2702
2703
2801
28O2
2803
2901
2902
3101
3102
3201
3202
3203
3300
3400
3500
3601
3602
3603
3701
3702
3703
3800
430-1
8501
8502
8503
8952
92OO
9301
9304
9553
10502
10602
1O70O
11300
12506

















901
902
903
1301
i4oi
1402
14O3
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3901
3902
4001
4002
4003
4004
4052
4ioi
4102
4lO3
4io4
42OI
4202


4103
4304
4105
4401
4502
4602
4900
4950
5000
5101
5102
5200
5250
5300
5350
5401
5403
5700
5800
5900
6lOO
6801
6802
6851

6852
6901
6902
6951
6952
7001
7002
7051
7052
8901
9000
91OO
9806
9807
9900
0100
0501
080O
1000
1100
l4oo
1500
1550
2703
2900
3000
                     6

                    15
         0.006


         0.015
                      A.33

                      3.33
(U.S.  E.P.A.)     ZOO
Hand* and work underclothing
before cleaning.


Work •nrfecee  after cleaning.



before cleaning.
                                                                                  Interstate Caamerce Conunisaioi
                                                                                  (D
                                                                                                                      Typ.of
                                                                                                                      Stvufcxd
Occupational


Occupational

OceupaKongl
                                                                                 uaed  for transportation of materials.

                                                                                 Urban,  auburban, recreation area»!bj General PoMe
  ) R«f.'27
    HBIB Di«««t*r  (June 1968).

-------



30
10
5
3
1.3
0.8
0.]
0.2
- Based on to
Plutonium in toll equivala

dry anil
50
10
5
3
1.3
0.8
0.3
0.2
mplei of agricultural toil taken to a deoth of on* cantim
nti"

Kr«fli of dry soil
11
2.2
.5 1.1
.3 0.66
.13" 0.29
.08** O.lfl
.01" 0.07
.02" O.O1!
«tor or mor*. Auumei on* atom tjiy toil »quoli on* em .
                                                                         Tobl.4

              Relationship between nit levels of pluforfum and the total Anglo Incidence of neoploms for 46 categories, by sex, for Hi. period 1969-1971(<
Mole,
  r/r(e
                                                                            Cose.
                                                                                        Female
                                                                                       	r/r
Totol
   r/r
                                        Obi/fap    (I)    (2)   Trend
                                                                            Ob.Axp     (I)    (?)  Trend
                                                                                                                   Obi/txp     (I)     (2)  Trend
 I*   154,170     3       2     50-0.8     U4/ 568  1.134 1.240  +24% 30.11   636/600  1.040  1.095  +10%  5.21    1280/1168 1.096  1.163 +16% 29.45
  ,    Mo,8571                50-1.3     103/110  0.936 1.020                118/117  1.009  1.042                  221/227 0.974  1.036
  I,   1107.313)  '*       10     1.3-0.8     541/458  1.181 1.292                518/483  1.072  1.108                 1059/941 1.125  1.195

 II    I«,I9(I    21       13     0.8-0.3    1086/1036  1.048 1.147  +15% 20.40  1154/1136  1.016  1.049  +5%  2.65    2240/5172 1.031  1.095 +10% 18.39
III    246,905    2?      18    0.3-0.2    1078/r«94  0.985 1.078  +8%  6.08  1149/1146  1.003  1.036  +4%  1.44    2227/2240 0.994  1.055 +6%  6.49

IV    423,866    38      24      <0.2     1114/1219  0.914    —    0
                                                                            1260/1302  0.968    —    0
                                                                                                                  2374/5521  0.942    -    0
«ol  1,019,131
               'Ama I Include] a+b. Suboreo a waj Included with b because of ill vnaller population and th. rapid rat. of development and In-tnlgrotlon.
               (a)     Ref. 21, the Notional Cancer Institute's Third National Cancer Survey: Incidence Data
               (b)     Southwest vector (downwind)
               (c)     Millicuries  per square kilometer
               (d)     Risk ratio (1) Compared to standardized rates for area  £) Compared to the non-exposed group {Area IV). Trend and X  compares to this group.

-------
                                                                                      -19-
                                        Table 5
                    Classification of Relative Sensitivity of Organs and
                  Tissues to Cancer Induction by Radiation in Adult Life*
Grade Organ International Classification
of Diseases Number (8th rev.'
High Sensitivity:
Established
Apparent
Low. Sensitivity:

Not Classified
Not Mentioned
in ICRP 140)
1 Bone Marrow & Thyroid
II Lymph Nodes & Recticular Tissue
Pharynx & Bronchus
Pancreas, Stomach & Large Intenstine
III Esophagus & Small Intestine
Nose, Middle Ear, Sinuses & Larynx
Lip, Tongue, Mouth & Salivary Gland
Liver, Gallbladder & Bile Duct
Testis, Penis & Kidney
Skin, Connective Tissue & Bone
Eye, Brain & Nervous Tissue
Other Endocrine (excluding Thyroid)
IV Ovary, Uterus & Breast
Prostate & Bladder
Lymphatic Leukemia & Other RES
Neoplasms
Rectum & Other Digestive
Other & Unspecified Cancers
203; 205; 193
200-2
146-9; 162-3
157; 151; 153
150; 152
160-1
140-5
155-6
186-7; 189
170-3
190-2
194
180-4; 174
185; 188
204; 206-9
154; 158-9
195-9
*  From the International Commission on Radiation Protection, Pub. f 14

(1)       Included in Grade IV in this report.

-------
Anglo me*
• Incidence rorei
for rho period 1969-1971 by c
SO-O.f mltllcuriei per iqua
Molo
Cow (e) r.r.M)
CWE.P 0) (2)
Toml: All rfcoolom
""c^o"
Lynphomo, wyotamo, oh
"•ciSi"
"SSir
Mfc
CM-WOT.
«-•»«».
OWIMoonltol
Ihor I biliary
CM-qur.
Ckh.v«.
SModi
Cob, 1 Rctw
0.1-wor.
Otoonto-inMh
fair.
W.^.w.
tml|oMi
IVrid
•—
c*.,
^6447568 1.13
a/ 18 1.5
: 3V 28 1.2
109/98 1.1
20/14 1.4
ll/ t 1.4
-
189/183 1.0
IO/ 8 1.2
20/21 1.0
22/16 1.4
100/76 1.3
30/32 0.9
IV 10 1.3
4/S.3 1.7
0/1 .5" 0
V3.6 0.3
VO.B 2.5
49/46 1.1
4 1.240
30.11
1.6
5.88
1.4
4.17
1.3
9.68
1.5
3.77
2.1
8.90

1 I.I
1.6
2.90
0.9
1.4
2.25
1.4
12.84
1.1
1.2
1.1
0
0.5
2.5
1.1
Coin r.
CWExp 0)

IV 19 0.7
2V 23 1.2
21/25-0.8
V 2 1.5
-
3V 32 1.1
100/100 1.0
7/ 10 0.7
21/17 1.2
ll/ 12 0.9
103/82 1.3
IV 16 0.8
IO/ 9 1.1
1/1 .9 0.5
0/0.8" 0
2V 18 1.3
190/186 1.0
56/46 1.2
Tobl. 6
iroal of cenwi bach with ond wlrhour plutanium Mil contamination by the Rocky Floti plan/"1.
re kilometer (mOAni2) < 0.2 mllllcuriet per tquare kllonMtar
(21
5.21
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.5

1.2
1.54
1.0
0.7
1.4
2.40
0.9
1.3
6.61
0.9
1.2
0.3
0
1.4
2.88
1.1
1.2
Com
Ot»Axp

41/ 37
6V 51
130/123
23/ 16


289/283
17/ IB
41/ t6
3V 28
203/158
48/ 48
23/ 19
S/ 4
0/2.3
27/ 24
19V 187
105/ 92
111''

I.I
1.2
1.0
1.4
-
-
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.2
0
1.1
1.0
1.1
' m
»9.45
1.2
1.3
4.00
1.2
1.5


1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
19.57
1.0
1.2
0.7
0
1.1
1.1
1.2
Cam
• f*^"',. A'',''
1114/1219 0.914
4V 47 0.96
59/ 68 0.87
17V 210 0.83
30/ 32 0.94
IV 23 0.57
-
336/360 0.93
IV 18 0.78
46/ 43 1.07
3V 34 1.00
14V 157 0.92
60/ 72 0.83
27/ 24 I. 12
8/ 5 1.60
5/4.3 1.16
IV 16 1.12
V 2 1.0
99/ 1
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT  OF  HEALTH

             4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO  8O220 PHONE 320-8333


                                            March 6, 1979
    Mr.  John P.  Lehman,  Director
    Hazardous Waste Management Division
    Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Washington,  D.C.    20460
                                            RE:   Hazardous  Waste Proposed Guidelines
    Dear Mr.  Lehman:                        and Proposal on Identification & Listing

    The  Colorado Department  of Health has reviewed the proposed regulations under
    sections  3001, 3002  and  3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
    The  attached comments include issues and concerns expressed by members of an
    ad hoc hazardous waste committee, comprised of generators, transporters and
    site operators, persons  attending four regional public  information meetings,
    the  Solid Waste Advisory Committee, several technical and professional societies,
    the  Intergovernmental Methane Gas Task Force, Department staff members and
    other parties of interest.

    Public and private entities support the needs for regulatory controls to apply
    available technology and improve hazardous waste management practices.  All
    are  of the opinion that  regulatory control measures must be workable, reason-
    able and applicable  to meet State, local and regional needs.

    The  proposed regulations define and list hazardous waste without providing for
    categories that differentiate between hazardous waste and marginal or moderately
    hazardous waste.  The exemption of 100 kg/mo, should not be applicable to
    extremely hazardous  waste.  This categorization would enable the establishment
    of priorities to effectively control and manage hazardous waste.

    The  format of the proposed regulations includes "notes" after requirements
    that allow for deviation from stated requirements.  The notes describe allowable
    alternatives that should be included within the regulations.

-------
Mr. John P.  Lehman,  Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Page Two, March 6,  1979
The proposed "extraction procedure" to determine toxic properties of
possible leachate is a laboratory procedure designed to simulate landfill
conditions.   This proposed procedure is questioned as the testing of some
special waste categories such as utility waste may indicate disposal as
a hazardous  waste regardless of actual disposal conditions.

The need for perpetual monitoring and surveillance of sites receiving
extremely hazardous wastes may require sites and facilities be located
on federal lands with provisions for monitoring by a federal agency.

The financial requirements for private entities or public agencies and
high costs for operating acceptable treatment, storage and disposal sites
and facilities are significant.  Financial considerations and the potential
risk factors are constraints that discourage the location and operation of
acceptable facilities by either private firms or public agencies.

I am concerned that the total financial impact of these proposed regulations
has not been determined.  This financial impact should include the costs
of conducting a regulatory program.

The position of federal agencies that essentially prohibits the location
of hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal sites and facilities on
federal lands has considerable  impact on the availability of suitable sites
in Colorado as approximately 1/3 of Colorado is under the jurisdiction of
federal agencies.

The attached comments are made concerning more specific points of concern
pertinent to sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the proposed regulations.
                                        Sincerely,
                                        Albert J. Ha^le
                                        Director, Radiation
                                        and Hazardous Wastes
                                        Control Division
AJH/OFS:els
Attachments

-------
                                       COMMENTS  OF


                           THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH


                   CONCERNING REGULATIONS 40 CFR PART  250, 3001.


                        SUBPART A,  PROPOSED DECEMBER 18,  1978


                        AS  AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 3001,  OF THE


                   RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1978
                                                                     For the purposes of calculating the
1.  Page 58953  reads:                                             dilution that a leachate plume would
                                                                    undergo between  the time it enters
                                                                    the underground  aquifer  until it
                                                                    reaches a well, it was assumed  that
    Comment :  In groundwater, assignment of  "dilution         wells will be situated no closer  than
                                                                    500 feet from the disposal site. Examl-
    -.       ...             , -   ,         ,.          -               nation of the available data indicated
    factors" is  questionable because formational varia-       tnat a 10.f0id dilution factor, while
                                                                    probably conservative,  would be rea-

    tions (i.e.  lateral  and  vertical facies  changes within    SSt."b2SS.b*SdS5S,l£l
                                                                    been higher as well as cases where It
    the  formation)  as well as the  fact that  the formation     has been lower at a distance of 500
                                                                    feet.
                                                                     Based on this model, before human
    could be completely  unreactive whereby the only dilution  exposure is expected to occur; the lea-
                                                                    chate from the waste would become di-
       *   j • r.c   •      f,        i    in.     t         i       luted by a factor of 10. Thus, Ui order
    is by diffusion.  Conversely,  the "toxic substances"      ta\ocotect human health, the, maxi-
                                                                    mum allowable contaminant concert-
         be diluted or detoxified within a  few feet but  the

                                                                    be acceptable In drinking water. Con-
    subsequent  chain of  chemical reactions  can produce  new    sequently, waste  whose EP extract
                                                                    shows more than 10 times the levels of
                                                                    certain contaminants allowed by the
    totally different toxic substances as well as disturbing  EPA National Interim Primary Drink-
                                                                    ing Water Standards (40 CFR Part
              , n      ., , .     -  ,        r                         141) will  be considered to be hazard-
    the  overall useability of the  aquifer.                      ous.



    The  plume of  contamination has  a  characteristic,  somewhat bell  shaped plot


    and  is dependent upon  time and  distance.   In some instances a  10  X peak may


    not  be allowable.



    Comment :  The allowable dilutions should  be determined on a site  specific


    basis and other parameters of measurement in addition to 10 X    The drinking


    water standards should be considered.

-------
    Section 250.11  (b) (5)  page 58955  reads:

    Comment:   This  definition of  a representative  is

    neither practical  or achievable  in most  instances

    Recommendation:   This  definition should  be modified to  include
  (5)  "Representative sample" means
 any sample of the waste which Is sta-
 tistically equivalent to the total waste
 In  composition, and  In physical and
 chemical  properties. Representative
 samples  may be generated uslnn the
 methods set out in Appendix  I of this
 Subpart.
              "selected
    portions  of the  components of the waste which  indicate  the  physical  and
    chemical  properties  of  the  total  waste".
                 f

3.  Section 250.13  (a)(ii)  page 58955 reads:

    Comment:   A non-liquid  material  ....  "when

    ignited burns  so vigorously and  persistently  as

    to create a hazard during its management" 	

    This characteristic could be construed to apply

    to non-hazardous solid  waste such as  "corrugated"
§ 250.13 Hazardous waste characteristics.
  (a) fgnitable waste. <1) Definition—A
solid waste Is a hazardous waste if a
representative sample of the waste:
  (1) Is a liquid and has a flash point
less than 60'C (140'F)  determined by
the method cited below or an equiva-
lent method, or
  (11) Is not a liquid and is liable to
cause fires through friction, absorp-
tion of moisture, spontaneous chemi-
cal  changes,  or retained heat- from
manufacturing or processing, or when
ignited burns so vigorously and persis,-
cently as to create a hazard  during its
management, or
    Recommendation:   It is  recommended  the above  phrase be more specific as  to

    the wastes being referred co or  deleted.
4.   Section  250.13 (d)(l)  page  58956 reads:


     Comment:   In  determining the allowable  parameters,

     it was assumed that wells would be  no closer  than

     500'.  Examination of  data  indicated a  10 fold dilu-

     tion would be reasonable.   Therefore the maximum

     allowable toxicant concentration permissible  in  the

     extraction procedure would  be  ten times the  level

     acceptable in drinking water.
     (d)  Toxic  waste. U)' Definition—A
    solid waste is a hazardous waste if, ac-
    cording to the  methods specified  in
    paragraph (2>,  the  extract obtained
    from  applying the Extraction Proce-
    dure (EP) cited below to a representa-
    tive sample of the waste has concen-
    trations of a contaminant that exceeds
    any of the following values:
                          Extract level,
    Contaminant:            miUiynrru per liter
     Arsenic		    0.50
     Barium                „      10.0
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Lead.
     Met
     Selenium
     Sliver
     Endrin (1,2.3.4. lO.lO-hcxacIoro-6.  7-

      4-endo. endo-5, B-dl methane naptv
      thalene)
     LJndcvne            (1.2.3.4.5.6-
      hcxachloroc/clo hexane    gamma

     Methoxychlor U.U-Trlchloroethane)
      2.2-bls (p-melhoxyphenyi)	
     Toxaphenc (C,,H,.CI,.l*'chn1cal chlor-
      inated camphene, 67-69 percent chlo-

     3.4-D.    (2.4-Dlchlorophenoxyacetic
      acid)	
     2.4.5-TP     SUvc<       (2.4.5-
      Trlchlorophenoxyproplonlc  acid)...
0.50
0.50
0.02
0.10
0.50
                                                                                                   0.10
                                                                       NOTE:—Extract levels  specified  for the
                                                                      above substances equal ten times the EPA
                                                                      National Interim Primary Drinking Water
                                                                      Standards  for these  substances.  These
                                                                      standards are being revised. Extract levels
                                                                      specified above will be changed to reflect re-
                                                                      visions to these standards. Also, EPA is con-
                                                                      sidering use of the Water Quality Criteria
                                                                      under the Clean Water  Act as a basis for
                                                                      setting  extract levels. In addition to the
                                                                      EPA National Interim  Primary Drinking
                                                                      Water Standards.

-------
                                       -3-
     The assumptions do  not consider  any flow  rate in the  underground  aquifer


     permeability and porosity.  There are no  exceptions to the "rule  of ten".



     Recommendation:  Testing solely  for the contaminants  listed in drinking


     water standards may be too limited.  A hypothetical leachate containing


     sodium chloride in  the range of  1,000 mg/1 would be acceptable by  this


     definition.   There are no limitations on  factors such as B.O.D. (bio-


     chemical oxygen demand);  C.O.D.  (chemical oxygen demand);  T.O.C.  (total


     organic carbons) and  free carbon dioxide.



     Recommendation:  It is recommended other  chemicals and parameters  be


     considered.



5.   Section 250.13  (D) (E)  page 58957  reads:                   (D) Add to the extractor a weight of
                                                                delonlzed water equal to 16 times the
                                                                weight of solid  material added to the
               m.                           .                   extractor. This  includes any  water
     Comment:  The toxic extraction procedure does  not      used in transferring the solid material
                                                                to the extractor.        •      '

     explain the  justification for dilution of the  waste    ^Jtt£^%£££
                                                                0.5N acetic  acid. Hold the pH  at
     1:16  nor is  there justification  for selection  of pH 5  5-°±°-2 and continue  agitation for
                                                                24±0.5 hours. If more  than 4  ml of
                                                                acid for each gm of solid Is required to
     and the use  of  acetic  acid in the  adjustment of  pH.    hold the pH at  5, then once 4  ml of
                                                                acid per gm has been added, complete
                                                                the 24 hour extraction without adding
                                                                any additional acid. Maintain the ex-
    This  is a crucial test  in that special waste cate-     tractant at 20-40' C (68-104- P) during
                                                                extraction. It Is recommended that a
                                                                device such as the Type 45-A pH Con-
    gories  such  as  "utility waste" could leach toxicants   troller  manufactured  by Chemtrlx.
                                                                Inc., HUlsboro,  OR 97123, or equivs-
       , .    ,      .                                            lent, be  used for controlling pH. If
    and be  classified as a  toxic  waste.   Acetic acid       such a device is not available then the
                                                                following manual procedure can  be
    does  not occur  naturally.                                 employed.




    Recommendation:   It  is requested the toxic extraction procedure be amended


    to allow a closer simulation  of conditions that  could be expected  on a


    site  specific basis.

-------
                                   -4-
Section  250.14  (b)  Hazardous Waste Sources and

Processes.l)Sources generating hazardous  waste.

(i)(A) Health Care  Facilities, page 58958 reads:



Comment:  Wastes  from health care facilities

normally discharged into  the sewage collection

system should be  specifically excluded  from

autoclaving and incineration requirements.



The autoclaving and incineration facilities

specified are not available at many health care
                                                          (b) Hazardous waste  sources  and
                                                        processes. (D Sources generating haz-
                                                        urtlnus  liiastr. The  following sources
                                                        i,frmTate hazardous  waste unless the
                                                        waste from these sources does not con-
                                                        tain microorganisms or  helminths of
                                                        CDC Classes 2 through 5  of the Etiolo-
                                                        Ele Ascnls listed in Appendix VI of
                                                        tins Subpart.
                                                          (i) Health care facilities. (A) The fol-
                                                        lowing departments  of hospitals as de-
                                                        fined by SIC Codes 8062  and 8069,
                                                        unless the waste has been  treated as
                                                        .specified In Appendix VII of this Sub-
                                                        part. (N)
                                                        Obstetrics department including patients'
                                                          rooms
                                                        Emergency departments
                                                        Surgery  department  Including  patients'
                                                          rooms
                                                        Morgue
                                                        Pathology department
                                                        Autopsy  department
                                                        Isolation rooms
                                                        Laboratories
                                                        Intensive care unit
                                                        Pediatrics department
facilities.  The  costs of providing these facilities will be extensive.

There  are potential health hazards pertinent to  on site  storage  of infec-

tious  wastes and  transporting to  treatment storage and disposal  facilities.

Each generator  should be equipped with  appropriate facilities.
The list  of infectious  organisms  such  as E. Coli and Staph A.  are prevalent

throughout health care  facilities.   Therefore  the criteria proposed may

be excessively stringent  as all wastes  from health care  facilities (including

tissue  or handkerchiefs containing  nasal discharge) would be infectious

requiring incineration  or autoclaving.
Section  250.14  (b)  Hazardous Waste Sources and

Processes.  l)Sourcesgenerating hazardous  waste.

(i)(B) Veterinary Hospitals,  page 58958  and

Appendix VII    Infectious  Waste  Treatment Speci-
                                                          (B) The following  departments of
                                                         veterinary hospitals as defined by SIC
                                                         Codes 0741 and 0742, unless the waste
                                                         has been treated as specified In Appen-
                                                         dix VII. (N)
                                                         Emergency department
                                                         Surgery department including  patients'
                                                          rooms
                                                         Autopsy department
                                                         Isolation rooms
                                                         Laboratories
                                                         Intensive care unit

                                                          
-------
 fications.   page  58964 reads:                              APPENDIXVII-INPECTIOUSWASTE
                                                                 TREATMENT SPECIFICATIONS

                                                            Infectious waste from departments of
                                                           health  care  facilities  as  defined  In
 Comment:   The proposed rules beginning on  page       IZSO.UCbxl) may be rendered non-harzar-
 	                           &      5     f 6        dons by subJcctlnR the waste to the follow.
                                                           Ing autoclave temperatures and dwell times'
 58957 (250.14) apparently  apply to various depart-            steam Autoclave

                                                            (1) Trash: 250 P (121 C) for 1 hour with 15
 ments in veterinary hospitals as  facilities that     minutes prevacuum of 27 in. Hg.

                                                           with' i?13?ware: 25° P "2I C1 for ' >">"
                                                           with 15 minutes prevacuum of 27 in, Hg for
 discharge  hazardous etiologic agents according to    ™'«ijnHoiasnwpeCM.
                                                   6        «) Liquids: 250 P (121 C) for 1 hour for
                                                           each gallon.
 CDC classification.  The proposed  rule appears        «> Animals: 250 p (1210 for a hours with
                            r   f            vv           IS minutes prevacuum of 27 in. Hg.
                                                            (5) Animal Bedding: 250 P (121 C) for 8
 applicable  if such  a facility does not discharge     H°urs wlth 15 minutes prevacuum of 21 in.

                                                           or equivalent treatment methods such as
 waste into  an approved sewerage system but does      '**  sterilization or pathological-inciner-
                                                           ation. Temperatures and  dwell time will
                                                           vary In relation to the volume of material
 perhaps utilize a trash pickup service, then the     moisture content and other factors.


 requirements  on page 58964-Appendix VII Infectious


Waste Treatment Specifications would apply.




 The various  listed  departments of  veterinary hospitals  would discharge


microbial agents including bacterial,  fungal,  viral,  rickettsial and


 chlamydial up to and including a Class 3 hazard.   Any such pathogens  would


have to be treated  as  per Appendix  VII by  steam autoclave or equivalent


 treatment methods.   This would require all veterinary hospitals  to  install


at  least an  incinerator to process  material  such as  trash, glassware,


 liquids, animals, and  animal  bedding and render it non-infectious.  The


economic impact of  these proposed rules could  result  in  an investment for


each facility or hospital $3,000 to  $10,000.00 for adequate incineration


and/or autoclaving  equipment.

-------
The data  base which defines the present hazard from etiologic agents




in waste  effluents  as  classified in Appendix VI is not mentioned.




Observations have been that occupationally exposed people   the trash




collectors  themselves  - do not appear to suffer any higher disease rate




than other  people in the public sector.  Our epidemiological investigations




generally have  not  revealed disease transmission that has occurred from




waste material  whether properly or improperly disposed of, but it is




admitted  that a potential hazard exists in a sanitary landfill disposal




system for  disease  transmission.






Nevertheless, the need for these proposed rules is questioned based on the




actual incidence and subsequent reporting of disease.  Also, other problems




such as air pollution  may be created by drastically increasing the number




of incinerators necessary to adequately treat such hazardous waste.






Section 250., Subpart  A, Appendix XI page 58966 regarding the persistance




of degradable chemicals.  What is a biodegradation assay and does it really




represent conditions of actual release?  No biodegradation assay is specified.




Certain compounds with allegedly short half lives have inexplicably persisted




(ex. chemical five  incident and parathion) over a period of years.






Recommendation:  It is recommended the degradation option be deleted until




more data is obtained.

-------
                                   -7-
9.   Section 250.15 pages 58959-60.  Demonstration of Noninclusion in




    the Hazardous Waste System.






    Comment:






    1.  Wastes from certain manufacturing process and other sources




    listed are considered hazardous unless proven non-hazardous by the




    generator.




  • 2.  The testing procedures listed are extensive and specific.  It




    would be costly for generators, especially small generators without




    laboratory testing capabilities to conduct tests to confirm or deny




    the generation of hazardous wastes.  There are few if any private




    laboratories equipped and capable of performing the tests specified.




    3.  When in doubt generator may be expected to consider the waste




    generated as hazardous rather than perform tests.  This will place a




    considerable burden on hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal




    facility and require more testing by the facility operator.

-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND' RECOVERY ACT


 PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
             COMMENTS BY
      ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION
        1155 PEBBLEDALE ROAD
       MULBERRY, FLORIDA  33860
            MARCH 7, 1979

-------
            RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT




             PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS




                         COMMENTS BY




                   ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION
   MR. CHAIRMAN AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS




STEWART H. MILLER.  I AM MANAGER OF ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION'S



PHOSPHORUS FURNACE FACILITIES AT PIERCE, FLORIDA. I APPRECIATE THE




OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.




   I PROPOSE TO ADDRESS MY COMMENTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF




PHOSPHORUS FURNACE SLAG AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER 40 CFR PART 250




SUBPART A OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS.  IN ADDITION TO THE REMARKS



I WILL MAKE HERE, I AM ATTACHING A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF OUR




POSITION, WITH SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION, TO BE CONSIDERED AS ELECTRO-




PHOS CORPORATION'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF RECORD.  I AGREE THAT




INDISCRIMINATE AND IRRESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES MUST



BE PREVENTED, AND  I COMMEND THE EPA FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD.




HOWEVER, I MUST POINT OUT WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS



IN THE IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING RATIONALE IN 40 CFR PART 250 SUBPART A.

-------
   FIRST, I SUBMIT THAT CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG FROM ELECTRIC FURNACE




SMELTING OF PHOSPHATE ROCK IS NOT A WASTE.  ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION




CO-PRODUCES CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG IN THE APPROXIMATE RATIO OF 8.5 TONS




OF SLAG PER TON OF ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PRODUCED.  ALL OF THE SLAG




PRODUCED AT ELECTRO-PHOS IS SOLD TO A PROCESSING AND MARKETING




COMPANY AS PRODUCED.  THE SLAG ROCK COPRODUCED IN THE MANUFACTURE




OF PHOSPHORUS IS VERY HARD AND DURABLE. IT IS CHEMICALLY INERT IN SOIL




ACIDS AND WEATHERS WELL IN SURFACE APPLICATIONS.  IT IS ALSO EASILY




WETTABLE WITH ASPHALTIC COMPOSITIONS.  THESE ATTRIBUTES, PLUS THE FACT




THAT THERE IS NO OTHER LOCALLY AVAILABLE AGGREGATE POSSESSING THESE




SUPERIOR QUALITIES WITHIN 500 MILES OF THE PRODUCING AREA MAKE CALCIUM




SILICATE SLAG THE FIRST AND  SOMETIMES ONLY CHOICE IN CENTRAL FLORIDA




FOR:




   - HIGHWAY PAVING AND ROADBED STABILIZATION




   - RAILROAD BALLAST AND ROADBEDS




   - SEPTIC TANK DRAINAGE FIELDS




   - COMMERCIAL AND UTILITY USE FOR ROADWAYS, SUB-STATIONS AND




    SOIL STABILIZATION




   - MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS




   - PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY PAVING




   - PRIVATE USE FOR DRIVEWAYS, PATIOS AND DRAINAGE




   - BUILT UP ROOFING AGGREGATE




   - CONCRETE PRODUCT  USES

-------
                              -3-
     OF SPECIAL INTEREST IS THE USE OF COARSE SLAG IN THE FILTER BEDS




OF TAMPA, FLORIDA'S, NEW MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT WHICH




INCORPORATES THE VERY LATEST TECHNOLOGY FOR TREATMENT OF WASTE




EFFLUENTS ENTERING TAMPA BAY.




     ASSUMING THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE INTERPRETED




SO AS TO REMOVE SLAG FROM THE MARKET PLACE THE ECONOMIC IMPACT




WILL BE AT LEAST THREE-FOLD.




     - A VITAL THREE MILLION DOLLAR AGGREGATE PROCESSING AND




      MARKETING INDUSTRY WILL BE ELIMINATED WITH THE DIRECT LOSS




      OF THIRTY (30) JOBS AND AN IMMEDIATE WRITE OFF OF CAPITAL




      INVESTMENT.




     - THE CENTRAL FLORIDA AREA WILL FEEL A RIPPLE EFFECT FROM:




        - LOSS OF TRUCK DRIVING JOBS ASSOCIATED WITH DISTRIBUTION




          AND HAULING OF SLAG




        - HIGHER COSTS TO CONSUMERS FOR IMPORTED OUT OF STATE




          AGGREGATE MATERIALS




        - LOSS OF REVENUES TO THE LOCAL SERVICE INDUSTRY AND




          HEAVY MACHINERY BUSINESS




     - THERE WILL BE A NET COST TO ELECTRO-PHOS OF APPROXIMATELY




      S1.0MM PER YEAR, AN INFLATIONARY INCREASE WHICH THE




      ULTIMATE CONSUMERS WOULD HAVE TO BEAR.




     SECOND, I SUBMIT THAT CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG FROM ELECTRIC FURNACE




SMELTING OF PHOSPHATE  ROCK IS NOT A HAZARD.

-------
                             -4-
   THE EPA FINAL DRAFT DOCUMENT, "IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING




OF HAZARDOUS RADIOACTIVE WASTE PURSUANT TO THE RESOURCES




CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976", EXPRESSES A CONCERN




FOR AIRBORNE RADIATION FROM RADON GAS AND ITS PROGENY IN




HOMES BUILT ON RECLAIMED LAND. THE EPA MEASURED RADIUM CON-




CENTRATION IN SOIL MATERIALS AND ATTEMPTED TO RELATE THESE




MEASUREMENTS TO INTERIOR RADIATION WORKING LEVELS THAT MIGHT




BE ANTICIPATED IN STRUCTURES BUILT UPON THESE SOILS. HOWEVER, THE




DATA UPON WHICH THE SUBJECT REGULATIONS ARE BASED APPARENTLY




DOES NOT INCLUDE THE .LATEST EPA STUDIES, AND DOES  NOT ADEQUATELY




DEFINE SUCH A RELATIONSHIP. THE EPA'S GRAPH PURPORTING TO SHOW




SUCH A CORRELATION SHOWS EXTREME DATA POINT SCATTER AND AN




ALMOST MEANINGLESS CORRELATION FACTOR.




   AMONG THE MANY FACTORS AFFECTING THE PRECISION OF A CORRELATION




OF RADIUM CONTENT AND RADON GAS FLUX IS THE EMANATING POWER OF




THE PARTICULAR MATERIAL INVOLVED. THE EMANATING  POWER MAY BE DEFINED




AS THE RATIO OF THE RADON GAS ESCAPING FROM A MATERIAL TO THE TOTAL




AMOUNT OF RADON GAS BEING GENERATED IN THE MATERIAL FROM THE DECAY




OF RADIUM 226. IF FOR EXAMPLE, WE TAKE TWO DIFFERENT MATERIALS EACH




WITH THE SAME RADIUM CONCENTRATION, BUT DIFFERENT EMANATING POWERS,




THE ONE WITH THE LOWER EMANATING POWER WILL GIVE OFF OR DIFFUSE A




LOWER AMOUNT OF RADON GAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

-------
                              -5-
    SINCE THE MEASURE OF AIRBORNE RADIATION IS A MEASURE OF THE

AMOUNT OF RADON GAS AND ITS PROGENY, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WE

HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL RADON FLUX PRESENT TO PROPERLY EVALUATE

HEALTH EXPOSURE RISK. THIS IS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT INI EVALUATING

SLAG AS A HEALTH EXPOSURE RISK'. INDUSTRY DATA SHOWS THAT

SLAG HAS AN EXTREMELY  LOW EMANATING POWER, RANGING FROM

16/1000 OF ONE PERCENT  TO 42/100 OF ONE PERCENT, DEPENDING ON

MATERIAL SIZING. COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED STANDARD OF 5 PCI

PER GRAM FOR SOIL, ON WHICH THE STANDARD WAS BASED, TO OBTAIN

AN EQUIVALENT RADON FLUX FROM SLAG WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE SLAG

CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 227 PCI PER GRAM (FOR FINE PARTICLES) AND UP

TO 6000 PC  PER GRAM FOR LUMP AGGREGATE.  RELATING THIS TO THE
           .
REAL WORLD/SLAG WHICH NOMINAI LY CONTAINS RADIUM 226 AT A LEVEL

OF 50-70 PCI PER GRAM HAS A RADON FLUX EQUIVALENT TO SOIL AT WELL

UNDER 1  PCI PER GRAM.

    FURTHER, THE RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT STUDIES ON AIRBORNE RADIATION

AT PHOSPHORUS FURNACES, WHERE THE ACCUMULATION OF SLAG IS MANY

TIMES  GREATER THAN ANY KNOWN COMMERCIAL OR PRIVATE USE SITE,

INDICATE WORKING LEVELS 1/10 TO 1/20 OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION STANDARD OF 0.03 WL. OBVIOUSLY, IT IS COMPLETELY

IRRATIONAL TO CLASSIFY CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG AS A HAZARD.

-------
                             -6-
IN SUMMARY,






- CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG IS NOT A SOLID WASTE AND THEREFORE



  CANNOT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BE DECLARED A




  HAZARDOUS WASTE.






- THE PROPOSED RADIATION ACTIVITY LEVEL OF 5 PCI/GM. WAS



  DERIVED FROM RECLAIMED LAND MEASUREMENTS PRIMARILY FOR



  PROTECTION AGAINST INDOOR AIRBORN RADIATION AND IS NOT



  APPLICABLE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF FLORIDA SLAG USE.






- NO ALLOWANCE OR CONSIDERATION WAS MADE IN ESTABLISHING



  THE 5 PCI/GM. STANDARD FOR THE EXTREMELY LOW EMANATING POWER



  OF DENSE SLAG.






-AIRBORNE RADIATION WORKING LEVEL MEASUREMENTS MADE AT PLANT



  SITES WITH HEAVY SLAG CONCENTRATIONS ARE WELL BELOW THE NRC




  LIMIT 0.03 WL FOR CONTINUOUS PUBLIC EXPOSURE (168 HOURS PER WEEK).






-THE POTENTIAL S1.0MM/YEAR INCREASED PRODUCTION COST IMPACT ON



  ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS  DUE TO THE CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATION




  OF SLAG IS INFLATIONARY.






- THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATION OF SLAG COULD




  SHUTDOWN THE VITAL SLAG AGGREGATE INDUSTRY IN  FLORIDA,




  ELIMINATING 30 JOBS AND  INCREASING AGGREGATE COSTS FOR




  CENTRAL FLORIDA CONSUMERS.

-------
                             -7-
   WE BELIEVE THE ABOVE TECHNICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS



FORM AN OVERWHELMING BASIS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE.CLASSIFICATION



OF SLAG AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. NO EVIDENCE HAS YET COME TO OUR



ATTENTION INDICATING THAT FLORIDA SLAG POSES ANYTHING OTHER THAN



A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE HEALTH RISK TO RADIATION EXPOSURE.



   THANK YOU.

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
                        APPENDIX
APPENDIX  A    "ECONOMIC AND RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CALCIUM
              SILICATE SLAG FROM ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PRODUCTION"

APPENDIX  B    "RADON EMANATION FROM PHOSPHATE FURNACE SLAG
              AND PHOSPHATE ORE"

APPENDIX  C    "EPA STUDY- INDOOR RADON LEVELS - FEBRUARY, 1976"

APPENDIX  D    "SURVEY OF THE MOBIL CHEMICAL NICHOLS PLANT FOR
              RADON AND RADON DAUGHTERS", M. E. WRENN, NYU,
              REPORT.

APPENDIX  E    "OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION  EXPOSURE IN THE FLORIDA
              PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY", U. OF FLA. REPORT.

APPENDIX  F    "PEMBROKE LABORATORY ANALYSES OF SLAG EFFLUENT
              SAMPLES"

-------
                             APPENDIX A
                  ECONOMIC AND RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS



                     OF CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG FROM




                   ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PRODUCTION
                      ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION
                           FEBRUARY?, 1979
PREPARED BY:   JOHN M. CLARKE
APPROVED BY:  STEWART H. MILLER

-------
                     ECONOMIC AND RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS

                        OF CALCIUM SILICATE SLAG FROM

                      ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PRODUCTION
OVER/IEW OF FLORIDA PHOSPHORUS INDUSTRY

Elemental phosphorus is now produced in Florida by the Stauffer Chemical Company and
Electro-Phas.Corporation.  Combined production for calendar year 1978 was approximately
35,000 tortf 'of elemental phosphorus along with 335,000 tons of co-product calcium silicate
slag and approximately 2500 tons of co-product ferrophosphorus.

The phosphorus production process is the electro-thermal  reduction of phosphate rock carried
out in a sealed carbon lined crucible. (See Illustration No. 1)  A chemically proportionsd
mixture of phosphate rock, silica gravel and metallurgical coke is continuously fed into the
crucible where it is smelted electrically into a molten flux at 2800°F under reducing conditions.
Elemental phosphorus is vaporized from the molten flux and passes from the furnace to a
condenser where it is liquified and stored  under water as  pure phosphorus. The reaction
co-produces two very important products,  calcium silicate and a mixture of iron phosphides
known commercially as slag and ferrophosphorus respectively.  These products are removed
intermittantly from the crucible reaction mass by a process known as tapping.

Ferrophosphorus is produced in the approximate ratio of 0.1 tons per ton of elemental
phosphorus and is an important ferro  alloy used in the steel  industry.

Slag is produced in the approximate  ratio  of 8.5 tons per  ton of elemental phosphorus.  It is
tapped into a pit where it is air cooled with water spray on top to form a dense hard aggregate
material.

All the co-product calcium  silicate slag in Florida is sold to a slag processing and marketing
company, S. I. Minerals, Inc., as produced.

                       ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRODUCERS

In considering  the validity of classifying slag as a hazardous waste, attention should be
focused on the economic impact of proposed regulations upon the Phosphorus Industry in
Florida.
(1)
   Includes production from Mobil Chemical Company operation closed in 1978.

-------
                      LUUSTRATlOM   NO.l
SlUCA
CKA.'Si-
  G^.L
 co'ue
                  EUECTRIC POWER



                   r      _ i _    . rt
CO SAS
                            PHOSPHORUS  PROC6SS
                                                                 FLARE

-------
If currently proposed regulations and arbitrary standards were to remove slag from the
market place, the impact on Central Florida producers would be approximately $2MM
per year, made up of additional handling costs, loss of revenue, disposal costs and
additional administrative expenses.

Since phosphorus is a basic chemical building block, a further impact would be felt in
a variety of areas; consumer products from cleaning compounds and pharmacutical
products to soft drinks and vitally important farm chemicals.

                                 A VITAL INDUSTRY

The slag industry in Central Florida is a small but essential part of the area economy,
represented by S. I. Minerals, Inc., operating two processing  plants directly employing
thirty (30) people and requiring the services of many other firms in the trucking and
support industries.  It has been an intergral part of the area economy for over forty (40)
years and has grown so that sales and distribution now cover a 17 county area the size
of the State of Maryland, stretching from Ft. Pierce to Daytona  Beach on the  East Coast
and Crystal River to Punta Gorda on the West Coast.

The industry is absolutely vital to certain markets because there is no other locally
available aggregate within a 500 mile  radius that possesses the superior characteristics
of dense calcium silicate slag.  The material is very hard and not easily attrited.  It is
chemically inert in soil acids and weathers well in surface applications. It is also easily
wettable with asphaltic compositions.  These physical attributes make it the first  and
sometimes only locally available choice for the following commercial and  private uses in
the Central Florida Area.

    1.  Highway paving and roadbed  stabilization.

    2.  Railroad ballast and roadbeds.

    3.  Septic tank drainage fields.

    4.  Commercial and utility use for roadways, sub-stations and soil stabilization.

    5.  Municipal  sewage treatment plants.

    6.  Parking lot and driveway paving.

    7.  Private use for driveways, patios and drainage.

    8.  Built up roofing aggregate.

    9.  Concrete product uses.

Of special interest is the use of coarse slag in the filter beds of Tampa, Florida's new


                                         -3-

-------
municipal sewage treatment plant incorporating the very latest technology for treatment
of waste effluents entering Tampa Bay.

The sales distribution of slag for various Florida end uses for 1978 is shown on Table No. 1.

It should be noted that all the slag produced over a 40 year period from elemental phosphorus
furnaces in Florida has been processed and sold commercially. Therefore, it clearly should
not be classified as a solid waste under the  RCRA definition below since it is not a  discarded
waste by-product.

                'any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment
               plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
               control facility and other discarded material,  including
               solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
               resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and
               agricultural operations, and from  community activities . . ."

Furthermore, it cannot be correctly classified as a "hazardous waste" subject to.the
requirements of Subtitle C RCRA until it is first proven to be a solid waste.

              ECONOMIC IMPACT ON SLAG INDUSTRY & CONSUMERS
If currently proposed regulations were to remove slag from the market place the impact would
be as follows:

     1.   A vital three million dollar industry would be eliminated with the direct
         loss of thirty  (30) jobs and an immediate  write off of capital investment.

     2.   The Central Florida area would feel a ripple effect from:

         a.  Loss of truck driving jobs associated with distributioa.and
             hauling of slag.

         b.  Higher costs to consumers for imported out of state aggregate
             materials.

         c.  Loss of revenues to the local service industry and  heavy
             machinery business.
                                         -4-

-------
TABLE NO.
Drainfield
1 1/2" to 3/4"

#11
1" to 1/2"

#12
Nominal 7/8"

#15
Nominal 3/8"

#16
3/8" to 1/8"

Fines
  -10 Mesh
 End Use Sub
   Totals
 End Use % of
   Total
                  128,703.42    778,57
                                                      SALES DISTRIBUTION OF FLORIDA FURNACE SLAG 1978

                                                                           (TONS)

                                                                 END  USE  CATEGORIES
                                                                         29,761.75      4,620.03
Highway
Paving
4,087.71
24,547.43
23,090.48
65,592.98
11,384.82
Railroad
Ballast
Road Beds
778.57
-
-
-
-
-
Septic
Tanks
51,827.55
547 .23
42,360.67
-
-
-
Roadway
Substations
And Soil
Stabllzation
13,495.38
9,968.43
10,476.12
610.30
561 .42
468.33
Municipal
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
22,631 .79
4,598.48
-
-
2,531.48
-
Parking
Lot And
Driveway
Paving
626.88
47U4
703 .55
880.07
1,727.79
210.50
Private
Use
Patios
Etc.
2,880.19
1,524.80
2,061 .89
360.19
1,464.93
479.11
Roofing
-
-
24,016.56
6,178.38
-
Concrete
Product Use
-
1,426.73
46.76
213.63
261 .72
                                                                                30,194.94     1,948.84
                                                                                                               Total Tonnage
                                                                                                               By Grades

                                                                                                                92,240.36


                                                                                                                21,197.89


                                                                                                                81,57639


                                                                                                                49,004 Jo


                                                                                                                78,270.61


                                                                                                                12,804.43


                                                                                                               ANNUAL TOTAL

                                                                                                               335.094.09
                    38.4%
0.2%
28.3%
10.6%
8.8%
                                                                                       1.4%
                                                                     2.6%
                                                                                   9.0%
                                                                                 0.5%
                                                                             -5-

-------
                                 TECHNICAL REVIEW

An analysis of the United States E.P.A. final draft document ("Identification and Listing
of Hazardous Radioactive Waste Pursuant to the  Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976") shows a concern for airborne radiation from radon gas and its progeny,
arising from earlier E.P.A. studies of the Phosphate Industry, and in particular homes built
on reclaimed land. This earlier government work stressed  the measurement of radiation
activities in soil materials and related these to interior working levels  that might be
anticipated in structures built upon these soils.

Other studies, relating to this concern, have shown from extensive data the difficulty of
developing a precise correlation that could accurately predict the anticipated working
level within a structure based on  the radium concentration of the soil upon  which it is
built.

Among the many factors affecting  the precision of a correlation is the emanating power
of the particular material involved.  The emanating power may be defined as the ratio
of the radon gas escaping from a material to the total amount of radon  gas being generated
in the material from the decay of radium 226. If for example, we take two  different materials
each with the same radium concentration, but different emanating powers, the one with
lesser emanating power will give  off or diffuse a lower amount of radon gas into the atmosphere.

Putting  this in numerical terms, one gram of material having a radium decay of 5 pCi/gm.
with an emanating power of 0.2 or 20% would diffuse the same amount  of radon gas into the
atmosphere as one gram of material having  a radium decay activity of 50 pCi/gm. with an
emanating power of 0.02 or 2%.

Since the measure of airborne radiation is a measure of the amount of radon gas and its
progeny, it is evident that we have to  look at the total radon flux present to properly
evaluate health exposure risk.

This  is expecially significant in evaluating slag as a health exposure risk since available
data shows that slag has a very low emanating power ranging from 0.00016 or 0.016% to
0.0042 or 0.42% depending on material sizing.

To put this in prospective it is necessary to compare the relative radon flux rates being
generated from 5 pCi/gm. reclaimed land (from which the  5 pCi/gm. standard was derived)
to that of 87 pCi/gm. slag material.

Using the following formula for radon flux:™'
    Reference:  Roessler, C. E. & Associates "Radioactivity of Land and Associate Structures"
               Volume  Two Final Report, Page 109, October 1978.

-------
RADON FLUX
 WHERE:    J •=*» =     Radon Flux pCi/m  per sec.

            CRA  =     "" 226, pCi/gm.

            /^   =     density gm/cm

            E    =     Emanating Power

            p    =     porosity
                                                   -2     2
            D    =     Diffusion Coefficient - 2.7 x 10    CM /sec.

