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 |