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