            ^   =     Decay Constant for Radon = 2.1 x 10   sec.
The calculation of radon flux (J oo ) for relaimed land is as follows:

  WHERE:   /=>   =     1.44  E = .18   p=0.40
  THEN:
            D    =     2JxlO"2   cm2/sec.      ^ = 2.1 x 10~6 sec.
                     0.98i
The calculation of radon flux (Jo=> ) for electric furnace slag is as follows:
WHERE:
                       U6E = (.00016 to .0042)     p=0.40

                       2J x 10"2 cm2/sec.    A = 2.1 x 10"6 sec.
  THEN:     JoO =     8.18 xlO"4  CR  to. 0215
RECLAIMED LAND COMPARED TO SLAG

Using the upper value of 5 pCi/gm. for reclaimed land, upon which the proposed standard
is based, then the corresponding upper values for slag, to obtain an equivalent radon flux
would be from 227 pCi/gm. to 5990 pCi/gm.
                                      -7-

-------
The very low emanating powers of Florida furnace slags are further indicated by the results
of three studies on occupational exposure to airborne radiation run by the United  States
E.P.A., the University of Florida and New York University. Data from these studies showed
the following working level measurements:

University of Florida          McDonald E. Wrenn, Ph.D/3)              U.S. E.PA

     (External)                    (External & Internal)                  (Internal)
     .003  WL                         .0012 WL                 .0006 Avg. WL. 4 Results
     .0007 WL                         .0011 WL                 .005  Avg. WL. 4 Results
     .0006 WL                         .0022 WL                 .003  Avg. WL. 3 Results
                                      .0011 WL                 .005  Avg. WL. 4 Results
                                      .0010 WL
                                      .0003 WL

All of these values are below the Nuclear Regulatory Commission standard of 0.03 WL for
public exposure  (168 hours/week) by a factor of almost 10.

These values are of particular significance because the plant sites  in which they were measured
contain accumulations of slag greater than any public exposure at  a commercial or private use
site.  In one plant the land surrounding and under building structures consists of accumulated
layers up to two feet thick and buildings have slag rock roofs.  The office at one plant is a
concrete slab building, built direcly on top of a slag foundation. Despite this, none of the
airborne radiation working levels that were measured come close to the .003 WL limit for
continuous public exposure (168 hours per week).

The proposed radiation activity standard of 5 pCi/gm. appears to have  its origin and its
regulatory thrust aimed at controlling potential interior exposure risks.  It is not reasonable
to apply such a standard across the board without regard to the material, its emanating power
and its end uses.  In the case of the Florida Slag Industry approximately 99.5% of  the slag
sold is for external uses where because of slag's low emanating power the health risk  is minimal.

A further concern expressed in the proposed regulation deals with the radiation concentrations
in water that has come into contact with the various materials such as slag.  To evaluate this
possibility a number of water samples from one plant site were analyzed for radium 226.  These
samples were taken fromslag processing water, soil leachate, well water and water from the
water recirculation system.  The results of these tests at one plant site are as follows:

         SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION                 RADIUM 226 pG/liter

         1.   Floridan Aquifer Wei I                           0.25
         2.   Hawthorn Aquifer Well                          0.79
         3.   Recirculated Pond Water                        0.08
         4.   Slag Cooling Water                             6.12
         5.   Slag Processing Water                           0.25
         6.   Leachate from Slag Storage Area                4.30
    Certified Health Physicist, New York University.

                                         -8-

-------
Again these results clearly indicate that all of the water sources tested are well within
the proposed standard of 50 pCi/liter and all  but one sample within the 5 pCi/liter
standard established by the  United States Environmental Protection Agency for drinking
water.

                                  CONCLUSIONS
After evaluating the proposed classification and regulations the Florida Phosphate Council
and affected member companies have reached the following conclusions offered herein as
rebuttal to the classification of slag as a hazardous waste.

1.   Calcium silicate slag is not a solid waste and  therefore cannot under the provisions
    of the act be declared  as a hazardous waste.

2.   The proposed radiation activity level of 5 pCi/gm. was derived from reclaimed land
     measurements primarily for protection against  indoor airborne radiation and is not
    applicable to the vast majority of Florida slag use.

3.   No allowance or consideration was made in establishing the  5 pCi/gm. standard for
     the extremely low emanating power of dense slag.

4.  Airborne radiation working level  measurements made at all plant sites with heavy
    slag concentrations are well below the NRC limit 0.03 WL for continuous public
    exposure (168 hours per week).

5.  The external processing, storage,  shipping and end use of Florida slag offers no
    potential radiation threat  to drinking water or navigable waterways by means of
     leachate of runoff from ose sites.

6-  The potential $2MM/year increased cost impact on elemental phosphorus production
     in Florida is inflationary and unjustified.

7.  The proposed classification and regulation  of slag would eliminate the vital slag
    aggregate industry in Florida eliminating 30 jobs and increasing aggregate costs
    for Central Florida consumers.

In summary we believe the above technical and socio-economic conclusions form an
overwhelming basis for the elimination of the classification of slag as a hazardous waste.
No evidence has yet come to our attention indicating that  Florida slag poses anything
other than a perfectly acceptable health risk  to radiation exposure.
                                         -9-

-------
                        MOBIL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
                                    APPENDIX B.
                                                Field Research Laboratory
                                           DATE  Hay 26, 1976

TO  J.  R. White                           ct  S. H. Lane, HoChem, Richmond, \la.
    CRD,  Princeton                             P. B. Weisz, CRO, Princeton
                                                R. J. Watson
                                                •ft- L. Jones
                                                R. L. Caldwell
                                                R. T. Clarke
                                           be:  Library

                                                TECHNICAL SERVICE JOB NO. 257-6890
                                                RADON EMANATION FROM PHOSPHATE FUR-
                                                NACE SLAG AND PHOSPHATE ORE

    Measurements of  radon emanation from samples of phosphate furnace slag and phos-
    phate ore have been completed and the results are summarized in Table I.

    Radon-226 is generated in  the decay of radium-226, and under conditions of radio-
    active equilibrium one picocurie (10~'2 curie) of radium generates one picoeurie
    of  radon.  The emanating power of a material containing radium is defined as
    the ratio of the amount of radon free to diffuse from the material to the total
    amount of radon being generated,   /or example, an emanating power of 1 means
    that one picocurie of radon emanates from the material for each picocurie of
    radium in the  material.  An emanating power of 0.25 means that 25% of the radon
    generated is free  to  escape the material, and so on.  The emanating power of the
    furnace slag is extremely  low,  and therefore radon emanation from the slag should
    present no health  hazard,  even in buildings made of slag-bearing materials.  Our
    measurements show  that the phosphate ore emanates radon much more freely.  With-
    out stipulating additional  conditions., however,  it is not possible to state
    categorically  that radon emanation from phosphate ore constitutes a hazard.

    Samples of the 100-mesh slag and  of each of the three phosphate ore materials
    have been sent to  a commercial  laboratory for radium analysis.  Since shipment
    of these samples,  I have received from the same  commercial laboratory the results
    of their radium analysis of a carbonate sample which I  also analyzed by gamma-
    ray spectrometry.  Our results  were in excellent agreement; therefore, I do not
    expect the commercial analyses  to be significantly different from the radium
    concentrations given  in Table I.

    As soon as I receive  the results  of the commercial radium analyses, I will write
    a report explaining in detail  the methods used in measuring the radon emanation
    from the slag and  ore materials.
                                                W.  W. Givens

    WWG:ob

    Enc.

-------
                               TABLE  I
               RADON EMANATION FROM FLORIDA  PHOSPHATE
FURNACE SLAG AND PHOSPHATE

Sample
* 100 Mesh
24-40 Mesh
Chunks (3)
(approx. 25 gms'ea.)

-------
                          APPENDIX  C
        UNITED STATES ENVIRON NUN I AL PKO TLCTION AGIINCY
                          WASHINGTON. O.C.  20460
                             2 3 FEB 19/6
 Mr.  Olray Clark
 Administrator
 Radiological and Occupational Health Section
 Department of Rehabilitative Services
 P.O. Box 210
 Jacksonville, Florida   32201

 Dear Ray:

      I  am writing to inform you of updated TLD air pump data which
 we have received from our Las Vegas facility.  This data is listed in
 Table 1 (enclosed)  in comparison to the data presented in the report,
 "Preliminary Findings Radon Daughter Levels in Structures Constructed on
 Reclaimed Florida Phosphate Lnnd."  The data represents samples collected
 through the week of October 27, 1975.  By examining Table 2 (enclosed),  you
 will note that there has riot been any significant change in the number of
 structures which fall into each working level range as compared to our
 previous' report.

      There have been some minor changes in overall levels reported for
 specific structures in comparison to the earlier values.  One major reason
 for  this is that our facility personnel discovered an error used at Colorado
 .State University in calibrating the TLD chips which required modification of
 the  observed levels.   In addition, they have.discovered that annealing
 one  or  two trays of chips at a time in our oven modifies the observed
 levels.   We believe that since we arc now aware of these potential error
 sources we can improve the quality of all future data.

      According to your request, we have reviewed your hypothesis on the
 source  of radon-222 in structures, and we offer the enclosed comments.

      If you have any questions, please let me know.

                                           Sincerely yours,
                                           Richard u.
                                        Assistant to  the Director
                                      for Special Projects  (AW-4&0)
•3 Enclosures

cc:  Mr. C. Porter, EERF
     Mr. II. R. Payne, Region  IV
     Mr. D. Ilcndricks, ORT/LV
     Mr. F. Galpin, BAD

-------
                                 TAULE  1




            Florida Indoor Kadon Levels U.-ita  -  February, 1976

Location No. Avg. WL
98R
110R
107R
105R
94R
76R
172
103R
169
51R
118R (No A/C)
5DR
170
175
MR (No A/C)
112R
134
176
180
135
136
/^137*~
' 200*
203*
204*
^
0.205
0.111
0.101
0.051
0.031
0.030
0.025
0.023
0.022
0.011
0.010
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.0002
0.0002
ORP/CSf) 75-4 New Data
(No. of Measurements) Avg. WL (Ho. of
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

0.105
0.075
0.067
0*.037
0.023
0.058
0.027
0.023
0.020
0.013
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.002
0.007
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0006
0.005
0.003
0.005

Measurem
(4)
(4)
(2)
(5)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(2)
(6)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4) N,
(4)
(3)
(4) 7
— => —

*Eleme»tal Phosphorus facilities

-------
                                      APPENDIX D
"\  ^      r-i     •-;-
1;  j u   ....  L^> J i
                            SURVEY OF THE MOBIL CHEMICAL NICHOLS PLANT
                                 FOR RANDON AND RADON DAUGHTERS
                                        March 9-16, 1976
                                    McDonald E. Wrenn, Ph.D.
                                   Certified Health Physicist
                                     with the assistance of
                                       Henry Spitz, M.S.
                                            May 1976

-------
SORVEY OF THE MOBIL CHEMICAL NICHOLS PLANT



      FOR RADON AND RADON DAUGHTERS







             March 9-16,  1976







         McDonald E. Wrenn, Ph.D.



        Certified Health  Physicist







          with the assistance of



            Henry Spitz,  M.S.
               May    1976

-------
                      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OBJECTIVE

The Nichols  facility was surveyed for radon and daughters in air
to  ascertain the  degree to  which radiation  exposure to  radon
daughters might be occurring to personnel at the facility.

MEASURING PROGRAM

Thirty-two  short-term  samples of  radon daughters  in air  were
taken   at   29   locations   in  the   administrative,  furnace,
preparation, and mine areas.

Long-term (hours  to days)   radon measurements  were made  at 16
locations  to determine  the amounts and degree of fluctuation of
radon at these locations.

RESULTS OF SURVEY

The frequency  distribution of results is shown in the accompany-
ing  figures.   All but one sample showed results well below both
the occupational  and nonoccupational  exposure limits of the Nu-
clear   Regulatory  Commission,  which  are  used  for  reference
purposes.  The highest concentration was found at one location in
the preparation  plant, which  showed a  concentration about one-
third  the occupational  limit.   It was determined that a simple
ventilation addition should correct this situation.

In general  the exposure to workers from radon daughters is quite
low, in many cases well below ambient indoors.

RECOMMENDATIONS*

1.  Workers at  the Nichols facility do not need to be considered
    radiation workers based on radon or radon daughters.

2.  The  single elevated  exposure condition identified should be
    corrected.

3.  Future construction  should include  provisions for  generous
    amounts  of makeup  air for  all buildings  and rooms  on the
    site.

4.  Because  the   potential  to  produce  exposure  exists,  the
    facility should be inspected by a qualified expert every sev-
    eral years or after any major construction activities.
*For detailed conclusions and recommendations, see the full
 report.

-------

16
12
trt
OJ
e 10
o
trt
•5 8
w.
_ra
1 6
z
4
2
/•»
Distribution of Results of All Rodon Doughter Samples






*
-
.

•
-
-
-

in Working Levels (viu












•



*~»
=j

^
in
'E
a
"o
J
|
&
, 1 Illllll 1 1 Illllll 1 1 IIIIIl! LI III
.0001 .001 .01 0.1 10
          (WL) Range
   Frequency Distribution
Mean  Radon Measurements
10
8

t/>
C
O
p 6
00
"o
w. /
i
-
2
o


-


"•
-



_

"*

1.


ID .t

I ^
.2 —
"8 §
ex o
=» :=
o §°
i- **
0 0
o: o±

i i i i i 1 1 1 II i i iiiiiil
02 5 10 20 50 100
pCi/liter

-------
                             CONTENTS


    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	   ii

    CONTENTS	   iv

    LIST OF FIGURES.	    V

    LIST OF TABLES	    V

1.   INTRODUCTION	    1

    1.1  Objective of the Survey
    1.2  Sampling
    1.3  Meteorological Data

2.   RADON AND RADON DAUGHTERS	    3

    2.1  Origin of Radon-222
    2.2  Decay Properties

3.   INSTRUMENTATION	    6

    3.1  Radon Measurements
    3.2  Radon-Daughter Measurements

4.   RESULTS OF THE SURVEY	    9

    4.1  Radon Daughter Measurements
    4.2  Radon Measurements

5.   RECOMMENDATIONS	  21

    REFERENCES	  22
    APPENDIX:  METEOROLOGICAL DATA

-------
Figure


Figure
                  LIST OF FIGURES
1.   Distribution of results of all radon-daughter
    samples in working levels  (WL) .
       2.
Figure  3.
       4.
    Radon-222 measurements at Medical/Personnel
    Building over weekend, March 12-15, 1976.
    Measurements were made for 80-minute periods.

    Radon-222  measurements at Main Office
    Building over weekend of March 12-15, 1976.
    Measurements were made for 80-minute periods.
    Radon-222 measurements (80-minute periods)
    at Engineering Building and Old Yard Station.
Figure


Figure  5.   Frequency distribution,  mean radon measurements.
12



14



15


16

20
                          LIST  OF  TABLES


Table  1.   Sampling  sites and  sampling  types

Table  2.   Decay properties of radon  and daughters

Table  3.   Operational parameters of  continuous  readout
          Radon-222 monitor systems

Table  4.   Radon-daughter measurements

Table  5.   Results of Radon-222  measurements
                                                         2

                                                         4


                                                         7

                                                        10

                                                        18

-------
                         1.   INTRODUCTION
1.1  OBJECTIVE OF THE SURVEY

A survey  of radon  and radon  daughters  in   air  was  made at the
Nichols  phosphate rock plant at  the  request  of the Management of
Mobil Chemical Company.   The objective was to measure the degree
of  exposure  to radon  and radon daughters  to   a representative
population of  employees  (management,  clerical,  and operational)
during  their normal  workday duties.   In addition, those opera-
tions  where  elevated  exposure   would most  likely occur,  were
identified and  sampled.   The  relevant  characteristics  of such
locations are poor ventilation and a  source of radon, which could
be phosphate rock.

1.2  SAMPLING

The Nichols phosphate plant consists  of four  major sections-mine,
preparation,  furnace,  and  administrative.    Each  section was
surveyed by performing measurements for radon and radon daughters
using the methods described below.  Those areas in which exposure
was  judged most  likely  to  occur were   specifically sampled for
radon daughters.  In addition, to identify any potential exposure
problem due  to the  concentration of radon  within  a structure,
offices  and control  stations were sampled   with the continuous-
readout radon  monitor.   Indoor  and  outdoor  radon monitoring was
performed  to measure  the difference  between indoor and outdoor
concentrations.

In all, 34 radon-daughter measurements were completed, and longer
-term radpn  measurements were  taken at  15 stations  during a 7-
day  period from  March 9  to 15,  1976.   The sampling sites are
indicated in Table 1.

1.3  METEOROLOGICAL DATA

In conjunction with the sampling  described above, hourly meteoro-
logical data  (windspeed  and  direction)  for March 9 to 15 were
obtained  by Mobil  plant personnel   from a nearby meteorological
station  and  were  furnished  us to  aid  in  interpretation of
results.  These data are  reproduced in Appendix A.

-------
                                  Table 1
        Sampling Sites and Sample Types (1= indoor; 0 = outdoor)
          Location
ADMINISTRATIVE AREA
  Personnel building
  Main office
  Engineering buiIding
  Laboratory, core room
  Laboratory, library
     Radon

      I/O
I  (over weekend)
      I/O
      I/O
       I
Radon Daughters
FURNACE AREA
  Foreman's office
  Control room
  Floor
  Tap
      I/O
     I/O
      I
      0
      0
PREPARATION AREA
  Dry mill floor
  Dry mill control room
  Dry mi 11 office
  Dry-storage transfer point
  Car loadout point
  Tunne1s
  Grinding-plant floor
  Grinding plant control room
MINE AREA
  Dragline operator's cab
  Drag!ine
  Pit car
  Mine office
  Flotation-plant control room
      I/O
      I*
      0
      I
     I/O
     I/O
*lnterior of enclosed cab.

-------
2.  RADON AND RADON DAUGHTERS
2.1  ORIGIN OF RADON-222

Radon-222 is  a radioactive noble gas which decays by alpha emis-
sion.  It results from the decay of Radium-226, which itself is a
decay  product of  the element uranium.   Both uranium and radium
are found  ubiquitously in  rocks and soils throughout the world.
The  activity concentration  of Ra-226 and the Uranium-238 parent
are  usually  equal, and  many soils  average about  3 parts  per
million (ppm)  of uranium or about 1 picocurie (pCi)  per gram of
Ra-226.*

Much of  the radon  formed in  the top meter of soil escapes into
the atmosphere, where it mixes and eventually decays.   Rn-222 is
therefore  a readily  measurable constituent  of all, ground-level
air.  The radon  concentration in air depends upon, the history of
a given air parcel measured, in particular whether from low-radon
(<10  pCi per liter) 'oceanic air or higher-radon continental air
(>10 pCi per liter), as well as the degree of atmospheric stabil-
ity (i.e.,  vertical mixing).    High ambient levels of radon are
therefore  associated with  traversing continental air masses and
with the  relative absence of vertical mixing such as occurs dur-
ing inversion conditions.

2.2  DECAY PROPERTIES

The  radioactive  decay  properties  of  radon  and  its daughter
products are shown in Table 2.  Rn-222 decays with a half-life of
3.85  days** into  a consecutive  series of short-lived daughters
with half-lives  between 160  microseconds and  27 minutes.   The
daughter  products are  nuclides of  the elements polonium, lead,
and bismuth.   The hazard from Rn-222 is almost solely associated
with these  daughter products, which, not being noble gases, will
deposit  in the lung and adjacent tissues when inhaled.   Most of
the hazard  is associated  with the  alpha emissions from RaA and
RaC1 .

In  air the  activity of the daughter products of radon may equal
or be  less than  the activity  of the  parent radon.    When the
daughter  products in Table 2 are all present in amounts equal to
the radon activity they are said to be in equilibrium.  The ratio
of activity of any daughter to radon may be expressed as a degree
of equilibrium, which may range between 0 and 1  (or 0 and 100%).

Radon and individual radon-daughter concentrations in air will be
expressed in this report in terms of (continued  on  Page  5)
*A picocurie  (pCi) is a unit of activity.   Pico  stands  for
 10~j3, and the Curie is the standard unit  of activity  equal
 to the disintegration rate of about 1 gram of Ra-226.  One
 pCi is equal to 2.2 disintegrations per minute.

**Half-life is the time it takes for half of a given  activity
  present to decay.

-------
                              Table 2
              Decay Properties of Radon and Daughters

                                      Type of
 Generic Name         Nuclide        Emission        Ha 1f-1ife
Radon                 Rn-222            a              3.85  days
Radium-A (RaA)         Po-218            a              3.05  min.
Radium-B (RaB)         Pb-2\>t            6            26.8   min.
Radium-C (RaC)         Bi-214            6            19.7   min.
Radium-C' (RaC1)       Po-214            »              1.60psec.

-------
(pCi/1).   Regulatory  limits may  be  stated  in terms of radon or
its  daughters.    Exposure  to  the   short-lived  radon-daughter
products  may be  measured in  units of the "working level" (WL),
which is  based upon the disintegration of the alpha-emitting nu-
clides  in the  decay chain.     One working   level (1 WL) is that
quantity  of  radon-daughter activity  which  will  result in  the
production of  1.3 x  10  million  electron volts  (MeV)  of alpha
particle  energy  in  1 liter of  air.   At  radioactive equilibrium,
when the  activities of RaA, RaB,  RaC, and RaC1 are equal to that
of  Rn-222, 100   pCi per  liter  of Rn-222 would  produce 1 WL of
exposure  to  the  short-lived   radon-daughter  products.    This
condition of  equilibrium rarely exists,  since air circulation or
ventilation will  reduce the concentration of  RaA, RaB, and RaC by
dilution and removal processes.    Accordingly, 1 pCi per liter of
radon is equal to or less than 0.01 WL.
In  drawing conclusions   for  this report, the standards currently
in use by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  (10 CFR 20) will
be'used.*1'  These are:

            Exposure Type           Radon  (pCi/1)*    WL
     Public  (168 hours/week)              3         0.033
     Occupational  (40 hours/week)        30         0.33
*If radon alone  is measured,  this limit  is  appropriate for
 Rn-222 combined with  its short-lived daughters.   Alternatively.
 the WL limit maybe  used.   Either limit  is  normally applicable

-------
                       3.   INSTRUMENTATION
3.1  RADON MEASUREMENTS

The  instrumentation  employed for  field measurements of Rn-222 at
the Nichols  plant was the continuous-readout radon detector sys-
tem developed by Wrenn and Spitz at New York University.'*)  These
specially  designed monitors  collect and observe the radioactive
decay products  of Rn-222  after the  gas has  diffused through a
porous  foam filter.     The system  works on the basis of passive
diffusion so that no  pumps are needed to collect the air samples.
The instrument response is proportional to Rn-222 and independent
of radon daughters.

In  a  typical  field  measurement, the  monitor is  placed  at  a
sampling location, either inside  or outside/ with the accompany-
ing  electronics and   paper-tape printer located nearby.   One of
the  two  sampling systems  used at  the Nichols  plant had   dual
detecting units which were used to make simultaneous measurements
indoors  and  outdoors.    With the  dual  measuring capability,
observed changes in radon concentration indoors could be compared
with ambient  radon concentration  outside and provide information
about indoor vs. outdoor fluctuations of radon.

Prior  to the  survey, each  radon monitor  was calibrated at the
laboratory.   Instrument  background was measured by exposing the
detectors  to radon-free air for 24 to 48 hours.   Once the  back-
ground had  been determined,  the  detectors  were calibrated in a
glove  box containing  a known concentration of Rn-222, which was
obtained by  passing  air  through  a  solution of radium chloride.
The   response  of the  units  to  the  constant  elevated-radon
atmosphere was  observed and  compared to the radon concentration
measured with several Lucas flasks13'.  The flasks, in turn, were
calibrated  using a  standard Ra-226  solution obtained  from the
National Bureau of Standards.

The radon  monitors operate  on a   continuous basis, accumulating
counts   in  proportion   to  the    radon  concentration  of  the
atmosphere.   Under  typical operating  conditions in an elevated
radon  atmosphere, counts  observed  will  be  printed  every 40
minutes.    This interval was chosen as optimum for observing the
temporal  variations    of  radon,   while  being  long  enough  to
accumulate sufficient counts to be statistically significant.  If
the  radon concentration  is less   than a few pCi per liter, then
80-minute integration periods can  be used to improve the counting
statistics.    Table   3  shows  the calibration,  background, and
detection limits for  each unit.

3.2  RADON-DAUGHTER MEASUREMENTS

Field measurements for the  radioactive daughter products of Rn-
222  were made  by using  47-mm membrane  filters (submicron pore
size)   and a portable pump capable of drawing air at a rate  of 20
liters per  minute.   In  the 5-minute  collection period used, a
total  of 100 liters of air was sampled.   The short-lived, alpha-
emitting radon daughter products,  being particulate, are collect-
ed  on the  filter and can be detected using a ZnS phosphor  and a
                               6

-------
           Operational  Parameters  of Continuous  Readout



                     Radon-222 Monitor Systems
Unit
f~ • —•
B
C
D
Detection Limits
Efficiency' Background SOmin., 37.5%
(cpm/pCi/1)* (cpm) (pCi/1)
0.78
0.77
0.68
0.142 ±0.010
0.051 tO. 006
0.087 ±0.005
0.148
0.089
0.132
Detection Limits
1440 rain., 97.5*
(pCi/1)
0.035
0.021
0.032
*cpm =  counts  per  minute

-------
photomultiplier  tube.   A special  unit,  which can detect the alpha
pulses produced   in  a  ZnS phosphor and  accumulate the counts, was
used to count  the air  filter  samples.u'

Radon  daughter  products  were measured  by analyzing  the filter
samples  according  to  the  method of   Thomas.*')    This  method
requires a  5-minute air  sample  and subsequent  alpha counting of
the  filter   for  specified periods,  beginning  at  2, 6,  and 21
minutes  after the end of sampling.   The gross  counts in each of
the three  intervals are  converted to   alpha disintegrations  by
subtracting   equivalent  background  values, as   measured with  a
blank  filter, and  dividing  by  the efficiency   of the detection
system.   The  detection limit for this system is on the order of
0.1 pCi per  liter for  each nuclide.

The  individual  concentrations of RaA,  RaB, RaC, and RaC1 in an
air sample are determined by  counting the alpha  decay o'f the par-
ticulate deposited  on the filter.   The alpha-emitting daughter
products  which  are  counted  in  this procedure  are RaA and RaC1.
The Thomas  method of  analysis is a simple and reliable procedure
for  estimating   the  concentrations  of  the three  nuclides by
measuring  the total  number  of disintigrations  over several time
intervals after  sampling ceases.

Several  long-term  instrument background  counts were  performed
with an unexposed sampling filter in contact with a ZnS phosphor.
No counts  were  observed  over a   24-hour period, indicating that
the  instrument  background  is essentially  zero.   The detection
efficiency  was   determined by first evaporating  a standardized
RaD, E,  F,  solution  onto a  filter, placing it  in contact with a
phosphor,  and then  counting.   The radioactive solution, number
Pb-21D-004-XVIII,* was  calibrated on July 17, 1975, and was 5.36
x  10  pCi/gm  of the RaD, E,  and  F decay corrected to March 1976.
The efficiency of the  counter was found to be 50%.
*An aliquot  at  a  standard traceable to NBS.


                               8

-------
                   4.  RESULTS  OF  THE  SURVEY
4.1  RADON-DAUGHTER MEASUREMENTS

The sampling  plan is   shown  in Table  1.   For radon daughters, 38
samples  were started and  34  completed  successfully.   Of the 34,
two were taken at distant  control locations  in Florida (indoors).
Three of  the remainders   were replicates,   so that a total of 29
different  workplace locations  were sampled for radon daughters.
The results of these samples  are reported  in Table 4, which lists
the location  of each   sample, the date of sampling, the measured
RaA,  RaB,  RaC,  and WL,  as well  as  an  estimate of  degree of
working-level equilibrium  relative to RaA.

The  results from  Table 4 are plotted  in  Figure 1.  All values
except two  are below 0.01 WL, and all  are below the occupational
limit value of 0.33 WL.

The  two  highest  values  are from adjacent  rooms, the  calcine
control room and adjacent  panel rooms.   Here daughter concentra-
tions  were  about  one-third the  WL  limits  for  occupational
workers.   These two small adjacent rooms  are unventilated (i.e.,
have  no  makeup  air) ,  although  there is  a recirculating  air
conditioner  which cools   air from the  panel room and releases it
in the control room.    Outside air was  lower in WL by a factor of
45, so  that adding  sufficient makeup  air  from  the outside  to
increase  room air turnover should effect a  substantial reduction
in radon and daughters.  This change should be made.   Aside from
this location, all samples were below 0.01 WL.

It is  interesting to   note that the third highest WL measurement
(0.009)   came from  a  control  location, a motel room far enough
from the plant to be well  beyond its influence.

The median  value for all  the samples taken was 0.001 WL.  If the
control stations are excluded, the median remains the same.

The approximate  degree of equilibrium  with radon expressed in WL
equivalents can also be assessed from the  information in Table 4.
This is defined by    100 WL    for each sample and is the
                   RaA tpCi/1)
fraction  of working  levels  which the  sample represents relative
to that  which would exist if the RaB and  RaC were in equilibrium
with  RaA.  For Table 4 for  the 14 samples with WL >0.001 (which
have  sufficiently   good  statistics   to  make  the  calculation
properly)   the degree  of WL-equilibrium  ranges between 0.13 and
0.65 with a mean of 0.43 and  a median of 0.45.

4.2  RADON MEASUREMENTS

Radon was  measured with   three instruments,  which were set at a
total  of 15  locations for   varying lengths of time ranging from
several hours  to 3  days.    Measurements  at each  location were
recorded  at 40-minute  intervals.   Because of the volume of data
produced, it is presented  here in two forms:    (1) graphically as
a function  of time  at selected  locations, and  (2) as  minimum,
mean,  and maximum  observed  radon concentrations at all stations
                               9

-------
          Table





Radon-daughter measurements
Sample
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
(I
8
) 9
C'O
11
12
-»'3
14
15
16
17

Location
Laboratory Building library
Lost
Lakeland Motel
Calcine control room
Outside calcine control room
Panel room, adjacent calcine
Furnace, foreman's office
Furnace, outside office
Furnace, outside office
Furnace, tap operation1
Lost
Lost
Furnace, floor
Furnace, panel room
Engineering Building, office
Engineering Building, outside
Old railroad weigh station

Date
3/ 9

3/ 9
3/10
3/10
3/10
3/10
3/10
3/10
3/10


3/10
3/10
3/10
3/10
3/11
RaA
(pCI/1)
0.13

0.18
17.0
0.61
21.0
0.38
0.33
0.24
0.235


0.17
0.21
0.24
0.29
0.051
RaB
(PCI/1)
0.01

0.062
10.0
0.26
13.0
0.11
0.10
0.147
0.228


0.096
0.14
0.13
0.094
0.088
RaC
(pCi/D
0.0068

0.109
6.7
0.15
11.0
0.12
0.087
0.035
0.216


0.11
0.024
0.11
0.046
0.075

WL
0.0002

0.009
0.09
0.002
0.13 ^
0.0014
0.0012
0.0011
0.0022


0.0011
0.0010
0.0013
0.00094
0.0008
fOOxWL/
RaA
0.15

0.5
0.55
0.33
0.62
0.37
0.36
0.45
NA


0.65
0.48
0.54
0.31
1.57

-------
Sa.-plc
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
* 3/1
* 35
36
37
38

Location
Dry mill control room
Dry mil 1 floor
Tunnel #1 (concentrate)
Tunnel #2 (pebble)
Dry mill, foreman's office
Nichoi's Mine office
Nichol's Mine office
Nichol's Mine office, outside
Nichol's Mine office, outside
Flotation Plant,, control room
Nichol's Mine office
Dragline, operator cab
Nichol's Mine, outside dragline
Nichol's Mine, pit house
Orlando area hotel room
Lost
Dry storage, bull room
Dry storage, carload point
Grinding plant, control room
Grinding plant, main floor
Furnace, tap operation (slag)

Date
3/11
3/M
3/11
3/11
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/14

3/15
3/15
3/15
3/15
3/15
RaA
(pCi/l)
0.155
0.187
0.616
0.057
0.076
0.943
1.49
0.225
0.265
0.062
0.388
neg
0.098
--
0.036

0.41
0.005
0.389
0.078
0.072
RaB
(pCi/1)
0.025
0.084
0.190
0.052
0.110
0.531
0.08
0.063
0.026
0.025
0.107
neg
0.012
0.016
0.038

0.37
0.103
0.083
0.028
0.019
RaC
(pCi/l)
0.033
0.035
0.047
0.047
0.190
0.034
0.010
0.008
0.001
0.047
—
0.043
0.041
0.055
0.009

0.03
0.106
0.034
0.044
0.026

WL
0.0004
0.0008
0.0028
0.0005
0.0014
0.0038
0.0019
0.0006
0.0004
0.0004
0.0008
<0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0003

0.002
0.00092
0.001
0.0004
0.0003
i:' ...
" •>••
0.26
0.43
0.45
0.88
1.84
0.40
0.13
0.27
0.15
0.64
0.21

0.31
1.25
0.83

0.49
1.84
0.25
0.51
0.42
Extreme loading on filter

-------


o>
o.
o
CO
M—
o
CD
_Q
E
^






14
12

10


8

6

4



2
n















, , ,,MI,
'















i i 1 1 1 1 n



0
c.
^

-------
sampled with the radon  instruments.    For  indoor  areas,  long-terra
radon measurements  were generally   taken  with  concurrent outdoor
measurements.    Thus,  not only  would  a  short-term  measurement be
available, but also some information about diurnal  fluctuations.

Figure 2  shows indoor  and  outdoor  radon concentrations  at the
Medical/Personnel Building for the weekend of March 12-15.   Both
indoor  and outdoor  values  averaged  less than  1  pCi per liter,
with 'the indoor values  being slightly  higher.

Figure 3  shows indoor  measurements in  the Main  Office  Building.
The  sampling location  in the   inner  area  was chosen because it
appeared from superficial inspection to  have little air  turnover.
The  results- here  showed   the   highest  indoor  radon   observed,
averaging 1.9  pCi per  liter over the weekend, with a maximum of
2.7  and a  minimum of  0.9 pCi per liter.    The lower values were
observed during  normal working   hours on  Friday  afternoon.   The
very low degree of fluctuation  (a factor of 3 minimum to maximum)
is characteristic of places  with poor  ventilation.   The absolute
values  of radon  found are   less than  this reference regulatory
limit of  3 pCi  per liter.   Values of  several pCi per  liter are
found  in poorly ventilated  areas where  soil radium is normal, so
that the  degree to which this represents  poor  ventilation rather
than an increased radon source cannot  be assessed with these data
alone.

If  there are  simple engineering changes that  can increase air
turnover  rates  in  this  building, they   should be considered.
However, the  levels observed are below  the limits, and  occupancy
of  the building, which is a workplace,  is only about one-quarter
time for any individual.

Figure 4  shows three measurements made  overnight on March 10-11.
The  left-hand  part  plots   indoor  and  outdoor  radon at  the
Engineering  Building.    A   steep climb  until 6  to 7  a.m. was
observed,  both  indoors  and out.   The  indoor increase closely
followed  the outdoor   increase.  That  this was  not a strictly
local phenomenon associated  with the Engineering  Building and its
immediate environs  can be   seen from  the  results of another unit
several  hundred yards  to the east,  near the phosphate-rock stor-
age  area.    There,  the  same  temporal  variation of   radon was
observed with  the peak concentration  exceeding somewhat the peak
outdoor value at the Engineering Building.   During  the night, the
windspeed was low (less than 3 mph from  1  to 5  a.m.) and from the
north.    Nighttime inversion  conditions,  with low windspeed and
little vertical  mixing,  combined   with a  wind  direction from a
continental area all apparently  combined to produce a generalized
outdoor increase to 2 to 3 pCi per liter which  is about  ten times
higher than normal daytime values.

Outdoor  measurements  during  the   period  March 12-15  produced
similar  systematic increases from late  night to  early morning on
March 13 and 15.  The rise the morning of -the 13th  was associated
with south  to southeast winds and similarly low  windspeeds.   No
rise  was  seen  the  early  morning  of  the   14th, even though
windspeeds  were low; however, from  2  to 7  a.m. the wind steadily
shifted from  north to  east to   south,  i.e., the air was largely
from  offshore directions  and could be  expected  to be reasonably
                               13

-------
•?9
Radon Concentration (pCi/i)
p r~ r° c
O OO cTJ l£k p
i/i-ir,*-^ •*" r
o = indoor
Mean = 0.65 pCi/l
Max. = l.80pCi/l
_ Min. =O.I9pCi/l
o
0
~" °0 A 0
oOo ° o o^
0 A A 0
O AA AO O° ° 0 °
A A* A °°*A *AAAA°
7 O O O O O
f cj io "d" oj CD
csj — eg
A = Outdoor
Mean? 0.26 pCi/l
Max. = l.20pCi/l
Min. 
-------
~^.
Q.
"5
"c
O
c
o
O
c:
0
-a
a
DC.
4.0
3.2

2.4

1.6
no<
t
Mean = l.89pCi/l
Max. =2.69 pCi/1
_ Min. = 0.92pCi/l
o
o °° ° ° o o oo o°°
0° 0 ° ° °0 °
~ ® O o ®Oo O
— oo o o o
00 °
o o ° °o
- j oc nri/i
A 	 I.I i • • . 1 •
u
CO OO CO
in 10 10
i£ in fo

iii i i t i
00
iq
19i!
I ! 1
oo
IO
en
) nPi/l
. jjui/ 1 '
. i i I i . i i
CO
in
fo
r i 1 90
*• » I.^/W
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
co co
to 10
~ cri
i i 1 i i i
co
in
fo
>
i i
CO
in
                        Time at End of Observation
Figure 3.   Radon-222 measurements at Main Office Building over weekend of March 12-15, 1976.
           Measurements were made for 80-minute periods

-------


H.U


= 3.2
o
"*"~*
J 2.4
"o
c:
o
o
§ 1.6
c
o
0
°= 0.8

^
Engineering Building
10-11 March 1976
o = Indoor
- Mean-l.42pCi/l
Max. = 3.l6pCi/l
- Min. =0.40pCi/l o
— o
o

A
- 0 A A

_ A o
_ o A
° A A = Outdoor
o o ^ A Mean = 1.08 pCi/l
o Max. =2.l9pCi/l ,
) 	 A A
A Min. =0.27pCi/l
A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
Old Yard Station
_ .10-11 March 1976
o = Outdoor
- Mean = l.32pCi/l
Max. =3.06pCi/l
- Min. < 0.089 pCi/l


_ •
O
— 9

O

~ 9

, 0 9
O
1 1 1 . I 1 , 1 1 1
o o o o 
-------
free of  radon.   The  early morning  of the  15th, when the radon
rose  steeply to 1.2 pCi per liter, was attended by extremely low
wind (labeled  0) with a southwest direction  ascribed to it.  The
fact  that early morning increases in radon above 1 pCi per liter
associated  with  nocturnal inversions  was measured  three times
with  winds  in different  directions leads   one to  believe that
source  pf   elevated  outdoor    radon  is  generalized  and  not
associated solely or even primarily with the  Nichols operation.

Table  5 lists  the maximum,  mean, and  minimum values  of radon
observed at each radon sampling location.   The frequency distri-
bution of  the mean  radon concentrations  is shown  in Figure 5.
All  are below the occupational limits, and all but one are below
the nonoccupational  limits.   The exception  is radon measured at
the  calcine control  room, and   the radon results are consistent
with the  radon-daughter values   taken at the same location.   In
short,  this location  is high  for both radon and daughters, but
less than the occupational limits.

-------
                               Results of Radon-222 Measurements
             Location                   Date
Foreman's office, furnace
  (D) indoor
  (B) outdoor
Engineering building
  (D) indoor
  (B) outdoor
Outside old railroad weigh station
  (C)
Dry mill, control room
  (C)
Nichol's Mine office
  (D) Indoor
  (B) outdoor
Dry mill, foreman's office
  (C)
Laboratory building
  (D) Core room                        3/9-10
  (B) outdoor                          3/9-10
  (C) Library                          3/9-10
Calcine control room                   3/10
              Mean
             pCi/1)
Rn-222 Concentration (pCI/1)
    Maximum      Minimum
3/10
3/10
3/10-11
3/10-11
3/10-11
3/11
3/H-12
3/11-12
0.29 ±0.05
0.26 ±0.05
1.48 ±0.05
1.08 ±0.04
1.32 ±0.05
<0.075
0.88 ±0.03
0.36 ±0.03
NA
NA
3.16 ±0.25
2.19 ±0.19
3.06 ±0.22
NA
1.42 ±OJ16
0.75 ±0.13
NA
NA
0.40 ±0.10
0.27 ±0.09
<0.089
NA
0.46 ±1.10
<0.148
3/11-12    0.58 ±0.03
           0.37 ±0.09
           0.19 ±0.02
           0.16 ±0.02 •
          13.38 ±0.21
  1.12 ±0.14    0.19  ±0.06

  0.74 ±0.13    0.17  ±0.07
    <0.l48        <0.l48
  0.30 ±0.08      <0.089
 18.25 ±0.77   10.52  ±0.58

-------
                                        Table 5  (Cont.)
             Location
Main office building
  (C)
Medical/personnel building
  (0) inside
      inside
      inside

  (B) outside
      outside
      outside
Date
3/12-13
3/13-14
3/14-15
Summary
3/12-13
3/13-14
3/14-15
Summa ry
3/12-13
3/13^14
3/14-15
Summary
Mean
(pCI/1)
1.86 ±0.04
1.92 ±0.011
1.90 ±0.04
1.89 ±0.03
0.78 ±0.03
0.53 ±0.03
0.64 ±0.03
0.65 ±0.03
0.33 ±0.03
0.13 ±0.01
0.33 ±0.03
0.26 ±0.03
Rn-222 Concentration (pCi/1)
Maximum
2.58 ±0.21
2.26 ±0.19
2.69 ±0.21

1.80 ±0.19
1.13 ±0.15
1.35 ±0.16

1.05 ±0.14
0.35 ±0.09
1.20 ±0.15

Minimum
1.31 ±0.16
1.35 ±0.15
1.33 ±0.15

0.15 ±0.07
0.21 ±0.08
0.31 ±0.09

<0. 148
<0.148
<0.148


-------



tn
c.
o

CO
M—
o
CD
_Q
E
-^




\
8




6



4


2
0
—















•5
~5
c.
o

"o
Q.
O
O
1

0
o
01
^
V fl
i i i i i i i I II

1.0 2 5 10
pCi/liter



i 1


o
o
o
Ct,

o
o
o
o
DC
z
1
1 1 1 1 1

20 50















1,1

100

Figure 5.  Frequency distribution mean radon measurements.

-------
                          5.  RECOMMENDATIONS
1.  The calcine control room and panel room require outside makeup
    air to reduce their radon content, even though the exposure is
    below occupational dose limits.  After these engineering changes
    have been made, the air should be checked for effectiveness of
    the remedial action in reducing radon.

2.  The highest radon encountered was in a low ventilation, closed area.
    Care should be taken that any future construction should include
    generous makeup air and fast air turnover.

3.  Since the potential for exposure was demonstrated in one job, it
    would be prudent to have an outside radiation survey inspection
    of the plant made every 2 or 3 years.  The scope of such a survey
    could be limited to changes since this survey,and, in the absence
    of major changes or construction, would be considerably less
    detailed.

4.  If attention is paid to recommendations 1 and 2, there is no reason,
    based on the results of this survey, why workers at this plant need
    be considered radiation workers.
                                  21

-------
                           REFERENCES


1.  Code of Federal Regulations  (10 CFR  20),  Part  20,  Standards
   for Protection Against Radiation, as amended November  14,  1975,
   effective January 29, 1976.

2.  Wrenn, M. E., H. B. Spitz and N. Cohen:   Design of a Continuous
   •Digital-Output Environmental Radon Monitor"!  IEEE  Transactions
   on Nuclear Science, NS-22, 1, pp. 645,  February 1975.

3.  Raabe, 0. G., and M. E. Wrenn:  Analysis  of  the Activity
   of Radon Daughter Sample by Weighted Least Squares.Health
   Physics 17_:593  (1969) .

4.  Thomas, Jess:  Measurement of Radon  Daughters  in Air.   Health
   Physics 22:783  (1972) .
                               22

-------
     APPENDIX A




METEOROLOGICAL DATA

-------
A:  HETLOUOLOGICAL DATA
                               DATE
'Is.
   SE
             sw
                      NW
StiU
                                     SPEED

                                    JO
             J/

-------
           A:   METEOROLOGICAL DATA
                                              DATE
    KE
               SE
                           sw
                                     NW
                                         Still
                                                     SPEED
v/
                           I/
                                X
                                IS
                                is
                                     I/
                                                  /o

-------
-)IX A:  METEOROLOGICAL DATA
                                       DATE
        SE
                    sw
                             NW
                                  Still
                                              SPEED
                                            r
                                           /o
                                          7
                                          i*-
                                          It-
                                          /O
                                          /o
                                         /O

-------
/.; ;  ; ;,:-.;  ;.:  ;;!;Ti:OROLOr;iCAL DATA
                                                 DATE



                           sw
                                      NW
                                             till
                                                         SPEED
                                                      /o
                                                     Le

-------
  11
~~7T
_«_
  10
                lX A:   METEOROLOGICAL DATA
                                                     DATE
                      SE
                                 su

                                       I/
                                           NW
                                                Still
                                            I/
                                                           SPEED
                                                           h
                                                          /O
                                                           /V
                                                          12-
                                                          /O
                                                         r
                                                         3

-------
,M'i-:::iuix A:   METEOROLOGICAL DATA
DATE

!,
(,
1"
1!
!.-
1
2
3
/.
5
6
7
8
')
,0
II
&
1
J
3
/.
5
6
7

,.












V






V





,.-













X
i/
^
I/'
!/
/






E

























SE


•"




















S

S
r
/
V






















sw



/'

>s
S













S
^
,/


w



V
S


I/

S
^














KW








S


I/













Still

























SPEED
V/f/sfct
V
b
t
7
9
/o
/^
^>
/o
//
//
6
/0
*
r
s'
b
2^
0
P
D
O
0


-------
A:  METEOROLOGICAL DATA
DATE


8
9
10
11
12
N .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

N

























HE

























,.

























SE
s


















I/
A"
|x-



S

X
//
K-
,X
^

tX
-^
^



,/


\^S
^
^



I/"
^

sw






I/



^/
*x-
/x

r
//









w


























NW

























Still

























SPEED
y frf/i1-
•7

r
/^
/o
/z-
/3
/o
/.£•
fi-
7
4
H
. ¥
//
1,
tj
&
^

-------
              APPENDIX  E
     OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE
     IN THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY

                FINAL REPORT

                 Submitted to

            Florida Phosphate Council

               Covering the Period
        March 1,1976 - February 28,1978
 n *      r** I 'T-1     O
*•  '"T •"  ' '    -^--» *^
* — -• .,  ^- .-» *.*'**^^ ** — -.

-------
    OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE IN THE  FLORIDA

                 PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
                   -Final Report-
                    Submitted to
 .FLORIDA   PHOSPHATE   COUNCIL
                  December 15,  1978
Charles E. Roessler, Ph.D., Certified Health Physicist
                Robert J. Prince, M.S.
                  College of Engineering
                  University of Florida
                Gainesville, Florida   32611

-------
               OCCUPATIONAL  RADIATION EXPOSURE IN THE FLORIDA
                             PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
                                  ABSTRACT
     This survey was performed  during the period March 1976 through Hay 1977.
Three distinct exposure  routes  were considered:  1)  Gamma radiation (external
radiation exposure), 2)  Airborne  short-lived radon  progeny (inhalation
exposure) and 3) Airborne  long-lived alpha radioactivity (inhalation  exposure).
In addition, the uranium and  radiuo-226 contents of various materials were
measured as indications  of potential sources of radiation and airborne radio-
activity. Radiation and  airborne  radioactivity levels  were compared to Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for restricted areas.

      From the study,  it was  concluded that in the  Florida phosphate  industry,
1) there is no serious occupational radiation exposure problem,  and 2) there
is no indication for an  industry-wide occupational  radiation surveillance-and
control program, but 3)  there are some selected situations that  require
site-specific evaluations  and possible corrective action and/or  periodic
confirmatory surveillance.

      Gamma radiation  levels  reflected the presence of natural radioactivity
but estimated annual external radiation doses to personnel were  less  than the
occupational Maximum Permissible  Dose Equivalent of 5  rem/yr in  all occupied
areas studied.  The highest gamma radiation levels  were found near phosphoric
acid filters and tanks.  While  all findings met occupational dose limits, it
was recommended that special  circumstances of close, prolonged contact to radiuo-
bearing residues be given  case-by-case evaluation.

      Cumulative average airborne radon progency exposures were  at least an
order of magnitude below the  occupational limit of  4 Working Level Months
(WLM)/yr in all areas  except  rock loading tunnels.   The annual values were
less than 4 WLM/yr in  most of the tunnels studied.   However, transient levels
prompted the recommendation that  further surveys be made of all  tunnels and,
where the findings indicate,  improved ventilation and/or continued, sur-
veillance be provided.

      Airborne long-lived  alpha radioactivity concentrations were well below the
occupational concentration limits in many areas of  the industry.  However, in
dusty dry rock and fertilizer handling areas, concentrations are quite var-
iable and some individual  values  exceeded standards.  Therefore, it was recom-
mended that such locations be studied definitively  and, if indicated, steps be
taken to reduce occupancy, reduce dustiness or provide respiratory protection.
                                       ii

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                      Page

   I.     INTRODUCTION	   1

         Natural Radioactivity of the Uranium Series	   1
            Gamma Radiation	   1
            Radon and Progeny	   3
            Long-Lived Alpha Emitters	   3
         Investigative Approach	   3

 II.      METHODS AND INSTRUMENTATION	   4

         Uranium and Radium in Materials	   4
         External Gamma Radiation	   4
         Airborne Radon Progeny	   5
         Long-Lived Alpha Radioactivity	   5

III.      RADIATION STANDARDS	   6

         Limits for Restricted Areas	   6
         Screening Values for Airborne Alpha Radioactivity	   9
         Non-Restricted Areas	  11
         Background Values	  12
         Time-Weighted Averages and Integrated Values	  12
         Action Levels	  12

 IV.      RESULTS	  14

         Uranium and Radium Concentrations  in Phosphatic  Materials..  15
         External Gamma Radiation..'	  15
         Radon Progeny Concentrations	  19
         Airborne Long-Lived Alpha Radioactivity	  24.

  V.      SUMMARY	  27

         External Gamma Radiation	  27
         Airborne Radon Progeny	  30
         Airborne Long-Lived Alpha Radioactivity	  32

REFERENCES	  34

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	  35

APPENDIX	.•:	  36

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES

                                                                       Page

  1.   Radiation Protection Guides for Restricted Areas	   7

  2.   Action Levels for a Radiation Protection Program	  13

  3.   Summary of Locations Studied	  14

  4.   Summary of Average Radium-226 and Uranium-238 Content
      of Florida Phosphate Materials	  16

  5.   Results of Gamma Radiation Measurements	  17

  6.   Annual Whole-Body Dose Equivalent Summary	  18

  7.   Gamma Readings at Locations Not Typical of
      Whole-Body Exposure	.•	  20

  8.   Results of Airborne Radon Progeny Measurements	  21

  9.   Annual Cumulative Airborne Radon Progeny Summary	  22

 10.   Effect of Operating Status on Radon Progeny Concentrations  in
      Wet Rock Loading Tunnels	  23

•11.   Effect of Mechanical Ventilation on Radon Progeny. Concentrations
      In a Selected Wet Rock Loading Tunnel	  23

 12.   Results of Airborne Long-Lived Alpha Radioactivity
      Measurements	  25

.13.   Summary of Results	  28

 A-l.  Tabulation of Relative Concentrations of Long-Lived
      Radionuclides in Air Samples	   37

 A-2.  Summary of Equilibrium Status of Long-Lived Radionuclides
      in Air Samples	   38

                                LIST OF FIGURES

  1.   Uranium-238 Decay Series	   2

  2.   Whole-Body Gamma Radiation in the Florida Phosphate Industry	  29

  3.   Airborne Radon Progeny.in the Florida Phosphate Industry	  31

  4.   Airborne Long-Lived Alpha Radioactivity	  33
                                       iv

-------
                          I.   INTRODUCTION

     A  comprehensive  survey  of occupational radiation exposure in the Florida
phosphate  industry was initiated in early summer, 1976 by an investigative
team from  the  College  of Engineering,  University of Florida and continued
for approximately one  year under a contract from the Florida Phosphate Council.

            Natural Radioactivity of  the Uranium Series

     The  presence of  uranium and its  radioactive decay chain in association
with Florida phosphate deposits has long been known.  It should be pointed out
that uranium is ubiquitous on the earth and is concentrated in a variety of
minerals,  ores and deposits.   Some selected average concentrations include:

          The earth's crust                                    1-4 ppm
          Florida phosphate  matrix                            50-150 ppm
          Western U.S. uranium ores                           1000-5000 ppm
          High grade  Canadian and African uranium ores        10,000-40,000 ppm

Thus, the  uranium content  of  Florida phosphate matrix is elevated above typical
topsoils but considerably  less than medium and high grade uranium ores."
Elevations in  natural  radioactivity are not confined to the commercially-mined
phosphate  deposits. For example, sands with similar uranium concentrations may
be found on the dunes  and  beaches of Sarasota County - apparently deposited as
the result of  wave action  on  off-shore mineral outcroppings.

     Where uranium has remained undisturbed in nature, there are associated
several  naturally occurring radioactive decay series including the uranium
series illustrated in  Figure  1.  In the undisturbed state, the members of the
series at  least through radium-226 would be expected to be in radioactive
equilibrium -  that is, all members present in equal quantities of radio-
activity.  The remaining members of the series would be expected in quantities
approaching equilibrium but reduced to whatever extent there is a net loss of
the gaseous member, radon-222.  In chemical operations, the various members of
the series may follow  separate pathways determined by their chemical properties.

     There are several distinct features and constituents of the uranium
series that are of particular significance to this project.  Both alpha and
beta emitters  are represented and some members also emit gamma radiation.
Gamma emitters are significant as potential sources of external radiation
exposure.  While alpha  radiation cannot penetrate the skin, alpha emitters are
of particular  concern  if they become deposited inside the body where the
radiation  is more effective than beta  or gamma radiation in producing bio-
logical  effects.

Gamma radiation

     While a number of the uranium series members are gamma emitters, gamma
radiation  is most pronounced  when radium-226 is present with its daughter
products radon-222 through bismuth-214.  This gamma radiation facilitates de-
tection  of uranium ore and of radium,  and accumulations of radium ,and daughter
products may constitute a  source of external radiation exposure to man.

-------
ELEMENT ATOMIC.
          NUMBER                                                                ,MU


Uranium       92                   „,„                                        -"   V

                                                                                    934.
          a/*yp                                       2*8

         /                                        /
         /                                       /
Protactinium    91                                                            /     "4P«
                                   /                                       /     1.18m
Thorium       90                                                         MOTh          \ ]3J

Actinium       89                                                      >8J>x104y            ^i

Radium        88                                                . " "*
                                                                lozzy

Francium       87                                          jjjRn/

Radon         86                                         3-825d


Astatine        85           ,38,   i^s^o4!       3.05m'

Polonium       84


Bismuth        83
                          Pb        P
Lead          82     STABLE     19.4y
                           .

 /  410^  /     JMg,       S

1   S.02d  /    19.7m     /
    FIGURE 1.   Uranium-238  Decay Series.

-------
Radon and progeny

     Radon-222 and the radon progeny through polonium-214 constitute a sig-
nificant segment of the series  for  another reason.   Radon is constantly being
produced whenever radium is present.   Being a noble gas and having a half-life
on the order of days, radon may be  released from the mineral in which it is
formed, diffuse through porous  media and liquids and become airborne.  Decay
of radon in the atmosphere results  in the formation of airborne radon progeny
which exist either as free ions or  attached to particles.  If inhaled, some of
the airborne radon progeny deposit  in the respiratory system where they ir-
radiate bronchial and lung tissue.

Long-lived -alpha emitters

     Other members of the series may become airborne through mechanical pro-
cesses and thus constitute another  route of inhalation exposure in dusty
locations.  Of particular interest  are the long-lived alpha emitters uranium-
238, uranium-234, thorium-230 and radium-226 and the intermediate-lived polohium-
210.  Although not examined in  this Study, the beta emitter lead-210 is also of
significance because once deposited in biological tissue, it is a source of
constant production of polonium-210.

     Radium-226 constitutes a potential problem from still another standpoint.
It has a sufficiently long half-life (1620 years) so that it may be found
occurring independently long after  physical and chemical processes have .sep-
arated it from other members of the decay series.  Being chemically similar to
the element calcium, following  the  same chemical and biochemical pathways, and
being an alpha emitter, radium  is one of the more biologically significant
members of the decay chain.

                       Investigative Approach

     In this study, radiation levels were measured and air samples were
collected in work areas of mines and chemical plants in order to investigate
three potential exposure routes:

            1) Gamma radiation (external radiation exposure),
            2) Airborne short-lived radon progeny (inhalation exposure), and
            3) Airborne long-lived alpha radioactivity (inhalation exposure).

     In addition, the radioactivity of various materials in mining and pro-
cessing was measured as an indication of the potential source of radiation and
airborne radioactivity in various regions, mines, plants and processes.

-------
                     II.  METHODS AND  INSTRUMENTATION

                     Uranium and Radium  in Materials

     Samples of materials such as matrix, phosphate rock,  scale, gypsum and
fertilizer were collected by either University of Florida  personnel or
industry representatives from mines, beneficiation plants  and chemical plants
and were shipped or transported to the University of Florida.  Samples were
analyzed for radium-226, uranium and other gamma-emitting  radionuclides by
high-resolution gamma spectroscopy according  to the procedures reported by
Bolch, et al. (Bo77).

                           External Gamma Radiation

     "Walk-through" surveys were conducted in all the various operations
studied and gamma radiation levels were  measured with portable survey instru-
ments and reported in pR/hr.  Measurements were usually taken one meter above
ground or floor; occasional measurements were made "at contact" and these are
identified when reported.  Gamma scintillation survey meters1  were used for the
majority of the measurements.

     It has been observed that these instruments do not have the same response
relative to exposure rate with extended  sources of natural radioactivity as
with "point" radium sources such as commonly  employed for  gamma instrument
calibration. This difference is attributed to the known energy-dependent re-
sponse of scintillation detectors and  a  difference in energy spectrum for the
two situations. Since the gamma radiation sources- in this  study are typically
extended sources, the meters were calibrated  for extended-.source response by
comparison to a calibrated pressurized ion chamber (PIC)2  for a series of
different radiation intensities in the field.  The response of the FIC is
independent of radiation energy over a wide range of energies and thus was
used as a secondary standard.

     The instrument model used has a meter range of 0-3000 uR/hr; tne actual
extended source calibration range of the meter is 0-1700 pR/hr.

     For those locations where the intensity  exceeded 200  pR/hr, additional
measurements were taken with calibrated  GM3   and ionization chamber4  survey
instruments.
1) Model 22S Micro-R Meter, Ludlum Instrument Company.
2) Model RSS-111 Reuter Stokes Corp.  The FIC was available  through the
   courtesy of the Radiological Laboratory, Florida Department  of
   Health and Rehabilitative Services, Orlando.
3) Model GSM-S Survey Meter with Model GP-90 probe, William  B.  Johnson
   and Associates.
4) Model 2526 Survey Meter, Nuclear Chicago Corporation; Model  440
   louization Chamber Survey Meter, Victoreen Instrument Co.

-------
                           Airborne Radon Progeny

     Airborne  radon progeny concentrations are customarily expressed in"units
of "Working Level", a  unit devised to provide a meaningful expression of
airborne  radon progeny concentrations independent of the relative proportions
of the various individual  short-lived radon daughters.  One Working Level
(WL)  is defined  as any combination of radon progeny in one liter of air whose
ultimate  decay through polonium-214 will deliver 1.3 x 10s MeV of alpha energy.
This  is the same alpha energy as delivered by short-lived radon progeny in equi-
librium with 100 pCi of radon-222.  The unit for time-integrated concentration is
known as  the Working Level Month (WLM).  The presence of air containing a
radon daughter concentration of one WL for 170 hours (one working month)
results in a cumulative concentration of one WLM.
                                        •r
     Airborne  radon progeny levels were measured by "grab" sampling according
to the single  gross alpha  count method of Kolle (Rol 69,73), a modification of
the widely-used  Kusnetz Method (KuS6).

     Radon progeny levels  were measured by collecting airborne particulates on
filter paper -for a 20-minute (or shorter) interval.  In the majority of cases,
high-volume air  samplers5   were used in conjunction with Whatman Ho. 41 filter..
papej:. When power was not available, battery-powered low-volume air samplers6
were used with membrane filters (0.8|J DO re size).

     After a suitable  decay time, filters were counted with a portable alpha
scintillation  counting system7  to measure the accumulated alpha activity.
Observed  counts, corrected for counter background, were converted to radon
progency  concentrations in WL after applying factors for collection effi-
ciency, self-absorption of alpha radiation and volume of air collected.

                  Airborne Long-Lived Alpha Radioactivity

     Long-lived  alpha  radioactivity was determined by measuring the radio-
activity  associated with airborne particulates after the short-lived radon
progeny through  polonium-214 had decayed away.  Samples were collected on
Whatman No. 41 filter  paper with high volume samplers for periods on the order
of 5 to 20 minutes, depending upon the rate of dust loading of the filter.

     The  dust-containing filter papers were taken to the laboratory and ashed
at 550°C  to remove the paper and any combustible materials.  The ash was then
mixed with distilled water, distributed on preweighed 2" stainless steel
plancbets and  allowed  to dry under heat lamps.  After cooling, samples were
weighed and alpha activities determined by counting on a 2" diameter window-
less gas-flow  proportional counting system8 .  Observed counts, corrected for
counter background, were converted to gross alpha concentration in air (pCi/m )
after applying factors for self-absorption of alpha radiation in the ash mass
and  for volume of air  collected.
 5)  Model TF1A High Volume Air Sampler, Staplex Corporation.
 6)  Model BN Low Volume Air Sampler, Staplex Corporation.
 7)  Model 43-1 Alpha Scintillation Probe and Model 2000 Portable Sealer,
    Ludlum Instrument Co.
 8)  Model 480 gas flow detector, Nuclear Chicago Corp., with PR gas
    (10% methane, 90% argon),  connected to an appropriate laboratory sealer.

-------
                          III.   RADIATION STANDARDS

     For~the purpose  of  this  study,  radiation and radioactivity measurements
will be compared  to recommended guidelines for:

     1)  occupational exposure of radiation workers in "restricted"
         (or "controlled")  areas,  and

     2)  exposure to  non-radiation workers and members of the general
         public in "unrestricted"  (or "non-controlled") areas.

     A restricted area is ''any area  access to which is controlled by the
employer for purposes of protection  of individuals from exposure to radiation
or radioactive materials" (OSHA72).   Personnel in restricted  areas should be
considered as radiation  workers receiving occupational exposure and these
individuals should not be under 18 years of age.   Access, occupancy and
working conditions should be controlled for radiation protection purposes.
Radiation and radioactivity surveys  and monitoring should be  performed period-
ically.  Individuals  likely to receive an external radiation  exposure in excess
of 25% of the maximum permissible  limit (5% for individuals under .18) are to be
provided with personnel  monitoring devices;  areas in which average airborne
radioactivity concentrations exceed  permissible limits require  posting as
"Airborne Radioactivity  Areas" and areas in which occupancy time-weighted weekly
average airborne  concentrations exceed 25% of permissible limits require a similar
posting.  Personnel regularly  occupying a restricted area should be informed
of the presence of the radiation sources and should be instructed in procedures
to minimize radiation exposure.

     If, on the other hand, radiation doses  are maintained within the limits for
members of the general public,  the area may  be considered a non restricted
area and no special radiation  protection measures need be applied other than
the generally accepted philosophy  of maintaining  radiation exposures "as low
as practicable" (ALAP) or "as  low  as reasonably achievable" (ALARA).

                          limits for Restricted Areas

     Occupational  Safety and Health  Administration (OSHA) regulations (OSHA72)
specify limits for radiation in restricted area;  pertinent values are presented in
Table I9'.

9)  Under an April 22, 1974 agreement between the Occupational  Safety and
    Health Administration (OSHA) of  the Department of  Labor and the Mining
    Enforcement and Safety Adminstration (MESA) of the Department of Interior,
    MESA authority is  recognized for enforcement  of employee  health and safety
    in mining and  associated milling.   Under the  Federal  Mine Safety
    and Health Amendments Act  of 1977,  MESA  was transferred to  the Department
    of Labor and  renamed the Mining  Safety and Health  Administration
    (MSHA) effective March 7,  1978.   Currently MSHA has radiation
    standards applying only to  underground mining.

         For the purposes of this  report,  OSHA regulations are  taken to
     be a reasonable codification  of good  radiation protection  practice,
     and all findings  in mining operations and in chemical plants are
     compared to OSHA  standards.

-------
     Table 1.   Radiation Protection Guides for Restricted Areas.
                                     As  Stated in Regulations
                                                             3
A.   Dose Equivalent

     1.  Whole-body; head and
         trunk, blood forming
         organs, lens of eyes;
         gonads

     2.  Hands and forearms
                                Per Calendar
                                  Quarter
                                                    Annual
                                                 Accumulative
  5-000 *.

 1.25  rem1

18.75  rem
     3.  Other individual
         organs (including lungs) --

B.   Airborne Radioactivity Concentrations

     1.  Airborne radon progeny  2 WLM

     2.  Airborne individual
         specific radionuclides
                                                    5 rero
                                                   15 rem
                                                      WLM
                                                                   Average
                                                                    Level
                                                                    MFC
                                                                       f)
                                                  In Units  of Usual
                                                    Measurements	
                                                  Average Level for
                                                Continuous  40-hr  week
                                                                                                      -1
                                                                                2.5 mR/hr (2500 uR/hr) '

                                                                                37.5 mR/hr (37,000 uR/hr)C
                                                                                 0.33  WL
C.   Airborne Radioactivity - Gross Alpha HFC's to Be Used as Screening Values  When Specific
     Radionuclide Analyses are not Performed"
     1.  Phosphate rock dust
         prior to chemical
         processing (insoluble)

     2.  Phosphate products
         after chemical
         treatment (soluble)
                                                                                30 pCi/m3
                                                                                10 pCi/m3
                                                                                              —continued—

-------
                TABLE 1.   Continued
a)  Taken from OSHA regulations (CFR 1910.96) except where otherwise noted.
b)  Whole-body quarterly limit may be increased to 3 rem provided that accumulative value
    does not exceed 5 rem for each year beyond age 18.
c)  For gamma radiation, assume that 1 milliroentgen (mR) or 1000 microroeotgen (mR) exposure
    delivers 1 millirad (mrad) absorbed dose or 1 millirem (mrem) dose equivalent.
d)  While not explicitly stated in OSHA regulations, this value is contained in NCRP
    recommendations and it is the basis of the maximum permissible concentrations adopted
    by OSHA.
e)  WLM = "Working Level Month".  An expression for time-integrated concentration of radon
    progeny.  A cumulative concentration of 1 WLM is equivalent to that .resulting from exposure
    to 1 WL for 170 hours (1 working month).

    WL = Working Level.  An expression for the concentration of short-lived radon progency.
    One WL is any combination of radon progeny in one liter of air whose ultimate decay> through
    polonium-214 will deliver 1.3 x 105 MeV of alpha energy.
f)  UPC = Maximum Permissible Concentration.  Use 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC) values which are
    incorporated by reference in 29 CFR 1010.96 (OSHA).
g)  Derived for this study.  See explanation in the text.

-------
     Basic radiation protection guidelines  are expressed in terms of quarterly
and annual maximum permissible dose equivalent (MPD),  in units of rem or
millirem, to the total body, body portions,  or individual organs; these are
presented in Part A of the table.

     Usually dose equivalent is not measured directly; it is computed from
some other measured quantity (i.e. gamma ray exposure, airborne radioactivity
concentrations, etc.).  Gamma radiation levels are usually read with survey
meters  in terms of exposure rate, milliroentgens/hour or microroentgens/hour
(mR/hr  or pR/hr) or with integrating devices in terms of mR or (JR; however,
for the gamma radiation of interest to  this  project,  exposures (mR) can be
converted directly to dose equivalent  (mrem).

     For airborne radioactivity, it is operationally convenient to derive
guidelines in terms of the quantities measured, airborne concentrations, and
these are also presented in the table.   Thus, airborne radon progeny con-
centrations are measured in terms of working levels (WL) and the radon progeny
guideline is expressed in terms of a cumulative quantity, working level month
(WIM).  Other airborne radioactivity is  measured in terms.of activity con-
centration in microcuries or picocuries per  milliliter, liter or cubic meter
(e.g. uCi/ml, or pCi/1 or pCi/m3).  Thus,  the airborne radioactivity limit
for each radionuclide is expressed in terms  of maximum permissible con-
centration (MFC), i.e. that concentration which, under continuous.40-hr/week
exposure, would just result in an MPD to the appropriate critical organ.
It should be noted that each radionuclide has a unique MFC, and separate
values  are presented for soluble and insoluble forms.   This results in a
rather  lengthy table which is not reproduced in this  report, but is
contained in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B.

     For convenience, the last column  of Table 1 contains the average exposure
rates and airborne radioactivity concentrations that  would just meet the
respective guidelines if experienced continuously for 40 hours per week.

            Screening Values for Airborne Alpha Radioactivity

     Every radionuclide has a unique associated airborne MFC value.  These
values  reflect the relative importance  of a  particular nuclide as regards to
health.  The lower the MFC, the more hazardous the nuclide.

     However, conducting specific radionuclide analyses for the various mem-
bers of the uranium decay series represents  a considerable laboratory load.
As a screening procedure, it is much simpler to measure the gross or total
radioactivity concentration than it is  to separate and analyze individual
radionuclides.  Thus, a satisfactory gross radioactivity concentration guide-
line had to be adopted.

     The most conservative approach is to use the MFC for the most*restrictive
auclide  in the series, in this case the alpha emitter thorium-23010 .   However,
in the  airborne dust samples, other less hazardous members of the series are
likely  to contribute to the alpha activity as well.  Therefore, a gross alpha
MFC can  be set at a higher value if the approximate ratios of the various
alpha-emitting radionuclides are known.
10) For airborne thorium-230  in a  restricted area,  40-hr/week exposure, MFC
    (insoluble) = 10 pCi/m3 and MFC  (soluble) = 2 pCi/m3.

-------
      Since no specific nuclide  analyses were made on air samples  at the Uni-
versity of Florida, a review was made of previous  EPA air sample analysis
results as furnished by Phosphate  Council member companies.   These results for
analyses of the alpha emitters uranium-238,  thorium-230  and  radium-226 are tab-
ulated in Table A-l and A-2 of the Appendix.   In dust samples from rock handling
prior to chemical processing, these nuclides  appear to- be in radioactive
equilibrium.  This is consistent with the radium-226 and uranium-238 concen-
tration ratios seen in the phosphate rock data in this study.   In  the EPA dust
samples from products areas (after chemical  operations),  thorium-230 and the
uranium isotopes were still in equilibrium but radium-226 appeared to about 30%
of the equilibrium.  This may be compared to  the University  of Florida data in
which the ratios of the average  radium-226 and uranium-23S activity concen-
trations were 0.35 for TSP and 0.06 for  ammoniated phosphates.  No data were
provided on levels of polonium-210,  an intermediate-lived alpha emitter of the
series that may be volatilized if  samples are ashed.   In addition,  the alpha
activity contribution of radon-222 and progeny resulting from the  decay of
radium-226 within the sample is  not known and may  be affected by the sample
preparation procedure.

    Based on the given information,  the  following  assumptions  were made:

     1.  For phosphate rock:
         a)  rock dust is insoluble,
         b)  uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230 and radium-226  appear
             in the ratio of 1:1:1:1  and
         c)  polonium-210, radon-222  and Rn progeny are  absent from the
             sample as counted.
     2.  For phosphate fertilizer:
         a)  the radioactive constituents of  fertilizer  dust are soluble,
         b)  uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230 and radium-226  appear
             in the ratio of 1:1:1:0.3 and
         c)  polonium-210, radon-222  and Rn progeny are  absent from the
             sample as counted.

      Assumptions Ic, 2a and 2c  are conservative on the  side of safety.
Using the above assumptions, following the rule of mixtures

                     Z(Conc./UPC )<1,


where   Cone. = airborne concentration of the i—  radionucy.de and
        MFC:1 = Maximum Permissible Concentration  of the i— radionuclide

and rounding off, weighted gross alpha MFC's  were  then calculated.  These
gross alpha MFC's, presented in  Table 1,  can  be used as  screening  values to
evaluate gross alpha measurements  and identify possible  needs  for  specific
nuclide analysis11 .
11)  By comparison, the International  Commission  on  Radiological  Protection
     in Publication 24  (ICRP77)  addresses  the  question of uranium ore dust:
     "the operational limits usually employed  are based on the  total alpha
     activity of the long-lived  nuclides present  in  the dust under the
     assumption that these nuclides are all  the members of the  uranium-238 series

                                                        -continued-

                                      10

-------
                             Men-Restricted Areas

     The special considerations associated with  restricted  areas  generally
have not been applied to work areas in the phosphate  industry.   Indeed,  where
radiation and radioactivity levels are sufficiently low to qualify the area
as an unrestricted area, no special radiation protection measures  are indicated
other than following the policy of keeping exposures  "as low as  practicable."

     OSHA regulations, while defining "unrestricted  area",  do not specify
radiation protection guidelines for such an area.  However,  guidelines can be
readily inferred from the recommendations of the  National Council  on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP)12  , the guidance of  the former  Federal
Radiation Council (FRC)13  and the regulations applicable to radioactive
materials licensees of the State of Florida ad the U.S.  Nuclear  Regulatory
Commission (NRC)14 .  Basically, total body and organ MPD's  for  individuals
of the general public are 10% of the  occupational values.  Consequently, it
follows that restricted area measures should be implemented  when exposure-time
weighted gamma radiation or airborne  radioactivity levels exceed 10% of  the
respectiye occupational guidelines.
11)   continued:
      (excluding radon and its daughters) in  secular  equilibrium."   The  report
      also states "the resulting annual limit for  alpha  activity in ore  dust is
      70 pCi h i'1.  The quarterly limit is 35 pCi h  £~l."   Considering  a full-
      time 40-hr work week for 50 weeks (i.e._2000 hr/yr),  the  cumulative annual
      operational limit reduces to 70 pCi h £~l/2000  h = 3.5 x  10"2 pCi/JJ or
      35 pCi/m3.  This number is comparable to the 30 pCi/m3 developed for this
      study.
        ICRP-24 does not address the question of  uranium-series
      nuclides in dust of soluble products of ore.

12)   NCRP - Develops scientifically based radiation  protection recommendations.
      These have no legally enforceable status but are essentially  universally
      recognized in the United States and provide  much of the basis for
      standards of U.S. regulatory agencies.

13)   FRC  -  Charged with developing basic radiation protection guidance
      and policy for the federal government.  This responsibility is now a
      function of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Original FRC
      and subsequent EPA guidelines form the  basis of radiation protection
      policy upon which individual federal regulatory agencies  base their
      respective regulations.

14)   NRC and State of Florida  -  These agencies  license possession and use
      of various categories of radioactive materials  as  specified by law,
      by agreement between the state and federal governments and by the
      regulations of the two agencies.  Possession of naturally occurring
      radioactive materials incidental to phosphate mining  or processing
      (except for intentional uranium recovery) has not  been subject to  NRC
      or Florida licensing, registration or regulations.
                                    11

-------
                               Background Values

      Other criteria on which to base an evaluation are the  typical background
values at locations that  are  in the general area but not obviously enhanced
by man's activities.  Background values are typically 4-10 pR/hr  for gamma
radiation and 0.0001-.001 WL  for airborne radon progeny.   These levels
represent measurements that are (a) taken in the general area  specified but
not in the immediate vicinity of accumulations  of phosphate  matrix, rock,
products or by-products and (b) not obviously enhanced by technology such as
mining or use of radioactive  fill,  building products,  paving materials,
etc,

                 Time-Weighted Averages and Integrated Values

      It should be noted  that short-term values, particularly  of  airborne
radioactivity, can vary considerably with time  for a given location.  Therefore,
the significant parameter is  not the short-term transient level but the long-
term average value.  Furthermore,'degree of occupancy of a particular location
actually determines the integrated  personnel exposure for a  given radiation
or radioactivity level.   Consequently,  the final assessment  of personnel
exposure involves determining exposure  time-weighted long-term average or
integrated values.

                                  Action Levels
      Table 2 summarizes action  levels  selected for the purpose of
evaluating the results of measurements  and defining response measures.

      In addition, individual measurements exceeding 10%  of the values
corresponding to the occupational  limits  under continuous exposure were used
as a decision point for considering  further sampling;  and average levels
exceeding these values were  used as  a decision point for  performing operation
and occupancy., time-weighting.

      Time-weighted airborne radioactivity concentrations and accumulative
doses in excess of 10% of the occupational limit (i.e., exceeding guidelines
for individuals of the general public)  are recommended as the action levels for
implementing restricted area procedures including a continuing radiation
control and monitoring program.
                                      12

-------
            Table 2.  Action Levels for a Radiation Protection Program
                        LEVEL
A.    100% of Guide

      1.  General  - exceeds occupational limits

      2.  External Gamma Radiation  - if a major
          portion of the body receives in excess
          of 100 millirem in five consecutive days
          (e.g. sustained exposure level *• 2.5 mR/hr
          or >2500 R/hr).

      3.  Airborne  Radioactivity
 _        a) Time-weighted concentration in
 <*>           excess of MFC.
          b) Average concentrations in excess
             of MFC.

      4.  Airborne  Radon Progeny - Individual
          samples ;> 0.33 WL.
                                                                               ACTION
Design and/or operating changes

Reduce levels 'or post as "Radiation Area" and
assure that no individual receives a whole-body
dose in excess of 1250 mrem/calendar quarter.
Reduce concentrations and/or occupancy, or provide
respiratory protection.
Reduce concentration or post as "Airborne
Radioactivity Area."

Reduce concentration or keep individual records
of occupancy, concentration and accumulative
exposures.
B.     25% of Guide

       1.  External  Gamma  Radiation   -  likely quarterly
          dose  equivalent in excess of 25% of MFD.

       2.  Airborne Radioactivity - time-weighted
          weekly  average in excess of 25% MFC.
Reduce levels and/or occupancy or provide personnel
monitoring.

Reduce levels and/or occupancy or post as "Airborne
Radioactivity Area."

-------
                                  IV.   RESULTS

      Measurements and  sampling were  performed at 12 mines and beneficiation
 plants, 10 sites with  wet process phosphoric acid plants, eight fertilizer
 production plants and  one thermal process plant.  Two mines and one  chemical
 plant with phosphoric  acid  and fertilizer production were studied in North
 Florida, all the other facilites were in Central Florida.

      Based on considerations  of radioactivity concentrations,  physical nature
 of the material and the processes involved,  the locations and operations were
 grouped into the five  categories defined in  Table 3.
                 Table 3.  Summary of Locations  Studied
Category of Location

A.  Mining and Wet Rock
    Operations

B.  Dry Rock Operations
C.  Wet Process Phosphoric
    Acid Production

D.  Fertilizer Operations
E.   Thermal Process
Operations Included
Ho. of Sites
Dragline site, washer, flotation             12
plant, wet rock storage and loading

Includes drying, grinding, loading           10
and unloading.  May be located at
beneficiation plant site, at a separate
dry mill or at chemical plant site.

Acidulation, filtration, acid storage        10
and gypsum pile.

Production, storage, loading and             8
shipping.  Includes monoammonium phos-
phate (MAP), diammonium phosphate (DAP),
run-of-pile triple superphosphate (ROP-TSP)
and granular triple superphosphate (GTSP).
      In summarizing the gamma  radiation and  air sampling data,  results from specifi
 locations within a mine or plant were pooled for a  more  general area  if the range
 of values showed no significant differences   between specific locations and
 pooling had no effect on the final  interpretation and conclusions.    Ranges of
 measured values for each location are reported as an indication of what might be
 expected for a single measurement.   Averages for individual mines or  plants
 were computed and the mean and range of plant averages are also reported.

      Estimated annual gamma dose equivalents, annual cumulative radon progeny
 concentrations, and annual average  airborne  long-lived alpha radioactivity
 concentrations were computed for the "maximum exposure"  individual by using
 an initial assumption of full-time,  40-hr/week occupancy.   For many cases, this
 procedure overestimates the true experience  of personnel;  however, the majority
 of the resulting values were an order of magnitude  or more below the  respective
 radiation protection guide and no further data analysis  effort was justified.
 For those selected area-exposure route  combinations not  falling in this category,

-------
occupancy factors and operation  times  as determined during the field visits or
supplied by the companies were utilized to calculate time-weighted annual values
for each mine or plant.  The means  and ranges of these time-weighted mine or
plant means are also presented in this report.

    All time-weighted calculations were performed with data for that individual
present, in the area of interest, for  the longest time period.  In all cases
of occupancy weighting, radiation levels or concentrations were considered to
be negligible in all other areas occupied by the individual.

        Uranium and Radium Concentrations in Phosphatic Materials

    Concentrations of uranium-238  and radium-226 were determined in various
phosphatic materials found in the locations covered in this study.  Although these
values  were not used to determine exposure directly, they were helpful in indicating
areas  in which elevated gamma levels and potential sources of airborne radio-
activity could be expected.  Table  4 summarizes all results for both North and
Central Florida analyses.  These results have been reported previously in
greater detail (Ro77).  In general, the North Florida concentrations were lower
than those of Central Florida.

    The highest radium concentrations were found in scale and sediment samples
taken  from various filters, tanks and  piping within the chemical plants.
Therefore, it may be expected that  the highest gamma levels would exist in the
vicinity of these areas.  The next  highest radium concentrations, in decreasing
order,  were found in electric furnace  slag, pebble, rock concentrate, gypsum and
triple superphosphate.

                          External Gamma Radiation

    Table 5 presents a summary  of  gamma radiation measurements and Table 6
summarizes calculated annual whole-body dose equivalents for various areas in
the industry.  While radiation levels  in many locations were measureably above
background, all the estimated annual doses were less than the occupational limit
and the vast majority were at least an order of magnitude below this level.

    Mining and wet and dry rock operations represent concentration or other
treatment of the ore and rock by physical means only and gamma radiation levels
are quite consistent for the same type.of area from one mine or plant to another.
The highest gamma levels in these areas were encountered in the vicinity of wet
rock pebble and concentrate storage piles and near large inventories of dry
rock.   As seen in Table 6, all the  annual doses in these areas were over an order
of magnitude below the occupational limit.

    The highest exposure rates  were found in the phosphoric acid production
plants. However, these values were associated with low.occupancy time work
areas  and/or areas not easily accessible to workers and thus estimated annual
doses  were all within the occupational limit.  Chemical processes within these
areas  cause radium-226, and possible other radionuclides, to accumulate in the
scale  and sediment of various tanks, filters and piping.  The highest gamma
levels in occupiable areas were  found  in the vicinity of the phosphoric acid
pan filters and filtrate tanks.   Personnel occupancy times for these areas
                                     15

-------
      Table 4.  Summary of Average Radium-226 and Uranium-238 Content of Florida
                Phosphate Materials



                               226Ra.   pCi/g            238U.  pCi/g                   Ratio. Ra/U
Sample Type	   Ho.  Fla.   Cen.  Fla.     No. Fla.  Cen.  Fla.           Ho. Fla.  Cen. Fla.

MINING AND ROCK OPERATIONS

      Matrix:                    8.6    37.6             7.6     38.5                   1.14     0.97
      Pebble:                   25.8    57.4            22.5     45.8                   1.14     1.26
      Rock Concentrate:         17.5    37.1            12.8     31.9                   1.38     1.18
      Tailings:                  2.7     5.2             1.7      4.7                   1,80     1.11

PHOSPHORIC ACID PLANT

      30% Phosphoric Acid:        —     0.04             ~     30.0                   —       0.01
      40% Phosphoric Acid:       0.2      —            20.7       —                   0.01
      Gypsum:                   13.7    32.2           <0.5    <0.5                >19.87  >74.69
      Acid Reactor Scale:       22.5      —            11.4       —                   1.97
      Filtrate Tank Scale:       ~    384.8              ~     28.1                    —     13.69
      30% Tank Sediment:         —     84.1              —    <1.0                    —   >84.10

FERTILIZER

      Ammoniated Phosphates:     0.5     4.1            25.3     70.2                   0.02     0.06
      Triple Superphosphate:    11.7    19.7            26.0     56.5                   0.45     0.36

ELECTRIC FURNACE

      Phosphate Rock Fines:        —    46.8             —     43.5                    —      1.08
      Coke:                        —     1.0             —      1.7                    —      0.59
      Slag:                        —    63.7             —     63.4                    —      1.00
      Ferro-Phoa:                  ~     1.9             —     40.9.                    —      0.05

-------
             Table 5.   Results of  Gamma Radiation Measurements.
Area or Operation
Summary of    -r
All Measurements
Summary of Mine  or Plant
Means
MINING & WET ROCK
     Dragline areas              14
     Beneficiation               92
     Wet rock storage piles      57
     Inside loading tunnels      25
     Outside Loading tunnels     14
     Wet rock storage bins       19
     Office/lab buildings        19

DRY ROCK
     Near dryers                 20
     Inside dryer control room    4
     Grinding area               33
     Dry rock unloading           1

WET PROCESS PHOSPHORIC ACID
     Inside control room         14
     Filter level                24
     Around filtrate tanks       12

     Other ill-plant area         65
     Gypsum pile                  7
     Office/lab buildings     	
                                    Range,  pR/hr
              4-11
              5-47
             10-112
              3-47
              6-73
             11-73
              6-47
              9-54
              6-11
              5-60
               34
              5-232
              6-464
              8-1278

              7-189
             14-34
                                                               HP
   6
   6
  10
   7
   7
   4
   3
  10
  10
   5

  10
   4
                                                                         Ave(Range), pR/hr
  5( 4-7  )
 12( 5-39 )
 67(24-87 )
 17( 7-30 )
 47( 9-73 )
 26(17-58 )
 15( 7-31 )
              23(10-54 )
               8(  6-11 )
              15 (  6-60 )
              34(   34  )
 34( 6-232)
 81( 8-364)
370(20-712)
       -(included with FERTILIZER PRODUCTION)-
 33(21-80 ).
 23(20-27 )
FERTILIZER
GTSP production
DAP production
ROP-TSP production
Fertilizer storage areas
Fertilizer shipping areas
Office/lab buildings6
THERMAL PROCESSf
Rock dryer and calciner

19
16
8
16
16
48

3
Coke crushing and screening 8
Tap apron
Slag crusher
3
3

6-21
4-21
9-17
6-34
4-41
5-34

10-73
10-86
54-67
104-105

5
5
3
8
4
7

1
1
1
1

11( 9-17 )
7( 6-14 )
13( 9-16 )
14( 6-28 )
13( 6-25 )
12( 6-34 )

36( 	 )
29( 	 )
61( 	 )
105( 	 )
 a) N  = Number of measurements.
 b) NP = Number of mines or plants  in summary
 c) Raymond  and ball mills
 <0 Includes around acidulators,  evaporators, gypsum tanks, filter  feed tanks,
   and acid storage tanks.
   Includes those in the phosphoric acid production operation.
 f) Only one plant was surveyed.

 All results reported to nearest  pR/hr
                                           17

-------
          Table 6.   Annual Whole-Body Dose Equivalent Summary.
                    (Radiation Protection Guide or MFD = 5 rera/yr)
Annual Whole-Body Dose Equivalent, rem/yr

Area or Operation
H3
MINING & WET ROCK
Dragline area 6
Beneficiation 6
Wet rock storage piles 10
Inside loading tunnels 7
Outside loading tunnels 7
Wet rock storage bins 4
Office/lab buildings 3
DRY ROCK
Near dryers 6
Inside dryer control room 4
Grinding area 7
WET PROCESS PHOSPHORIC ACID
Inside control room 10
Filter level 10
Around filtrate tanks 5
Other in-plant areas 10
Gypsum pile 4
FERTILIZER
GTSP production 5
DAP production S
ROP-TSP production 3
Fertilizer storage areas 8
Fertilizer shipping 4
Office/lab buildings 7
THERMAL PROCESS
Rock dryer and calciner 1
Coke crushing and screening 1
Tap apron 1
Slag crusher 1
NOTES:
a) N = Number of plants.
b) Ave = Average of 'plant means.
c) Range = Range of plant means
For Continuous, 40 hr/wk
T> r
Ave (Range) c

0.01 (<0.01-.01)
0.02 ( 0.01-.08)
0.13 ( 0.05-.17)
0.03 ( 0.01-.06)
0.09 ( 0.02-.15)
0.05 ( 0.03-.12)
0.03 ( 0.01-.06)

0.05 (0.02-0.11)
0.02 (0.01-0.02)
0.03 (0.01-0.12)

0.07 (0.01-0.46)
0.16 (0.02-0.73)
0.74 (0.04-1.4 )
0.07 (0.04-0.16)
0.05 (0.04-0.05)

0.02 (0.02-0.03)
0.01 (0.01-0.03)
0.03 (0.02-0.03)
0.03 (0.01-0.06)
0.03 (0.01-0.05)
0.02 (0.01-0.07)





01 "> f _—— __t
.12 t 	 -"" 	 )





d) Unweighted values are sufficiently low that weighting was
Time-Weighted
u _
Ave (Range)

d
d
d
d
d
d
d

d
d
d

d
0.10 (<0. 01-0. 73)
0.11 (<0. 01-0. 19)
d
d

d
d
d
d
d
d

d
d
d
d



not applied.
All results reported to nearest 0.01 rem/yr (10 mrem/yr)
                                           18

-------
were variable from plant  to  plant,  consequently the annual accumulative dose equi-
valent  for these areas was determined for each plant using actual occupancy factors.

     Other elevated  levels were found in close proximity to various tanks and
filters and on  contact to various pipes and tanks.  This correlates with the
fact that scale and  sediment from these areas had the highest radium con-
centrations measured in this study.   These and readings in other locations not
typical of whole body exposure  are  summarized in Table 7.

                      Radon Progeny Concentrations

     Table 8 presents a summary of  the airborne radon progeny measurements and
Table 9 summarizes annual cumulative concentrations.  In most cases, pro-
cesses  are open to the atmosphere and/or well ventilated and thus radon and
daughters do not build up in airborne concentration.

     For all areas except wet rock  loading tunnels, the average radon progeny
concentration values were over  an order of magnitude below the guide.  In a
few instances,  short-term concentrations in fertilizer storage warehouses were
greater than 0.01 WL.  These concentrations appeared to be due in part to
environmental levels at the  time of sampling.  The concentrations in these
areas were highest before noon  when environmental levels are usually at their
highest and then returned to low levels in the afternoon.

     Wet rock loading tunnels do offer an opportunity for airborne radon
progeny concentrations to build up.   During the course of this study, ex-
tensive and repetitive sampling was performed in a number of these tunnels and
occupancy factors were used  to  determine time-weighted exposures.  Considerable
variation was observed in radon progeny concentrations due to the great differ-
ences in such parameters  as  source  inventory, tunnel construction and layout,
type and degree of ventilation  and  operating status.  Transient levels ex-
ceeded 0.33 WL  in 20% of  the tunnels, but when weighted for occupancy time, the
time-weighted concentrations exceeded 0.08 WL (corresponding to 25% of MFC) in
only two tunnels (13%) and the  annual cumulative concentration exceeded the
guideline of 4  WLM/yr in  only one tunnel.15 .

     It was observed that operating status and mechanical ventilation were
important parameters affecting  radon progeny concentrations in wet rock
loading tunnels.  For purposes  of this study, a tunnel is considered to be
operating when  wet rock is being loaded through a tunnel gate onto the
conveyor belt for transfer to drying or loading facilities.  Comparisons of
concentrations  under" operating  and  non-operating conditions are tabulated in
Table 10.  It can be seen that, with the exception of one well-ventilated
tunnel, the concentration ratios of operating vs. non-operating status ranged
from 2 to 66.   These ratios  are probably also a function of the other im-
portant parameters already mentioned.

     Ventilation is  the best means  to keep unwanted levels for any hazardous
airborne substance from building up within a confined location.  While the effect
of ventilation  was not extensively  studied, the results are striking for the
single  tunnel sampled under  conditions of mechanical ventilation on and off
(Table  11).  The ventilation off/on ratio of 65 is probably unique for this

15)  Following  the survey, project  work was begun to improve the ventilation
     in this tunnel.

                                     19

-------
            Table 7.   Gamma Readings At Locations  Not Typical of Whole-Body Exposure
                                                        Number of:
Location
MINING & WET ROCK OPERATIONS

      Contact to matrix
      Contact to wet rock storage
         piles
      Contact to sand tailings
      Unaccessable areas in washer
         plants
      Close proximity to various
         tanks and piping in
         flotation facilities
      Near radiation gauge in
         Flotation plant

DRY ROCK OPERATIONS

      Contact to various materials
      Contact to dryers

CHEMICAL PLANT OPERATIONS

      Directly over pan filters
      Contact and close proximity to
         various pipes and tanks
      Contact to TSP
      Contact to DAP
      Near radiation gauges in GTSP
         productions plants
      Unaccessable areas in GTSP
         production plants
      Unaccessable areas in DAP
         production plants
                                                Measurements   Companies
                                 Range of
                              Readings.
27
 2
23

76
 9
 8

 4

 4

 5
10
 1
26-54

28-112
 7-18

16-18
                                    7-18

                                   92-232
                                   17-60
                                   18-31
                        34-929

                         7-1626
                        16-41
                         9-21

                       232-1742

                        10-25

                         6-21

-------
    Table 8.   Results of Airborne Radon Progeny Measurements
Summary of
Area or Operation All Measurements
N* Range, mWL
MINING & WET ROCK
Dragline areas 17 0.1-1.6
Beneficiation 10 0.2-1.3
Wet rock storage piles 10 0.1-5.2
Inside loading tunnels 78 0.1-1500
Outside loading tunnels 6 0.4-16
Office/lab buildings 8 0.1-0.6
DRY ROCK
Near dryers 4 0.3-1.0
Inside dryer control room 3 0.2-0.6
Near Raymond mills 5 0.5-1.1
Inside Raymond control room 5 0.5-5.9
«j_ _ _ V—l I mm 1 1 « 1 — — « —
Near ball mil is i — .—
Dry rock loading ajr ea 1 -»— —
WET PROCESS PHOSPHORIC ACID
Inside control room 9 0.7-6.0
Filter level 15 0.2-1.6
Around filtrate tanks 4 0.5-1.2
Gypsum pile 4 0.2-1.3
Summary of Mine
or
NP

7
4
3
15
4
4

3
2
4
4
1

8
7
2
4
Plant Means
C Ave (Range), mWLb

0.4 (0.1-1.6)
0.7 (0.2-1.3)
1.3 (0.1-2.0)
88 (0.7-840)
4.9 (0.4-16 )
0.3 (0.1-0.6)

0.6 (0.3-1.0)
0.4 (0.3-0.6)
0.8 (0.6-1.1)
2.0 (0.6-5.9)
0*3 f \
.3 (. 	 )
0.6 ( 	 )

2.4 (0.9-6.0)
0.8 (0.4-1.0)
0.7 (0.5-1.0)
0.6 (0.2-1.3)
Office/lab buildings 	 (included with FERTILIZER PRODUCTION) —
FERTILIZER
6TSP production 1 	
DAP production 3 0.8-6.6
ROP-TSP production 3 0.1-2.9
Fertilizer storage areas 14 0.3-14
Fertilizer shipping areas 4 0.6-4.6
Office/lab buildings6 16 0.1-4.8
THERMAL PROCESSf
D . . , . 1
HOCK orycr ano caicmeir j. — — — — —

uoKe crusnmg ana screening i — -— — —

iap apron i -----
$?M: EPA. <*«*>•
a) N = Number of measurements
b) mWL = Milli Working Level. 1 mWL = 0.001 WL.
c) DP = Number of mines or plants in summary
d) 15 tunnels at 10 plants
e) Includes those in the phosphoric acid production
f) Only one plant was surveyed

1
3
2
7
3
8

1
1
1
" '"




4.2 ( 	 )
3.0 (0.8-6.6)
1.3 (0.1-2.9)
4.3 (0.4-13 )
2.1 (1.1-2.6)
0.9 (0.3-2.6)

3.0 ( 	 	 )
0.7 ( 	 	 )
0.6 ( 	 	 )
±u



operation


All results reported to two significant digits down to nearest 0.1 mWL.
                                    21

-------
        Table 9.  Annual Cumulative Airborne Radon Progeny Summary
                    (Radiation Protection Guide = 4 WLM/year)
Area or Operation
MINING & WET ROCK
     Dragline area
     Beneficiation
     Wet rock storage piles
     Inside loading tunnels
     Outside loading tunnels
     Office/lab buildings

DRY ROCK
     Near dryers
     Inside dryer control room
     Near Raymond mills
     Inside Raymond control room
     Near ball mills
     Dry rock loading

WET PROCESS PHOSPHORIC ACID
     Inside control room
     Filter level
     Around filtrate tanks
     Gypsum pile

FERTILIZER
     DAP production
     ROP-TSP production
     GTSP production
     Fertilizer storage areas
     Fertilizer shipping
     Office/lab buildings

THERMAL PROCESS
     Rock dryer and calciner
     Coke crushing and screening
     Tap apron
                          Annual Cumulative Concentration, WLM/year

                          For Continuous. 40 hr/wk    Time-Weighted

                          N8       Aveb (Range )c        Aveb(Range)*
                                  0.01(<0.01-0.02)
                                  0.01(<0.01-0.02)
                                  0.02(<0.01-0.03)
                                  1.1 (<0.01-10  )
                                  0.06( 0.01-0.20)
                                 <0.01(<.001-0.01)
                                  0.01(<0.01-6.01)
                                  0.01(<0.01-0.01)
                                  0.01(<0.01-0.01)
                                  0.02(<0.01-0.07)
                                  0.01(
                                  0.03( 0.01-0.07)
                                  0.01(<0.01-0.01)
                                  0.01(<0.01-0.01)
                                  0.01(<0.01-0.02)
                                  0.04( 0.01-0.08)
                                  0.02(<0.01-0.03)
                                  0.05(	)
                                  0.05(<0.01-0.16)
                                  0.02( 0.01-0.02)
                                  0.01(<0.01-6.03)
                                  0.04(
      d
      d
      d
0.88(<0.01-8.8)
      d
      d
NOTES:
     a)
     b)
     c)
     d)
     e)
N = Number of plants.
Ave = Average of plant means.
Range = Range of plant means.
Unweighted values are sufficiently low that weighting was not applied.
15 tunnels at 10 plants.
All  results reported  to  two  significant  digits  down  to  nearest 0.01 WLM/yr.
                                      22

-------
      Table 10.   Effect of Operating Status on Radon Progeny
                 Concentrations in Wet Rock Loading Tunnels.
Operating
Tunnel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Summary:
Samples
Tunnels
Na Ave (Range), WL
6
1
1
1
4
2
1
16
7
0.11 (0
0.20 (
0.21 (
0.20 (
0.094 (0
0.024 (0
0.0012(
— - (0
0.12(0
.0048-0.35)

}
.013-0.25 )
.012-0.036)
'
.0012-0.35)
.0012-0.21)
a) N = Number of measurements
b) Mechanically ventilated tunnel
N
3
5
4
1
2
3
7
25
7
with
Non-Operating
" Ave (Range), WL
0.0079(0.0029 -0.016 )
0.0044(0.0017 -0.0066)
0.0032(0.0024 -0.0041)
0.034 (0.0017 -0.07 )
0.012 (0.004 -0.017 )
0.003 (0.00052-0.0064)
	 (0.00052-0.08 )
0.021 (0.003 -0.08 )
ventilation working for both
Ratio,
Operating/
Non-Operating
14
46
66
2.4
2.8
2.0
0.4b
19.0- (0.4-66)
conditions .
     Table 11.  Effect of Mechanical Ventilation on Radon Progeny
                Concentrations in o Selected Wet Rock Loading Tunnel.
Tunnel
6
Ventilation Off
N Ave (Range), WL
2 1.1 (1.0-1.2)
Ventilation On
»a Ave (Range )r WL
5 0.017 (.004-. 036)
Ratio
Off/On
65
a) N = Number of measurements
                               23

-------
one tunnel, but it does give an indication of the degree of  airborne  radon
progeny build-up when ventilation is turned off and also indicates  the  dramatic
influence of proper ventilation.  The limited measurements indicating no  increase
in radon progeny concentrations when a mechanically-ventilated tunnel (Tunnel 7,
Table 10) went from a non-operating to operating status also support  this
conclusion.

                    Airborne Long-lived Alpha Radioactivity

     An overall assessment  of  airborne long-lived alpha radioactivity in  the
Florida phosphate  industry  is  made difficult by the  considerable variation
that was observed.  In  addition to variations with type of operation, airborne
radioactivity levels were influenced by  the differences in type and condition
of facilities and  equipment and in materials handling practices. Furthermore,
the dustiness of some operations is periodic rather  than  continuous and thus a
considerable amount of  sampling,  judiciously scheduled and interpreted  in
conjunction with careful evaluation of operation  and occupancy times, is
required to make a definitive  assessment of true  time-weighted exposures.  This
is further complicated  for  operations  such as  fertilizer  loading in which the
intensity of activities at  the time of sampling may  be affected by  the  cyclic
nature of market conditions.   In some  cases, the  sampling required  is beyond
the scope of this  project and  the data can only be used to identify areas and
operations requiring further detailed  site-specific  evaluations.

     It should be  noted that no attempt  vas made  to  characterize the  particle
size distribution  of the dust.  Thus the results  based on the total dust
collected by Whatman No.41- filter paper  with a high  volume sampler  probably
represent an upper limit to the respirable dust concentration.

     Measurements  and calculated time-weighted annual average concentrations
are summarized in  Table 12.

     Mining and wet rock operations are  not particularly  dusty and  all  indiv-
idual measurements were well below the concentration guide of 30 pCi/m3.  In
fact, the industry-wide averages for all the areas considered and most  of the
individual plant or mine averages for  these operations were  "less than 1.0 pCi/m .

     Other operations usually  involved dry rock or dried products and a greater
potential existed  for airborne dustiness.   A wide range  of  concentrations was j
found in dry rock  operations such as drying, grinding, loading and  unloading.
Control room levels were generally well  below  the concentration guide,  even
when weighted for  high  occupancy.  In  the immediate  vicinity of driers,
grinders, loading  and unloading operations and mixing cones, a number of  the
time-weighted concentrations fell within an order of magnitude of the con-
centration guide and thus in the range indicating further surveillance  should
be considered.
16)  The dustiness  and  airborne radioactivity observed near the mixing
     cone in ROP-TSP production was  due to rock dust rather than product
     dust and therefore this  area  has  been included with dry rock oper-
     ations for  the purpose of  data  analysis and evaluation.  Other air-
     borne activity in  TSP production  from drying,  sizing and screening
     operations  was assumed to  be  due  to product dust for the purpose of
     summarization and  evaluations.

-------
             Table 12.  Results  of Airborne Long-lived Alpha Radioactivity
                        Measurements
Area or Operation All Measurements
N* Range,
pCi/m3
Summary of Mine or Plant Means
NPb 40 hr/wk
Ave (Range),
pCi/m3
Time-Weighted
Ave (Range),
pCi/m3
MINING & WET ROCK
Dragline area
Beneficiation
Inside loading tunnels
Outside loading tunnels
Office/lab buildings

9
16
45
9
10

<0
<0
<0
<0
<0

.1-
.1-
.1-
.1-
.1-

0.
0.
9.
1.
1.

1
,3
,0
,7
,0

5
4
6
4
5

<0.1(<0,
0.1(<0,
1.0( 0
0.4(<0,
0.1(<0.

.1 -
.1
.3
.1 -
.1 -

0.1)
0.2)
3.6)
1.0)
0.5)

C
c
c
c
c
DRY ROCK
 Hear dryers               6    0.5-42          3     11  ( 1.0 - 30 )     1.5 ( 0.9-2.5)
 Inside  dryer cont.  rm.    5    0.2-1.4         4      0.6( 0.2 - 1.4)       c
 Hear Raymond mills       17    0.4-220         5     17  ( 1.1 -54  )    11   ( 0.3-41 )
 Inside  Raymond cont.rm.   7    0.3-39          4      5.4( 0.3 -18  )       c
 Hear ball mills           3    1.2- 9.5        3      4.1( 1.2 -9.5 )     1.5 ( 0.3-3.3)
 Inside  ball cont. rm.     1    (	)        1      0.2(  	)       c
 Dry rock loading          4   14  -880         2    200. (14   -380 )    97   ( 2.2-190)
 Dry rock unloading        4    1.6-830         1     38  (	)    19   (  	  )
 ROP-TSP mixing cone      3    0.8-23..0        3      9.6( 0.8 -23.0)     3.4 ( 0.6-5.1)

PHOSPHORIC ACID
 Inside  control room      8    0.2- 0.8        8      0.4( 0.2 - 0.8)       c
 Filter  level              9    0.1-.5.3        6      1.4(0.1-5.3)       c
 Around  filtrate tanks     3    0.1- 3.4        3      1.1( 0.1   2.2)       c

THERMAL  PROCESS
 Rock dryer and calciner   1     (	)         1      0.7(	  )       c
 Coke crushing & screen   1     (	)         1      8.3(	  )     1.7 (	)
 Tap apron                 1     (	)         1      6.6(	  )     2.0 (	)

B. OPERATIONS PRODUCING AIRBORNE FERTILIZER DUST (Concentration Guide = 10 pCi/m3)
FERTILIZER
 GTSP production           8   <0.1-  24.0      3      5.0(<0.1 -15  )     2.6 (<0.1-7.2)
 DAP production            8    0.1-   1.4      4      0.5( 0.1 - 0.8)       c
 Fertilizer storage       22    0.2-  17.0      8      2.7( 0.3   6.8)     1.6 ( 0.2-4.2)
 Fertilizer shipping      4    0.6- 130.0      1     34  (	  )   20    (	)

C. OTHER
 Office/lab buildings     16   <0.1-   1.0      9      0.2(' 0.1 - 0.5).       c

NOTES1
     a)   N = Number of measurements.
     b)   NP = Number of  mines or plants in summary.
     c)   Unweighted values are sufficiently low that weighting was not applied.
     d)   Averaged by weighting for duration of dusty condition; initial unloading,
         0.034 and  balance of unloading period, 0.966.
All results reported to two significant digits down to nearest 0.1 pCi/m  .
                                         25

-------
     Among the  grinding  operations,  Raymond  mill areas tended to have higher
airborne activity  levels than ball mill areas.  It was observed that Raymond
mill units generally  allow more material leakage than ball mills and thus a
dustier atmosphere was usually associated with  the operation of the former.

     The highest levels  encountered  were found  in dry rock loading and un-
loading. In unloading dry rock from  freight  cars, a very dusty condition is
produced for the first several minutes  and then less dusty and lower radio-
activity conditions exist for the  balance of the unloading period for each
car.  As noted  in  Table  12,  an average  concentration was computed for this
operation by weighting initial period and subsequent measurements in
proportion to the  duration of each condition.

     In limited sampling,  several  Raymond mill  and dry rock loading areas had
time-weighted concentrations exceeding  the concentration guide of 30 pCi/m3.
The amount of sampling was insufficient to make an accurate assessment of
radioactivity exposure,  but the results do identify-these areas' as requiring
further site-specific detailed evaluation for the possible need for control
measures.

     A wide range  of  concentrations  was also observed in fertilizer oper-
ations. Plant averages in DAP production were at least an order of magnitude
below the concentration  guide of 10  pCi/m3 for  soluble product dusts.  The
time-weighted concentrations in the  other fertilizer production and storage
areas were all  less than the concentration guide but several fell in the range
adopted to indicate the  need for continued surveillance.  The storage areas
sampled were either TSP  warehouses or warehouses for both DAP and TSP; thus
the higher levels  in  storage areas are  believed to be due to TSP.

     The highest levels  in fertilizer operations were found in a shipping area.
Actually only four measurements, all from one company were obtained of fert-
ilizer shipping operations.   These levels ranged from 1 to 130 pCi/m3 and
averaged 34 pCi/m3.   The single time-weighted average, 20 pCi/m3 exceeds the
concentration guide and  thus these limited data suggest that shipping areas
may be areas of concern  and  should be studied further.
                                     26

-------
                   V.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     A survey of exposure to natural radiation in the Florida Phosphate In-
dustry was performed from March 1976 to May 1977.  Measurements were made of
external gamma radiation, airborne radon progeny and long-lived alpha radio-
activity at 12 mines and beueficiation plants and 10 chemical plants.

     Results are summarized in Table 13 for the three exposure routes at
the various areas or operations studied.  Findings were compared to OSHA
standards for restricted areas.  Those routes and locations for which all
measurements indicate values an order of magnitude below the respective
Radiation Protection Guides are identified as "Meets Non-restricted Area
Conditions" (coded "NR" in Table 13).

     Other area-exposure route combinations were identified as "Special Interest
Areas" (coded "X"' in Table 13) for a variety of reasons including 1) in-
sufficient data, 2) the need for site-specific evaluations to determine possible
requirements for corrective action, posting and labeling or continued surveil-
lance and exposure evaluation or 3) a recommendation for periodic confirmatory
surveys. These findings are further explained in the following sections.

                           External Gamma Radiation

     The estimated annual dose equivalent is summarized in Figure 2.
Significant findings are listed below.

     1.  Gamma radiation levels reflected the presence of natural radio-
activity in phosphate materials and varied with quantity and radium
concentration of the material.

     2.   However, estimated annual radiation doses to personnel from external
gamma radiation were less than the occupational Maximum Permissible Dose
Equivalent (MPD) of 5 rem/yr in all occupied areas studied.

     3.  For all areas except in the vicinity of acidulation tanks and
phosphoric acid filters, piping and tanks, measured exposure levels were
in the range of 5 to 100 pR/hr and calculated annual doses were over an
order of magnitude below the MPD, even if full time occupancy is assumed.  For
these locations, no further radiation protection measures are indicated other
than applying the generally accepted philosophy of keeping radiation exposures
"As Low As Practicable"  (ALAP).

     4.  The highest gamma radiation levels were found associated with accumu-
lations of residues in phosphoric acid production; and the vicinities of filters
and filtrate tanks have been identified for special consideration.  Gamma
exposure levels on the order of 100 to 1000 pR/hr (corresponding to 4 to 40%
of MPD under continuous 40-hr/wk exposure) were found in many facilities.
Further analysis of these findings indicates:

     a)  All estimated annual doses to personnel meet occupational
         limits.
     b)  The industry average time-weighted values for occupied areas
         is over an order of magnitude below the guide.
                                     27

-------
                                       TABLE 13
                                   Summary  of Results
Area or Operation
                                        -Gamma
                                        Radiation
                                                                 Airborne
                                                                 Radon Progeny
                    Airborne Long-lived
                    Alpha Radioactivity
A.   MINING AND WET ROCK
   1. Dragline, Washer,
        flotation, wet rock storage
   2. Loading tunnels
                                          NR
                                          NR
NR
X
NR
NR
8.   DRY  ROCK
   1. Control Rooms
   2. Dryers
   3. Mill*
   4. Loading. Unloading
                                          NR
                                          NR
                                          NR
                                          NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
X
X
X
C.   WET PROCESS PHOSPHORIC ACID
   1. Control rooms
   2. Filter level and around
       filtrate tanks
   3. Other inplant areas
   4. Gypsum pile
                                           X
                                           NR
                                           NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
Nfl
NS
NS
 D.    FERTILIZER
   TSP production
   AP production
   Fertilizer storage and shipping
                                           NR
                                           NR
                                           NR
NR
NR
NR
 X
 NR
 X
 NOTES:
   NR - Meets non-restricted area condition]
   NS - Not sampled
   X -  Recommended site-specific evaluation, assessment of special operation, and/or periodic confirmatory surveillance.
                                                 28

-------
                                                         All locations except those below
    Continuous 40-hr.
                                                        Phosphoric acid plant-filter level
    Continuous 40-hr.
                                                        Phosphoric acid plant—near filtrate tanks
     Continuous 40-hr.
                                         Annual Dose Equivalent, rem/yr
WHOLE - BODY GAMMA RADIATION IN THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY (mean and range of plant means').
                                        FIGURE 2

-------
     c)  No  individual plant time-weighted values exceed 25% of  the
         guide  and thus routine personnel monitoring is  not required.
     d)  Any extraordinary circumstances of prolonged exposure in close
         proximity to the scale and sediments in acidulation tanks, pan
         filters,  filtrate or phosphoric acid tanks  or filtrate  piping
         (such  as  cleaning and maintenance) may require  case-by-case
         evaluation of levels and occupancy times to estimate likely
         cumulative exposures and determine whether  personnel monitoring
         or  regular survey and monitoring are indicated.

     5.  Measurements taken at some isolated locations such as near gauges
.containing radiation sources, directly over some pan filters or  in close
proximity to pipes and tanks containing residues may be  on the order of
1000 to 2000 pR/hr (1 to 2 mR/hr) but these are not  of concern when
access and occupancy time are considered.

                            Airborne Radon Progeny

     Annual  cumulative radon progency concentrations are summarized in
Figure 3.  Significant findings are listed below.

     1.  Estimated exposures under normal operating  conditions in nearly all
areas meet occupational limits.

     2.  Average airborne radon progeny exposure's in most areas  are at least
an order of  magnitude below the occupational limit and no further radiation
protection program is indicated.

     3.  Rock loading tunnels (and, presumably, other occupied spaces of
limited ventilation containing significant inventories of phosphate rock or
products) have  the greatest potential for significant airborne radon progeny
exposure.  More specifically:

     a)  Calculated cumulative time-weighted annual  exposures were less
         than the  standard of 4 Working Level Months (WLM) per year in
         over 90%  of the tunnels  sampled.17
     b).  In  a small number of cases,  average concentrations for  repeated
         sampling  during a single day exceeded the standard of 0.33 Working
         levels (WL).   This level,  if verified by sampling over  a longer
         period of time, indicates  an "Airborne Radioactivity Area".
     c)  For the cases described in b) above, the calculated occupancy-
         weighted  cumulative annual value was about  twice the standard.
         This substantiates the need for reduced occupancy and/or increased
         ventilation if the measurements and occupancy times are truly
         representative.
     d)  Transient levels exceeded  0.33 WL in about  30% of the tunnels, thus
         indicating the necessity of monitoring, record  keeping  and
         calculation of individual  exposures unless  levels are decreased
         by  increased ventilation.
     e)  Time-weighted concentrations in about 15% of the tunnels exceeded
         25% of the maximum permissible concentration; thus indicating an
         "Airborne Radioactivity Area."

17) After these measurements, work  was initiated to  improve ventilation in
    tunnels  not meeting these criteria.

                                      30

-------
    Continuous 40-hr.
                                  -^    -*•
                                                           All locations except tunnels:
    Continuous 40-hr.
    Time-weighted
                                                           Inside rock-loading tunnels:
                                 ^-   -f    ^-    ^-    -*•     -*•    .r   *•
                                                                                         -*~    ^    ^~
                               0.01                     0.10                    1.0
                                         .Annual Cumulative Concentration, WLM/yr

AIRBORNE RADON PROGENY IN THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY (mean and range of plant means).
                                              FIGURE 3
10

-------
      f)  Individual measurements at over half of the tunnels and average
         levels in 40% and occupancy-corrected cumulative values for 1/3
         of the tunnels were within an order of magnitude of the standard.
         Thus a significant fraction of the tunnels had levels sufficiently
         high to merit a continued surveillance.
     g)  Levels were observed to increase significantly when installed
         mechanical ventilation was not operating.
     h)  Airborne radon progeny levels were generally higher when actual
         rock loading was taking place than when it was not, thus indicating
         the importance of this factor in accurately determining average,
         time-weighted exposures.

                  Airborne Long-lived Alpha Radioactivity

     Annual average activity levels are illustrated in Figure 4.  Following
are the significant observations.

     1.  Airborne levels of radioactivity other than short-lived radon progeny
were well below occupational concentration limits in many areas of the industry
and no further considerations are warranted for such areas.

     2.  However, certain dusty areas cannot be given an unqualified clearance.
These include:

     a)  Dry rock areas  -  drying (occasionally), grinding (especially
         Raymond mills), loading and unloading.
     b)  Fertilizer areas - ROP production (because of dustiness at the
         mixing cone), GTSP production, product storage, and product loading
         and shipping.

     3.  In most of the mentioned areas, considerable variation was observed;
this is probably due to both variations with time and true differences between
plants because of differences in design.

     4.  The results obtained indicate that Raymond mills, rock loading areas
and fertilizer loading areas:

     a)  have the potential for occupancy-weighted average concentrations
         in excess of the standard,
     b)  are likely to fall in the category of "Airborne Radioactivity Area,"
         and
     c)  have levels sufficiently high to merit periodic surveillance at
         most plants.

     5.  The results obtained indicate that for drying areas, ROP and GTSP
production, and fertilizer storage areas:

     a)  these areas not likely to have occupancy weighted concentrations
         in excess of the standard, but
     b)  many are potential "Airborne Radioactivity Areas," and
     c)  many locations have levels sufficiently high to merit periodic
         surveillance.
                                     32

-------




Continuous 40-hr.
Time-weighted








ROCK AREAS
Mining, benef iclation, offices and labs, and dry rock control rooms:


Drying, dry rock grinding, handling, loading:
\*. 	 e. 	 £. 	 £. 	 .£ 	 f. 	 f. 	 ^ 	 f. 	 e. 	 1
1 . . rrTTri : : r:™v-iliiT111'1™— TT— * 	 1

Continuous 40-hr.




PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION

, ,,..,., 1 . ....... 1 . 	 	 1 	 i . .
FERTILIZER AREAS -
Continuous 40-hr. !
Time-weighted I




Selected production, storage.




loading areas.

0.1                      1.0                      10
                                 Concentration, pCi/m3

     AIRBORNE LONG - LIVED ALPHA RADIOACTIVITY (range of plant means).
                                    FIGURE 4
100
                     1000

-------
                                  REFERENCES
Bo77      Bolch, W. E., Whitney,  D.E.,  Chhatre,  R.M.,  and Roessler, C. E.,
          1977, "Uranium and Radium Concentrations  in  Florida Phosphate Fractions
          by GeLi Spectrometry,"  Proceedings  of  Health Physics Society Tenth
          Midyear Topical Symposium,  Natural  Radioactivity  in Man's  Environment.
          October, 1976, 400.

ICRP77    International Commission on Radiological  Protection, 1977, "Radiation
          Protection in Uranium and Other Mines,"   ICRP Publication 24, Annals
          of the ICRP, 1, 1-28.

Ku56      Kusnetz, H. L., 1956, "Radon  Daughters in Mine Atmospheres - A Field
          Method for Determining  Concentrations," American  Industrial Hygiene
          Association Quarterly,  17,  83.

OSHA72    Occupational Safety  and Health  Administration, 1972, Regulations of
          Occupational Safety  and Health  Administration, Title 29, Code of
          Federal Regulations  Section 1910.96.

Ro77      Roessler, C.E., Smith,  Z.A.,  Bolch, W.E., and Prince, R.J., 1977,
          "Uranium and Radium-226 in Florida  Phosphate Materials," report
          submitted to Florida Phosphate  Council from  University of Florida.

Rol69     Rolle, R., 1969, "Improved Radon Daughter Monitoring Procedure,"
          American Industrial  Hygiene Association Journal,  30, 153.

Rol73     Rolle, R., 1973, "Rapid Working Level  Monitoring,1
          22, 233.
                                     34

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     The authors wish  to  acknowledge the assistance of many persons who
assisted in designing  the study,  performing the field and laboratory work and
preparing and reviewing the  final report.

     Dr. W. E. Bolch and  Dr.  J. A.  Wethington, Jr., of the Univerity of Florida,
Mr.  6. Palm of Gordon  Palm and Associates,  Dr. W. Rodgers and Mr. H. Morton
of Nuclear Safety Associates  and  representatives of the various phosphate
companies all contributed to  the  planning of the study, periodically reviewed
the work and commented on progress  reports  and this final report.

     While R. Prince was  responsible for all of the field and much of the
laboratory work, he was assisted'by a number of individuals.  Ouce materials
samples reached the laboratory, analyses for radium-226 and uranium were the
overall responsibility of Z.  Smith; however, operations in the gamma spectrometry
laboratory were under  the charge  of R. King and the procedure used for these
samples were set up by Dr.. W. E.  Bolch.

     The radon progeny sampling procedures  were set up by J. Danek; P. Knapp
and R. Kautz assisted  in  the field sampling.  Radon sampling and analyses were
provided by the students  in  Dr. Wethington1 s laboratory.

     Phosphate company personnel  were most helpful in providing briefings on
processes and assisting in the  field sampling.

     The personnel who traveled from Gainesville to Polk County to perform the
field work express their  gratitude for the  message center provided by G. Palm
and the personnel of his  office.

     Shirley Johnson provided the secretarial services, receiving communications
and typing the numerous letters,  drafts and reports; she was assisted by
Kathy Volpi.
                                     35

-------
APPENDIX

-------
     Table A-l.   Tabulation of Relative Concentrations of Long-Lived
                 Radionuclides in Air Samples.
A) Prior to Chemical Operations

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Area Sampled
Dryer-mill area
Car loading area
Ground floor
Pebble receiving
Ball mill
Near ball mill control room
Car unloading area
Near dryer
Company
£
E
E
E
E
E
B
D
238u/234u/230Tll/2268a
pCi/sample
130/132/158/136
200/198/240/221
43/43/44/48
103/113/179/119
124/124/128/230
48/49/51/47
57/62/65/61
212/222/428/425
Ratio
1.00/1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
.00/0.
.00/1.
,00/1.
.00/1.
.00/1.
.00/1,
.00/1.
,01/1.
.21/1.
,99/1.20/1,
.00/1.
.10/1.
.00/1.
.02/1,
.10/1.
.05/2.
,03/1.
.73/1.
.05
.10
.12
.16
.03/1.05
.06/0,
.15/1
.97
,07V
.02/2.01"
B) After Chemical Operations
1)
2)
3)
4)
GTSF storage
GTSP storage
"Fertilizer bldg."
Product storage area
E
E
B
B
109/113/117/14
57/56/56/22
76/78/89/31
73/71/70/26
1.
1.
1.
1,
.00/1.
,00/0.
.00/1.
.00/0,
.03/1.
.98/0.
.03/1.
.97/0.
.07/0
,98/0
.17/0
.96/0
.13
.39
.41
.36
a Sampling and analyses performed by EPA,  data  provided by Phosphate
    Council member companies.

b This single sample has an unusual value  of  230Tll an(j 22BRa  at
    twice the uranium level.  (This facility  is no longer in operation).
                                           37

-------
      Table A-2.  Summary of Equilibrium Status  of Long-Lived
                     Radionuclides  in Air Samples.
A) Prior to Chemical Operations:
Average and Range
Company N
£ 6
B 1
D 1
234u
Ave (Range)
1.02(0.99-1.10)
1.10
1.05
of Concentrations Relative to 238U
230Th
Ave (Range)
1.21(1.03-1.73)
1.15
2.02
226Ra
Ave (Range)
1.08(0.97-1.
1.07
2.01.

16)
Excluding company D number  8:

               1    1.03(0.99-1.10)

Including company D number  8:

	8    1.03(0.99-1.10)

Comments:             Equilibrium
                         1.20(1.03-1.73)
                         1.30(1.03-2.02)
                    1.07(0.97-1.16)
                     1.19(0.97-2.01)
                           Equilibrium to Slight Enhancement
B)   After Chemical Operations:
       E
       B

Summary:
Comments
     1.01(0.98-1.03)
     1.00(0.97-1.03)
1.02(0.98-1.07)
1.06(0.96-1.17)
                    Equilibrium
                         Equilibrium
0.26(1.13-0.39)
0.38(0.36-0.41)
4    1.00(0.97-1.03)     1.04(0.96-1.17)     0.32(0.13-0.41)
                    Non-Equilibrium
                                    38

-------
                                     APPENDIX  F

                       PEMBROKE LABORATORY
                            DIVISION OF 06LIME MINERALS COMPANY
                                PEMBROKE. FLORIDA 33866

                  CERT I F I CFITE   OF   FIMFtUVS I S

                                       SRMF-L.ES

                                 FEBRUflRV  6, 1979
 HVDROSCIENCE RESEflRCH  GROUP,
 3439 SOUTH HIGHUHV 98
 LflKELflND, FLORIDfi    33S01
                              INC.
                                     RRDIUtl 226
    SRMPLE
 IDENTIFICflTION
RRDIUM 226
PCI/LITER
                                              SRMPLED         RECEIVED
              LRB
             NUMBER
 1    FLORIDAN DEEP          0- 25
     WELL

 1H   HAWTHORNE WELL-        0- 79
     PARKING LOT

 IP   NO. 1 POND AT          0- 08
     PUMPING STATION

 iS   SLAG PIT WATER-        6. 12
     FILTERED TO REMOVE
     SOLIDS
 2S   SLAG PROCESS WATER     0- 25
     FILTERED
                        01/25/79


                        01/25/79


                        01/25/79


                        01/25/79


                        01/25/79
01/25/79


01/25/79


01/25/79


01/25/79


01/25/79
                                                                              R5
R6
R7
R8
               R9
These analyses have been provided at the customer's request for an analysis on February 6th.
The ingrowth period for these samples range from 48 hours to 120 hours.  The minimum
ingrowth time recommended by our laboratory is 336 hours.  These analyses may have a 20%
error due to the short ingrowth period.
                                       THRNK  YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITV TO  SERVE VOU.
                                                               CHEMIST

-------
                       PEMBROKE  LABORATORY
                            DIVISION OF D6LIME MINERALS COMPANY
                                PEMBROKE, FLORIDA 33866
                  CERTIFICATE  OF  FIIMFH-VS I S

                          WRITER  SF»MF>I_ES

                                FEBRUARY 19, 1979
HYDROSCIENCE RESERRCH GROUP,  INC.
3439 SOUTH HIGHMRV 98
LRKELflND,  FLORIDfl   33801
                                    RRDIUM 226


    SRMPLE           RRDIUM 226          	DRTE	    LflB
JDENTIFICHTION       PCI/LITER              SRMPLED         RECEIVED     NUMBER


35  Slag Storage        4. 38                02/81/79        82/81/79      Rie
             Leachate
This analysis has been provided at the customer's request for an analysis on February 19th.
The ingrowth period for these samples was 238. 7 hours.  The minimum ingrowth time that is
recommended by our laboratory is 336 hours.  This analysis may have a 20% error due to the
short ingrowth period.
                                      THflNK VOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE VOU
                                                             CHEMIST

-------
                            RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT




Page 1  of  7                   PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS







                                         COMMENTS BY




                                   SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES CORP.










                 The following comments outline the official  position of Southern




            Industries Corp., P.O.  Box 1685,  Mobile, Alabama   36601,  concerning the




            classification of phosphorus furnace slag as a hazardous  waste under 40 CFR




            Part 250  Subpart A  of the proposed regulations.









                 Southern Industries commends the EPA in its  endeavors to limit or




            eliminate any irresponsible disposal of hazardous wastes, however,  based




            upon scientific and technical studies conducted by various producers and




            others in the Florida and Tennessee areas, we feel that phosphorus  furnace




            slag cannot be classified under 40 CFR Part 250  Subpart  A as a hazardous




            waste.









                 There are two reasons for this:




                      1.  Phosphorus furnace slag is not a "waste".




                      2.  Phosphorus furnace slag is not hazardous.







                                        SLAG IS NOT A "WASTE"




                 At the present time Southern Industries purchases 100Z of all  phos-




            phorus furnace slag generated by two elemental phosphorus producers in




            Florida and two elemental phosphorus producers in Tennessee.  The com-




            bined annual tonnage amounts to approximately 1.3 million tons.  Before




            selling this material into a diversified market,  which will be outlined be-




            low, it is crushed and sized into several different grades or sizes, each

-------
Page 2 of 7
         supplying  a  vital product source for its particular market.   To  process

         this material  for market required a substantial outlay of capital invest-

         ment in  land,  plant equipment and material inventories.   It  also requires

         the services of  78 employees, along with many outside contractors and in-

         dustrial supply  vendors.

              In  1978,  Southern Industries sold phosphorus furnace slag  into the

         following market areas:

              1. Railroad Ballast           -    236,907 tons      18%
              2. Road Aggregates                  788,740 tons      60%
              3. Sewage Treatment           -    154,018 tons      12%
              4. Concrete Blocks             -     90,498 tons        7%
              5. Roofing                     -     40,034 tons        3%
              6. Misc.  (Driveways,  etc)      -        877 tons
                                                1,311,074 tons       100%

              This tonnage represents  approximately 70% of all phosphorus furnace

         slag in Tennessee and  100%  of all  phosphorus furnace  slag in Florida that

         is generated by the various elemental phosphorus producers.

              Gross sales of phosphorus furnace slag in 1978 amounted to $5,934,206.

              Phosphorus furnace slag  is marketed  and shipped  in Florida, Alabama,

         Tenn., Kentucky, Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Texas,  North Carolina, South

         Carolina and Indiana by SI  Minerals  and Southern Stone Co.,  both wholly

         owned subsidiaries of  Southern Industries.

              Unlike limestone, which  is the  primary construction aggregate in

         the Southeastern United States, it has non-polishing  characteristics and

         is specified in lieu of limestone by the  Federal Bureau of Roads for use

         in non-skid bituminous wearing surface pavements.   This greatly enhances

-------
Page 3 of  7
           the safety characteristics of  asphalt highway pavements.




                Another unique  feature  of slag versus  limestone  is  the non-cementing




           properties which  it  possesses.  This is  a very  important quality when used




           as railroad ballast.  This feature insures  good drainage on railroad beds




           and greatly increases the life expectancy of RR crossties and  railroad




           track life, which in turn is a definite  safety  factor.






                If  the 1.3 million annual tons of phosphorus furnace slag is witheld




           from the marketplace, not only will the  replacement cost be exorbitant,




           but, in  some cases,  an  aggregate of equal quality is  simply not available.






                How could a  vital  product such as  this be  designated as  a "waste"?

-------
Page 4 of 7
                                    SLAG IS NOT'"HAZARDOUS"
                  The EPA evidently lists phosphorus furnace slag as hazardous because
            of  Its  concern for airborne radiation from radon gas and Its progeny,  arising
            from  earlier EPA studies of the phosphate Industry, and In particular  homes
            built on reclaimed land.


                  Since Florida slag shows a higher radium 226 decay activity (40-70 pel
            per gram),  than Tennessee slag ( 3-5  pel per gram), our comments are  di-
            rected  to results of studies relating to phosphorus furnace slag generated
            by  Florida elemental phosphorus producers.

                  A  major contributing factor concerning the concentration of radon gas
            in  a  particular area is a direct function of the emanating power of the
            particular material involved.  The emanating power is defined as the ratio
            of  the  radon gas escaping from a. material to the total amount of radon gas
            being generated in the material, from the decay of radium 226.

                  A  study made by one Florida company reveals the following conclusion
            and we  quote:
                  "Data available to us shows that slag has an extremely low emanating
            power,  ranging from 16/1000ths of 1 percent to 42/100ths of 1 percent, de-
            pending on material sizing.  Compared to the proposed standard of 5 pel per
            gram  for soil, on which the standard was based, to obtain an equivalent radon
            flux  from slag would require that the slag contain a minimum of 227 pel per
            gram  (for fine par tides) and up to 6000 pel per gram for lump aggregate.
            Conversely,  slag which nominally contains radium 226 at an activity level of
            40- 70 pel per gram would have a radon flux equivalent to soil at well under
            1 pel per gram."

-------
, Page 5 of
                 Three other studies of airborne radiation were made, including one in

            1976 by U.S.E.P.A. with the following results:
            University of Florida
                   (External)

                      .003 WL
                      .007 WL
                      .0006 WL
 New York University
(External & Internal)

      .0012 WL
      .0011 WL
      .0022 WL
      .0011 WL
      .0010 WL
      .0003 WL
U.S.E.P.A
(Internal)
    .0006 WL
    .005  WL
    .003  WL
    .005  WL
                 The results of these studies ,^made  at  phosphorus  furnace sites where

             the accumulation of slag is'many  times greater  than  any  commercial or private

             use site, shows airborne radiation at working levels 1/10  to 1/20 of the

             Nuclear Regulatory Commission  standard of 0.03  WL  for  continuous public

             exposure (168 hours per week).


                 A further study  to determine  the concentration  of radium 226 in water

             at a particular elemental phosphorus plant  site gave the following results:
                               Sample  Identification

                 1. Floridan aquifer well
                 2. Hawthorne aquifer  well
                 3. Recirculated pond  water
                 4. Slag cooling water
                 5. Slag Processing water
                 6. Leachate from  slag storage  area
                 Radium 226 pel/liter

                          0.25
                          0.79
                          0.08
                          6.12
                          0.25
                          4.30
                 These results are well below the  50  pci/liter  proposed  standard and

            all but one is below  the  5 pci/liter EPA  standard for  drinking water.

                 Other tests have been conducted by the University of  Florida  Institute

            of Food and Agricultural  Sciences on sugarcane  fields  in the South Florida

            area.  These tests indicate no  trace of any measurable radiation in sugarcane

            fields where phosphorus furnace slag had  been applied  to the soil  to increase

            sugarcane production  per  acre.

-------
Page 6 of 7
        SUMMARY:

                     Southern  Industries maintains  that:

        1. EPA has no authority  under RCRA to  regulate  slag  sold as a product

           since it is not a solid waste.

        2. EPA has no authority  to list slag as  hazardous because of radioactivity

           without first  establishing appropriate radioactivity hazardous waste

           characteristic criteria.

        3. The classification  of slag as a hazardous waste would eliminate slag

           from vital markets  creating:

                          a. The loss of 78 jobs

                          b. Substantial assets  to  be written  off

                          c. The loss of $5,900,000 in  annual  gross
                             sales to Southern Industries

                          d. Loss of  revenue to  outside contractors
                             and industrial vendors

                          e. Loss -of  jobs  and  revenue to small private
                             trucking firms

                          f. An  increased  inflationary  cost  of vital
                             construction  aggregates

                          g. An  increased  inflationary  cost  to elemental
                             phosphorus producers which may  jeopardize
                             their continued operation  and thus the source
                             of  our business.

-------
Page 7  of  7
          Please  direct  all response to:

          Steve Allen, President
          Southern  Stone Co.,  Inc.
          2111 Eighth Ave., South
          Birmingham, Alabama   35233
             Tele:  205/252-6104
          T.  G.  Smith,  Vice President
          SI  Minerals,  Inc.
          P.O. Box  5108
          Lakeland,  Florida  33803
             Tele:  813/646-5741

-------
                                                      March 7, 1979


             STATEMENT  OF  ARAPAHOE CHEMICALS,  INC.


In Re:  HEARINGS ON  THE PROPOSED  REGULATIONS FOR THE RESOURCE
        CONSERVATION  AND RECOVERY ACT  OF 1976  -  DENVER,  COLORADO
My name is Earl R. White.  I  am  the  Health  and  Regulatory  Affairs
Chemist for Arapahoe Chemicals,  Inc.  located  in  Boulder,  Colorado.
Arapahoe Chemicals is a manufacturer  of  bulk  Pharmaceuticals and
fine organic chemicals with  facilities located  in  Boulder, Colorado
employing 273 people and  in  Newport,  Tennessee,  employing 206
people.

Arapahoe  Chemicals  is  committed to  the concept of soc'ial  responsi-
bility  tha.t  includes  active  and convincing participation  in
national  pol icymaking.   We have also  made commitments of  responsibility
in  our  relationships  with our shareholders, our employees and
our  community.   In  responding to these proposed measures  we  do
not  wish  to  imply that we are fighting the concept of social
responsibility,  nor  are  we blind to the  real  causes of environmental
insults .

-------
                                2.
Me appreciate  the  difficulties  in writing responsible regulations
to enforce  the  technicalities  of reasonable legislation.
Especially  recognizable  are  the difficulties encountered when
               i
dealing  in  the  highly  complex  area of environmental protection.
Me believe  that public policy  should be based upon an informed
view - one  that is far-sighted, fiscally responsible, realistic,
supportable and non-selfserving.  We believe in facing this
regulatory  dilemma squarely  without resorting to exaggeration
and overstatement  of the possible ramifications to EPA's
proposals - a  tactic which we  recognize would polarize the exchange
of ideas.   Furthermore,  we believe that responsible business
can play a  constructive  role and not just a defensive one in
the formulation of regulatory  policy.

In the comments to follow we have identified and responded to
certain  technical,  legal  and economic issues which we feel will
have a profound impact on our  business.  Equally important,
however, is the fact that neither RCRA nor the proposed implementing
regulations deal with  the scarcity of hazardous waste treatment
and disposal facilities  or the  extreme difficulties faced by
government  and  private industry in siting additional  facilities.
It is clear that these regulations, if finalized in their present
form, would place  many generators in the position of having no
feasible means  of  disposing  of  some or all  of their waste.
There is a  good  possibility  that there will  be n£ approved
hazardous waste  disposal  sites  (landfills)  in either  Colorado or
Tennessee.   Furthermore,  the legislatures of both States may refuse

-------
                                 3.
to fund another expensive  Federal  program.  The Colorado
Legislature took that  posture  this  past year when  it stopped
funding COSH, the State arm  of the  Federal  OSHA program.

Arapahoe Chemicals'  principal  concerns with the proposed regulations
contained in Section 3001  are  discussed first  and  our detailed
comments follow in a section-by-section format.   In the opinion
of Arapahoe Chemicals, there are  three basic problems with the
proposed Section 3001  hazardous waste regulations.  These include:

     (1)  The potentially  high  cost,  in both time  and money, of
          performing the tests  to  determine whether or not a
          waste is hazardous.

     (2)  The exceptionally  broad  definition of a  solid waste,
          and

     (3)  The proposed controversial  Extraction Procedure.

Our first concern centers  around  EPA's proposal beginning with
Sec.  250.10(d)(l)(i):
"Generator's of solid waste may elect  to declare their waste
hazardous and subject to the regulations of this  Part.  In
these cases, generators need not perform the specified evaluation. "

-------
                                4.
Arapahoe's  comments:
Since  the cost,  in  both  time and money, of performing the tests
to classify industrial  wastes is so high and since the penalty
for not being  in compliance is so great, the tendency for small
and medium  sized generators is going to be to declare all
industrial  wastes as  hazardous.  This in turn is going to put an
unnecessary and  greater  burden on the approved hazardous waste
landfill  sites  in the country and consequently decrease their
useful  life,  resulting in the wasting of a valuable natural
resource.   Furthermore,  as the easily accessible sites are
filled and  it  becomes necessary for industry to haul its wastes
greater distances,  the $35 to $4200* per metric ton EPA disposal
cost estimate,  which  is  approximately four to 436 times our current
disposal  cost,  will  be greatly exceeded.

We. recommend  that EPA develop and adopt less expensive and easier
tests  to  make  the determination of whether or not a waste is hazardous
This would  surely be  a good use of public money.
*Memorandum  from  deary,  Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton to SOCMA
 dated  December 27,  1978.

-------
                                 5.
Our  second  concern  centers around EPA's proposal  beginning with



Sec.  250.13(a)(1)(ii):



"A solid  waste  is  a hazardous waste if a representative sample of



the  waste:  .  .  . when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently



as to  create  a  hazard during its management."







Arapahoe's  comments:



Is it  the intent of this section to regulate  non-domestic waste



paper,  cardboard,  wood  scraps, sawdust, etc., as  hazardous wastes?



Certain wastes,  such  as  waste paper from office facilities of chemical



companies may be non-hazardous.   These should not be classified as



hazardous merely because of the  source, nor should companies have to



'justify by  testing  that  their waste paper is  not  hazardous. Waste



paper  from .the  office facilities of chemical  companies should be



treated no  differently  than normal  household  refuse (Refer to Pag.e



58969,  Column 3 of  these proposed regulations, which addresses the



intent  of Congress ).







The  clause  "or  when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently as



to cause  a  hazard  during its management" should be stricken from



the  regulations.

-------
                                6.
Our third  major  concern  centers around EPA's proposal beginning
with Sec.  250.13(d)(l):
"A solid waste is a  hazardous  waste if,  according to the methods
specified  in paragraph  (2),  the extract obtained from applying the
Extraction Procedure (EP)  acited below to a representative sample
of the  waste has concentrations of a contaminant that exceeds any
of the  following values  [e.g.,] cadmium at 0.10 mg/1."

And Sec. 250.13(d)(2)(E):
"Begin  agitation and adjust  the pH of the solution to S.O ± 0.2
using 0.5  H acetic acid."

Arapahoe's comments
It appears that  the  intent of  this section is to incorporate
discarded  concrete,  piping,  ductwork and other construction discards
to the  EP  test.  Therein,  it appears that building contractors,
wreckers,  etc. would be  classed as generators of solid waste and
would be required to apply the EP to determine if their solid waste
were hazardous.  A classic example being a fragment of concrete from
drain tile, an aqueduct, a dam, a bridge, a highway, an airport
runway, a  skyscraper, a  neighborhood sidewalk, the foundation of a
home, or the storage pad of  a  chemical  plant which, when subjected
to the  proposed  EP results in  a "leachate" containing cadmium in
excess  of  0.10 mg/1.

The EP  test appears  scientifically unsound in that:  (a)  This
laboratory test may  not  be indicative of actual environmental

-------
                                 7.
situations;  (b)   Two  chemicals used in the test,  namely acetic
acid and deionized  water,  are not commonly found  in nature;
(c)  Disposal  of  acid waste is not considered state-of-the-art
practice by  industry; (d)  'Acid analysis as indicative of soil
eT'ie^+frn—d&es-not— cover-the-normal-a^l ka+i-nc soils  fMnd in the arid
and semi-arid  western two  thirds of the natvo-n; and (e)  No
consideration  of  soil types or characteristics (other than acidity)
was acknowledged  or dealt  with in this section.
'This  concludes  our public statement of concerns relative to Section
3001.   We  appreciate the opportunity to have presented our concerns,
opinions and  suggestions.

-------
 CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
                                                         Suite -1120
                                                         1001 Connecticut Avenue NW
                                                         Washington, DC 200J6
                                                         202/872-3110
            Testimony of Francine Bellet Kushner
     Associate Director,  Legislative & Regulatory Affairs
       Chemical  Specialties Manufacturers Association
            on Hazardous Waste Regulation Under §3001
     	the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
     Good  afternoon,  my name is Francine Bellet Kushner, Asso-

ciate Director  for Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Chemical

Specialties Manufacturers Association.  CS'IA is a voluntary  non-

profit organization consisting of more than 400 member companies

engaged  in the  manufacture,  processing and distribution of chemical

specialty  products.   Production processes in the manufacture and

formulation of  members'products generate substances  that are

directly affected  by  the proposed regulations for identification

and  listing of  hazardous wastes as well as the proposed standards

for  generators  and owner/operators of treatment, storage and dis-

posal facilities.   Accordingly, CSMA offers the following comments

regarding  the hazardous waste regulations proposed under §3001

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  These points

and  others will be further developed in our subsequent written

submission.


     We welcome this  opportunity to present our views to the

Environmental Protection Agency on issues raised by  these hazard-

ous  waste  regulations which  will have significant impact on  our

industry.  The  vitality of the chemical specialties  industry is

dependent upon  the  opportunities for constant innovation.  We

-------
                               -2-
 are concerned that the proposed hazardous waste regulations will

 have a negative impact on essential process and product innova-

 tion and will impact disproportionately on small companies.

?
 Identification Criteria Should Reflect Degree of Hazard

      The proposed regulations create but one category of hazardous

 waste and lump all wastes identified as hazardous in the category

 regardless of the differing degree of hazard, persistence, degrad-

 ability and bioaccumulation exhibited by the wastes actually

 classified as hazardous.  EPA's failure to consider degree of

 hazard in identifying and classifying hazardous wastes violates

 the provisions and intent of RCRA and will result in an irrational

 regulatory scheme which vastly over-regulates many wastes while

 possibly under-regulating others.


      Both the legislative history and RCRA itself indicate the

 degree of hazard should be considered in setting standards for

 hazardous waste management.  Section 1004(5) of RCRA indicates

 Congressional intent to consider relative hazard in its definition

 of hazardous waste as a "solid waste, or combination of solid

 wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,

 chemical or infectious characteristics...".  Section 3004 of RCRA

 recognizes that financial responsibility should be based on degrees

 of risk.  This section refers to "assurances of financial respon-

 sibility and continuity of operation consistent with the degree

 and duration of risks associated with the treatment, storage, or

 disposal of specified hazardous waste"-

-------
                             -3-
     Any designation of hazardous waste as such, because of the



management standards created by the RCRA regulations, should be



according to relative degree of hazard.  This concept of relative



degree of hazard has been recognized in state hazardous waste



management programs of many states,including Washington and Mary-



land,as well as in the designation of special wastes under §250.46



of these regulations.  Any regulatory system based on relative



degree of hazard must recognize factors of persistence, degrad-



ability, concentration,, form, quantity, and exposure.





     A regulatory system assessing relative degree of hazard is



also necessary in establishing an exemption mechanism.  It is



more realistic to key the exemption mechanism under §250.29 to



relative degree of hazard than to provide a blanket exemption.



An exemption system based upon relative degree of hazard would be



more likely to afford greater protection against hazardous waste



mismanagement than an exemption system based on an across-the-board



exemption level.   Such a system would provide significant relief



from extraordinary economic and technical burdens imposed by the



regulatory structure for less hazardous wastes and would reduce the



number of insignificant generators covered by the regulation,



thereby avoiding  a shortage in treatment, storage and disposal



capacity while not reducing protection from hazardous waste mis-



management.   A management and exemption system based upon relative



degree of hazard  would also improve oversight of hazardous waste



management by freeing the Agency to concentrate on those wastes



which exhibit truly serious hazards and would establish priorities

-------
                              -4-
for hazardous waste management review.


Criteria for Designation  as  Hazardous Waste  Should be Consistent
with DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations	

     EPA criteria for  designation of a  substance  as a hazardous

waste should be consistent with the DOT criteria  for hazardous

substances.  CSMA urges that these criteria  be  consistent be-

cause the entire industry approach to hazardous materials is

based on 'the DOT regulations.   Industry has  already geared up to

deal with the DOT criteria.   Any deviation from the DOT criteria

would not only necessitate a massive reeducation  effort on the

part of those involved in the hazardous waste management chain

but would also be significantly complicated  by  any further devia-

tion from the criteria instituted in state programs.


     For example, 1250.13(a)  designates as- an ignitable waste sub-

ject to these regulations any substance with a  flashpoint less

than 60°C  (140°F) determined by a specified  method.  EPA should

adopt a definition of  hazard based upon the  DOT designation of

flammable substances as those with a flashpoint of less than 100°F

and of combustible substances  as  those  with  a. flashpoint between

100°F and 200°F.  Such a  definition would  be consistent with

existing DOT regulations  and would also recognize relative degrees

of hazard.  As another example,  both EPA and DOT  establish as

corrosive any substance which  corrodes  steel in excess of one-quarter

inch per year.  Nevertheless,  EPA has gone bevond existing DOT

regulations to identify pH,  in  and of itself, as  an indication of

corrosivity.  Section  250.13(b)  adds an additional criterion

-------
                             -5-
for designation  of a waste as corrosive a pH of less than three



or greater than  twelve.   The invalidity of pH as an indicator of



corrosive hazard has been recognized by the Consumer Product Safety



Commission and by its predecessor Bureau of Product Safety within



the Food and  Drug Administration in detergent toxicity surveys.



Therefore, EPA should delete pH as a criterion for corrosive waste.





Definition of "Other Discarded Material"
     The section 250.10(b)  definition of "other discarded material"



includes substances  or wastes that are reused, reprocessed, re-



cycled or recovered,including materials treated prior to reuse.



The extension  of the  definition to such substances is clearly not



contemplated by  RCRA.   The  legislative history (H. Kept. No. 94-1491,



Part I)  states that  the term "other discarded materials" is not



to include reused waste.   "Much industrial and agricultural waste



is reclaimed or  put  to new  use and is therefore not a part of the



discarded materials  disposal problem the committee addresses"-



(H. Kept.  No.  94-1491, Part I, p.2).  Materials that are reused,



regardless of  how, are not  subject to regulation under RCRA.  This



inclusion of material  having economic value in the term "other dis-



carded material"  is  also  inconsistent with the ordinary usage of




the term "discarded"-





     The proposed regulations should recognize that, by definition,



a waste  has no commercial or economic value, and any used substance



with commercial  or economic value should not be subject to these



requirements.  And, this  recognition should incorporate a presump-



tion that  if a waste has  inherent economic value, it will be used

-------
                              -6-
for the purposa  that will  exploit  that  commercial  or  economic value.




     Furthermore, where  the  commercial  or economic value  of a




hazardous waste  is based upon  heat generation  from incineration,



the current definition of  "other discarded material"  would result



in regulation of this waste  under  these hazardous  waste regulations.



This would result in making  a  waste incinerator  used  for  heat



generation purposes, a treatment facility subject  to  the  design



standards proposed under §3004 and the  permit  requirement of §3005.



Such a result was not contemplated by Congress.  Accordingly, the



definition of "other discarded material"  should  be amended to



clarify that reprocessed,recovered,  or  returned  reusable  chemicals



do not constitute waste  subject to regulation  under RCRA  and that



treatment of wastes prior  to reuse is not subject  to  regulation




under §3004 of RCRA.






     Regulatory  treatment  under RCRA of reused,  recycled, or re-



processed waste  should be  consistent with rules  under §5  of the



Toxic Substances Control Act  (TSCA)  which recognize that  exploita-



tion of full potential of  a waste  or end  product does not consti-



tute sufficient  basis for  regulation.   For example, 40 CFR §720.13 (d),



a rule under §5  of TSCA, does  not  classify co-products as chemical



substances subject to TSCA "if the only commercial purpose is for



sale to municipal or private organizations who burn it as a fuel".




Accordingly, waste materials burned primarily  for  heat recovery



should not be considered "other discarded material" for purposes



of disposal under §3004  regulations  of  RCRA.

-------
                               -7-
Summary



      In summary,  the proposed regulations under §3001 of RCRA



should be amended  to reflect CSMA's major concerns,  which are:



      1.  Identification criteria and listings to designate



          hazardous waste should reflect relative degrees



          of  hazard.  The regulatory system and any  exemptions



          thereunder should incorporate relative degrees of



          hazard.






      2.  Criteria for designation as hazardous waste should



          be  consistent with criteria under DOT hazardous



          materials regulations.






      3.  The definition of "other discarded material" should



          not include wastes that are reused, reprocessed,



          recycled, or recovered, including materials treated




          prior to reuse.






      CSMA appreciates this opportunity to share our views and we



offer our firm commitment to work with the Environmental Protection



Agency toward development of viable hazardous waste  management




regulations.

-------
               RIO BLANCO OIL SHALE COMPANY
                          OAVTON COMMONS  972S E. HAMPOEN AVENUE
                           DENVER. COLORADO 8023T   303-751-2030
                                A 3ENERAL PARTNERSHIP
                       C OIL CORPORATIGN • STANDARD GIL COMPANY .INDIANA,
                                  March 7,  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:

           In 43 Fed. Reg.  58946 - 59022 (Dec.  18,  1978),  the  U.  S.  Environmental
 Protection Agency  (EPA) caused  to be published certain  proposed  regulations under
 S§ 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924]  of the Solid  Waste Disposal Act, as
 amended by the  Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA),1 which was passed
 by Congress  on  October 21, 1976.   Submission of written comments  on these pro-
 posed regulations  has been invited by EPA and are  due on  or before  March 16,
 1979.

           In response to this Invitation, Rio Blanco Oil  Shale Company, a general
 partnership  comprised of Standard Oil Company (Indiana) and Gulf Oil Corporation
 (RBOSC),  would like to take this opportunity to submit our written comments
 thereon for  EPA's  consideration.   In addition, by  letter  under date of February 23,
 1979 to Mrs. Geraldlne Wyer of  EPA, RBOSC has requested2 an  opportunity to make an
 oral presentation  on these proposed regulations at the  Denver hearing scheduled
 March 7-9, 1979.  A copy of this  letter will be submitted as  a part of that hearing
 record.  Mr. Kent  R. Olson will make RBOSC's oral  presentation.

           Before addressing RBOSC's specific concerns,  perhaps some background
 information  on  how our written  comments are  organized would be helpful.  We have
 elected to treat at the outset  certain fundamental legal  questions  which we believe
 affect all three of these proposed regulations. For this reason, these legal
 comments do  not "identify the regulatory docket or notice number" as requested
 in EPA's Invitation to comment, but they should be understood to apply to IS 3001
  [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 16924] collectively.   Thereafter, we will present
 our specific comments, whenever practical, in the  order in  which these proposed
 regulations  appear in .the Federal Register and in  the chronological order in
 1  Throughout these comments,  the section number within the brackets  following the
    section number of RCRA refers to the corresponding section  reference  in Title
    42 U.S.C.

,2  This request was orally granted on March 1,  1979 by Mr.  Kafara of  EPA.

-------
Mr.  John  P.  Lehman
March  7,  1979
Page Two
which they  appear within  each such proposed regulation.  Where, for example, a
comment on  some  feature of the proposed regulation under § 3001 [6921] would also
pertain to  a concern  of ours on an aspect of the proposed regulation under I 3002
 [6922] and/or §  3004  [6924], we will attempt to coordinate those comments and
cross-reference  the appropriate subsections in a manner so as to avoid any con-
fusion or repetition.
                          FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL COMMENTS

      1.   It fs  premature to presently include "mining waste" within the coverage
of II 3001  [6921],  3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924] of RCRA and within any regulations
promulgated thereunder.3  The definition of "solid waste" in 1 1004(27)  [6903(27)]
of RCRA could be read as suggesting (erroneously) that, because discarded material
from "mining .  .  .  operations" is "solid waste," such waste may be presently
regulated under  these three sections of RCRA.  However, the legislative history
of RCRA* refutes that suggestion and makes it clear that Congress intended that
any such regulatory effort must be preceded by the study, reporting and consul-
tation procedures in I 8002(f) [6982(f)].

               "Further, there are other aspects of the discarded ma-
              terials problem, namely mining wastes and sludge, that
              could pose significant threats to human life and the
              environment.  Because of a lack or  [sic] information,
              the  Committee is unable to determine the hazards asso-
              ciated with the improper management of these wastes.
              The  Committee has therefore directed the Environmental
              Protection Agency to study the sources and composition
              of these wastes; the existing methods of disposal; and
              the  potential dangers to human health and the environ-
              ment caused by the improper management of these wastes."5
               [Emphases supplied. ]
3  Although "mining waste" is undefined in RCRA and in these proposed regulations,
   the traditional  mining industry usage of this term, recognized even in the
   proposed regulations themselves, reveal that "mining waste" also includes
   that waste for mining-related activities, such as, for example, the processing
   of ores  and minerals.   See "other mining waste" subcategory under the category
   "special waste standards"/1" § 250.46-5.
4  The atypical  procedural history, including the hectic final days, of this legis-
   lation is vividly described in KOVACS & KLUCSIK, The Mew Federal Role in Solid
   Waste Management: The  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 3 COLUM.
   J. ENVIR. L.  205, 216-20 (1977):
5  H.R.  Rep. No.  94-1491, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 4 (1976).

-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Three
               "Three areas in particular are of such a nature as to
               require either a special study or a special program.
               These three areas are: raining waste, sludge, and dis-
               carded automobile tires.

                 "A thorough study of mining waste 1s essential because
               mining wastes represent  1.8 billion tons of waste a
               year.  (The second largest waste generator by volume 1s
               agriculture at 687 million tons, industrial at 200 million
               tons, followed by municipal waste at 135 million tons.)
               The traditional theory regarding mining waste has been
               that it is generally  inert.  However, a few recent
               studies indicate that some mining wastes can be harmful;
               some particularly so  when mixed with water.  Other mine
               tailings, particularly those containing heavy metals
               may be inert but nonetheless toxic even in their elemental
               form.  Committee Information on the potential danger posed
               by mining waste is not sufficient to form the basis for
               legislative action at this time.For this reason, the
               Committee has mandated a study of mining wastes.

                 "EPA will undertake a  study of mining waste, its sources,
               and volumes, present  disposal practices and will evaluate
               the potential danger  to  human health and environmental
               vitality.  EPA will study surface runoff or leachate
               from mining wastes and air pollution by dust, as well
               as alternatives to current disposal methods and the costs
               of such alternatives  . .  .  ."6  [Emphases supplied.]
                  "The  intent  is  for  EPA  to  look  at  all  mining waste
               disposal  practices, past  and present,  identify the
               adverse effects of such wastes  on the  environment,  in-
               cluding people and property  located  beyond  the boundary
               of the  mine, evaluate the adequacy of  those practices
               from  a  technical  standpoint, Including the  adequacy of
               governmental regulations  governing such disposal, and
               make  recommendations  for  additional  R&D,  for improve-
               ment  of such practices and,  where appropriate, for  the
               development and utilization  of  alternative  means or
               methods of disposal that  are safe and  environmentally
               sound ...."/  [Emphases supplied.]
6  jd_. at  15.   Cf_.  Cong.  Rec.,  June  30,  1976,  S11092,  93.

7  H.R.  Rep.  No. 94-1491,  supra note 5 at 97.

-------
Mr. John P.  Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Four
          Until these § 8002(f)  [6982(f)] procedures are met, thereby giving
 to EPA the information Congress found lacking**  to  reasonably and non-arbitrarily
 regulate that "raining waste" which is "hazardous,"  "mining waste" cannot be so
 regulated as though it were "hazardous."  In considering H.R. 14496, whose pro-
 visions in this regard were essentially those of RCRA  as finally passed, the
 staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce of the House Interstate
 and Foreign Commerce Committee  (which was the subcommittee that reviewed this
 bill) requested and received from EPA copies of all damage reports, totalling some
 400 reports, for the express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from
 what kinds of activities and facilities should  be  covered in RCRA's definition
 of "solid waste."  Not one of these reports involved  "mining waste," nor could
 EPA then (as it probably could  not now if requested under the Freedom of Infor-
 mation Act) produce any information on "mining  waste"  for that exhaustive sub-
 committee staff effort.  It was precisely for this  lack-of-information  reason
 that Congress mandated EPA to conduct the § 8002(f)  [6982(f)] study on  "mining
 wastes."

          This is not to say that EPA is precluded from finding now that specific
 mine wastes from a specific site are "hazardous,"9  but rather that any  finding
 that certain mining wastes generally are "hazardous"  can occur only "at some time
 in the future,"lu after the I 8002(f)  [6982(f)] procedures are met.  By this
 method, Congress sought to give EPA the latitude  to formulate the scientific
 8  EPA apparently has found this  information  lacking,  too.   In  the  preamble  to
    its proposed Subpart D regulations  under S 3004 [6924]  of RCRA,' EPA admits
    that it
               "has very little information gn the composition, charac-
               teristics, and the degree  of hazard posed by these wastes,
               nor does the Agency yet have data  on the  effectiveness
               of current or potential  waste  management  technologies
               or the technical or economic practicability of imposing
               the Subpart D standards on facilities managing such  waste.

                 "The limited information the Agency does  have  indicates
               that such waste occurs  in  very large volumes, that  the
               potential hazards  posed by the waste are  relatively  low,
               and that the waste generally is not amendable [sic]  to
               the control techniques  developed in Subpart D."
    43 Fed. Reg. 58991-92 (Dec. 18, 1978).
 9  It is this authority of the EPA Administrator  to currently list  specific  mine
    wastes, from specific mine sites, based on valid and  thorough data, that  the
    following first full sentence  on page  3 of H.R.  Rep.  No.  94-1491 refers:  "This
    however does not preclude any  finding  by the Administrator that  specific  mine
    [not mining] wastes are hazardous wastes within the scope of this legislation"
    [emphases supplied].
10  H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 3.

-------
 Mr.  John P.  Lehman
 March  7, 1979
 Page Five
 basis  and data  by which "hazardous" 'Wrung wastes" thereafter could be so regu-
 lated  by EPA without the necessity off EPAls having to return to Congress to obtain
 the requisite regulatory authority;'once EPA has met these § 8002(f) [6982(f)l
 procedures, it then can promulgate regulations under l§ 3001 [6921], 3002 [6922]
 and 3004 [6924] for such "mining wastes" without any further legislation.

           With respect to RBOSC's oil shale operations relative to Federal Proto-
 type Oil Shale Tract C-a in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, these operations, including
 any generation, transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of "solid waste"
 and "hazardous waste" are, and have been from their inception, regulated by numerous
 and stringent lease stipulations11 and permits (federal and state).  Moreover, such
 operations are closely scrutinized by the Area Oil Shale Supervisor in frequent
 consultation with the Oil Shale Environmental Advisory Panel.  To superimpose yet
 another layer of regulation over these already regulated operations would be an
 example of the kind of situation Congress did not intend should be subject to
 regulations like the three proposed, unless, in implementing the § 8002(f) [6982(f)]
 study  procedures, a regulatory "hazardous waste" hiatus in this federal prototype
 oil shale program was unexpectedly discovered.

       2.  Assuming, arguendo, that §§ 3001  [6921], 3002 [6922] and 3004 [6924]
 of RCRA presently are applicable to "mining waste," and that EPA may promulgate
 regulations thereunder, it is RBOSC's understanding that oil shale mining waste,
 including processed (retorted) shale, falls under the proposed "other mining waste"
 subcategory in I 250.46-5.  If this, however, is not EPA's intent, RBOSC would
 appreciate prompt notification thereof and would hereby request, without preju-
 dice to any of the fundamental legal comments herein, that a separate "oil shale
 mining waste subcategory," which would include processed (retorted) shale be created
 under  the "special waste standards" category in § 250.46.  Oil Shale development,
 like many other kinds of mining, includes extraction, crushing, handling, pro-
 cessing and transporting steps, and therefore should be treated equitably with
 other  mining.

       3.  It is unclear if EPA Intends to regulate overburden under the "other
 mining waste" subcategory in S 250.46-5 as it proposes to do for certain enumerated
 "mining wastes."12  if so, any such regulation would have no basis either in RCRA13
 or in  the legislative history14 thereof.  The term "solid waste" is defined in
 RCRA to mean only certain kinds of "discarded material."15  Therefore, unless a
 material is "discarded," 1t never is a "solid waste" under RCRA, nor can it ever
11  See Federal Tract C-a Oil Shale Lease No. C-20046, pages A-l through A-38.

12  See 43 Fed. Reg. 58951; § 250.10(d)(2)(ii); § 250.14(b)(2); I 250.46-3(a)(l);
    IT50.46-4(a).

13  See_ § 1004(27)  [6903(27)].

14  See H.R. Rep.  No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 2-3.

15  Supra note 13.  Cf. § 8002(f)(l) and (6)  [6982(f)(l) and (6)].

-------
 Mr. John P. Lehman
 March 7, 1979
 Page Six
 be a "hazardous waste" under RCRA,  because  the term "hazardous waste" is defined
 in RCRA16 to mean only certain kinds  of  "solid waste;"  Nor can EPA's proposal
 to expansively redefine both the  RCRA term  "hazardous waste" (by defining this
 term to mean not only what RCRA says  it  means  but also "as further defined and
 identified in [this Subpart by EPA]"17)  and the language "other discarded material"
 in the RCRA term "solid waste" (by  incorporating a "reuse" concept18) circumvent
 this basic statutory definition.  Normally, such overburden is stockpiled and
 protected for eventual return to  the  mine or other use.   It is not "discarded."
 Moreover, even assuming, arguendo,  that  mining overburden in certain isolated
 instances were "discarded," such  discarded  overburden would have to meet the
 § 1004(5) [6903(5)] "hazardous" test  in  RCRA before it would come within §§ 3001
 [6921], 3002 [6922] or 3004  [6924]  of RCRA  or any regulations promulgated there-
 under.

      4.  The data collection and reporting procedures proposed to be made ap-
 plicable to "other mining waste"19  are at variance with the § 8002(f) [6982(f)]
 study procedures.  Those procedures  require  the EPA Administrator to "conduct"
 this study, "in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior," and, upon com-
 pletion thereof, to "publish a report of such  study and . . . include appropriate
 findings and recommendations for  Federal and non-Federal actions . . . . "  There
 is no requirement in RCRA that a  generator  or transporter of "hazardous waste,"
 or the owner/operator of a facility for  the treatment, storage or disposal of
 "hazardous waste," prepare or participate in that study or that report, or collect
 any raw data therefor, either at  the  sole cost of EPA or, as EPA proposes, at
 the generator's, etc. sole cost.  In  effect, EPA proposes to force a generator,
 etc. to work for EPA in the preparation  of  this study free of charge to EPA.
 The cost of such forced labor to  the  generator, etc.  will inflate the cost of
 mineral development.


      5.  EPA has failed to follow  the requirement in § 3001(b) [6921(b)] of
 RCRA that any regulations "listing  particular hazardous wastes" and "identifying
 the characteristics of hazardous  waste"  be  "based on  the criteria promulgated
 under subsection (a) of this section."20 The legislative history clearly dis-
 closes that Congress had three specific  reasons why this bifurcation, in kind
16  See § 1004(5)  [6903(5)].

17  See §§ 250.11(b)(3), 250.21(b)(10),  and 250.41(b)(39).
18  See 43 Fed. Reg. 58950  (Dec.  18,  1978); I 250.10(b).   In this connection, your
    attention is invited to note  15,  supra.

19  See. § 250.46-5.

20  See § 250.12.

-------
 Mr.  John P.  Lehman
 March 7, 1979
 Page Seven
 and chronology, of the development of criteria, on the one hand, and the iden-
 tification and listing of "hazardous wastes," on the other hand, was adopted.21
 For example, EPA has identified, the characteristics of "hazardous waste" and
 made them applicable to "mining waste."  Yet, no criteria have been promulgated
 upon which such identification are supposed to be based.  It would appear that
 EPA already has decided on such characteristics and then, after the fact, will
 prepare first the proposed, and then the final, criteria required by § 3001(b)
 [6921 (b)] of RCRA.

       6.  RBOSC is concerned that these proposed regulations, if promulgated as
 presently written, could inadvertently create a federal  cause of action in tort
 between a "generator," etc. and third-parties, and, if so, that a violation of
 the standard could be negligence per se and/or the liability therefor could be
 absolute."  Present state case law and statutes adequately cover such a cause
 of action, and the creation of such a federal cause of action could overwhelm
 an already overburdened federal judiciary.  Nothing in the legislative history
 of RCRA even suggests this was Congress1 intent.  EPA's  final regulations should
 make this crystal-clear.

       7.  EPA's use of "notes" throughout these proposed regulations is, at worst,
 legally confusing and, at best, cumbersome.  It is RBOSC's understanding that these
 "notes" would be a part of the final regulations and therefore on an equal legal
 footing with the other portions of these regulations.  To avoid the potential
 unintended result that a court might rule otherwise, and to clean up this awkward
 syntactical approach, EPA should Incorporate each "note" into the body of the
 regulation to which it pertains through the use of "unless" language or something
 similar, and delete the introductory-language portion of the "note."
                                SPECIFIC COMMENTS

           Without waiving, abandoning or diluting any of  the fundamental legal
 comments hereinbefore, RBOSC would like to show its desire  to be helpful with
 respect to EPA's invitation to comment by now addressing  certain specific aspects.
 of the proposed Subpart A, B and D Regulations.
21  See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1491, supra note 5 at 25.   See. also  KOVACS  &  KLUCSIK,
    supra note 4 at 224.

22  Cf. 43 Fed. Reg. 58973, col. 2, lines 55-65  (Dec.  18,  1978);  I 250.43-7(1).

-------
Mr.  John  P.  Lehman
March  7,  1979
Page Eight
Proposed Subpart  A  Regulations ( I 3001 [6921] of RCRA):

      1.   S 2S0.14(b)  --  The "sources/process" distinction for listed "hazardous
waste" is confusing.   Why is such a distinction made?  Isn't the bottom line
whether a particular  "solid waste" 1s or is not "hazardous," regardless of whether
it conies from a "source"  or a'process"?


Proposed Subpart  B  Regulations ( § 3002 [6922] of RCRA):

          In general,  RBOSC finds these proposed regulations well-written and
balanced, and we  would like to compliment EPA on a fine job.  Our specific com-
ments are as follow:

      1.  Reference is made on page 58972, column 1, to the obligation of the
"generator" to report to  EPA if it fails to receive a copy of the manifest "within
30 days."  Presumably, this relates to the requirement in § 250.43-5(a)(2), page
59003.  But how does  a "generator" know what this 30-day period is and when it
expires?

      2.  § 250.20(c)(l)  -- Similarly, how is a "generator" to know 1f a "per-
mitted hazardous  waste management facility" really 1s permitted?  By asking that
facility?

      3.  A "generator's" obligation to principally shoulder the operation of
this manifest system  should not be expanded into the area of enforcement by EPA's
adopting the four options under consideration which are described on page 58973,
column 3, especially  those in the fourth option, quoted Immediately hereinafter:

                 "(4)  Requiring  that a generator who has not received
               the  original manifest from the facility designated on
               the  manifest within 35 days after the date of shipment,
               or who determines that the returned manifest is incon-
               sistent with the original manifest, must:
                 "(a)  Take all actions necessary to determine the cause
               of non-receipt or Inconsistency;
                 "(b)  Assure that all steps are being taken to locate
               and  receive the manifest and to assure that the waste
               1s properly disposed of;
                 "(c)  If  he has been unable to accomplish his require-
               ments  under (a) and (b) above, within 30 days, the gene-
               rator  must prepare and submit a report to the Regional
               Administrator.  This report must be submitted within
               65 days after the date of shipment, and must contain the
               Information required in § 250.23(c) except (2).  In

-------
Mr. John P. Lehman
March 7, 1979
Page Nine
               addition, this  report  must Include:
                 "1. The name,  address  and Identification code of the
               des1gnated-faci11ty;
                 "2. The actions  which  have been or will  be taken by
               the generator to determine the reason the  original mani-
               fest was not returned;
                 "3. The results  of the generator's Investigation,
               including any and  all  information involving the ship-
               ment and cause  of non-receipt; and
                 "4. The Identity of  all  parties who may  be respon-
               sible for the non-receipt of the manifest."

It is one matter for a "generator to  be required to reasonably keep  records and
report to EPA, and quite another matter for a "generator" to be compelled  to work
for free as a policeman for EPA.   In  this connection, please see also the  last
sentence in § 250.43-5(a)(4).

      4.  § 250.20(c)(2) ~ Storage of  a "hazardous waste" by a "generator" for
more than 90 days should not necessarily mean that that "generator"  Is an  "owner/
operator of a facility for the storage  of hazardous waste" under §i  3004  [6924]
and 3005  [6925] of RCRA and thus  subject to all of the Subpart D and E Regulations.
In this connection, please see also 1 250.41(b)(83).  Some flexibility should be
Injected Into this absolute "90-day standard," especially in view of the far-
reaching implications of one's  being  subjected to the sweeping Subpart B,  0 and
E Regulations if this "90-day  standard" is absolute, instead of only the Subpart B
Regulations.


Proposed Subpart D Regulations (  § 3004  [6924] of RCRA):

      1.  The following four comments pertain to the § 250.41(b) definitions:

          (a) "contamination"  (19) — To define this term solely as  a "degradation"
is vague, overly broad and simplistic.

          (b) "fugitive dust"  (36) ~ For consistency, this term should be de-
fined Identically to the definition thereof in EPA's PSD  Regulations and  in EPA's
"Emission Offset  Interpretative Ruling."

          (c) "hazardous waste facility personnel" (40) — This term is defined,
in part, as those persons  "whose actions or failure to act may result in  damage
to human health or the environment"   [emphasis supplied].   This "damage" standard
is vague, overly broad, and Ignores the definition of'hazardous waste" in  RCRA,
which uses the qualifying  language, inter alia, "significantly," "serious" and
"substantial."

-------
Mr. John  P.  Lehman
March 7,  1979
Page Ten
          (d)  It would be helpful 1f § 250.41(b) Included  a  definition  of  "land-
 fill" (cf.  definition of "surface impoundment"  (85)  ).


      2.  § 250.43(f) — RBOSC falls to see any reason  for determining  in  detail
 what the dhemical or physical properties of any waste rock might  be,  because
 the only change in the wftste rock from its natural state is  its location.


      3.  § 250.43-1 — With respect to this  "general site selection" requirement,23
 it should be recognized that, unlike most sited facilities,  a  mineral developer
 does not have much, if any, flexibility in "selecting"  a site.  It  is difficult
 enough to find a commercial ore body; the "selection" of the site follows  the
 "find," not vice-versa.  These standards should reflect this reality.  Also, the
 term "new sources" should be very carefully defined  and should exclude  all  mining
 activities currently in existence and any expansion  of  such  existing  activities.


      4.  § 250.43-2(a) — The requirement herein  for a "2 meter  (6 foot)  fence
 completely surrounding the active portion of  the facility  capable of  preventing
 the unknowing and/or unauthorized entry of persons and  domestic livestock" or
 "a natural  or artificial barrier" equivalent  thereto24  is  unrealistic.   Flexibility
 should be provided for those mining sites which are  remote and isolated, which
 is usually the case.  Is it EPA's intent that this fence be  constructed to "float,"
 j_.e_., to move with the "active portion of the facility" as mining progresses?
 If so, this will greatly inflate mining costs.

      5.  § 250.43-6(a) — RBOSC fails to see the  need  for a detailed daily in-
 spection of materials which EPA lists or requires  to be characterized as  "mining
 wastes."25  Most mines are in operation  seven days  a week,  24 hours  per day,
 so the "facility" is in use.  In the semi-arid regions  of  the  West, frequent
 inspections during the rainier months might prove  to be desirable,  but  daily
 visual inspections are unnecessary.
 such
 6.   § 250.43-7(b) — An "operator" is without any  legal  right  to  insert
a covenant in an "owner's" deed.2"
23 This requirement is made applicable  to  "other mining waste" by § 250.46-5.

24 Id.

2S jd.

26 Id.

-------
 Mr.  John P.  Lehman
 March  7, 1979
 Page  Eleven
       7.   § 250.43-8(a) Note — This proposed regulation properly  recognizes that
 there may be times when the rigorous requirements of § 250.43-8(a)  are unnecessary
 to ensure groundwater is being properly protected.  However, the Note provides
 relief only where there is no potential for a discharge to  groundwater.  If there
 is not such potential, no monitoring is necessary.  The provision  for a lesser
 degree of monitoring should apply when there is  a low potential for contamination.
 RBOSC suggests the addition of the words  "little or" after  the word "indicate"
 at the end of line 7 of the Note.

       8.   § 250.43-8(c) — This requirement would entail much unnecessary work
 and expense.^Section 250.43(f) requires a detailed analysis of  the waste to
 be treated, stored or disposed of.  It seems unreasonable to require such compre-
 hensive constituent data on groundwater background when the possible pollutants
 may be only  certain   items.  It would appear to be more useful to require a
 background determination only on those constituents that have caused the wastes
 in question to be classified "hazardous."  Certainly the determination of the
 long laundry-list of interim primary and  proposed secondary drinking water stan-
 dards for dirt and rock that is merely being relocated will generate a lot of
 data that will be of little or no value.

       9.   § 250.43-8(c)(4) — RBOSC would recommend that a  different identification
 of "a statistically significant amount" be utilized.28  The student's T single-
 tailed test at the 95% confidence level is too restrictive.  Very  minute fluc-
 tuations  in baseline levels not attributable to  the facility would be encompassed
 by this level of significance.  Ore consideration which makes the T-test inappro-
 priate here is that to use a T-test, it has to be assumed that the mean background
 level is  constant over time so that all of the variation in sampling for the back-
 ground level comes from special variation, because otherwise there would not be
 independent sampling.  This is particularly severe because  the proposed rules
 require three monthly samples to establish the background levels.  This is much
 too short a time period to determine sampling error where there are seasonal
 variations, no matter how the data is analyzed.  Another problem with the method
 here is that the confidence level of 955S  is too  low.  Even  assuming there were
 independent samples and that there was no change from the background levels after
 the facility went into operation, Type I  error would occur  5% of the time.  In
 other words, because there are six measurements  to be made  quarterly and an ad-
 ditional  six to be made annually, it would be expected that about  once or twice
 a year there would be a significant result and the provisions of this subsection
 would go into effect, including the requirement  in (c)(4)(iii) that the "facility"
 discontinue operation until the EPA Regional Administrator  determines what actions
 are to be taken.


27  .Id..
28  Id.

-------
Mr.  John P. Lehman
March  7, 1979
Page  Twelve
     10.   §  250.43-8(c)(4)(11i) — The "owner/operator" should not be required
to indefinitely  ("until  the Regional Administrator determines what actions are
to be taken")  shut  down  the "facility" without due process, e_.£., a hearing,
unless an  emergency situation exists.2'

     11.   Although  the "trust fund" financial security concept for closure and
post-closure of  a  "facility" in § 250.43-9 is not proposed to be made applicable
to "other  mining waste"  by § 250.46-5, RBOSC would respectfully offer the following
comments on  this "trust  fund" concept in case EPA finds them helpful:

          (a)  An "owner/operator" should be given the option of posting  a surety
bond.  EPA's fear  that no one would qualify for such a bond^O is unfounded.   If
an "owner/operator" can  qualify therefor, the proof is in the pudding; if not,
then the  "trust  fund"  concept should kick in.  EPA's further fear that surety
bonds are  subject  to year-to-year renewal and therefore are insecure3* can be
overcome by  requiring  that such a surety bond provide for no cancellation with-
out 30 days' prior written notice to EPA.  Following receipt of any such cancel-
lation notice  by EPA,  the "owner/operator" would have to comply with the "trust
fund" concept.

          (b)  Re post-closure security, no funds should be released to EPA upon
notice of  a  violation, as provided in I 250.43-9(a)(2)(ii); due process, e_.£.,
a hearing, first must  be afforded the "owner/operator."32
          (c)  Provision  for a 2% annual inflation factor in calculating  the amount
of both the  closure and  post-closure "trust funds" is unrealistic.  It is note-
worthy that  EPA, relative to re-evaluating the adequacy of the amount in these
 "trust funds"  would require a bi-annual evaluation.33  The annual inflation fac-
 tor should be  tied to  an escalator, realistic at the outset and  adjusted bi-annually,
 based on  the actual inflation rate.

          RBOSC  appreciates this opportunity to submit these written comments to
 EPA, and we  hope that  EPA will give them its most serious consideration.

                                              Very truly yours,
                                               R.  M.  Lieber
                                               Executive  Vice  President
 KRO:gr
29 See Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n  Inc.  v.  Andrus,  Civil  Action  No.
   78-0244-B (W.D.Va., Feb. 14, 1979).  This requirement may  be  made  applicable  to
   "other mining waste" by § 250.46-5.

30 See 43 Fed.  Reg.  58986 (Dec. 18, 1978).
31 .Id.

32 In this connection, please see the case cited  in  note 29,  supra.
33 See 43 Fed.  Reg.  58988 (Dec. 18, 1978).

-------
                     RITA E.  EWING




              ENVIRONMENTAL  SUPERVISOR




          ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DEPARTMENT









               UTAH  INTERNATIONAL INC.




                 550  CALIFORNIA STREET




         SAN FRANCISCO,  CALIFORNIA 94104









                       before




     THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY




                 In conjunction with




HAZARDOUS WASTE  PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS




                        and




      PROPOSAL ON IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
                 MARCH  7,  1979




                DENVER,  COLORADO

-------
My name is  Rita E. Ewing.  I  am  an Environmental Supervisor at
Utah International Inc.,  whose headquarters are located in San
Francisco,  California.   Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before  you today.
Utah International  Inc.  is an in CegHatienat mining company with
surface mining operations  in the western United States.  We shall
be submitting written technical  contributions addressing  the
Proposed  Hazardous  Waste Guidelines and Regulations.  Today we
would  like  to offer  our  general comments, giving a few specific
examples relating to the proposed regulations.

Before beginning  our comments,  we would  like to express  our
appreciation to EPA for the tone and format which the Agency has
offered  in  soliciting constructive public  comment.   We fully
support  the premise  that the  disposal  of hazardous waste is a
crucial environmental and health problem  that, if regulated, must
be  regulated by  a sound and balanced  program.  We  hope  the
following comments will assist in formulating the most  desirable
strategy  for phasing implementation of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976.

-------
                                 -2-
Our comments today address  the  following  Issues:


Subpart A - Identification  and  Listing  of  Hazardous  Wastes

    1.  Extraction Procedure
    2.  Definition of  a  Toxic Waste
    3.  Uranium Mining Waste Rock  and  Overburden


Subpart B - Standards  Applicable  to  Generators  of  Hazardous Waste

    1.  Conditional  Exclusion Based  on  Volume  of Waste  Produced
        per Month.
    2.  Alternative  Means  of Regulating Small  Quantities  of Wastes
Subpart D - Standards Applicable  to  Treatment,  Storage  and Disposal
            Facilities

    1.  "Notes" Category  for  Standard  Deviation
    2.  Duplication  in  the  Regulation  of  Mining Wastes
    3.  Conflict between  Regulations
    4.  Assurance  of Post-Closure Costs


A recurring theme  in our  comments is the  need for  standards based
on  the degree  of  hazard which depends  on the  characteristics of
specific  wastes and the  environment in which they are  deposited.

-------
                                -3-
Subpart A  - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes


1.   Extraction  Procedure

    The legislative history of  the Resource  Conservation  and
    Recovery  Act  of  1976  makes it evident that EPA is responsible
    for determining and  listing all hazardous wastes using cri-
    teria developed by  EPA (see e.g., H. Report 94-1491,pp5,25).

    While  in  some  cases  it may be appropriate to require industry
    to  determine  which wastes are hazardous according to EPA cri-
    teria, we  feel  that  industry  should  also  be afforded  the
    flexibility to  use alternative tests, methodologies and tech-
    niques which,  in fact, may be more appropriate for a particu-
    lar waste and  also meet the  EPA criteria.

    We  cite the "Extraction Procedure" specified in 250.13 (d)(2)
    as  an example.   This  Procedure has been designed to "model"
    improper  management  by simulating the leaching action of rain
    and groundwater in the  acidic  environment  present in open
    dumps and  landfills.   However,  this "model"  just does  not
    reflect  all  possible  conditions, circumstances or processes.
    Mining wastes,  for example, are usually disposed of without
    the mix  of non-mining  wastes as in the case of public land-
    fills.   In fact some  mining operations have alkaline rather
    than  acidic  wastes.   Therefore, the flexibility of allowing
                  tests  should  be  included  in  the regulation.
2.  Definition  of  a  Toxic Waste

    The proposed  identification criteria define a broad array of
    materials  as  hazardous  based upon reactivity, ignitability,
    toxiclty  and corrosivlty.   These various "hazardous  sub-
    stances" are  all subject to the same performance standards.
    However, some of the  identification,  design and operating
    standards  as  presently  drafted are based on certain assump-
    tions and  specific  conditions which are not necessarily uni-
    versal for  all  kinds  of hazardous wastes and disposal envi-
    ronments .

    For example,  a  waste  is defined as toxic and therefore haz-
    ardous if  application  of the specified Extraction Procedure
    to  a representative  sample of  the waste  yields an extract
    having concentrations  of contaminants  that exceed ten times
    the National  Interim  Primary Drinking Water Standards for
    those particular substances.   The attenuation factor of 10
    is  qualified  in the preamble as being based upon the assump-
    tion that  the  waste  is in a "nonsecure landfill' located over

-------
                                -4-
    a fre^h  water aquifer and that a pumping well is  located  500
    feet down  gradient.   These assumptions may not,  in  fact, be
    correct  or appropriate  for analysing other disposal  circum-
    stances.   Therefore,  we  recommend  that the identification
    procedures and performance standards be made specific  to  the
    waste and the disposal environment.


3.   Uranium Mining Overburden

    The  procedure under which uranium mine waste is  regulated as
    a hazardous waste  needs  clarification.  At present, waste
    rock and  overburden from uranium mines are  listed  as hazard-
    ous  because of inherent  radioactivity.  A  "non-hazardous"
    classification  can only be  attained  if tests  show that a
    representative sample has an average concentration of less
    than 5  picoCurles per gram.

    We believe  that  a judgement  of the  allowable  measure of
    radioactivity   based on a single radium concentration value
    is questionable, because overburden characteristics such as
    density,  moisture  content, particle size  and soil  type all
    effect the  amount of radon  emanation and  the  gamma dose
    generated  by uranium  mining waste.   These  factors must be
    considered in forecasting the  degree of radiation hazard.

    The  Nuclear Regulatory  Commission  recently made  this same
    observation in the issued Branch Position  paper  entitled,
    "Interim  Land Cleanup Criteria  for Decommissioning Uranium
    Mill Sites."  The paper  states,  and  I quote,  "The  interrela-
    tionship  between radium 226 soil concentrations,  radon 222
    flux and  gamma dose rates is a complex function  of  many fac-
    tors ... therefore,  since no simple numerical  criteria  in terms
    of radium  226 concentrations in soil is applicable, no at-
    tempt  has  been made to express criteria directly  in  terms of
    radium  226."

    EPA  also  makes this same observation in the background docu-
    ment for  radioactive waste.  Your agency states  that  the re-
    lationship between soil radium concentrations and  the result-
    ing  radiation levels observed in Florida phosphate  lands  (on
    which  the  5 picoCuries  per gram criterion  was based) "may
    not",  and  I quote,  "be representative of radium/indoor radon
    progeny  relationships in a more extensive  sample  obtained
    from a  wide geographic area."

    I might  add that the preamble (p. 58950) states  and  I  quote,
    "EPA proposes to rely only on consideration  of the  first four
    characteristics because those are the only ones  for  which  the

-------
                               -5-
   Agency  confidently  believes  test protocols  are  available."
   Radioactivity is not one of these; therefore, we  would  argue
   that  the  radiation  criterion as proposed  is inappropriate.

   We'recommend that radon flux  and  gamma  dose be  designated  as
   the limiting factors in setting the radiation  standard  to
   circumvent the proven difficulties of  relating radium  concen-
   tration to actual radon and gamma  levels.
Suboart B - Standards Applicable  to  Generators  of  Hazardous  Waste
1.   Conditional Exclusion Based  on  Volume  of  Waste  Produced

    We  feel  that determination of conditional  exclusion on  the
    basis  of  waste volume produced  should be  replaced  by a more
    scientific determination based on  the characteristics of  the
    specific substance, and the  conditions under  which  those sub-
    stances will be disposed.

    A broad  range of  wastes have  been identified as  hazardous,
    and within this  category,  toxic potentials  vary widely.   We
    believe  that the  amount of toxic  waste  that can be disposed
    of  legally should be determined  on the basis of  the level of
    hazard inherent in a specific  waste.   Further,  the site  for
    waste  disposal should also be considered  in determining  ap-
    propriate levels.

    For example, one  hundred kilograms  per month of  a specific
    substance  may be an appropriate limit in  an industrial met-
    ropolis  where thousands of  industrial facilities may cumula-
    tively affect the  same hydrologic and  air  quality systems.
    However,  the effect  of disposing  of that  same one hundred
    kilograms might  be  minimal and insignificant in  a more  re-
    mote,  less industrialized  area  that  does  not  have  to accom-
    modate large amounts of hazardous wastes.

    Further,  the degrees of danger  involved in  disposing of  100
    kilograms of waste  oil per month  is  very  different from  the
    danger inherent in disposing of  the same amount  of  PCB's  per
    month.

   •We  recommend that the  regulations  be  altered to  reflect both
    site-specific and  waste-specific  conditions.  Moreover, we
    feel that the individual states have a  better idea of  local
    tolerances and that  each state should  be  given  the flexi-
    bility to administer and enforce  a hazardous  waste disposal

-------
                                -6-
    program  that not only meets the environmental Intent of  RCRA
    but also  considers  the  economic Impact on the specific  dis-
    posal si te.


2.   Alternatives Addressing Regulation of Small Quantities  of
    Hazardous Waste

    In response to your Invitation for comment on the six  alter-
    natives,  addressing  small quantities of hazardous waste, we
    propose  a combination of alternatives three and four, which
    would provide for:

    .   Unconditional Federal exemption  for small quantities of
       hazardous wastes,

    .   Cutoff quantities based on degrees of hazard,

       State  responsibility  for  regulation  of  exempted waste
       groups under the  approved state plan and regulatory  pro-
       gram under Subtitle D or RCRA.
Subpart D  - Standards Applicable to Treatment,  Storage and
             Disposal Facilities
1.   "Notes" Category for Standard Deviation

    In the  preamble, EPA  admits that very specific requirements
    "might"  discourage  the  development  of new technologies or
    that different design and operating requirements  might be
    necessary  for a particular facility which is  disposing of
    only  one kind of waste"-

    Recognizing  this problem, EPA has offered the "Notes"  cate-
    gory to  allow for standard deviation.  We find this  approach
    unsatisfactory.  Although a note may  have the  same degree of
    legal  significance as the regulation  it follows, the practi-
    cal effect is to subordinate the note to the  regulation.  A
    clearer  procedure would be to  incorporate the body of the
    note into  the standard  qualified  by the word  "unless".  A
    specific example demonstrating this suggestion  (as it relates
    to 250.43-l(g)) will  be provided  in our written comments.

-------
                                -7-
2.   Duplication in the Regulation  of  Mining  Waste

    The  tone and format of  the EPA  invitation for comment imply
    that  EPA agrees with industry's  sense  of  operating in an en-
    vironment of over-regulation.   EPA  appears to be seeking to
    remedy  this situation,  but  we feel  that the guidelines and
    regulations may  actually  have  the  effect of compounding the
    over-regulation problem.

    The  guidelines and  regulations  as  proposed require mine and
    mill  operators to obtain  hazardous waste disposal permits for
    certain mine wastes,  including overburden  in  the cases of
    uranium and phosphate mining.   The  permits would be condi-
    tioned by compliance with EPA's  proposed "Standards for Owner
    and  Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Dis-
    posal Facilities."

    In  the  case of coal mining activities, some of the require-
    ments duplicate the Surface Mine Control  and Reclamation Act
    regulations administered  by the  Department of Interior.  Dup-
    lication of regulations  and thus of  industry permit applica-
    tions also exist because  several  states  already have reclama-
    tion  programs that  adequately address the  disposal of all
    mining  wastes, toxic or  otherwise.   In  fact, some state laws
    require that open pits be  backfilled  by returning overburden
    to  the  pits and  this  may  not be  acceptable under  RCRA.

    We  believe that  additional  regulation in this area by RCRA
    is a  duplication of  effort.  Additional  regulation will cause
    more  work for both  the public sector  and  the private sector,
    perhaps  without substantive benefit  to  either.  Thus, we urge
    EPA  to  function as  a coordinator among  the Department of the
    Interior and the  various  states to  avoid  this  duplication
    with  other regulations.
3.   Inconsistency with Other  Regulations

    In  addition to  the  problem of duplication of  regulations,
    there is also inconsistency  and conflict  between  the proposed
    regulation and other existing  regulations.

    Sections  250.43  (c),  250.44-1, -2  and  25.45  - 3(d) (2),  for
    example,  specify a  24 hour-25 year  design storm,  which  con-
    flicts  with the  24  hour-10 year  storm  required  by the Clean
    Water Act  regulations  (40  CFR,  Subchapter  N, Effluent
    Guidelines and  Standards).   As  a  result,  an  approved  treat-
    ment pond designed pursuant  to an  NPDES  permit  would still  be
    in  non-compliance with the  hazardous  waste regulation.   This
    kind of inconsistency  should be avoided.

-------
                                -8-
4•   Assurance of Post-Closure Costs

    We would be remiss  without mentioning the necessity  for a
    provision to allow for the assurance of post-closure costs by
    alternative means such as the use of surety bond guaranties.
    Although eligibility for  surety bonds  is  often regulated
    stringently, and  is  thus limiting to many owners and opera-
    tors,  we believe  that owners and operators who can obtain
    bonding should not be handicapped by a provision that assumes
    bonding  will not be available.  In reality, the availability
    of  insurance covering  "non-sudden and  accidental occur-
    rences" ,  as required  by regulation, is equally difficult to
    obtain.

    Although we recognize that the responsibility of developing a
    viable insurance  market does not rest with EPA, inherent in
    the proposed regulations is the requirement that owners and
    operators obtain "non-sudden and accidental" insurance  poli-
    cies which are very  difficult,  if  not impossible,  for most
    owners and operators  to acquire.  It would therefore be ex-
    tremely  helpful as  we attempt to comply with  the regulation
    if insurance companies, through  government encouragement,
    were educated on the positive cost/benefit ratio of providing
    this coverage on a less restricted basis.


In summarizing our general comments  today, we urge  the EPA  to be
more  specific  in  addressing the  hazardous  levels of specific
wastes  and factor  into  your regulations consideration for the
disposal  site.  We urge you to  function as the coordinator  among
Federal Departments  and State  agencies to  achieve a Hazardous
Waste  program  that  does not duplicate other regulations and re-
sult in more work for both the private and the public sector.  We
urge  you  to create regulations  appropriate for the  environmental
goals  you  are  trying to achieve, and regulations that are appro-
priate  for the  substances addressed and feasible for the com-
panies  that must work with the  regulations to dispose of hazard-
ous wastes.

We again  refer  you  to our  technical written  comments, and we
thank you  for the opportunity to assist you in the  formulation of
these regulations.

-------
                 WHITE RIVER SHALE PROJECT
                           1315 WEST HIGHWAY 40
                            VERNAL, UTAH 84078
                                 (301) 789-0571

                               March 5, 1979
Mr. John P.  Lehman
Director
Hazardous Haste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington,  D.  C.   20460

   Re:  Hazardous  Waste Guidelines and Regulations; Proposed Rules Under
        Sections 3001,  3002 and 3004 of the Solid Waste'Disposal Act as
        Amended by the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

Dear Mr. Lehman:

The purpose  of  this  letter is  to transmit our comments concerning the subject
p-roposed rules  as  published in the 43 FR-58946 on December 18, 1978.  Our
review has shown that the proposed rules pose a severe potential impact on
our planned  shale  oil production operations.

By way of background, the White River Shale Project (WRSP) is a joint venture
of Phillips  Petroleum Company, Sohio Natural Resources Company and Sunoco
Energy Development Company.  WRSP was formed by these companies in order to
develop two  Federal  oil  shale  leases located in Utah.  No processing opera-
tions are currently  occurring  on the leases.  But plans have been prepared
for the construction and operation of a 100,000 barrel-per-day commercial
shale oil  production facility.  Such a facility would require the under-
ground mining,  crushing  and proces.sing of 160,000 tons per day of oil shale
rock.

Processing the  rock  involves heating the crushed material to over 930°F in
some type  of equipment.   At this temperature most of the organic material
in the rock  separates from the inorganic matrix and is recovered.

The rock,  holding  much  less  organic material than before, will then be
discharged for  ultimate  disposal.   About 129,000 tons-per-day of processed
shale rock will  need to  be disposed of under WRSP's planned 100,000 barrel-
per-day shale oil  production rate.  This processed shale will be disposed of
above ground on  WRSP leases  near the shale oil  production facility."

The processed shale,  in  our  opinion, constitutes a low risk nonhazardous
waste,  the disposal  of which can be adequately handled under existing and
proposed mine waste  disposal regulations.

-------
Mr. John P. Lehman                  -2-                        March 5, 1979


However, the proposed Subpart A regulations under Section 3001 "identification
and listing of hazardous wastes" could erroneously show processed shale to
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.

This characteristic is  "toxicity" as established by the proposed "extraction
procedure" for determining leachate concentrations of several contaminants.
The fundamental problem with the extraction procedure is that it assumes an
acidic environment in the waste pile.  As noted in the preamble:  "The EP
(extraction procedure)  that is included  in the proposed rulemaking has been
designed to 'model1 improper management  by simulating the leaching action of
rain and groundwater in the acidic environment present in landfills or open
dumps."

We recognize that some  screening mechanism is necessary.  But we have a real
concern with the acidic assumption, since processed shale, or raw shale for
that matter, produces alkaline leachate  waters.  This is important because
the  Teachability of the contaminants of interest are generally affected by
the pH.

A report distributed by Region 8 of the  Environmental Protection Agency in
May 1977 entitled "Trace Elements Associated with Oil Shale and Its Processing"
discussed the Teachability of several trace elements.  The report noted that
data showed Selenium, Molybdenum, Boron  and Fluoride are present in processed
shale in only partially soluble forms.   This is primarily because these
materials can form water soluble anionic species under alkaline conditions
(e.g., Se04=, Mo4=, B03~3, F~).  In contrast, Cadmium, Arsenic, Chromium,
Copper, Zinc and Iron are present in essentially insoluble forms.  This is so
because, except for Arsenic, these elements form insoluble hydroxides, oxides,
or sulfides.  It is generally understood that as the alkalinity of the leachate
as produced by processed shale materials increase, most metals exist in less
soluble forms.

It should also be recognized that the oil shale rock is a common material
found in Utah and Colorado.  Nature is eroding oil shale formations
continuously.  It is important, in our opinion, to recognize the similarities
in quality between the  leachate from a processed shale pile and the-leachate
or runoff produced from natural dissolution of the extensive parent rock
formations around the disposal area.  It would be unreasonable, in our
opinion, to severely regulate a processed shale disposal site when natural
deposition of similar materials is occurring on a large scale all around
the site.

For these reasons we take strong exception to the use of the extraction
procedure as proposed in Part 250, Subpart A, 250.13 (d), for determining
whether processed shale exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic.

Further to this concern of ours, we note that EPA feels a quantitatively
stringent extraction procedure "is necessary, because only waste designated
as hazardous is subject to transport controls as well as disposal controls."
Apparently, EPA desires to be conservative in identifying and regulating

-------
Mr.  John P. Lehman                   -3-                         March 5, 1979


hazardous waste sources so as  to  prevent serious accidents during transport
even though ultimate disposal  could  be adequately regulated for some
"hazardous" wastes under Subtitle D  of RCRA,  Section 4004.

In this regard we would like to point out that processed shale will not be
transported far.  Handling costs  are too great.   In the case of WRSP, for
example, the material will be  disposed of near the oil  production facility
on WRSP leases.  So a stringent extraction procedure is not required in the
interest of getting processed  shale  under the "hazardous" waste umbrella for
the purpose of insuring the rock  reaches a disposal site safely.

It seems advisable for the EPA to build  more  flexibility into the toxicity
hazardous waste characteristic test.  We suggest EPA consider providing for
alternate tests that can be shown to more closely duplicate the actual
disposal conditions expected.

At this time we have no specific  comments regarding Part 250, Subpart B,
regarding proposed regulations pursuant  to Section 3002 (Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Wastes).

However, our review of Part 250,  Subpart D, pursuant to Section 3004
(Standards Applicable to Owners and  Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities)  did result in some comments.

First, rf processed shale were to be classified  as a teardous waste, we
assume it would be handled as  some type  of special waste, and more specifically
some type of an "other mining  waste" as  described in |250.46-5.  It would seem
that a unique classification comprised of a modified "special other mining
wastes" type would be advisable.   We understand  that rulemaking concerning
treatment, storage and disposal of special  wastes will  be developed in  the
future.  We very much want to  have the chance to participate, in this
development.

We fully expect processed shale to not be considered as a hazardous material.
This should occur if the "toxicity characteristic" is evaluated using a
realistic procedure that recognizes  processed shale's alkaline nature and
the continuously occurring natural decomposition of shale rock in the disposal
area vicinity.  The disposal of processed shale  should  be adequately con-
trolled by applicable regulations for disposal  of nonhazardous wastes and
State mining waste handling regulations.

We appreciate your consideration  of  our  comments.

                                     Sincerely,
                                     Rees  C.  Madsen
                                     Manager
RCM/nh

-------
      The following is the text of an oral presentation made at the public
 hearing held March 7-9 in Denver, Colorado, on the Hazardous Waste Guidelines,
 Proposed Rules, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
 1976, P.L. 94-580, Oct. 21, 1976.
                         The presentation was made by:

                         R. N. Heistand, Vice President
                         Development Engineering, Inc.
                              Box A, Anvil Points
                                Rifle, CO 81650
     Development Engineering, Inc. (DEI) is a subsidiary of Paraho Development
Corporation.   Since 1973,  DEI has been engaged in oil shale retorting research
at the Anvil Points Oil Shale Research Facility.  This research has proved the
operability of the Paraho  retort and has produced 100,000 barrels of crude shale
oil for refining into fuels for further testing and research.  The next step in
the development of the Paraho technology is the construction and operation of a
module which could produce 6,000 barrels of shale oil per day.

     During the past five  years of research and production, many retorted shale
studies have been directed towards the evaluation of its chemical and physical
properties  and the assessment of disposal techniques.  DEI has been directly
involved in many of these  studies and has cooperated with many researchers and
investigators  working under contract with the EPA and other government agencies
(see References).   Our comments expressed in this letter are based on our
experience  and knowledge of Paraho retorted shale properties and the geography
of the Colorado-Wyoming-Utah shale country and the data obtained from studies
of the Paraho  operations at Anvil Points.

-------
(A)  The prpposed extraction procedure  (EP) outiinea in 0=^.^.	
     (P 250.13) used distilled water maintained to pH = 5.0 + 0.2.
    This criterion is unrealistic for oil shale operations in
    Western U.S.  First, the pH of various ground and surface
    waters range from 7.5 to 8.1.  Second, the leachate from
    vegetation lysimeters using Paraho retorted shale and Colorado
    River water -and from laboratory studies ranged from pH = 6.5
    to 11.6.

(B)  Retorted shale, as produced by the Paraho operations, is not a
    hazardous waste.  It does not appear in lists presented in
    P 250.14 of the proposed regulations.  Paraho retorted shale
    does not have the characteristics of a hazardous waste as
    identified in P 250.13 of the proposed regulations.

     (P 250.13a)  Paraho retorted shale is not an ignitable waste.
    No autoignition potential was noted.  During a one-year
    monitoring program, temperatures within a compacted shale
    disposal site ranged from 45°F to S5°F.

     (P 250.13b)  Paraho retorted shale is not a corrosive waste.
    The pH leachates, obtained under three sets of conditions,
    ranged from 6.5 - 11.60.  These data meet EPA proposed
    specifications.

     (P 250.13c)  Paraho retorted shale is not a reactive waste.  It
    is not normally unstable nor capable of detonation.  Under
    normal conditions of handling, compaction, and contact with air
    and water, it is an inert material.  As noted previously,  it is
    an inert material under normal temperatures and pressures.

    (P 250.13d)  Paraho retorted shale is not a toxic waste.
    Available data from lysimeter leachates show that Paraho
    retorted shale meets the proposed EPA Toxic Waste Standards.
    Most of these data even meet the more restrictive Primary
    Drinking Water Standards.  Although the natural pH of these
    leachates was about pH = 11, leachates from succeeding seasons
    from these lysimeters have pH = 5 and even lower concentrations
    of the toxic metals than those shown.'  More evidence that Paraho
    retorted shale is not a toxic waste is found in its chemical
    composition.   Assuming 100% solubilization under the proposed
    EPA extraction procedure for hazardous wastes,  cadniium,  mercury,
    and silver would meet the proposed EPA Toxic Waste Standards.
    Since the listed chlorinated hydrocarbons are not naturally-
    occurring substances and are not used in the Paraho retorting
    process,  they are not present in Paraho retorted shale.

-------
     The foregoing comments are based on research results and experience gained
by DEI during the Paraho oil  shale operations conducted at Anvil Points.
Because Paraho retorted shale is  not classified as a hazardous waste under the
proposed regulations, we reserve  comments on Subparts B-G of the proposed
regulation.  Should  there be  any  substantive changes or additions to the
proposed regulations, we would like to  be informed so that we could make
comments at that time.

-------
                                  REFERENCES
Woodward-Clyde Associates,  "Disposal of Retorted Shale from the Paraho Oil
Shale  Project", USBM J0255004,  Dec.  1976.

Colorado State University,  "Vegetative Stabilization of Paraho Spent Oil
Shales, Lysimeter Studies 1976-1977",  EPA  R8037S8-03, April 1978.

Battelle Pacific Northwest  Laboratory, "Paraho Semi-Works Retort Preliminary
Data for Samples Collected  August and November 1977", ERDA EY-C-06-1830,
July 1978.

Commercial Testing & Equipment  Analysis, reported in "Environmental Evaluations,
Paraho Operations", DoE ET-77-C-03-1767, September 1978.

TRW Systems, Inc., "Sampling  and Analysis  Research Program at the Paraho Shale
Oil Demonstration", EPA 600/7-78-065,  April 1978

-------
                      TEXACO STATEMENT
                             TO
      EPA PUBLIC HEARING ON SOLID WASTE ACT REGULATIONS
                        MARCH 7, 1979
                             BY
                    DR. JOHN E. TESSIERI
I am John E. Tessieri, Texaco Inc's Vice President of Research,
Environment, and Safety.  Texaco appreciates this opportunity
to comment on the regulations being proposed by EPA for the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Texaco personnel have participated with the American Petroleum
Institute in the review of early drafts of these regulations
and I would like to commend the EPA staff with whom we have
worked for their cooperative attitude and their willingness
to listen to our suggestions.  Many of our suggestions have
already been incorporated into these proposed regulations to
make them adaptable to the needs of our industry.  This
encourages us to believe that you will view our input during
this comment period with the same positive attitude you have
shown in the past.

Texaco is preparing detailed written comments which will be
presented.before the March 16 deadline, so I will not cover
those details today.  Instead, I would like to limit my
comments to only one issue.  This issue has been raised by
many others and we believe it to be of prime importance, and
to be fundamental to almost every detailed point about which
we are concerned.

The issue I want to address here has to do with DEGREE OF
HAZARD.  That is, we must find a mechanism by which we can
apply a control-technology that is appropriate for the
particular class of waste being managed and its potential
hazard to the environment.  Otherwise, there will be a
devastating effect on our industry's ability to produce
needed energy and on our nationwide inflation problems with-
out producing a significant environmental protection benefit.

Texaco agrees with and wholeheartedly endorses the philosophy
that extremely hazardous wastes should be controlled in a
very strict manner.  We have little argument with the basic
approach presented in these proposed regulations for that
type of waste.  But we cannot endorse the application of the
same degree of control as would be used to manage a dioxin,
PCB, or similar highly toxic material to a waste which fails
the criteria test simply because of the presence, for example,
of a minor amount of one of the drinking-water-standard
metallic species.

-------
                             -2-
Thus,  the  proposed acidic extraction classification criteria
based  upon the philosophy of possible mismanagement  in a
municipal  waste disposal system, has no place in many in-
dustrial waste disposal situations.  For instance, for ex-
ploration  operations in remote areas there is no possibility
that drilling wastes will be disposed of in a municipal
landfill,  thus the criteria which applies an acidic extraction
test because municipal landfills are acidic is totally inap-
propriate.  In a similar manner, on-site disposal at refineries
never  involves municipal wastes so the acidic extraction is
again  applying an inappropriate test of potential hazard.

As a result of this type of classification criteria we find
that a vast range of our operations will, inappropriately,
require full compliance with these regulations as though we
were handling highly toxic wastes.

Our industry is studying the impact of these proposed reg-
ulations.   The first results of those studies will be pre-
sented to  these hearings by the American Petroleum Institute
spokesman  so it will not repeat those details, but I would
like to reiterate the basic conclusions.  Those studies
indicate that the cost for our industry alone to comply with
RCRA regulations will be several orders of magnitude higher
than EPA's estimate for the total cost of the 17 industries
EPA studied. One impact of this cost burden would be against
many stripper wells which could not afford the cost of pit
lining and cash deposits for closure.  (Average stripper well
production was 2.9 barrels per day in 1977.)  This could mean
a loss of  as much as 1 million barrels per day of crude
production, over 12- percent of our 1977 domestic production.
Many shallow exploratory and development wells would not be
drilled should the costs of pit lining, monitoring, and
closure be added to marginal profitability parameters.  Yet,
these  wells contribute significantly to industry's effort to
arrest the annual decline in domestic production.  Also, the
committment of large amounts of capital in cash funds will
seriously  affect the ability of other segments of the indus-
try to meet the country's energy needs.

The most significant point here, however, is that these
losses of  energy resources would be caused by the fact that
wastes of  extremely low potential hazard have to be handled
with the same strict methods as the most hazardous waste,
while  in fact, the potential damage to health and the en-
vironment  in these cases is insignificant.

We recognize that the "note" mechanism written into the
regulations allows for modifications to the requirements on

-------
                              -3-
a case-by-oase basis, but we feel that the  effort required
for the demonstrations to convince the administrator  that no
hazard exists is in itself in many cases a  wasteful burden.

We disagree with EPA's position that this issue of degree of
hazard is too complex to be handled.  You have yourself taken
a first step in that direction by establishing the "Special
Wastes" category in the proposed regulations.  There  are
several other possible approaches available.  We direct your
attention to the several states which are incorporating
degree of hazard in their classification criteria.  We
endorse the categorization scheme being proposed by the
American Petroleum Institute.  We also suggest that a type-
of-industry categorization similar to that  used in the water
regulations could be applied to provide appropriate disposal
technology for each level of hazardous waste.

Consideration of the degree of hazard will  provide the ad-
ditional benefit of reducing the initial regulatory load with
which EPA will be faced as the regulations  take effect.  This
will allow a more adequate coverage of the  extremely  hazard-
ous waste disposal problems and will provide time for EPA to
give further consideration to approaches for managing the
less serious wastes.

I thank you for your attention and trust that you will seriously
consider this issue and work to provide a sound approach so
that efforts may be applied to the most serious problems
without needlessly expending resources on programs which
provide little health or environmental benefit.

-------
                      STATEMENT  OF PHILIP W.  MORTON
     COORDINATOR,  ENVIRONMENTAL  AFFAIRS,  GULF MINERAL RESOURCES  CO
                   A  DIVISION OF GULF OIL CORPORATION
           CONCERNING REGULATION 40  CFR  PART 250,  SUBPART A
       PROPOSED ON DECEMBER 18,  1978, UNDER AUTHORITY SECTION 3001,
                   RESOURCE CONSERVATION  & RECOVERY ACT
       BEFORE THE  U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY, IN DENVER
                             MARCH 7, 1979


Ladies  and Gentlemen of the Panel:

     My name is Philip W.  Morton, of Gulf Mineral  Resources Co., (GMRC),

a division of Gulf Oil  Corporation.  GMRC has a great interest in all  aspects

of the  proposed Title  40,  Part 250 of the Code of Federal  Regulations  as  pub-

lished  on December 18, 1978.  However, today my testimony  will  be limited to

those aspects of the proposed Subpart A,  of Part 250, issued under authority

of Section 3001 of the Resource  Conservation and Recovery  Act of 1976  that

appear  to impact on GMRC's uranium mining operations presently being conducted

in New  Mexico.

     First, perhaps I  should make sure everyone here understands exactly  what

our concern is.  In paragraph 250.14(b)(2), the Environmental  Protection  Agency,

which I will hereafter refer to  as "the EPA", has  chosen,  erroneously  we  believe,

to list all "waste rock" and "overburden" from uranium mining as hazardous

waste.   Since neither  Congress,  in the legislation, nor the EPA, in their pro-

posals, has specifically defined the terms "waste  rock" or "overburden",  I will

use the terms as generally used  by the mining industry:

         Waste rock - that dirt and rock, usually  from underground

         mining,  that must be moved to gain access to an  ore body.

         Any mineral  content of interest would be  of such low concen-

         tration  that it  would  not be economically feasible,  at present,

         to recover it.

-------
                                     -2-

          Overburden - almost exclusively used  in surface or
          strip mining, is the soil and rock that covers a
          mineral deposit that must be moved to gain access
          to the ore body.
     The term "waste" is also somewhat of a misnomer.  Waste, as used by the
mining industry, means simply material that has no economic value for
mineral recovery.  It may or may not be discarded to then become "waste"
or "discarded material" in a sense generally accepted by the public.
     It is these items that I will be discussing today.  I am in no way re-
ferring to mill tailings, which are the "waste" (in mining terms) from the
processing of the ore.  Uranium mill tailings are regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the
Uranium Hill Tailings Radiation Control Act of  1978, and are not within the
scope of RCRA.  GMRC does believe there is some potential for hazard to
health associated with tailings and supports a  reasonable, workable regula-
tory control of these tailings.
     GMRC contends there is no basis for including any mining overburden
intended for return to the nine site in any listing of hazardous waste, as
is done in Section 250.14.  Congress was very explicit in its intent regarding
mining overburden and mining waste.  Specifically, Congress has exempted over-
burden intended for return to the mine site, and other mine reclamation activi-
ties, from regulation under RCRA.
     It is, therefore, not within the scope of  the EPA's statutory authority
to even regulate mining overburden.  The EPA did recognize its lack of statutory
authority in the preamble to the proposed Section 3001 regulations, but then
erred in reading the referenced House Report.  As stated by the EPA on page
58951 of the December 18th proposals:

-------
                                     -3-

          "However,  the House Committee Report also states certain
          mining overburdens  may be considered hazardous; thus some
          are  listed in Section 250,14."  [43 FR 58951]  (Emphasis
          added)
     The  referenced  House Report actually states, on pages 2-3:
          "Similarly,  overburden resulting from mining operations
          and  intended for return to the mine site is not considered
          to be discarded material  within the meaning of this legis-
          lation."   [HR Rep No. 94-1491, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. 3(1975)]
          (Emphasis  added)
     GMRC further contends it is premature to presently include "mining waste"
or "waste rock" within the coverage under Sections 3001, 3002, or 3004 of RCRA,
or within any  regulations promulgated thereunder.  Congress, in Section 8002(f)
of RCRA,  excluded mining wastes from RCRA coverage until the completion of a
"detailed and  comprehensive study on the adverse effects of solid wastes from
active and abandoned surface and underground mines on the environment".  Further
this study, in "consultation with'the Secretary of the Interior", is to be
conducted by the Administrator of the EPA, who shall then "publish a report
of such study  and shall include appropriate findings and recommendations for
Federal and non-Federal actions concerning such effects."  (Emphasis added)
Thus, it is clear that Congress intended that any regulatory effort must be
preceded by the mandated study, consultation and reporting procedures.
     Until these procedures are met, thereby providing to EPA the information
Congress  found lacking to reasonably and non-arbitrarily regulate that ''mining
waste" is "hazardous"   "raining waste" cannot be regulated as though it were
"hazardous".   In considering H. R.  Sill 14496, the staff of the Subcommittee on
Transportation and  Commerce of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee
(which was the subcommittee that reviewed this bill) requested and received

-------
                                     -4-
from EPA copies of all damage reports, totaling some 400  reports, for the
express purpose of ascertaining what kinds of waste from  what  kinds of
activities and facilities should be covered in RCRA's definition of "solid
waste".  Not one of these reports involved "mining waste", nor could EPA then
produce any information on ''mining waste" for that exhaustive  subcommittee
staff effort.  It was precisely for this lack-of-information reason that
Congress mandated EPA in Section 8002(f) to conduct the study  on "mining wastes",
     The EPA, further, has failed to follow the requirement in Section 3001(b)
of RCRA that any regulations "listing particular hazardous wastes" and
"identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste" be "based on the criteria
promulgated under subsection (a) of this section".  The EPA has recognized this
proper approach, in its draft proposals of December 22, 1978 for Part 122,
Title 40 CFR, the so-called "One-Step Permitting Program", thusly:  (I quote
from Section 122.27(a))
           "Section 3001 of RCRA requires the Administrator to  'develop and
           promulgate criteria for identifying the characteristics of
           hazardous waste and for listing hazardous waste, which should
           be subject to the provisions of this subtitle...' and to 'promul-
           gate regulations identifying the characteristics of  hazardous
           waste, and listing particular hazardous wastes...which shall
           be subject to the provisions of this subtitle...' based upon the
           criteria."  (Emphasis added)
     However, the EPA then proceeded to list a "hazardous waste", based on
'the criterion of Section 250.12(b)(2) because the waste contains radioactive
substances."   Also, the EPA has identified the characteristics of "hazardous
waste" and made them applicable to "mining waste".  Yet,  no criteria have been
promulgated upon which such listing and identification are supposed to be based.
     It would appear that EPA already has decided on such lists and character-

-------
                                     -5-
istics  and  then,  after the fact,  will prepare first the proposed and then
the final criteria  required by Section 3001 CD) of RCRA.  More specifically,
looking at  the  category of "Uranium Mining" in the "Special Haste" table in
43 Fed. Reg.  58992  as  illustrative, the EPA has concluded (listed?) that 150
million metric  tons per year is "hazardous", and thus proposed to regulate
such "special waste" under certain portions of the Subpart D regulations.
Yet, in view  of the questions raised by the EPA itself, and the complete lack
of any  data or  information referenced in the proposed regulatory package,
how was this  conclusion derived?
     In view  of the above, and lacking the mining wastes study discussed
earlier, GMRC urges that all "processes" listed because of radioactivity in
Section 250.14,  all references to levels of specific Radium isotopes in
Section 250.15,  and Appendix VIII be eliminated from the proposed rules.  In
the preamble  to  the December 13th proposals on page 58950, the EPA states that
only the first  four of eight listed hazardous waste characteristics will be
relied  upon because "those are the only ones for which the Agency confidently
believes test protocols are available."  Further, "The characteristics  that
EPA plans to  use immediately are  relatively straightforward, the tests  are
well developed,  inexpensive, and  recognized by the scientific community, and
they cover  a  large  proportion of  the total  amount of hazardous waste the EPA
belives should  be controlled.   Generators will not be required to test  for
characteristics  of  waste outside  these characteristics for purposes of  determining
if the  waste  is  hazardous.   However it was  also decided to list specific
hazardous wastes  using all  the candidate characteristics."
     If the test  protocol  for radioactivity is not reliable enough to be in-
cluded,  it  is unconscionable for  the EPA to determine any specific waste is

-------
                                     -6-
hazardous on this count, and further use this unreliable protocol as the
only means to demonstrate non-inclusion of a waste within the hazardous waste
system.
     GMRC is not aware of any instance where uranium mine wastes have
caused or significantly contributed to an increase in mortality or an increase
in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or posed a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment.
After more than 20 years of large scale uranium mining, none of the above
cited conditions have been demonstrated.  Uranium mining wastes should there-
fore be considered to be outside the ambit of the Section 1004(5) definition.
EPA's admission of the low risk and the fact that these wastes have never
caused any harm through their radioactivity are conclusive.  Thus, these
materials should not be listed, as EPA proposes.
     EPA's use of "notes" throughout these proposed regulations is, at worst,
legally confusing and, at best, cumbersome.  It is GMRC's understanding that
these "notes" would be a part of the final regulations and therefore on an
equal legal footing with the other portions of these regulations.  To avoid
the potential unintended result that a court might rule otherwise, and to clean
up this awkward syntactical approach, the EPA should incorporate each "note"
into the body of the regulation to which it pertains through the use of "unless"
language or something similar, and delete the introductory-language portion
of the "note".
     In summary, GMRC urges serious consideration be given to the following
points in the formulation of any final  rules:
     1.  Overburden is not included within coverage of RCRA.
     2.  Mine waste should not be included within coverage of RCRA until
         completion of the Section 8002(f) study.

-------
                                    -7-
    3.  No material be listed in 250.14 until  criteria  for  identifying
        the characteristics of hazardous waste have  been  developed  and
        promulgated.
    4.  Discontinue the use of "notes" throughout  the  regulation.
    I thank you for this opportunity  to present Gulf Mineral  Resources
Co.'s  comments on the proposed regulations.   Mr.  Kent R. Olson or I  will
be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding  the  issues raised
in this testimony.
    •Thank you.

-------
                                               ev
                                             nm
        COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
IT. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 1979

Dear Sirs,
    As President of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and
representing the Veterinary Profession in the State of Colorado I would
like to have the opportunity to speak before the board at your public;
meeting this date and present the veterinarians concerns about Sections
3001, 3002, and 3004 under the Resource Conservation and Becovery Act»

Sincerely yours,
John T. Makens, BVM
         Telephone 303-759-1251: Suite 321: 1777 South Bellaire: Denver. Colorado 80222

-------
        COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
0, S. Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 1979

Dear Sirs,
     The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association wishes to express its
concern about the implications of Section 3001, 3002, and 3004 under the
Besource Conservation and Becovery Act (Public Law 94-580) as these apply
to Veterinary hospitals,  clinics and associated veterinary premises.
     It is  our opinion that the largest quantities of waste material generated
in these facilities does  not present a special threat to the environment
or its inhabitants  and since pathological waste of a dangerous nature is
already handled to  render it sterile the inclusion of all our waste under
this law would present a  disposal problem which would prove extremely costly
for all veterinary  facilities and for many an insurmountable obstacle to
operating their practices.
     Therefore be it resolved that the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association
on behalf of  the Veterinary Profession in the State of Colorado expresses
our desire  to h&ve  Veterinary hospitals, clinics and associated premises
excluded from this  Law.

Sincerely yours,
• •<^--; /  '/ttc. /J£7^/Ssi '/• ','
John T.  Makens,  BVM
President,  CTMA

         Telephone 303-759-1251: Suite 321: 1777 South Bellaire: Denver, Colorado 80222

-------
         COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 1979

Dear Sirs,
     Please consider the following facts which relate to the practice of
veterinary medicine which have a strong bearing on the implementation of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as it applies to veterinarians.
     1.  There are no studies which  establish the fact that the waste from
veterinary hospitals, clinics and associated premises is a greater threat to
the environment or human health than other forms of common waste matter
if handled in the presently accepted manner for general waste disposal*
     2.  The sterilization of all veterinary hospital waste presents the
following, possibly insurmountable,  problemsi
          A.  The equipment necessary to sterilize or incinerate the
     quantities of waste especially  dead animals and many tons of animal
     bedding generated by many facilities would be cost prohibitive for
     most veterinarians.
          Be  The quantity of refuse if incinerated would add considerably
     to the existing air pollution problems and probably result in a greater
     known health hazard even with approved equipment.
          C.  ilany veterinary facilities are located in areas such as
     shopping centers and land use zones which do not allow for incineration
     equipment.
          D.  There is no equipment  available for destroying animal bodies
     and animal waste either by sterilization or incineration which does not
     generate unacceptably offensive odor.
          S«  Most biological and pharmaceutical materials used in veterinary
     practice are regulated by present laws which direct their proper disposal*


          Telephone 303-759-1251: Suite 321:1777 South Bellaire; Denver. Colorado 80222

-------
        COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
0. S. Environmental Protecion Agency
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
March 7, 1979

Page 2
          F»   The small amounts of truly hazardous biological material auch
     as cultures  of bacterial, viral and fungal agents which arise from the
     practice  of  veterinary medicine are sterilized before disposal.  The
     modern veterinary practice has the equipment to do this at the present
     time.
     3o  The Veterinary Profession as an integral part of this nations health
industry is totally committed to protecting the nations environmental health
as well as human  and  animal health and has always attempted  to protect the
same from  wastes  created by our endeavors through practical  and effective
waste disposal*

Sincerely  yours,
John T. Makens,  DVM
President,  CVHA
          Telephone 303-759-1251: Suite 321: 1777 South Bellaire: Denver. Colorado 80222

-------
MINNESOTA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION  (MVMA )  RESOLUTION #8 ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13,
1979

PROPOSED EPA REGULATIONS AFFECTING VETERINARY  FACILITIES

Whereas:  The Environmental Protection Agency  published in the Federal Register on

December 18, 1978, proposed regulations on Hazardous Wastes,

Item 1.  The proposed regulations cover criteria  for identifying and  listing

         hazardous wastes.

Item 2.  Requirements for record keeping, labeling, containerizing and using a

         transport manifest.

Item 3.  Performance standards for hazardous waste management  facilities  ,

Whereas:  These regulations affect the disposal of wastes  from the emergency

departments, surgery and patient rooms, morgue, pathology  department,  autopsy

department, isolation rooms, laboratories and  Intensive Care Units of veterinary

hospitals, unless it is autoclaved or specifically handled as  a bio-hazardous waste,

Whereas:  There is no documentation that waste from veterinary hospitals  as

presently handled by professional people constitutes a public  health  hazard,

Whereas:  Wastes are presently autoclaved, disinfected, incinerated, recycled in

rendering plants, sanitary sewers or controlled sanitary landfills or handled as

agricultural wastes,

Whereas:  Although infectious diseases cause important public  health  problems,

veterinarians are leaders in developing prevention and control measures  for

these diseases.

Whereas:, These proposed regulations only add  more manpower to the already staggering

cost of government.

Therefore:   Be it resolved that the MVMA request that veterinary hospitals be exempted

from the proposed EPA regulations that concern veterinary  hospitals.

This resolution was passed unanimously by the  MVMA and by  the  Administrative Council

of the College of Veterinary Medicine and University of Minnesota.

-------
MVMA Resolution #8 Adopted February 13, 1979                    March 6, 1979
Dr's Stanley Diesch and Ben Pomeroy request that a status report concerning the




presentation of this resolution at the EPA hearing in Denver, Colorado, on March



7, 1979 to sent to them.

-------
                                                           266
                        BEFORE THE

         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     In The Matter of:             )
                                  )     TRANSCRIPT OP
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND    )
REGULATIONS                       )     PROCEEDINGS
                             Thursday, March 8, 1979
                             8-30 a.m.
                             Holiday Inn
                             JiOllO Quebec Street
                             Denver  Colorado
      APPEARANCES •
            DOROTHY A.  DARRAH, Chairperson, Office of General
                              Counsel, Environmental Protection
                              Agency, Washington, D. C.

            LISA FRIEDMAN, Office of General Counsel, EPA,
                           Washington, D.  C.

            JOHN P.  LEHMAN, Director. Hazardous Waste Management
                            Division, Office of Solid Waste,
                            EPA, Washington, D. C.

            ALFRED LINDSEY, Chief Implementation Branch .
                            Hazardous Waste ManagementDlvlslon
                            Office of- Solid Waste,  EPA,  Washingt<
                            D. C.

            AMY SCHAFFEP,  Office of Enforcement, EPA, Washington
                          D.C.

            HARRY TRASK,  Program Manager.  Hazardous Waste
                         Management Division. Office of  Solid
                         Waste.  EPA. Washington, D.  C.
            JON P.  YEAGLEY  Chief. Solid. Waste Section,  EPA,
                            Region VIII, Denver, Colorado

-------
                                                     267
APPEARANCES continued:
      TIMOTHY FIELDS, Program Manager, Section 3001,
                      Hazardous Waste Management Division
                      Office of Solid Waste, EPA,
                      Washington, D. C.

      ALAN ROBERTS, Associate Director for Hazardous
                    Materials Regulation, Department of
                    Transportation, Washington,D.C.


      ALAN CORSON, Chief  Section 3001 Guidelines Branch
                   Hazardous Waste Management Branch
                   Office of Solid Waste  EPA,
                   Washington, D. C.

-------
                    •I1 N- D E X





WITNESSES                        PA'SE NO.
JOHN .P. LEHMAN                    3K




JACK WESTNEY                       3"!




JOHN WINKLEY                       410





FRANK R. LEE                       121




CONLEY P. SMITH                   422





DENNIS BURCHETT                   43P





WILEY W. OSBOP.NE                  446





F. FARRELL HIGBEE                 450





GLENN M. Ft'RTCK                   ^55

-------
                            INDEX
 2
     WITNESSES                       PAGE NO.
 3    JOHN HARRIS                       463
 4    RON BISSINGER                     467
 5    LYLE A. RATHBUN                   471
 6    TIM MoCLURE                       476
 7    WILLIAM BUTTON                    480
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                            268




                   PROCEEDINGS
            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH   If we can come to order.



            MR. JOHN P. LEHMAN:  Good morning3 my name Is John



P. Lehman.  I am Director of the Hazardous Waste Management



Division of EPA's Office of Solid Waste. In Washington.  On



behalf of EPA I would 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 participate In the development of these



regulations which are being Issued under the authority of the



Resource Conservation and Recovery Act — RCRA



      For a brief overview of my we are here:



      The Environmental Protection Agency on December 18, 1978



Issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002, and 300^ of



the Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended by the



Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub. L. '9*1-580),



These proposals respectively cover:  (1)  criteria for



identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification



methods, and a hazardous waste list; (2) standards applicable



to generators of such waste for record keeping, labeling, using



proper containers, and using a transport manifest: and (3)



performance, design, and operating standards for hazardous



waste management facilities.

-------
	269




       These proposals together with those already published




 pursuant to Section 3003. (April 28, 1978), Section 3006




 (February 1, 1978), Section 3008 (August 1. 1978), and Section




 3010 (July 11, 1978) and that of the Department of Transportatio



 pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (May




 25, 1978) along with Section 3005 regulations constitute the




 hazardous waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Act.




 EPA has chosen to integrate its regulations for facility



 permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for State hazardous waste




 program authorization pursuant to Section 3006 of the Act with




 proposals under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination



 System required by Section 1)02 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 CPR Parts 122, 123, and 124.




             This hearing is being held as part of our public



 participation process in the development of this regulatory




 program.



       The panels members who share thfc rostrum with me are




 Harry Trask, Program Manager. Hazardous Waste Management



 Division, Office of Solid Waste. EPA, WAshington, D. C.  Mr.




 Trask if the principal staff member responsible for Section




 3002 and 3003 regulations.



       Lisa Friedman from the Office of the General Counsel,




 EPA Headquarters In Washington.

-------
                                                            270





      Dorothy A. Darrah, Offlceeof General Counsel, EPA,



Washington, D. C.



      Fred Llndsey, Chief, Implementation Branch, Hazardous



Waste Management Division, Office of Solid Waste. EPA,



Washington. D. C.



      Amy Sehaffer, Office of Enforcment, EPA headquarters,



Washington, D. C.



      Jon P. Yeagley, Chief, Solid Waste Section, EPA. Region



VIII, Denver, Colorado.



      As noted In the Federal Register our planned agenda is to



cover comments on Section 3001 today, Sections 3002 and 3003



tomorrow and 3004 the next day.  Also we have planned an



evening session today,-covering all four sections.  That session



Is planned primarily for those who cannot attend during the



day.



      The comments received at this hearing and the other hearin



as noted in the Federal Register,  together with the comment



letters we receive, will be a part of the official docket In



this rulemaklng process.  The comment period closes on March



16 for Sections 3001-3001.  This docket may be seen during



normal working hours in Room 2111D, Waterside Mall, 101 M



Street, S. W., Washington. D. C.  In Addition we expect to have



transcrlps of each hearing within about two weeks of the close



of the hearing.  These transcripts will be available for reading



at any of the EPA libraries.  A list of these locations is

-------
                                                           271




available at the registration table outside.




      With that as background  I would like to lay the groundwor



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 EPA  and the Department of Transportation are



involved.  The purpose of this hearing, as announced In the




April 28, May 25, 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 vthe final regulation.



      This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with the




right to cross examine.  The members of the public are to



present their views on the proposed regulations to the panel,




and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting




statements to clarify any ambiguities In their presentations.




      Since we are time limited, some questions by the panel




may be forwarded in writing to the speaker.  His response




if received within a week of the close of this hearing, will




be included in the transcript   Otherwise, we will include It

-------
	272
 In the docket.
       Due to time limitations, the chairman reserves the right
 to limit lengthy questions, discussions, or statements.  We
 would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement to
 make orally, to please limit your presentation to a maximum
 of ten minutes, so we can get all statements In a reasonable
 time.  If you have a copy of your statement, pldase submit it
 to the court reporter.
       Written statements will be accepted at the end of the
 hearing.  If you wish to submit a written rather than an oral
 statement, please make sure the court reporter has a copy.
 The written statements will also be Included In their entirety
 in the record.
       Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have not
 made an advanced request by telephone or In writing should
 indicate their Interest on the registration card.   If you have
 not Indicated your Intent to give a statement and your decide
 to do so, please return to the registration table, fill out
 another card and give It to one of the staff.
       As we call upon an individual to make a statement, he
 or she should come up to the lectern after identifying himself
 or herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or her
 statement.
       At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson will
 Inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to entertain

-------
^	273




 questions  from the  panel.   The speaker Is under no obligation




 to do  so,  although  within  the spirit of this information sharing



 hearing. It  would be of great assistance to the Agency,  if



 questions  were permitted.




       Our  day's activities  as we currently see them,  appear



 like this:




       We will  break for lunch at about 12:15 and reconvene at




 1:15 p.m.  Then,  depending on our progress, we will either



 conclude the day's  session or break for dinner, at about 5:00




 Phone  calls  will be posted on the registration table at  the



 entrance,  and  restrooms are located outside to the left.




       If you wish to be added to our mailing list for  future



 regulations, draft  regulations  or proposed regulations,




 please leave your business card or name and address on a three




 by five card at the registration desk.




       The  regulations under discussion at this hearing are the




 core elements  of a  major regulatory program to manage  and




 control the  country's hazardous waste from generation  to final




 disposal.  The  Congress directed this action in the Resource




 Conservation and  Recovery  Act of 1976, recognizing that



 disposal of  hazardous waste is a crucial environmental and




 health  problem  which must  be  controlled



       In our proposal,  we  have outlined requirements which set




 minimum norms of  conduct for  those who generate,  transport,




 treat,   store, and dispose  of  hazardous waste.

-------
      These requirements, we believe  will close the circle



of environmental control begun earlier with the regulatory



control of emissions and discharges of contaminants to air,



water, and the oceans.



      We do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty of



our proposed regulations.  Rather, they reflect the large



amounts of hazardous waste generated and the complexity of



the movement of hazardous waste in our diverse society.



These regulations will affect a large number of industries.



Other non-industrial sources of hazardous waste, such as



laboratories and commercial pesticide applicators, as well as



transporters of hazardous waste, will also be Included.



      Virtually every day. the media carries a story on a



dangerous situation resulting from improper disposal of



hazardous waste.  The tragedy of Love Canal in New York State



is but one recent example.  EPA has Information on over



'tOO cases of the harmful consequences of inadequate hazardous



waste management.  These oases Include Incidents of surface



and groundwater contamination, direct contact poisoning,



various forms of air pollution, and damage from fires and



explosions.  Nationwide, half of all drinking water is supplied



from groundwater sources and.in some areas contamination of



groundwater resources currently poses a threat to public



health.  EPA studies of a number of generating Industries in



1975 showed that approximately 90 percent of the potentially

-------
                                                             275

 hazardous waste generated by  those  Industries  was  managed  by
 practices which were not adequate for protection of human
 health and the environment.
      The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 was
 passed to address these problems.   Subtitle C  establishes  a
 comprehensive program to protect the public health and
 environment from Improper disposal  of hazardous  waste.  Although
 the program requirements are  to be  developed by  the Federal
 government  the Act provides  that States  with  adequate programs
 can assume responsibility for regulation  of hazardous waste.
 The basic Idea of Subtitle C  Is that the  public  health and the
 environment will be protected If there Is careful  monitoring
 of transportation of hazardous  waste  and assurance that such
 waste is properly treated  stored   or disposed of  either at
 the site where it is generated  or after it is  carried from that
 site to a special facility in accordance  with  certain standards.
      Seven guidelines and regulations are being developed
 and either have been or will  be proposed  (as noted earlier)
 under Subtitle C of RCRA to Implement  the Hazardous Waste
 Management Program.  Subtitle C creates a. management control
 system which, for those wastes  defined as hazardous, requires
 a cradle to grave cognizance, Including appropriate monitoring,
 recordkeeplng and reporting throughout  the system.
      It Is Important to note that  the  definition  of solid
wastes In the Act encompasses garbage   refuse, sludges and
other discarded materials, including  liquids,  semlsollds and

-------
                                                             276





contained gases, and  with  a  few exceptions,  from both municipal



and Industrial  sources.



      Hazardous wastes, which  are  a  sub-set  of all  solid  wastes,



and which will  be Identified by regulations  proposed  under



Section 3001, are those which  have particularly significant



impacts on public health and the environment.



      Section 3001 Is the  keystone of  Subtitle C.   Its purpose



Is to provide a means for  determining  whether  a waste Is



hazardous for the purposes of  the  Act  and, therefore, whetner



it must be managed according to the  other Subtitle  C  regulations



      Section 3001 (b) provides two  mechanisms for  determining



whether a waste is hazardous•   a set of  characteristics of



hazardous waste and a list of  particular hazardous  wastes.



A waste must be managed according  to the Subtitle C regulations



if it either exhibits any  of the characteristics  set  out  in



proposed regulation or 'If  it is listed.  Also,  EPA  Is directed



by Section 3001(a) of the  Act  to develop criteria for



identifying the set of characteristics of hazardous waste and



for determining which wastes to list,  ^.'n this  proposed rule,



EPA sets out those criteria, identifies  a set  of characteristics



of hazardous waste, and establishes  a  list of  particular



hazardous wastes.



      Also the proposed regulation provles for demonstration



of non-inclusion in the regulatory program.



      Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to  generators

-------
                                                             277



of hazardous waste.  A generator  Is defined as any person



whose act or process produces a hazardous waste.  Minimum



amounts generated and disposed per month are established to



further define a generator.  These standards will exclude



household hazardous waste.



      The generator standards will establish requirements for:



recordkeeping, labeling and marking of  containers used for



storage. transport, or disposal of hazardous waste; use of



appropriate containers, furnishing Information on the general



chemical composition of a hazardous waste; use 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 an authorized



state agency, setting out the Quantity  generated and its



disposition.



      Section 3003 requires the development of standards



applicable to transporters of hazardous wastes.  These proposed



standards address Identification  codes, recordkeeping,



acceptance and transportation of hazardous wastes, compliance



with the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous waste:



spills of hazardous waste and placarding and marking of vehicles



The Agency has coordinated closely with, proposed and current



r. S. Department of Transportation regulations.



      Section 3001 addresses standards affecting owners and



operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal

-------
                                                             278





facilities*.  These  standards  define  the levels of human health




and environmental protection  to be achieved by 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 facilities are covered



by these regulations  and  do require  permits;  generators and



transporters do not otherwise need permits.



      Section 3005  regulations set out  the scope  and coverage



of th« actual permit  granting .process  for facility owners and



operators.  Requirements  for  the permit application as  well as



for the Issuance and  revocation process are  defined by  regulations



to be proposed under  40 CFR Parts 122,  123 and 124.   Section



3005(e) provides for  Interim  status  during the time period that



the Agency or the states  are  reviewing  the pending permit



applications.  Special regulations under Section  3001) apply to



facilities during this interim status period.



      Section 3006  requires EPA to issue guidelines under which



States may Seek both  full and Interim authorization to  carry



out the hazardous waste program in lieu of an EPA administered



program.  States seeking  authorization  In accordance with



Section 3006 guidelines need  to demonstrate  that  their  hazardous



waste management regulations  are consistent  with  and equivalent



In effect to EPA regulations  under Sections  3001-5.



      Section 3010 requires any person   generating,  transporting



or owing or operating a facility for treatment, storage,, and

-------
                                                           279






 disposal of hazardous waste to notify  EPA  of  this  activity with



 90 days after promulgation or revision of  regulations  Identi-



 fying and listing a hazardous waste pursuant  to  Section  3001.



 No hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regulation may  be




 legally transported  treated, stored,  or disposed  after  the



 90 day period unless this timely  notification has  been given to




 EPA or an authorized state during the  above 90 day period.




 Owners and operators of inactive  facilities are  not required



 to notify.




      EPA Intends to promulgate final  regulations  under  all




 sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979.   However, It is



 Important for the regulated communities to understand  that the




 regulations under Section 3001 through 3005 do not take  effect



 until six months after promulgation.   That would be approximate




 June of 1980.



      Thus, there will be a titte  period after final promulgatloi



 during which time public understanding of  the regulations can b




 Increased.  During this sane period, notlflcatl  ns fequired




 under Section 3010 are to be submitted and facility permit




 applications required under Section 3005 will be distributed




 for completion by applicants.



      With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the proposed




regulations to be considered at this hearing,  I  return this




meeting to the chairperson. Dorothy Darrah.



            CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:        Our  first  speaker  is

-------
                                                           280





S. Norman Kesten from the American Mining Congress.



            MR. S. NOP.MAN KESTEN:  My name Is S. Norman



Kesten and I am employed by ASARCO, Inc., and I represent



here the American Mining Congress.  In case anybody has



forgotten from yesterday, I would remind you that the American



Mining Congress Is a national association embracing virtually



all companies that supply the mineral commodities tp the



American economy, and some of the products of processing



mineral commodities.  While producing these essential materials



the member companies necessarily generate large quantities of



mine waste rock, waste materials from milling and other forms



of beneflclatlon often called tailings. plus furnace slags and



other similar processing waste from later stages of total



processing toward useable products  as well as other wastes



In relatively minor quantities.  The American Mining Congress



Is thus very Interested and concerned about the economic impact



upon the minerals Industry of any regulations promulgated for



the purpose of Implementing provisions of this amendment to



the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  In addition we want to try to



ensure that during the formulation of such regulations the



Agency is fully aware of the technological limitations that



the very nature of its wastes places upon the industry and



takes into account the large number of physical and chemical



variables that tend to make each operation unique.  In



general, the industry has a series of special problems in

-------
                                                            281






 complying with proposed 'regulations because  of the  sheer  volume




 of the wastes that  are generated and the  large areas  of land



 that  those wastes must occupy.




      Using copper  and copper ores  as examples,  new mine




 production, including beneficlatlon. smelting and refining,




 in this country  is  of a magnitude that there Is  also  produced




 annually about 600  million  tons  of  mine waste rock, 250




 million dry tons of mill  tailings and perhaps five  million tons




 of furnace slag.    The smelting  of  Iron ore  produces  some 24



 million tons of  furnace slag  annually.




      It is not  likely that waste products from  mining  and




 from  beneficlatlon  of mine  products in the long  run will  be




 found to fit the criteria for hazardous waste.   Indeed, we



 contend on the record that  mining wastes  are exempt from  the



 PCRA  regulations from a legal standpoint.  However  if  it




 finally is determined that  they  are not exempt,  to  the  extent



 that  mining and milling wastes are  found  to  be hazardous  they




 will  come under the classification  of Special V/astes  in Section




 250.46.  In that case, we as  the owners and  operators of




 facilities for Special Wastes, shall not  have to comply with




 this  Subpart B with respect to any  Special Waste.   This




 exception is stated In Section 250.16 of  Subpart D  which  is




 rather remote from  Subpart  B.  The  exception should be  stated




 in close proximity to the regulations from which exception Is




made:  to wit. at the end  of the  first paragraph  of  Section

-------
                                                            282






250.20(c) on pages 58975.




      It Is hoped that furnace  slaps will be  added to Special




Wastes In Section 250.46.  for the  same reasons that those




wastes now listed have been  included.  However  If these




slaps are not so categorized, then to the extent that they are




hazardous the operators of smelters are  "generators" for




purposes of this Subpart' and others.  Plants  belonging to




member companies of the American Mining  Congress may be "gene-




rators'' in another sense.  Both IBinesand smelters are often




located In remote areas and  therefore must have either septic




tanks or package treatment plants  for sewage.  Those facilities




generate solid waste which may  be  hazardous.  However, in



Section 1001 of the Act  solid  waste is  defined -to exclude,




for purposes of the Act, ''solid or dissc Ived  material in




domestic sewage."  As long as domestic type sewage generated




at a location where it cannot be discharged to a municipal




treatment plant is kept separate from any other type of waste




generated, sladge and puin.plngs  should be exempted from the




requirements of this and other  Subparts.  The confusion arises




when the Agency substitutes  the word "household" for the




broader term "domestic'1 that appears in  the Act.



      We have trouble with the  definition of  "on-site'T (250.21)




(18) page 58976 in one of  the other Subparts  as well as here.




We believe that the term should be defined as broadly as




possible.  For several or  many  years we  and other generators

-------
                                                             283




are going to be able to find approved commercial disposal



sites for hazardous wastes within reasonable transporting




distances of the plants at which they are generated.  We will




be forced, therefore, to provide our own disposal or storage



sites on nearby property that we control.  Approval of1 even




these sites will be difficult to obtain because of the many




prohibitions listed in Subpart D.  We shall need the encourage-



ment of EPA and in part that encouragement might be provided




in a fairly liberal definition of "on-slte.'  For example, when




the disposal facility Is separated from the point of generation



only by private property to which-the public does not have acces^,



disposal should be considered to be on site.  It separation is




only by a natural barrier, disposal also should be considered




to be on-site.  If the waste is transported to the disposal




site by a closed pipeline  private railroad, company-owned




and operated trucks or similar means, this should be considered




to be on-site disposal.



      A "spill'1 is proposed to mean any unplanned release or




discharge.  (250.21(26). page 58976.  However, for the



purposeof these regulations the paperwork resulting from a spill




should only be required if the spill results In lowering the



quality of land, air or water beyond the allowable levels set




forth.   Otherwise reporting would be required only for the




sake of reporting.



      There are five separate requirements in this Subpart for

-------
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23



24



25
certification by  an  authorized representative of the  generator.



A corporation Is  not  likely to authorize  a workman,-a.shift boss



or even a  foreman to  sign for it,  particularly when penalties



are involved.  On the other hand,  a more  senior person is not



going to   personally  supervise all the operations having to do



with hazardous waste  but  Is going  to rely upon the good faith



of trusted employees  to some extent.   He  should not be crlminall



liable for Inadvertent errors made by such employees.   Thus,



there should be added to  the end of the first sentence of the



certification statement the words  "to the best of my  knowledge



and belief.'  Incidentally   EPA agreed to add these words to



certification on  reporting  forms for the  preliminary  inventory



under TSCA.



      In Section  250.27(a)  on page 25879  the  Agency makes a



statement  which means, I  feel sure,  that  Information  provided



to EPA as  required by these regulations cannot be kept



confidential.  However that is not  what  it says.  Let me quote:



"All information  provided In connection with  the manifest and



reporting  sections established by  this Subpart shall  be availabl



to any person...'   This should read  "All  information  provided



to the Administrator  in connection...'' After all, EPA has no



control under this Act or the Freedom of  Information  Act over



information provided  to anyone o1s*ier than EPA.



      The  member  companies  of the  American Mining Congress  have



no Idea how much  these and  other regulations  that are going to

-------
                                                            285





 be promulgated under the Act will  cost.   The major  determining




 factors are whether or not our many  and  very large  disposal



 sites will be characterized as open  dumps and  whether  or  not




 appropriate criteria will be substituted for those  proposed




 for  for determining If any of our wastes are  hazardous.  Lookl



 at worst case scenarios In relation  to those two  factors  alone,



 all  I can say Is "May God help us.




      I am reminded by this morning's Denver contribution to



 Journalistic excellence of an old  pre-Columbian reap, or




 pre-Columbian maps that we have  seen from time to time.   There




 Is shown In the Eastern Atlantic,  the words  "Beyond this.




 point there are monsters.'  That is  where we are  now.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH•  I guess I thank  you for




 those comments.



            MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Kesten. I want to get  some




 clarification on your suggestions  concerning the  broadening




 of the definition of on-slte.  As  I  understood your remarks,




 one of the suggestions you made was  that as long  as the




 management system was wholly owned.  In other words, if you




 used the company-owned trucks and  so on,  even  though the




 property wasn't contiguous  that all of  that should be on-slte.




 Mow. Just to put that in some sort of context, we are aware




 of certain industries, which have  a  disposal site In one



 state and with their owr. transportation  systems, transport




materials from their various facilities  into 20 or  30 other

-------
                                                            286





states, are you  suggesting that  ought  to  be  considered on-slte



or were you not?



            MR.  KESTEN-   In that kind  of  complicated  situation,



I am suggesting  nothing.   You  work It  out.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Any. further questions?  Thank



you.  I will next call Mr  Wiley W. Osborne,  Texas Department



of Health



            MR. WILEY W.  OSBORNE:   I found out yesterday you



can't read these statements up here as fast  as you can back In



your office.



      I am Wiley W. Osborne, Chief. Plans and Programs Branch,



Division of Solid Waste Management, Texas Department  of Health.



      First, I wish to have the  record reflect that this is a



continuation of my statement given yesterday on  Subpart A.



      Again, I would express Mr   Cannichael's regrets that he



Is unable to be here to give this  statement.



      Our comments relating to Subpart B  is  an extension of our



recommendations to identify hazardous  waste  Into two  sub-sets.



Yesterday, I recommended  these be  defined as "primary hazardous



waste" and "special wastes  '



      Today, I would like to bring forth the idea that Subpart



B, as presently written   or slightly modified, would  remain



as standards applicable to  generators  of primary hazardous



wastes.  The exception to this proposal Is that  Section 250.29



would not be applicable to  those producing and disposing of

-------
                                                                 287





     hazardous waste characterized as primary hazardous waste.



           Under Section 250.20, we recommend the addition of




     a Subsection (c)(6) authorizing generators of  special wastes




     to send special wastes to a treatment,  storage or disposal



     facility "authorized1' by the regulating agency.




           Under this concept, the regulating agency could either



     require the site to be a permitted site under  Subtitle C or




     a Subtitle D site, meeting standards proposed  for such special



     wastes under Subpart D, when written authorization Is Issued



 10   by a state agency authorized In accordance with Subpart P of



 11   this part.




 12         Generators of special waste should be required to comply



 13   with the manifest and reporting requirements of Section 250.22



 14   and Section 250.23




 15         The requirements of Section 250.24 Identification Codes,



 lg   Section 250.25 Containers  Section 250.26 Labeling Practices,




 17   and Section 250.27 Confidential Information and Presumption,




 18   shall also pertain to generators of special waste.




 19         As mentioned earlier, Section 250.29 would not pertain to




2o   persons producing or disposing of primary hazardous waste.




2i   This  section should be rewritten to apply only to special




22   waste.   In this way  the risk of having highly toxic waste



23   enter the Subtitle D waste stream uncontrolled Is reduced




24   considerably,  while  at the same time   a goodly portion of the




25   special waste  can be handled through the relaxed standards

-------
                                                            288





under Section  250.29 without  a  great  risk.




      This Is  essentially  our recommended changes to Subpart



B, changes based on Identifying hazardous as primary hazardous



and special wastes.  By  requiring different standards for



generators of  each subset  of  hazardous waste, adequate controls



are exercised  to protect the  health and the environment.  While



recognizing the need to  exercise more stringent control over



primary hazardous waste, we also see  the cost effectiveness



In having less stringent controls over special waste.



      The next few comments relate to recommendations on



Subpart B, outside the comments given above.



      Section  250.21 (a)(25)  Retailer - the definition should



be explicit that a retailer is  a person engaged solely in the



business of selling to the general public.  Wholesale/retail



and sale to contractors  should  be excluded from the definition.



      Section  250.29 (a)(l) relating  to the disposal of waste



in an off-site waste disposal facility - should require only



that the facility has been permitted  by the state.  That



portion of the requirement relating to an "approved state plan'1



is Inconsistent when it  is recognized that a state plan may



not be approved for several months after the effective date of



these regulations.



      (a)  Any person who produces and disposes of no more



than 100 kilograms (aoproxlmatelv 220 pounds) of hazardous



waste in any one month period is not  a generator provided that

-------
=============_===_^	289




 the hazardous waste:



             1.  Is disposed of In an on-site or off-site




       solid waste disposal facility, which facility has been



 permitted...




       (b)   Delete




       Comment•  We disagree with the reasoning behind special



 generator  requirement for automobile waste oil retailers




 established by Section 250.29(a).  The preamble states, "V7aste




 automobile  oil presents a special environmental problem because




 of Its ublqultlousness and Its potential as a carrier for




 other hazardous wastes.  For example, It Is sometimes nixed



 with transformer oil  containing PCB's.  Regulation of used




 automobile  oil under  this Section will tend to direct such oil



 to permitted recovery or treatment facilities which will promote



 resource   conservation and reuse, a m.a,1or goal of the Act."




 The reasoning Is not  consistent with the Intent of the Act.



 This Is an  Indirect means of forcing the waste automotive oil




 to be recycled and reused rather than promoting recycling and




 reuse.  The  reference to waste automobile oil being "sometimes




 mixed with  transformer oil containing PCB's is a weak argument



 to this approach of controlling and recycling It.   If such oil




 Is In fact  contaminated with PCB's. it would not be allowed




 to be recycled,  but would have to be disposed of In accordance




 with requirements  of the Toxic Substances Control Act.   The




 disposal of waste automotive oil should not be a subject of

-------
                  .                       	290




these regulations unless a more direct approach Is taken and




a stronger Indication" that these oils are hazardous Is proven.




Regulations shoujd not be used solely to make disposal an




unattractive option and thus Indirectly-  force recycling.




Thank you.  I will respond to any questions.




            MR.-TRASK:  Mr  Osborne, you mentioned a number




of conditions that would apply to the two different categories




of waste that you have discussed yesterday.  Unless I am mistakei




you left out record keeping on the Special Waste.  Was that




your Intent to do that?




      A     Ho. that would be required, only on the part of the




generator.




            MR. TRASK:  Yes.




      A     That would require record keeping.




            MR. THASK:  So record keeping would be required




In every case?




      A     Yes, that is correct.




            MR. TRASK:  I am not sure I know what the real




difference there Is between these two classes In terms of




the generators responsibilities.



      A     Well. I think the primary difference here would be




allowing ah exclusion or an exemption by a certain quantity.




We would not want to allow an exemption of quantities of




primarily hazardous waste as we would define It.



            MR. TRASK:  Then you would favor.the alternative

-------
^	291




 that we discussed in our preamble?




       A     I think it falls in there.




             MR. TRASK:  The degrees of handling some conditions?




       A     Actually there is none of those that would exactly




 fit our recommendations, but I believe three comes pretty




 close.




             MR. TRASK:  Thank you.




             MR. LINDSEY':  Mr. Osborne, the last part of your




 comment had to do with the waste oil regulation, which you




 aoparently are against.  Your statement says:  "...should not




 be a subject of these regulations unless a more direct approach




 is taken..."  What do you mean by a "more direct aoproach?"




 Do you have suggestions on how we should handle the waste




 oil issue?




       A     Well, I think the only indication here that is to




 show that waste oil is hazardous, is the fact that it might




 be contaminated with some other hazardous waste.




             MR. LI NDSEY:  I think this has to do with lead




 and other heavy metals being concentrated there, and are frequently




 blended and burned in school boilers and things of that




 nature, and thus spreading the materials around.  That is part




 of the concern.




       A     If the waste oil meets the criteria of the




 hazardous waste, then I would agree with these regulations.




 However,  if it is just on the possibility that it may be

-------
	292




 come contaminated.from some other source.




             MR. LINDSEY   Would it still have to meet the




 characteristics, whatever it was. in order to be covered here?




       A     Yes.  But It looks like the way these are written,




 that waste oil Just by category Is placed In the hazardous




 waste without really requiring any Identification that It is




 hazardous.  As a matter of fact  we have proposed regulations




 that follows the EPA model law along that recycling of used oil.




             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH-  Thank you. sir.   Next is




 Jim V.  Rouse of Envlrologic Systems. Inc.




             MR. JIM V. ROUSE:  Thank you.  I will try to keep



 my remarks quite brief this morning.




       We recognize the requireemnts of Section 3002 are not




 to be imposed on mining waste as stated In the material on




 Special Waste.  However, we also note In the preamble to the




 Section, 3001) regulations, that at a later date, material is




 coming Into Special Waste, and for the timebelng, these are




 all that apply to Section 300?.  So part of our remarks are In




 •the way of trying to lay some groundwork now.




       Also, we recognize  as Mr. Kesten does, that these are




 quite remote and we find, for example, in Section 250.21*,




 250.25 and 250.26 wording about every generator shall do this




 and every generator shall do that, and not being a lawyer, I




 am somewhat questionable whether you can have these kinds of




 very strong words in the early part of the regulation followed

-------
   	 293




 later by exemptions, and I will  leave that up to the  lawyers.




 However, anyway, the comments  I  would like to make  this




 morning are more in the way of a preventitive situation.




      I note that every generator must  determine whether the




 waste meets these rather arbitrary  criteria  for hazard which we




 discussed yesterday.  7 note that provisions exist  for contest-




 ing whether or not the waste meets  the  criteria, whether the



 pH is or is not less than three  but no provisions  exist for




 contesting whether pH of three is truly a hazard.   This becomes




 crucial when we note in the following section, 250.20(c)




 that even the fact that a waste  passes  the test is  no guarantee



 it will not be subsequently regulated,  because the  note states




 failure to properly designate  a  waste as a hazardous waste



 may constitute a violation of  the Act and may subject the person




 or federal agency to the compliance requirements and penalty




 prescribed in Section 3008 of  the Act.



      I would submit to you that when you consider  a material




 heterogeneous as most mining waste  is.  and when you consider




 the rather stringent criteria  which are listed in Section




 3001, it would appear to me that with a desire to do so, you




 could identify any mining waste  in  the  world as a hazardous




 waste, even though the operator may have in all good




 conscience sampled and found that such  was not the  case.



      Tt seems in reading this note, basically there is no




right of appeal to the generator if he  coZlects samples and

-------
                                                           291
and thinks he  has  got  a  non-hazardous  waste,  which  I  cannot




visualize., but If  he got lucky and took a sample  that came out




non-hazardous  and  then EPA  came out and took  a  sample and




said It was hazardous, he would then,  according to  this note,




as I read It,  be subject to the violation of  the  Act  with no




right of appeals,  and  no way of negotiating subsequent sampling




or anything.   You  nlpht  want to consider that possibility.




      The only other point  I want  to discuss  briefly  In this




regulation this morning Is.  that Section 250.20(c)(l)  where It




discusses reoulrements for  on'-slte versus off-site.   Mr. Kesten




pointed out here,  and  I  see some others that  we also  ought to




consider.  Many mining operators actually do  not  own  the site




of their waste disposal,  but.'rather they .are disposing



of the material on lands owned  by  the  Federal government, and




operated through a. special  user permit,  which would make the




fe'deral government the operator of the off-site disposal




facility and I rather question  whether the BLM  or the Forest




Service Is going'to assign  someone to  stay out  there  around




the clock to sign  and receive the  manifest< for  every  truck




load, for example.'of uranium mine overburden,  which  would be




delivered and  placed In  one  of  fehese disposal sites not owned




by the operator.   This could be overcome by some  wording to




the effect that on-slte  disposal is  land owned  or controlled




under special  permits or lessees.



      For example, some  of  the  uranium mining operations that

-------
                                                            295





 that I am familiar with are operated under  leases where the




 owner or the operator does not own the property at all, but




 rather Is operating through leases with the property owner, and




 again, I think the property owner, who many times is a




 rancher, that has leased out his land. Is not going to want




 to be saddled with the responsibility of being a hazardous



 waste disposal operator.




      One final point.  I wonder if you might give some




 consideration to whether a mine operator is responsible for



 sampling analysis and reporting of each truck load of mine




 overburden, again, going back to uranium mine operations,




 uranium mine waste that is placed in the waste storage pile.



      I notice 250.23(b)(6) requires reporting of each ship-




 ment of uranium.  Each shipment can occur on 30 second



 to one minute Intervals, which would get pretty horrendous,




 especially If one had to pet into the problem of sampling of



 each of these truckloads, because each truckoad will be differe:




 as you go up and down In the overburden.



      Thank you very much.  Are there any 'questions?




            CHAIRPERSON DAPRAH-:  Thank you.



            MR. TRASK:  First a point Of clarification on that




 last point that you made.  The term shipment, as It is used




here, takes the meaning that is used in transportation circles,




which means that it is not every truckload.



            MR. ROUSE:  Okay, that might want to be clarified,

-------
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9




 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




21




22




23




24



25
===================^==	296




 because  much of this transportation is, of course, off-road  and




 not  subject  to Department of Transportation requirements'.




              MR.  TRASK:   Well, DOT may choose to clarify that




 in their regulations.   I am not sure, but We see so much is




 under  DOT.                                                     !




        In this business  of off-site versus on-site, I am no't




 suere  that I understood who would be responsible for that




 material that was  disposed of in the csee that you described.




              MR.  ROUSE:   Well, that Is what I am not sure about




 myself.   That Is why I  request some clarification.  As I read




 the  on-site  versus off-site, the way it Is now worded, that




 on-site  has  to consist  of property owned by the operator.  Most




 of these operations I am familiar with would consist of




 off-site disposal  and the operator would have the disposal




 facility —  well,  either the Forest Service or BLM, who own




 the  property or originally the rancher who owned the property,




 and  who  leased the mineral rights to the mining company. Many




 of these people do not  own the surface facility.  Some own




 the  mineral  rights and  some Just lease the mineral rights.




              MR.  TRASK:   Wouldn't that be the owner of the




 property and not the operator?  Wouldn't the operator be




 whoever  dumped' the waste there?




              MR.  ROUSE:   ThevOjmer of the property Is not the




 mining company doing the dumping, yes.  I don't think the




 ranbhers are going t6 want to find themselves into the

-------
 hazardous waste disposal  site  business.   They lease  It  out.




            MB. TRASK:  YOu  are  probably  right about that.




            MR. ROUSE:  They lease  It  out for a royalty,  and




 I  don't think It Is their responsibility.  ,1  think It Is



 more the mine operator.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAK:  Thank you.




      The next speaker Is Mr.  Orvllle  Stoddard from  the Colorado



 Department of Health.




            MR. OPVILLE STODDAPD:   I air, Orvllle Stoddard,




 engineer for the Hazardous Waste Department,  speaking for the




 Department of Health and  Mr. Al  Hazle, Division Director.



 These comments are pertinent to  the Section 3002.




      My first comment is on pape 5896, Comumn 2, paragraph 2.




 ''The Agency has proposed  that  persons  who produce and dispose




 of less than 100 kilograms (Approximately 2?0 pounds) of




 hazardous waste in any one month are exempt from the requirement




 of this Subpart if they comply with paragraph 250.29




      Categorizing- a hazardous waste by weight,  making no



 allowance for toxlclty, physical form, dilution and  so forth




 is a questionable approach.  Some hazardous waste cannot be




 adequately measured by weight  (for  example, pathological




 organisms and radioactive materials.)



      We recommend provisions  t? made  to  establish "extremely




hazardous waste" and ''hazardous  waste'  categories to enable the




establishment of higher priorities  to  control extremely hazardou

-------
                                                            298


waste.


      Section 250.20(o) page 58975 reads:


            (c)  "Any person or federal Agency who generates
             •

            a solid waste must determine, pursuant to Subpart


            A if the waste Is hazardous.  If  it Is  and If


            that person meets the definition  of a generator


            contained In 250.21(b)(9) herein, he must comply


            with this regulation to the degree and in the manner


            specified below."


      It may be almost impossible for some generators of


potentially hazardous waste to perform the required tests if


they have complex or variable wastes from many processes


even though some of these wastes are not hazardous.  Therefore,


many wastes which are not hazardous would be  classified as


such Just for expedience.  The result of this would be to


overwhelm hazardous waste disposal for small businesses without


laboratory testing capabilities.


      We recommend there should be provisions for exemptions


from requirement subject to the approval of the State Agency


and Regional Administrator.


      Section 250.20(c)(1) page 58976.


            (4)  "Any person or Federal Agency who generates


            only household refuse or household septic  tank


            pumpings is not required to comply with the


            requirements of this Subpart."

-------
	                 299





       Septic tank purapings from household  sewage systems




 contain pathogenic organisms prevalent In  raw sewage.  Septic




 tank pumpers may also collect liquids and  sludes from industrial



 operations.  These wastes discharged at landfills, if tested,



 would most liksly be categorized as hazardous waste.




       We recommend septeic tanks pumping discharged into sanitarfcr



 sewer systems should be exempt from these  regulations.  Septic




 tank pumpings should be considered a hazardous waste If disposed



 of In landfills.




       Page 58976, column 1, paragraph 250.20(2):




       "Every generator must comply with Subpart D and Subpart




 E of this part If the waste remains on site for 90 days or



 more."



       Obtaining compliance by generators that store




 hazardous waste for more than 90 days with the requirements of




 Subparts D and E appears difficult to regulate.




       Thank you.



             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Are there questions




             MR. TRASK:  Mr. Stoddard, you  indicated there




 ought  to be an extremely hazardous waste category and I think




 you said some waste, such as pathogens or pathological waste




 would  be candidates for that.  'Do you have any other thoughts




 on what  other wastes should be in that category?



             MR. STODDAPD:  No, .sir.  I am  sure with some




 thought, I could come up with something, but not on the spur

-------
                                       	   300




of the moment.  That was Just used as an example.




            MR. TRASK:  Are you  submitting  some written comments




later?




            MR. STODDARD:  YEs,  there will  be an enlargement




on this.




            MR. TRASK:  Would you think about that and do what




you can on that.




            MR. STODDARD:  Yes,  * will.




            MR. TRASK:  We would appreciate it if you would.




            MR. STODDARD:  Okay.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Stoddard, you  mentioned that In




your belief there Should be a distinction between the final




disposition on how you classify  septic tank 'pumplngs if they




go in a sewer systenij      if they go Int6  a sewer system 'and




to the sanitary landfill, and then should be classified




differently: is that what you are saying?-




            MR: STODDARD:  That  is correct.  They go to the




waste water treatment plant, then it gets additional treatment




there, and the residue from the  waste water treatment plant is,




of course, regulated by the Water Quality Control Act.  The




material ending up at the landfill site does not receive this




treatment, and usually there Is  reasons for this.




            MR. LEHMAN:  I wonder if you could share with us




your thoughts about how you would do this.  In other words, it




is very difficult to bring something into a system or outside,

-------
      and keep It out of the system based, you know, sort of after
      the fact, In that the driver and the pumper delivery has a
      choice In a sense of whether he takes It to the landfill or
      whether he takes It to a sewer system, and I am Just wondering
      If you thought through how you would practically carry out this
      recommendation about how you would construct a program that
  7   would do that.
  8               MR. STODDARD:  No, I don't know how to do that, but
  9   I think there should be some mechanism there becasue It does
 10   present problems at disposal sites and facilities; this Is for
 11   sure.
 12               MR. TRASK:  To follow up on that point a bit.
 13   Who would be the generator In that case?
 14               MP. STODDARD:  I think that is the question.   It
 15    wouldn't  be the home owner If he Is Just having it collected
 16    by  the  transporter.   Maybe the transporter would be considered
 17    the generator.   I don't know.   That'ls one of those areas  that
 18    is  a problem,  but it Is difficult to solve.
 19                MR.  YEACLE'Y-   For those septic tank pumpdngs  that
 20    are being disposed' of in landfills, I real'ly have two questions
 21         Are those- landfills, permitted landfills based on your
 22    state regulations and what kind of impacts are you seeing from
23    that type of disposal?'
24                MR. STODDAPD:  Let's see.  The Solid Waste Act
25    really  pertains to solid waste at landfills.  We do have  a

-------
                                                            302





certifying authority  through  the  county  commissioners  for the



landfill sites.  Now, the  liquid  waste received  at  the landfill




sites are considered  In their certification  process, but they




do present problems In terms of potential water, pollution




problems, and In terms of  potential methane  gas  generating




problems and In terms:of odors and so forth.




            MR. YEAGLEY:   Based on your  understanding  of the




Subtitle D Section bQQk regulations for  classification of




landfills, If those landfills  were up to speed as .far  as that




Subtitle D regulation, do  you  feel then  that  this problem would




still exist?




            MR. STODDARD:  I don't know.  That would do a lot




to solve the problem.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH-   Thank you.   Mr. Barry Hutching!




            MR. BARRY HUTCHINGS:  I am Barry  Hutchings, and on




behalf of the American Petroleum  Institute,  I would like to




express my appreciation for this  opportunity  to  appear at the




hearing today to discuss the proposed regulations implementing




Section 3002 of the Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act,




particularly as the pertain to the control of the disposition




of used, or waste-, motor oils.




      While I plan to direct the  majority of  my  remarks to




specific recominendatipns,  I would first  like  to  center attentloi




on the distinction made In paragraph 250.20 between retailers



whodispose of waste oil and all others who are not  disposers of

-------
                                                             303





waste oil.  Section 250.29(a) states, with two conditions, that



any retailer disposing of hazardous waste other than waste oil




is not a -generator.  This extraordinary exception appears to be



unnecessarily discriminatory against retailers of motor oil —




specifically gasoline service stations who drain used motor




oil and/or accept 'used oil from individuals who drain and change



their own oil.




      The apparent Justification for including only this class




of retailer Is that waste oil Is ubiquitous and is a potential



carrier for other hazardous waste and substances.  I would like



to comment briefly on both of these premises.



      First of'all, we see no problem with the service station




contribution to this ubiquity.  In fact, there is a positive




aspect.  The most Important source of Improperly disposed




waste oil today is the individual who changes his own oil.  As



touched on before, thousands of service stations now accept




this material from the do-it-yourselfer and efforts are under



way to further encourage such activity.  They provide a ubiquitous




means of containing this potential pollutant.  Placing




administrative burdens on these small businesses will be



counterproductive to this effort.  Waste oil accumulated at



service stations does not represent a significant environmental




problem today becuase it is a valuable commodity that is



eagerly sought by transporters, ror example, collectors or




scavengers, who have & strong financial interest in providing

-------
                                                           301






removal or pick up service  and who presumably will be controlle



adequately under other Subparts.




      With regard to the hazardous carrier aspect, there




apparently are documented cases wherein waste oil has Deen




mixed wltn transformer oil  containing  PCB's   However-, to




our knowledge, this practice has never occurred, nor would it




be expected to occur, with  waste motor oil -at service stations.




      I would now like to address the  subject of- specific




recommendations.




      It is the contention  of API that paragraph 250.29(a) is




sufficient to control waste at all retail outlets and, therefor




we ask that service stations be similarly  excluded from the




generator definition.  Nevertheless, to support the "cradle




to grave1' control concept,  we recommend that all retail outlets




that accumulate waste oil be required:




      (1)  To be identified by code.




      (2)  To allow removal of waste oil only by transporters




           who are permitted or otherwise controlled under




           Section 3003.



      (3)  To maintain a record of the identity of transporters




           utilized and the approximate volume of waste oil




           transferred, and




      (t)  To prepare and submit, within 30 days after the




           closing date of the year, an annual report to the




           appropriate authority, for  example, the EPA Regional

-------
	^^^^                      305





             Administrator or the administrator of an approved




             state plan.  Such report should include all of the



             information set forth in paragraph 250.23(b)




             except item (3) which pertains to identification of



             the permitted treatment, storage, or disposal



             facility to which the waste oil was sent.  With




             regard to item (9), the certification we recommend



             for obvious reasons that the sentence ''I am aware




             that there are significant penalties for submitting




             false Information, Including the possibility of




             fine or Imprisonment,r be changed so as to include




             the word ' knov/lngly'  before the word 'submitting."




             RCRA clearly provides for this concent.



       Another means of reducing what API feels would be




 unnecessary burdens on service stations would be to modify



 their requirements, if any, under Subparts D and E, pertaining




 to storage.  By way of background  the changing of motor oil



 tends to be seasonal — that is', most of the activity takes



 place in spring and summer, both at stations and by do-it-yourse




 Thus, there are tiires during the year in which the accumulation



 rate Is very low.  Couple this with the fact that collectors of




 scavengers are not very Interested in picking up small quantltle




 for economic reasons.  The resu^ IB that many stations,




 especially those in rural areas, are forced to hold the



 accumulated oil on-site for longer than 90 days.  Thus, under
fei

-------
	306



 the proposed rules for Section 3002, service  stations might


 face requirements under Subparts D and E,  as  well as B.  In all


 likelihood, many service station operators would decide In
                 •


 this case to discontinue changing oil and  accepting oil from



 Individuals In order to avoid the regulatory  burdens.  In line


 with an earlier comnent, such action would be counterproductive


 to the industry's effort to maximize the return of do-it-your-


 selfer oil and would lead to Increased pollution.


       A further extension of this situation could be that a


 transporter would not be wllllnp to enter  Into an assumption


 of duties contract If he had to pick up fron  service station


 clients every 90 days or less -- regardless of the amount of


 oil involved.  Of course, this point is immaterial if the EPA


 acts favorably on the API request to exclude  service stations



 from the generator cstepory.


       In view of the considerations just discussed, we


 recommend that paragraph 250.20(e)(2) be revised so as to change


 the phrase "90 days or longer1' to read ''twelve months or


 lonjrer.'   In addition, a change may be necessary in the


 definition of "Storare Facility1' In paragraph 250.'ll(b) (83).


       Last, but not least, APT continues to have a. grave concerr



 about the issue of burnlnr waste oll; particularly waste motor


 oil.   We  have previously discussed .this matter on numerous


 occasions with FPA representatives.  Erlefly  stated, however,


 our position is that with minimal controls, the use of waste

-------
                                                              30





oil as a fuel supplement is a constructive means of resource



conservation and recovery.  More to the point,  it  is the




belief of API that unnecessary restriction of this means of




recycling will lead to an increase in undesirable  dispcaal of




waste oil within the meaning of disposal as  clearly defined by



PCHA.  That is, the dumping, and so forth, into or on land'




or water.  We further believe that the minimal  controls needed




to guard against significant air pollution fall within the



purview of the Clean Air Act, not RCFA.




      API will be addressing other aspects of the  Section 3002



proposed regulations in detail In its written comments.  However



our central concern is that EPA use its authority  over hazardous



waste management to adopt a flexible approach which first




identifies the substantial hazards to human  health and the




environment, and then uses this information  to  adopt regulatory



measure^ which achieve a substantial reduction  in these hazards.




Having reviewed the proposed regulations under  Section 3002, API




Penalr.s concerned that EPA's desire for administrative simplicit



will result on the one hard in the continuation of significant




hazards, and on the other, lead to inefficient  compliance




requirements which attempt to eliminate a minimal or non-existen




hazard.   Thank you.



            CHAIRPERSON PAPPAF:  Thank you.  Will you answer




cuestlons fror the pa'nel?




            MR.  HUTCHINOS-  Yes

-------
                                                              30





            MR. LINDSEY:   Mr.  Hutchlngs,  I have  two questions.



You mentioned that  you  thought the  90  day exclusion was  too




short and that would put  a burden on the  gas station who




maybe would stop changing oil, or stop receiving home owner




oil.  Assuming- that the ?0 day exclusion  is not  a problem,




would the rest of the regulation, which we have, as written,




in your opinion, cause  service stations to perhaps not stop




receiving waste oil from  home  owners?




            MR. HUTCHINQS:   Particularly  the reporting and




record keeping reciuirenents, yes.



            MR. LINDSEY:   In other  words, Just the simple fact




of having to sign off on  a manifest and maintain a report would




be enougrh?  They would  have to do it anyway, wouldn't they?




            MR. HUTCHINGS-   I  think it is a very good posslbllit




it would.




            MR. LINDSEY-   You  would?




            MR. HUTCHINGS:  The reason for this  is, they make




some profit on changing oil, but  the average service station




makes perhaps a hundred changes a month,  that is about all.  It




is a fair- contribution  to their profit, but they are so  burden




now with controls that  we put  on  them, and the government puts




on them, and the accountant of an average service station is




usually the operator's  wife, ?r\C.  it is not a big, business.



This is a small business  we are talking about.   With regards to




the value of this waste oil, It is  almost zero to the service

-------
                                                            309
 station operator.  He inakes  five  cents  or  perhaps  ten  cents




 a gallon for it, but collecting it  at a hundred  gallons  a month




            TO. LINDSEY:  He  gets paid  for changing  it?




            MB.' HUTCHINGS:   That is true, he does.




            KR. LINDSEY:' Well, wouldn't the assumption  of




 duties provision, wouldn't that relieve hlir.?  That was the




 intent was t'o relieve him of all  that record keeping.




            MR. HUTCHINGS:   API is  considering looking very




 closely at that particular aspect,  which obviously has been




 added to try to relieve the  burden.




            MR. LINDSEY: I think  it will work.




            M?. HUTCHINGS:   The assumption of duties contract?




            MR. LINDSEY:  Do  you  think  it  will happen?




            MR. KUTCHIHOS:   I think in  some cases  it will, but




 in other cases, it v:lll not,  partlculary if the  consumer has to




 come and pick up the oil more frequently then he has to.  More




 to the point, if you are going to transfer a duty  by this




 contract, let's .lust directly explicitly tranfer the duty




 right in the regulation.  We  believe the responsibility




 primarily lies with the transporter.  Ke is the  one that has




 the primary financial Interest, and he  is  the one  that has the




ma.1or control over the flow <-.? this material, not  the  service




station  operator.



            I'P.  LI'IDEEY:  Changing the  topic  .lust  a bit.   You




also  •commented on the use of  waste oil  as  a  fuel.  Our regulations

-------
                                                                310
*   don't preclude that.  It ,Vu«u says you would have to have a



    permit to use It as a fuel.  You felt that certain controls



    may be necessary, but I Rather that you feel that the



    permitting approach Is too burdensome.  What controls would



    you have?



                MR. HUTCHINCS:  Already as pointed out by Mr.



    Trask, there are metals In used motor oil, predominantly lead,



    which Is probably running now something like about .06 percent



    of the total material.  About half of this does get emitted to



    the atmosphere when you burn the material, but as you also are



    well aware, that lead Is being phased down very rapidly In



    gasoline, which, of course, Is the source of lead In used



    motor oil, so now we are down to barium and perhaps some



    zinc and so forth, which Is a lesser problem as far as we can



    see compared to lead.  We think based on work we have done in



    the past, that you people are well aware of, that controlling



    the use of motor oil as a fuel, say below five to ten percent



    Is adequate as a viable and constructive resource recovery



    procedure.  We are short on fuels,  and this is a good fuel.



                MR. LINDSEY:  So you think Just a rules perhaps



    that says you can't have lead concentration in waste oil used



    for fuel above a certain concentration, five percent or



    something like that?



                MR. HUTCHINGS:   I think something along that line.



    It might be a little bit of an administrative problem, but if

-------
6
                                                             311

put a high enough penalty on it If somebody violates, yes, I
think that could be the approach.
            MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Hutchlngs, in your remarks, you
made a distinction between service station retailers as
collectors of waste oil and I am wondering if you would care
to comment on other collectors of waste oil that are not
necessarily retailers.  Our information has It that large
amounts of waste automotive oil are collected by truck terminals
and other types of automotive operations besides retailer
service stations.  Now, your remarks apply to all of those,
or are you saying we really ought to do this only for retailer
service stations?
            MR. HUTCHINOS:  I am deliberately singling out the
service station because I think they are the ones we are
primarily Interested in our Industry, but I think the same
kind of reasoning applies to them also.  We think there is
minimal hazard, and we think it is such a viable commodity
now that Irresponsible dumping into the atmosphere or into
land or water Is a thing of the past, because it Is Just
worth too much.  If the transporter is properly controlled,
we think the same line of argument applies to truck stops,
maintenance centers and that sort of thing.
            MR.LEHMAN:  Well, moving on to that other point
you Just made, if I understand your recommendations correctly,
you were recommending that a permit system be set up for

-------
                                                           312






for collectors of waste oil: is that correct?




            MR. HUTCHINGS•  I didn't mean to do that.  I think




some type of control.  I rather not actually stand here and




be the one that actually recommends that they have to be




permitted.  I think that is within your Judgment of how to



control them.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Your comments mentioned only transports




whereas the regulation provides for collection by owners and




operators of disposal facilities directly.  Now, you want to




make a distinction there, or is that intentional^on your part?




            MR. HUTCHINGS:  No, it really wasn't intentional.




I think a rerefiner may be hard pressed to operate a system for




all of the people who are the original source of material,




because on an average, a rerefiner will produce let's say




three million gallons a year.  He is picking up from-




individual point sources at the rate of maybe one thousand




gallons a year.  So you can see he is going to have an awful




lot of these manifests flooding him.  I am not sure they are



going to be willing to pick up this responsibility.  I don't




think I would.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Well, my point was, that your




recommendation Just applied to transporters and I was




wondering, if that was intentional or whether you would have no




objection in your recommendation then if the same recommendation




would apply to owners and operators of facilities?

-------
                                                             313






            MR. HUTCHINOS:  As  far  as  stringent controls over



 what happens to the material?




            MR. LEHMAN:  Yes.




            MB. HUTCHINOS:  Absolutely none.




            MR.LEHMAN:  You don't really  care If It Is strictly



 transporter or owner/operator?




            MR. HUTCHINGS-  I think It Is going to have to be



 both.




            MR. LEHMAN-  That Is what  I am driving at.



            MR. HUTCHINGS:  Yes.




            MR. TRASK:  Mr. Hutchlngs, In dealing with the




 assumption of duties between the transporter and the service



 station, dl I understand your point to be that all of the duties




 ought to be transferred to the  transporter or rerefiner as




 Jack mentioned?



            MR. HUTCHINGS:  Not by  an  assumption of duties




 contract, but explicitly In the regulations.  In other words,



 unburden the generator as you have  suggested at this point.



            MR. TRASK:  In other words, the service station




 would have no responsibility whatsoever?



            MR. HUTCHINGS:  Other than what I have mentioned,




 that is, only allowing a properly controlled — to use that




word rather than permitted transporter In turning In a yearly



report,  which gives you some means of  control, aot as good as




you would like, I admit, but you will  have some material

-------
                                                             311


balancing available to you by that  year  end  report.

            MP. TRASK:  What abour  record keeping?
                •
            MR. HUTCHINOS:  That would be the only record

keeping that we would suggest that  would be  placed upon them,

that is, sufficient data to be accumulated by the service

station operator so he can generate his  year-end report.

            MR. TRASK:  So he would keep records and turn in

an annual report, and that would be his  responsibility?

            MR. HUTCHINOS-  That is correct, yes.

            MR. TRASK-  Thank you.

            CHAIRPERSON DAPRAH:  Thank you very much.  Our next

speaker is Earl R. White of Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc.

            MR. EARL R. WHITE-  Good morning.  My name is

Earl R. White.  I am the Health and Regulatory Affairs Chemist

for Arapahoe Chemicals. Inc. located in  Boulder, Colorado.

      Arapahoe Chemicals' principal concerns with the proposed

regulations contained in Section 3002 are discussed first and

our detailed comments follow In a seetion-by-sectlon format.

In the opinion of Arapahoe Chemicals, there  are four basic

problems with the proposed Section  3002  hazardous waste

regulations.  These include:

      (1)  The option under consideration for requiring routine

           reporting on a regular schedule more frequently

           than annually.

      (2)  The lack of an appropriate disclaimer statement in

-------
                                                                  315





  1              EPA's proposed certification  statements.




  2         (3)  EPA's effort to Integrate proposed rules with DOT




  3              rules applying to transportation of hazardous wastes



  4              and




  5         CO  Lack of confidentiality provisions in the manifest



  6              and reporting forms.




  7         Our first concern centers around EPA's proposed option



  8   found on page 58973, column 3, line 1 in the preamble to the



  9   proposed Section 3002 regulations.




 10         Subpart B, Section 3002 Standards  Applicable to Generator




 11    of Hazardous Waste EPA's proposal — Preamble (Columb 3,



 12    Line 1, page 58972):




 13                "Options under consideration Include:  (1)




 14                Requiring quarterly rather than anrual reports



 15                on each manifested shipment  of hazardous waste.



 16                [and] (2) Requiring that a copy of each manifest



 17                be sent to the Regional Administrator on a




 18                quarterly basis."



 19          Quarterly reporting would unnecessarily increase our




 20    administrative reporting costs for this  section by threefold




 21    (300?) over annual reporting.  Because of the sufficient



 22    number of examples calling for immediate supplemental reporting




 23    routine reporting on a regular schedule more frequently than




24    annually would be unnecessary and burdensome for both



25    industry and EPA.  Equally Important, the overall intent of the

-------
                                                             316





reporting function would not  be Jeopardized by  annual reporting.



      Our second concern centers  around EPA's proposed certifi-



cation statements in Section  250.22(h)(12) and  Section 250.23




                              and (h)(9).



      EPA's proposal,  Section 250.22(10(12):



            ''The following certification:  This is to certify



            that the above-named  materials are  properly



            classified, described, packaged, marked  —Agency."



      We recommend a certification statement following the



example found on the EPA/T5CA Chemical Substance Inventory



Report forms; for example, "I hereby certify that, to the best



of my knowledge and belief, the above-named materials are proper



classified, described, packaged,  marked ....Agency"  to replace



the proposed certification."



      Section 250.23(b)(9),(c)(9).(d)(9),(g)(9), and (h)(9).



            "The following certification:  'I have ..., and I



            hereby certify under  penalty of law that this



            information Is true   accurate, and  complete.'"



      We recommend a certification statement following the



example found on the EPA/TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory



Report forms, for example, "The following certification 'I



have..., and I hereby  certify that, to the best of my



knowledge and belief,  that this Information is  true, accurate,



and complete.'"



      Our third concern centers around EPA's proposal in

-------
 Section 250.25(a)(l):




            "Every generator shall place the hazardous waste




            to be shipped:  (1)  In packages In accordance




            with the Department of Transportation regulations



            on packaging under 
-------
                                                            318





250.27U,:



             "All  Information  provided In connection with the



             manifest  and reporting  sections  established by this



             Subpart  shall be  available to any  person to the



             extent and  In the manner authorized  by Section



             3007(b)  of  the Act,  the Freedom  of Information



             Act  (FOIA)(5 U.S.C.  Section 552),  and the EPA



             Regulations  adopted  In  compliance  with the FOIA



             (40 CFP Part 2).'1



      We are very concerned that  satisfactory  confidentiality



provisions are not yet  in place.  Our products are typically



complex chemicals and their manufacture can  be complicated



and expensive.  Furthermore,  the  manufacturing process



represents the culmination of years  of very  expensive research



and development.  Much of this R  &   D work may not be protected



by patent coverage and it Is  common for the  process chemistry



and yield data to be very closely protected.   At Arapahoe



Chemicals this confidentiality protection of our technology



constitutes the very essence  of our competitive position.



Without It, the viability of  our  business may  well be in



Jeopardy.  In some cases  the  very appearance of a specific



chemical waste on the manifest or generator  report could give



proprietary information.   If  quantified disposal data were



released, even Inadvertently, then  a competitor could



conceivably estimate yields and processes, extremely confidentli 1

-------
	^^^                 319




 subjects.




       Another concern about the confidentiality of reporting is



 that many companies such as Arapahoe Chemicals doing custom



 chemical manufacture for other firms typically have signed




 contractual secrecy agreements.  Thus both the manufacturer



 and the customer have real needs to protect their business



 interests.




       The announced Intention of EPA to share Information with




 other Federal agencies and with the public according to the




 provisions of the Freedom of Information Act is obviously In




 serious conflict with the very important confidentiality needs



 of the chemical industry.  We ask that EPA respond to these




 confidentiality concerns in a manner similar to the actions




 provided for under TSCA;  for example, providing for



 confidentiality claims on the forms.



       If the confidentiality of Industry is protected In the



 way herein requested, the Intent of the Act would not be



 impeded.  Thank you.  I will be open to questions from the




 panel.



             CHAIRPERSON DARRAK:  Thank you.



             MR. TRASK:  Mr. White, I would like to make a




 comment to your comment, if I may.  On the reuse of containers.




 I  think you ought to read the DOT proposal dated May 25, 1978,




 in which they propose to allow the reuse of NRC and STC



 containers for a one time trip to the disposal facility.  That

-------
                                                           320






is why our regulation is written the way It Is, to follow the




DOT rules.  However  the DOT rules are changing, so you may




not need a new container.




            MR. WHITE:  Thank you.




            MR. TRASK:  You mentioned a problem on




confidentiality regarding contractual secrecy agreements.  I




assume that Is why you are doing toll processing?




            MR. WHITE:  Yes.



            MR. TRASK-  What kind of secrecy arrangement do




you have?  Does that lay all of the burden towards holding




Information on you?



            MR. WHITE:  I am afraid toxic substances does that




for us.  The contractual agreement that are drawn in a toll




conversion are typically that our customer provides the raw




materials and we provide the synthesis, the R&D and the follow




up with how to get rid of our waste materials, classifying




whether they are hazardous or not.  The burden of the entire




batch process from the time we receive the raw materials




until we dispose of the waste in our hands.



            MR  TRASK:  What specifically Is it that should be




kept confidential.  Is it the quantity of waste, the kind of




hazard?  What exactly?



            MR. WHITE-  We have a number of customers who have




maybe Just a hedge on a competitor by making a different




Intermediate in the process or coming out with a different

-------
     ______==____^	32.1




      waste stream.   If our competitor has a process to make say,




      aspirin In a different way and comes out with a waste stream




      that takes 90  percent less effort to dispose, and 90 percent




      less costs, that Is very Interesting to him to keep that In a




      confidential matter.  So he has a competitive edge on his




      counterpart wherever they may be.  This Is all hypothetical,




      but another case might be making an ester, If we could make




      an ethyl ester rather than say a butyl ester, we could make




      this product cheaper for our customers.  The waste stream will



 10   show that up In the form of ethyl alcohol.  It doesn't take



 11   much englnulty to get back to square one.



 12               MR.  LINDSEY:  Not only composition but I think you




 13   referenced assuming that composition could be kept confidential



 14   you also mentioned that volume would be.  Why would volume be




 15   something that should be held confidential, so many tons or




 16   so many million gallons, whatever It is.



 17                MR.  WHITE-  We have a number of companies that



 18    are competitive In the United States In .batch operation.   If




 19    they knew how  much we could produce with our limited facility,




 20    they may be able to scale up and say we can be more competitive




 21    with you,  by buying a bigger kettle, and locating this in



 22    South Texas rather than in expensive Boulder, Colorado.   There




 23    are numerous reasons.  That Is, without getting into some




24    confidential areas,  I can only talk around the generalities.



25    Quantification and identification are very closely guarded in

-------
the chemical Industry, especially In batch operations.




            MR. TRASKr  Well, as you know, the manifest




nomenclature which we require Is what DOT requires on shipping




papers already, and does not form the basis for your report.  Is




It your contention then that release of the DOT name of that




material would be harmful to your confidential problem?



            MR. WHITE:  It could be.  We are both looking down




the road.  If we have to do this extensive testing evaluation




and Identification of our waste streams, this could eventually




end up on the manifest form, or in the reporting forms.  It




depends on the degree of specificity, I guess, you want on




those forms.



            MR. TRASK:  What we have said, using the DOT




names If it applies, If not, then use the EPA name.  If that




is not sufficient to guard the confidentiality, then we would




be open to more specific suggestions then that.



            MR. WHITE:  I have these in written form which  I




will send to the Agency before March l6th.



            MR. TRASK:  Thank you.  We appreciate that.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.  Ms.




Pranclne Bellet Rusher of Chemical  Specialties Manufacturers




Association is our  next speaker.



            MS. PRANCINE BELLET  KUSHNER:  Good morning.  My




name is Franclne Bellet Kushner, Associate Director for



Legislative and Regulatory  Affairs,  Chemical Specialties

-------
                                  	                 323





      Manufacturers Association.  CSMA is a voluntary non-profit




      organization consisting of more than too members companies




      engaged in the manufacture, processing and distribution of




      chemical specialty products.  Production processes in the



  5   manufacture and formulation of members' products generate



  6   substances that are directly affected by the proposed




  7   regulations for identification and listing of hazardous wastes



  8   as well as the proposed standards for generators and




  9   owner/operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.



 10   Accordingly, CSMA offers the following comments regarding the



 11   hazardous waste regulations proposed under 3002 of the




 12   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  These points and




 13   others will be further developed in our subsequent written



 14   submission.




 15          We welcome this opportunity to present our views to the




 16    Environmental Protection Agency on Issues raised by these



 17    hazardous waste regulations which will have significant impact




 18    on our Industry.  The vitality of the chemical specialties



 19    Industry Is dependent upon the opportunities for constant



 20    Innovation.  We are concerned that the proposed hazardous




 21    waste regulations will have a negative impact on essential



 22    process and product Innovation and will impact disproportionate




 23    on small companies.



24          Section 3002, Standards for Generators of Hazardous




25    Waste.   Generator Exemption Levels should be based on Relative

-------
                                                            324





Degree of Hazard.




      Section 250.29 provides  for an exemption from this




manifest, reporting, container and labeling provisions for




generators who produce and dispose of no more than 100 Kg of




hazardous waste In any one month period.  Any exemptions granted




from the hazardous waste regulations should be based on




relative degree of hazard.  The exemption contained within




250.29 falls to recognize relative degrees of hazard and,




Instead, provides a blanket exemption.




      As CSMA stated in Its earlier testimony on the 3001




regulations, the criteria for  designation of hazardous waste




fall to recognize relative degrees of hazard.  CSMA has




recommended that both the Identification criteria for




hazardous waste and the exemption mechanism be based on degree




of hazard rather than an exemption applied across the board.




Designation of hazardous waste should take Into account such




factors as persistence, degradation, bloaccumulatlon, exposure,




toxlolty and concentration.  Both the statute and the legis-




lative history indicate that designation or Identification of a




hazardous waste should consider the degree of hazard.  For




example, paragraph 1001(5) of  RCRA states that the term,




''hazardous waste means a solid waste or combination of solid




wastes, which because of its quantity.concentration, or




physical, chemical or Infectious characteristics may...".




Section 3004 of RCRA further recognizes the concept of

-------
      =====^	     325




      relative degree of  hazard  In requiring facilities  to  provide



      assurances of  financial  responsibility and continuity of



      operation "consistent with the  degree  and  duration of risks




      associated with the treatment,  storage  or disposal of




      specified hazardous waste1' and  the  legislative  history  indicate



      that any exemption  should  be based  on  toxicity  elements.




      While CSMA recognizes that any  exemption system based on




  8   relative degree of  hazard  could complicate the  regulatory



  9   program, administrative  convenience is not sufficient to




 10   support a regulatory program which  Ignores the  requirements of




 11   RCRA, unnecessarily increases the burden of the program and



 12   falls to concentrate agency resources  on the regulation of



 13   truly hazardous wastes.



 14         Shipping Manifest  Should  Better  Coordinate with the DOT




 15    Shipping Paper System.



 16          Section 250.22 creates a  manifest  system  for tracking




 17    hazardous waste shipments.   This system  should  be  modified to




 18    track consistently  with  the DOT hazardous  materials shipping




 19    paper system.  Any  manifest or  shipping  paper system  should be




 20    uniform for all Federal  regulatory  purposes.  Only one  form of




 21    shipping paper should be required for  both DOT  and EPA.  CSMA




 22    recommends that to  accomodate both  DOT and EPA  requirements




 23    only one lengthened  DOT  form be utilized.   The  economic



24    impact analysis prepared In conjunction  with this  proposed



25    regulation,  In Its  ''Option  C1',  calls for simplified manifest

-------
                                                               32f





1   requirements limited to existing  shipping paper — bill of



    laden documentation fulfilling DOT  requirements.  49 CPR,



    paragraph 172.202(a)(4) of the DOT  Hazardous Materials



    Regulations provides that "a shipping paper may contain



"   additional information concerning the material provided the



6   Information Is not inconsistent with the required description'1



    This is consistent with the CSMA  recommendations that the DOT



    paper be lengthened to accotnodate the Information desired by



    EPA.  Both 250.22 of these proposed regulations and 49 CPR



    172.200-204 require the following Information to be included



    on the manifest or shipping paper:  description of the



    hazardous materials, name of the  shipper, proper shipping



    name, hazard class, total quantity  of each hazardous material



    and certification and signature,  (the certification is identical



    with the exception that EPA adds  EPA regulations to the list



    of those regulations that must be complied with)..  Accordingly,



    It would be very easy to adopt the mechanism whereby a DOT



    shipping paper would form the basis for the manifest system



    with the RCRA-requlred information  added.  This RCRA irtformatlor



    would include the balance of the  requirements under the manifest



    system of 250.22.  This Information would include the



    manifest document number, the genrator's identification code,



    name, address and date of shipment, the transporter's



    identification code, name and address, the facility's



    identification code, name and address, spill handling directions

-------
_______^	          327




 or 24-hour telephone number for emergency response, directions




 and number  for contact with the National Response Center of




 the U. S. Coast Guard, special handling instructions when



 available, and any additional comments.




       It is also essential that the modified DOT/EPA shipping



 paper/manifest be established as the form for use under all




 state hazardous waste programs.  If states are forced to alter



 the form, the consistency and ease of compliance obtained by



 integrating the DOT and EPA form will be lost as soon as the



 states assume RCRA authority.



       Presumption that a Generator Produces More Than 100 kg




 of Hazardous waste.




       Section 250.27 provides that in all civil enforcement




 proceedings a presumption will arise that a generator of



 hazardous waste produced and disposed of more than 100 kg




 of hazardous waste during the time period specified in the




 enforcement proceeding.  This presumption defeats the whole



 purpose of any exemption in that it requires generators of



 less than 100 kg to maintain extensive records In order to



 be able to rebut the presumption.  The result of the presumptior




 Is that a person who is not a generator under 250.29 must develcp




 elaborate waste tracking and waste monitoring programs.  Such




 records would involve extensive sampling, monitoring, and




 record keeping of all production and waste streams.  These



 requirements impose unnecessary burdens upon a person who

-------
                                                            328






would otherwise not be a generator, would mandate action on




the part of such persons that Is clearly not contemplated by




the proposed regulations, and would not reduce the administrative




burden Imposed by the regulation.




      In summary, the proposed regulations under 3002 of




RCRA should be amended to reflect CSMA's major concerns, which




are'.



      (1)  Exemption levels  for generators of hazardous




           waste should be based on relative degree of hazard.




      (2)  The RGRA manifest system should track the DOT




           hazardous materials  shipping paper system, and only




           one DOT form, modified to  aecomodate RCRA




           requirements, should be mandated.



      (3)  The presumption that a generator produces more than




           100 kg of hazardous  waste  within the time period



           specified in an enforcement proceeding  defeats the




           purpose of any exemption by requiring maintenance




           or  extensive records to  rebut  the  presumption.




      CSMA appreciates this  opportunity  to  share  our  views




and we offer our firm  commitment  to work with the



Environmental  Protection Agency toward development of viable




hazardous  waste  management  regulations.   Thank you.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAK:   Thank you.   Will you answer




questions?



            MS.  KUSHNER-   Yes.

-------
                                                           329





            MR. TF.ASK:   Do I understand from the discussion



that you have In here about the DOT/EPA generator manifest




of shipping papers, that CSMA Is recommending that a national



uniform form be mandated?




            MS. KUSHNER:  We are suggesting that under RCRA



a separate form should not be required, whether that form takes




the Idea of Just stapling an additional paper containing RCRA



required Information to the DOT for, I think is one alternative




      Another alternative would be Just expanded DOT form.




What we are suggesting is, that it would be confusing for




generators acting as shippers to have to worry about several



different forms.



            MR. TRASK:  Well, you talked about the DOT/EPA



shipping paper manifest being established as the form?



            MS. KUSFNEP:  Yes.



            MR. TRASK:  I am sure you know that neither




DOT or the EPA requires a form at the moment.



            MS. KUSHNER-  That is true.  There is no one



specified form, all that Is designated Is certain information




that must appear on any shipping paper.



            MR. TRASK:  Right, and we worked long and hard to




get the DOT and EPA requirements together, so that one piece




of paper can be used.  But are you now suggesting that we go




to a form?



            MS. KUSHNER:  I am not suggesting you mandate a.

-------
                                                          330



specific form.  What I am suggesting Is, that any form that Is


recommended or considered.suitable for compliance purposes


should recognize that separate papers should not be required.


            MR. TRASK:  Okay, to turn to another subject, you
              •

talked about a category of truly hazardous waste and then you


earlier mentioned a number of factors that ought to be singled


out, some of those like persistence, depradablllty and so


forth.  The ones you did- not mention were ignitable, corrosive


and reactivity.  Is It a reasonable assumption that you «ould


put that In the other hazardous waste category?


            MS. KUSHNER:  No.  We are Just suggesting


additional consideration should be made and any designation of


hazardous waste and any exemption mechanism should Include


these other considerations as well.


            MR. TRASK:  Do you have specific suggestions on


which hazardous material should be in the truly hazardous waste


category?


            MS. KUSHNEP-  We anticipate that several of our


members in their separate written submissions will address that


Issue.


            MR. TRASK:  We will look forward to that.


            MS. SCHAFFER:  I am curious as to why you think


in your comments about our enforcement statement about the


rebuttable presumption that if one produces more than a


hundred kilograms, why do you assume that such extensive

-------
records would be required?   I think my question is, why do




you think extensive sampling and monitoring records would be



required?  Don't you think that Just general business records




of how much waste is produced or gotten rid of per month would



be sufficient to prove that the hundred kilograms has not been



achieved?




            MS. KUSHNER:  I would suggest that any firm that



would be subject to enforcement proceedings would like to have



full resources behind their position, and that as a practical



matter., to protect themselves, would engage in extensive



monitoring and sampling programs.



            MS. SCHAFFER:   Thank you.



            MS. KUSHER-  Our main concern there is the burden




of proof would be shifted.



            MS. SCHAFFERr  Fight.



            MR. LEHMAN:  Ms. Kushner, your commentary states




at one point that you believe that the current exemption



system on'the basis of quantity "unnecessarily Increases the




burden of the program."  And yet, Just before that, you say




that CMSA recognizes that any exemption system based on



relative degree of hazard could complicate the regulatory



program.  Now, I am confused about that, because you appear to




be saying that the existing proposal Is burdensome and yet,




you are also saying that a degree of hazard system would also




complicate.

-------
                                                           332






            MS. KUSHNER:  What I suggested. It would complicate




the regulatory program.  I was suggesting that EPA would have




to go through the additional step of setting forth an exception




program for a classification system that would recognize a




degree of hazard.



            MP  LEHMAN-  That would also make a more complicate




program?



            MS. KUSHNER-  I don't think It would add to the




burden by having a relative degree of risk Incorporated Into



the mechanism.  What we are suggesting Is substar.oe such as




spent solvents, isopropyl alcohol should not be subject to the




same requirements as say. a waste resulting from pesticide



manufacture.




            MR. LEHMAN:  Okay.




            MR. LINDSEY:  YOu made the charge earlier, I guess,




In your statement yesterday and today, that you felt the



regulatory scheme would have negative Impact on the Innovation.




It has been our thinking that Just the opposite would probably




happen, that the Increased cost and burden which Is associated




with these regulations for disposal and control of these waste



would probably lead to Increased innovation with regard to




modifying products so as to eliminate the toxic or otherwise




hazardous nature of the product, and/or modify the process




so as to do the same thing.  Why Is It that you feel that there




would be a negative impact in Innovation as a result of this?

-------
                                                           333
            MS.  KUSHNER-   If a formulator or manufacturer




develops a new process that would create an additional hazardous




waste for which he cannot find any facility to accept for



treatment, disposal or storage, that would certainly be a




disincentive for him to produce the product if he could




not find somebody to handle the hazardous waste generated by




the process generating that product.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.




      We will take a 15 minute recess and reconvene at




10:30



      (Recess taken)



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAR:  Next speaker is Mr. William




D. Rogers from Rogers' Sales, Inc.



            MR. WILLIAM D. ROGERS:  Good morning.  I am William




Rogers  of Rogers' Sales. Inc, Monument, Colorado.



      Rogers' Sales Company  is the marketing contractor to




market  Corananche Plyash generated at the Comanche Power



Plant in  Pueblo, Colorado.    I have been actively marketing




Comanche  Flyash for over three years.  I would like to briefly



tell you  our  story.  Starting in January 1976 after exhaustive




tests of  the  quality of Comanche Flyash, we began to sell



first the concrete masonry producers and following immediately




most of the ready mix  concrete producers.  We were able to mar-




ket  a considerable amount of flyash tonnage right from the



beginning because of the excellent  quality of comanche flyash.

-------
                                                           334




It can be said that we have developed the use of the Class C



type flayash and are the leaders In the technology of Its use.



Comanche flyash Is used for making;:



      1.  Ready mix concrete.



      2.  Packaged Drl-Mixes.



      3.  Concrete Masonry units.



      ft.  Stucco and plaster wall systems.



      5.  Pre-cast concrete.



      6.  Mud Jacking.



      7.  Asphalt mineral filler.



      8.  Water pipe relinlng.



      Andthe list of products that can use flyash In them



continues to grow each year.



      In the year 1977 according to statistics from the



National Ash Association, 6.3 million tons of flyaeh were used.



A very large percentage of that figure represents flyash



produced In the east and midwest states.  The states In the are!



starting approximately at the Mississippi River and coming



west, are seeing escalation of coal burning power plants



that are burning the so called western coals.  These western



coals produce a flyash that is far superior to any flyash we



have seen previously consequently after many years of testing





and research, ASTM C-618-77 Includes the type C flyash.  We



fully expect to market 85 to 95 percent of the total flyash



generated by the Comanche power plant.

-------
                                                            335





      Our future certainly looked to be the brlghest star in




the heavesn until December 18, 1978.  The proposed regulations




by the EPA could put us and every flyash marketer In the United




States out of business.  I have researched all of the




available literature for reports of adverse efforts on. humans



or the environment, and cannot find one Incident where flyash,




when used in the list of products previously mentioned has




caused any problems.



      Flyash does not deserve to be In the all encompasing



EPA Subtitle C Regulations.  I am in complete disagreement




that flyash is a waste material.  Flyash Is a byproduct from



the power plants.   It should not be placed in the waste




category until it has actually been wasted.  Waste is something



that Is a useless or worthless material, as described by the



World Book Encyclopedia.  Flyash is a very valuable material



and has been declared a natural resource recovery material by



the Energy Department.  The Conprete Industry in the State of




Colorado, Kansas and New Mexico used 65 thousand tons of




Comanche flyash  in  1978.  Had  it not been  for the flyash



available to supplement the cement  shortage, the whole



construction Industry would have suffered.  To terminate the



many  uses of flyash is  contrary to  the RCRA's legislative




history, which  Indicates that  congress specifically viewed




utility  byproduct reuses as non-hazardous  and beneficial.



      We are concerned  that the time frame in which this act

-------
 1




 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






has been required to be Implemented, does not allow an orderly




process of technological development.  The potential dangers




of any waste are always real, if you Include the possibility




of being buried alive in it.  Therefore, we request the Agency




to use maximum efforts in extending the time required for




compliance that we may develop the necessary technology and




information.



      We do not need another TVA fiasco or another Snail Cartel-




fiasco.  I am speaking to you coday about the Jobs of thousands




of persons in the United States who are related to the flyash.



coal byproducts industry.  Our nation cannot afford to waste




an ounce of energy.  Consequently we urgently request you to




reflect on the damage that could be caused by a hasty




Implement of the proposed regulations.  By declaring flyash




and coal byproducts hazardous waste, the advantages of energy




conservation through recycling of coal byproducts is destroyed.




       In summary, our ultimate goal is to sell and use every



pound  of coal byproducts material available.  We firmly




believe that the final solution is utilization.  Regulations



that would hamper or terminate reaching that goal would deny




the total concept of Congress's RCP.A bill.  Let us then proceed




together, to develop the necessary guidelines needed to ensure




a  safe environment and enjoy the fruits of a recycled byproduct




It is  our solid belief, that all of these things can happen



without first destroying a valuable industry.

-------
                                                            337





      Way  I  thank you for the opportunity to  present  our




 comments.




             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you.



             MR.  TPASK:   Mr.  Rogers,  what is  it  about  these



 regulations  that is going to cause you a problem?   I  didn't




 understand what  your recommendations were.




             MR.  ROGERS:  The recommendation  is, that  the flyash




 per se  should not be called a waste and should  not  even be



 considered to be in the hazardous waste management  program.




             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Assuming that  it was waste,



 do you  have  any  information as to whether the flyash  that you




are talking about, which you called '"excellent quality flyash"




 would meet any of the four characteristics listed in  Section




 3001?



             MR.  ROGERS:  We do not have any  information at



 this time. The National Ash Association in conjunction with




 all of  us  private contractors are trying at  this time to



 develop the  information that we need.  I might  add  that it  is




 presenting a tremendous burden as far as finances go  to




 work in this area.  You must hire people of  excellent quality.




 For instance, our consultant is Dr.  Diamond  from Purdue




 University,  and  it costs us $350 dollars a day.



             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   I guess what you are saying




 Is, that- the label hazardous,again is the comment we  have




 been hearing, that you are objecting 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
            MR. ROGERS:  Yes.  Yesterday there were two



speakers that alluded to the fact that being- lust guilty by




association being labeled a hazardous material.  I can give you




a firsthand account that I personally went through with operatois
of two mines in the State of Colorado where an article appeared




In a magazine, a trade journal about two years ago.  A person




In California said that flyash caused cancer, and that set me




back tremendously with this mining company, and It also




Jangled my phone' right off the hook from everybody that I was




selling it to.  So the association Is a very severe situation




for us to deal with.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  The next speaker




is J. G. P.eilly from St. Joe Minerals Corporation.




            MR. JOHN G. REILLY:  My name is John G. Reilly




with St. Joe Minerals Corporation.




      We are operators of mines, mills and smelters in the




lead and zinc Industry, and operators of coal mines and




processing facilities In the coal Industry.




      I didn't get a chance to speak yesterday, although we




wer going to give all of our comments yesterday, one or two



of them I didn't get a chance to finish.




      First, I would like to say that Ms. Dorothy Darrah asked




for any positive comments'that we might have, were acceptable,



and I think the ones that appears to me the most positive



Is, that Is a great improvement In the panel, in that they

-------
                                                            339
raised you up to where we can see you today.  For various




reasons, that is a great improvement.




      We have one comment on the generator portion of this




hearing, and I would like to state it for the panel's



benefit so they would know the problems.  It has to do with




Section 250.20(c) where the time limit for a generator expires




after 90 days and after which he is no longer a generator, and



yet, he becomes a storer arid subject to Subpart D.



      In our zinc smelting operation, we produce various




oddball materials that are hard to categorize.  They are in



relatively small quantities, perhaps one section might be



20 tons a year, and another M tons a year, or 100 tons a year,




and these are intermediaries that are hard to categorize, and




what to do with them.  They may be waste..  They may be



something that can be recycled to some other company to extract



the metal values from them.  Each so called lot has to be




negotiated on its own metal contents and what the.market will




absorb at that time.  If we can't pet rid of them in that



way, they have to go to a waste facility which would be off-site




and not on our property



      The problem that our smelter people tell us they have is,




that when they decide they have to dispose of a waste,




because they can't sell it. it is very hard to arrange to have



this waste disposed of in the propermanner by a commercial




waste facility.

-------
                                                            34o




      I think this problem will somewhat disappear after the



effects of this series of regulations go Into effect.  There



will be more hazardous waste facilities that will accept



these types of products, but right now, they have a very



difficult time in trying to dispose of them, because they can't



find anybody that will take It.  They have to negotiate with th:



person and that person and so what we are asking for Is for the



next, let's say three years, to allow people to have more than



90 days to dispose of a waste if they can prove this or



show that they can't reasonably get rid of it.  We are



suggesting six months, and again, it is an arbitrary figure,



but it is to help alleviate this problem.



      These particular waste I am speaking of from the zinc



smelting operation should not be confused with tailings,



slag piles or some of the other mining wastes.  These are



relatively small volume, high metal content and Indeterminate



type of waste in that they have no consistency.  One year,



you will accumulate so much of this, and another year, It Is



this kind of material.  They are not consistent, and they are



hard to categorize.



      The other thing I would like to say is not directly



related to generators, but It has to do with somewhat with



a very Important question that was asked by the members of



the panel yesterday to people in the mining industry.  I



don't know if it was Mr. Llndsey or Mr. Lehman that asked these

-------
                                                            311
questions, but I think they are very important.  The question




was, why are you in the mining field so concerned of whether




your waste is called hazardous waste or not.   We have provided




this nice category of special waste, and deal with them



separately according to the characteristics of the special




waste, and It appears that the panel was almost shocked that




the mining Industry was trying to avoid being categorized as




hazardous waste, and I done some thinking on that over the



night.  I would like to answer those questions, although they




weren't asked of me.



      One of them is, that the requirements for the special



waste as  spelled out in the proposed regulation, they are not




all as innocuous as you might think.



      First of  all, the six foot fence, I quickly in my



head looked at  our various mining operations in lead and zinc,



and I calculated that we ha-e approximately 30 to 10 mile of




perimeter in our various locations.  We would  have to put a



fence up, and at eight dollars a foot, that is forty thousand




dollars a mile.  What are  we talking about, one or two



hundred thousand dollars for a six  foot fence  around areas




we  don't  believe to be a need for fencing, because  in many



cases, the remoteness of the mining facility in the  countryside




around the mining areas are as hazardous,  you  might  say, as




the mining tailing piles themselves.   So this  six foot  fence




is  not an innocuous thing.  It is a big expense.  It is a

-------
	342




 big expense and a security requirement to monitor to keep




 people in and out, and it becomes an unnecessary operating




 burden,   burden.  The naze of reports that have to be filled




 out, even though they may not be as much as comrion storage




 facility or treatment facility, ahs to do, you read that over




 with the idea In mind you are operating a tailings dam




 operation here and one there, and you got that whole page




 in the Federal Register of all those reports he has to make,




 teh quarterly, the dally and the annual, and keeping track



 of the lots and it is not an Insignificant administrative




 function to comply with all of those reports and we think it




 is completely unnecessary.  We are submitting in our comments



 how we think they could be Improved by making It much similar




 and simpler to use.




       The other thing is the leach testing for monitoring




 wells.  It doesn't look like much, but if you have a waste




 that you don't believe should be hazardous, and you have allowei




 yourself to get In the hazardous waste category, you are




 monitoring wells, and if the background, if you exceed the




 background quality of the water by significant amounts accordini




 to the test, you can be told to close down your facility.  So,



 of course, we are concerned.




       We don't want to become hazardous waste If we are not,



 and we are going to .stay away from that.  This is why you are



 hearing so much about it.

-------
      The other thing Is more innocuous.  You read through the




Federal Register where — what do you call the part where you




are explaining things —



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  The preamble.



            MR. REILLY:  Often you see the words for now or




for the time being, or until something else has happened.  Well,




we are looking down the pike five years, ten years or twenty



years from now, and a whole bunch more regulations are going



to come out, because you said  so (laughter), and I know they



will.  Alright, why shouldn't  we break our backs to get out from



underneath the term hazardous  waste.  There is a lot of things




coming down the pike that we don't'know about yet.



      The other point  has been brought  out real well, is the




branding, the painting,  as  you may,  of  an operation as



hazardous waste.   Most  of us  in  the  mining industry out  in



the hinterlands,  and we  got a  small  population of  people



around,  and  it  isn't  long before those  people say, oh yes,




stay'away  from  there,  that  is  hazardous waste.  Well, It  is




branding by  these words, is enough to raise  a hair up on the



back  of  your head from a public'relations  standpoint.   The




 state agencies  that  come around' and look  at  you and they look



a lot different when they know you are a  hazardous waste,  or




 that  if you are not  a hazardous waste.



       The  other thing, and this is what vas  brought out very




 well by Mr.  Rogers and two people  that answer your questions

-------
                                                             341
yesterday, the future use of the so called hazardous waste,




our tailings operation and our slag; piles, are the mines of




the future.  Someday people will find uses for these;




      In our Missouri operation, this dolomltic tailings Is




excellent for top dressing and agricultural uses.  It has got a




calcium carbonate content of more than one hundred.  If It




is called a hazardous waste  how many people do you think we




can give It to.



      So, again, this comes under the branding.  Once we get




painted as hazardous waste  we got another ballgame.  I Just




wanted to point this out, and I will be glad to answer any




questions If there are any.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  'Thank you.  You are.so clear,




we understand it.  Next speaker is Mr. Ellis T. Kammett.




            MR. ELLIS T. HAMKETT:  I am Ellis Kammett,




petroleum engineer with the U. S. 0. 5. Geothennal group,



Menlo Park, California.




      I was at the IDC Convention yesterday, or the day before



and I heard about this meeting, and about the three that are




coming up in San Francisco, and I hadn't had really an occasion




to go over your proposals, but what was reported to me was the




drilling waste from drilling — active drilling operations would




be considered more or less If there was any toxic materials In




them at all, or any amounts would be considered In this



hazardous waste.  Is this true?

-------
            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  If you need clarification,



you should speak to us during the break.




            KR. HAMMETT:  Alright.  Let me make my statement,



and it is based on forty some years as a petroleum engineer and




four as a geothermal drilling engineer.



      I think it is essentially this,,no one wants to




unnecessarily impact on the environment, but I think they



should be handle on a material by material or individual




material basis, and I happen to know that drilling fluid



material, safety sheets are available from almost all the



manufacturers.  They use to call it proprietary material.




Most of them no longer do that.  Part of it is because we



require it for the geothermal drilling, and as-a result, I




have most of them and will be happy to provide the panel with



them when you get to San Francisco.



      Quite often in the past, during my experience back in




the Fifties in drilling in Oklahoma and Texas, I settled



claims for damage from drilling waste on the farmers fields,



and in most cases where the farmer said the wastes were, was




not right.  And when we checked it out on the maps, we found




the most lush crops were right over the old waste reserve



pits.  This is understandable, because  quite a lot of chemical




used In the drilling industry are actually used as commercial




fertilizers.




      Now, as far as restoration of drill sites, every since

-------
the beginning of drilling Industry, they have  spread  drilling



cuttings and waste drilling materials right on the drill  sites,



and as I say, this Is usually enhancing the agricultural



crops right over the top where the drilling had occurred.



      This Is, as I say. true of the oil and pas and  geo-



thermal drilling during the past four years and as a  drilling



engineer, I have bene responsible for writing the regulations



and for enforcement of all the federal geothermal lease



operations.  I have reviewed essentially all federal  geo-



thermal lease operations and most of these were furnished with



proprietary data, deleted to the appropriate EPA personnel for



review and comment.



      All geothermal lease drilling mud proposals are checked



to Insure that they include no hazardous or toxic materials.



The only exception to that is that we do permit caustic soda



to be used as a neutrallzer and pH control.  We have  required



they either furnish us these materials safety  sheets  on any



new products they propose to use, or we ask the supplier



directly and then almost In most cases  they have been very



cooperative with us.  Since no hazardous materials are usually



used, It has been common practice to spread the wet drilling



fluid waste and drill cuttinEs providing we don't get a toxic



effluent within which the geothermal process we sometimes do.



But providing you don't get a toxic effluent,  we spread the



drilling flud waste to a depth of about six Inches right  over

-------
the drill site, and allow It to dry and then work it into the




topsoil, or cover it with stockpiled topsoll.  The results of




the geysers in the last, four years of federal operation, native



plants have been reestablished right over the old drill sites,



and using seed mixtures and mulches approved by the Surface




Management Agency, Uklah District.  When you get to San



Francisco, I will provide you pictures for the before and




after operations, and If any of you could take a trip to the



peysers, why, we would be more than happy to take some of you




up there and show you around.



      As I said, I haven't read these over, and I think I was



misinformed, and I apologise for that, but since I was here, I




thought this was a pood time to plve you the benefit of my



experience and to recommend that no industry or not everybody




be branded that way.



      Now, there are occasions in the drilling Industry when




they will be using chemicals and materials that are toxic and



hazardous, and at that time, we should consider they have put




themselves in a position where they do have to control it.



      I should make one more comment, and that comment is from




talking to Larry Trask before the meeting.  When he found out



who I was and wehre I came from, why, he asked me this comment.




He wanted to know about this.  He says, what about monitoring



these restored sites.  I have to.plead a little ignornace,




but not entirely, so in the geothermal regulations, before we

-------
                                                             3'-'3






can produce geothermal or start up a  geothermal  power plant




with federal resources, It is required  that  the  operator




provide us with the nearest environmental  baseline  data,  and




this includes the monitoring of the surface  streams,  the  ground




water, Just about every environmental aspect.  If you are




familiar vrith our regulations, it is  under 3£  CPR 270.31*, and




I will be happy to provide all of you with a copy of  those




when we get to San Francisco.




      Also, since my base is Menlo Park, I will  probably not




burden you with another statement there, but I will provide




you with all the help and I do offer  all our help that we can




give you.




      I think with this environmental baseline data and




monitoring, which is already a requirement,  plus the  fact the




area geotherrral supervisor, who I work  for,  will be requiring




further environmental monitoring during all  the  production




operation that the geothermal industry  will  probably  generate,




very little, if any, hazardous waste.   Thank you very much.




            CHAIRPERSON BARRAH:  Thank  you very  much.  Will



you answer questions?




            ?
-------
that and let us know  if  you  think  that  any of  the waste,  or




what kinds of waste or what  percentage  or whatever of the kind




of waste we are talking  about,  either geothermal or  from  your



prior experience, would  in fact  fail these criteria?




            MR. HAMMETT:  Well,  when I  went through  them



hurriedly here, and that  is  why  I  apologise for maybe being




misinformed as to whether these  are in  fact being included



as an industry waste  and  giving  us a problem.  After reading it




over, I was about of  the  opinion that what I had said would




not be necessary to protect  the  industry.  I only wanted  to



pull out'that there are  safety  sheets available, and to also




offer my cooperation  in  the  area of the geothermal supervisors



cooperation.  So, I really am not  questioning  what you




have already.  I Just want to put a little more on the line and




kind of come out in the open and say I really  don't think that



it is, as far as the  drilling industry is concerned, that we




are generating what -I consider to be hazardous waste., and what



little we have generated  or  are  generating, can be very readily




controlled, and we are doing so, at least, in  the federal



geothermal program.   Thank you very much for your time.




            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  The next speaker



is John R.  Berger.




            MB.  JOHN P. BER8EP'  Than*  you for affording me the




opportunity to address this  group, and to enter our testimony




in this proceedings.   I am John Berger,  Vice President for




Environmental Affaira for Inland Chemical Corporation.	

-------
      Inland Chemical Corporation is a resource recovery




company, which operates three plants, two in the states and




one in Puerto Rico.  Our only business is the recovery of




useful organic chemicals from industrial wastes.




      I want to address five points in the proposed regulations




I would like to start by saying; that last nlg-ht at the end of




the session, the Chairperson proposed that with one final




reading of the names of the people who hadn't testified,




or entered testimony, the meeting be adjourned. 'I want to go




on record as' saying, that is the first time I have seen an EPA




proposal accepted without objection, (laughter)




      The five points I want to discuss are these.  The




provisions which are provided for generators holding hazardous




waste for 90 days or for less than 90 days, be exempted from




regulation of storage facilities.  The lack of the requirement




for characterization and quantification of waste on the




manifest.  The failure to provide for degree of hazard in the




classification of waste.  The non-uniformity of the manifest




form and the'manner in which It is to be handled, and the




unreasonable identification burden placed on the generators.




      Now, with respect to the first point.  It is quite




obvious in these public hearings, the Individual commenting




is concerned about the Impact of the regulation on his own




industry, and, of course, I am thinking about the regulations




as it affects our business.  We pick up waste from generators

-------
                                                            351





for transport fro our recover plants, and many of our generators




have their waste in storage tanks that are quite large.   Large




in our type industry, small in the mining industry.   The




procedure for handling waste streams into these storage  tanks




on the generators, plant sites 1s to continually introduce waste



in the tank and continually draw waste from the tanks for



transportation.




      In reality, there will be wastes contained in these



tanks which will be held for more than 90 days, even though



the flow of materials through these tanks is continuous,



because of mixing and separation within the tank.   So technicall;



even though the entire contents of volumetric content of a




storage tank will turn over, say within 30 days or 60 days,



at the end of the 90 days, some of the original material is




still in the tank.



      We suggest that some consideration be given to this




because we found that in the administration of regulations,




when we get down to the detailed workings, these questions



crop up, and at that time, there is difficulty to resolve it.



      With respect to the lack of requirement for




characterization and quantification of waste and the waste on




the manifest.



      The puiding principle in the entire program is that the




material not cause detriment to public health or welfare, or




pose a hasard to the environment.  It is difficult for me, a

-------
                                                            352





chemist working with organic chemicals to accept the fact or




the concept that a wide spectrum of organic chemicals,over a




million of them have been characterized, and there are thousands




of them in commercial use, that all organic chemicals are




assigned the same degree of hazard'.  I would like to give you




Just a couple of quick examples.



      Two organic chemicals, both chlorinated chemicals,




carbon tetrachloride is one and trichloroethylene, and one Is




classified as tocic and hazardous waste.  Carbon tetrachloride




is accumulative toxic poison.  Repeated exposure results in




increased damage to the human system.




      Trichloroethylene has been used as a general anesthetic.




The most noteworthy example of this is when Queen Elizabeth




gave birth to Prince Charles. she was anesthesized with




trichloroethylene.  It is hard for me to see two chemicals




of the same general chemical classification, but with such




widely differing effects on the human system, both classified



under the same category.




      The purpose of the program is to prevent damage to




the environment and adverse effect on human health and welfare.



We believe that some consideration should be given to classi-




fication of hazardous waste and to subclassification that gives




some real meaning to the hazards that have to be faced and



dealt  with by the people who d-al with them.




      The third point is a failure to provide for a lack  of

-------
	35":




 requirement  for characterization of and outfit 1 fie at?, or..




 because as a procecser of organic substances that ve take into




 our plants,  and harcile and recover,and Incidentally,



 generate residuals, and therefore, vie are generators in  that



 respect, it  is important to us to know what is  in the material




 cominp into  our plants.



       There  isn't any provision on the manifest forms that I  ha'



 seen generated by the various states that are using them



 now, cr proposed by the states, that are developing manifest




 forms in their handling system.



       The State of California has been operating a manifest



 system for over four years.  We function under that manifest



 system and we operate a plant in California.  They require




 irore detailed information on the manifest forms, so they are



 in a better position to.determine the proper location for



 the residual waste after they have.been processed by the




 processing plant.



       Many of the wastes that are handled  are handled by




 unknowlnr or unknogledpeable people, and people that can't



 be expected to understand the depree of hazard to which they




 are exposed.  There are many cases on record of improper




 disposal under Improper conditions.  Py that,  T mean improper




 disposal of hazardous waste under  condition? that were deemed




 proper p.t the tine that a disposal was made.



       The most noteworth example of  this, of course, is the

-------
Love Canal situation, but that Is noteworth because  It  Is  such
a tremendous problem, and there are ao many similar  problems
In that area, and other areas of the country, but there are many
cases where waste were disposed of Improperly,  simply because
the people Involved In It didn't know what they were handling
and didn't know In sufficient detail what they  were  handling.
      The fourth point, the non-uniformity of manifest  forms
and manifest handling procedures.  Now, the regulations provide
for manifest forms.  The form is printed in the proposed
regulations, but it Is up to the Individual states to develop
their enabling legislation, their regulations and their
handling procedures.
      I am currently following the developing- situations In
thirty states In this country, and believe me,  if you think
that following the federal government is tough, you should get
out Into the boondocks where the real things are happening.
      Serious effort is being made In EPA regions to come up
with regionally uniform manifest systems.  Right now, In
Region IV, it looks like there is a pretty good chance this
may happen.
      In Region V, which Is out of Chicago, the five states
there are trying to come up with uniform manifest systems.
They agree It Is necessary, but of the five states, they all
want their special input into this system.
      I think It was a serious mistake for the  federal  EPA not

-------
to Include a manifest form, a uniform manifest fcrr> anr! handling




procedure to be used uniformly by all administering agencies.




There are situations developing here In this country where one




state will have a manifest system that says, the generator will,




or the recover plant or the treatment disposal or detoxification




plant will provide the form to the generator.




      Another it will follow a. certain procedure and all the




forms will EO bad- to either the generator or the treatment




plant, and then forwarded to the state.




      Another state will say no. we vll] use a st?.te form.




You will follow this prccedire, ?nd the next state says you




will use state for, but their forms are different.




      I a'sked the question in a conversation with one of the




agency's people, and In one of the states, are we polng to




have to reduce our payloads by five thousand pounds per




transport ^vehicle in order to provide "arrylnp rariclty for




the filing cabinet, typewriter, secretary and desk to handle




this — you follow what T am saylrrr.  (laughter)




      I posed the nuestion in several state ojrenclen, how about




the toxic waste that are picked up in ore state and transported




through" your state to a third state.  Are you rolrg tc require




that these hazardous wastes be reported in your state;and




responses in many cases were  yes, w are.  Responses irt other




cases, yes, we hadn't thought about that  but we better do It.




      We are not apalnst this procrram.  There Is ample evidence

-------
                                                           356






of the need for a regulatory system In this country to control



the handling and disposal of toxic wastes.  We are willing to




spend the time and effort necessary to make the system work.




I am speaking for my company and as an Individual.  We don't




want to see a system that Is so cumbersome, so unmaneagable,




such voluminous paperwork that It becomes economically




unfeasible to continue the process.  Right now, the program Is




going to make It difficult, If not impossible, for many smaller




generators to pet to dispose of their waste.



      That Is the five points I wanted to address this morning.




      There are two kinds of generators.  There is the big




generator who is well facilitated with technical staff and




laboratories to determine the composition of the waste.  He




knows what he Is putting out of his plant.  There are small




users, or many cases, big users, big companies In terms of the




size of the corporation, but small In terms of the quantity




of toxic and hazardous"materials handled, who are not



facilitated to determine the nature of the  waste that Is handle




      A specific type of example.  A manufacturing, firm in the




metal working Industry that purchases a proprietary cleaning




solvent for cleaning metal crlor to finishing or subsequent




operation.  Those proprietary substances contain mixtures of




organic solvents, some of which, are classified as hazardous




under the regulations and some of which are considered non-




hazardous, or different class of hazardous.  The composition

-------
cf the material is withheld from the person purchasing it.




Often he only has a material safety data sheet provided by



the manufacturer to tell him what he has got in this container




when he receives it Into his plant.  Many of these material



safety data sheets such as the one used by the coating industry




doesn't reveal the chemical composition of the substance.   It



only Identifies the solvent portion as solvent.  Now, It Is




entirely possible that solvent could be carbon tetrachloride




if it was coming from an unscrupulous manufacturer who had an



opportunity to make a fast buck, and there are those people



in the Industry out there In the real world also.  So the




possibility exists that the generator will generate a waste.



      Remember a hundred kilograms is 220 pounds, about twenty



gallons of many of these substances, and that Is not very  much.




Twenty-one gallons a month and he is a generator who must



generate the information for the manifest to identify the  waste.




So, there are some unreasonable burdens placed on industry on



the gererators which are going to have really adverse impacts




on the materials used In the way they are handled and disposed




of.



      Thank you.  I will answer questions.




            CHAIRPEPSON DARRAH:  Thank you.



            MH. LEHMAN:  Mr. Berger, I am a little confused




by your last remark in view of a previous remark.  At one




point, I believe you Indicated strong desire that you need

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9



10



11




12




13




14



15




16




17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
more detailed InformatIon on chemical  composition  on  the



manifest?   And yet, you say that It Is unreasonable  burden



to require that the generators comply.  So,  could  you help us
out on that?



            MR. BERGER:  Well, as a  chemist,  I  am suppose to




have an answer for the questions that  I pose, right?   Since




1970, I hve been following regulations that you have  developed




and I find myself freely in the position where  I can't meet




that requirement (laughter).



            MR. LEHMAN:  You say you get certain information




from the people that send you their  waste.  Do  you accept waste




from these, what we will characterize, as  small generators?



            MR. BERGEB:  Let me tell you what Is h