MPBriupb
         SW-813
                 ENVIROMEN.TAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
             3


             4


             5


             6
PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
LIST OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
             9


            10


            11


            12


            13


            14


            15-


            16


            17


            18


            19


            20


            21


            22


            23


            24


            25
                                   HEW Auditorium
                                   330 Independence  Avenue, S.W.
                                   Washington,  D.C.

                                   9:05 a.m.
                                   October 9, 1979
PRESIDING:

     LISA FRIEDMAN, Chairperson

-------
 1   PANEL MEMBERS:

 2     MS. LISA FRIEDMAN, Chairperson
      Attorney, Office of the General Counsel,  EPA
 o

      MR. JOHN P. LEHMAN
      Director, Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division
      Office of Solid Waste, EPA
 0

      MR. ALAN S. CORSON
      Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
      Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division
      Office of Solid Waste, EPA

 8     MR. MATT STRAUS
      Manager, Hazardous Waste Definition Program
      Waste Characterization Branch
      Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division
      Office of Solid Waste, EPA

11     DR. DONN VIVIANI
      Environmental Scientist
      Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division
      Office of Solid Waste, EPA

      MR. MICHAEL PELENSKY
      Hazardous Mate:
      EPA Region III
u
      Hazardous Materials Branch
16

    MAKING PRESENTATIONS

      MR. KEVIN GAYNOR, Esq.
      Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle
      Washington, D.C.

      DR. STACY L. DANIELS
      Research Specialist
      Dow Chemical Company
      Environmental Science Research 1702 Building
      Midland, MI  48640


23

24

25

-------
 9





10





11





12





13





14





15-





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
            MR. LEHMAN:  Good morning.  My name is John Lenman,




and I am the Director of the Hazardous and Industrial Waste




Division of EPA, Office of Solid Waste, in Washington.




            On behalf of EPA, I would like to welcome you here




to this public hearing.  For a brief overview of why we are




here, the EPA on August 22, 1979, issued a supplemental pro-




posed rule under section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal




Act as substantially amended by the Resource Conservation and




Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580.




            This supplemental proposal covers an additional




listing of approximately 45 hazardous wastes to be added to




the proposed list of hazardous wastes which the Agency pub-




lished on December 18, 1978.  This rule also proposes to list




those chemical which are included in the International Agency




for Research on Cancer list of human carcinogens and potential




human carcinogens but which are not already listed as a




hazardous waste proposed regulations published on December 18,




1978, in appendices 3, 4 and 5 of section 3001 regulations if




such materials are disposed of as pure-materials, spilled.




clean-up residues of specification materials or container




residues.




            This proposal together with those already pub-




lished pursuant to sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 on December 18,




1973; section 3003 on April 28, 1978; section 3008 on August 4,

-------
 l   1978; section  3010 on July  11,  1978;  and  sections  3005  and

 2   3006 on June 14, 1979;  and  that of  the  Department  of  Transpor-

 3   tation pursuant  to the  Hazardous Materials  Transportation  Act

 4   proposed on May  25,  1978; constitute  the  hazardous waste

 5   regulatory program under Subtitle C of  the  Act.

 6               This program will provide a system for the  manage-

 7   Kient of the nation's hazardous  waste  from point of generation

 8   to  final disposal.   The court order promulgation date for

 9   final regulations is December 31, 1979.

10               This hearing is being held  as part of  our public

u   participation  process in the development  of tnis regulatory

]9   program.  We appreciate you taking  the  time to participate in

13   the development  of these hazardous  waste  regulations.

14               I  would  like to introduce the panel members who

    share the rostrum with  rae.  From your left  to  right,  they  are
ID

16   Mike Pelensky, chemical engineer, Hazardous Materials Branch

17   of  EPA's Region  III  in  Philadelphia;  Donn Viviani, Environmen-

JQ   tal Scientist  in Waste  Characterization Branch of  the

19   Hazardous and  Industrial Waste  Division,  EPA in Washington;

.,0   Alan Corson, Chief of  the Waste Characterization Branch in

91   the Hazardous  and Industrial Waste  Division in EPA, Washington
                                                                  ,
09   Lisa Friedman  from our  Office of General  Counsel,  who will ae

93   the chairperson  of the  hearing; and on  my left. Matt  Strous ,

,4   Program Manager  of the  Hazardous Waste  Definition  Program  in

    the Waste Characterization  Branch,  Hazardous and Industrial

-------
     Waste Division,  EPA,  Washington.




                 Ms.  Claire Welty who  is listed as a panel member




 3    will not be with us  this  morning.




 4                The  comment period for this proposal closes on




     October 12, 1979.   The comments received at this hearing




 6    together with the  comment letters  we receive will be a part




 7    of the official  docket in tnis rule..making process.   This




     docket may be seen during normal  working hours in room 2439K




 9    in Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,  S.W.,  in Washington, D.C.




10                In addition,  we expect to have a transcript of




n    this hearing within about two weeks of the close of  the hear-




19    ing.  The transcript will be available for reading at any of




13    the EPA libraries.  A list of these locations is available




     at the registration table.




                 With this as  background, I  would like to lay the




     groundwork and rules  for the conduct of this hearing.  The




     focus of a public  hearing is on the public's response to a
18
     regulatory  proposal of an  agency.   The  purpose  of this  hearing
19    as  announced in the  August 22 Federal Register is  to solicit




.„    comments  on the proposed regulations, including any back-




.,.    ground information used to develop the comment.




9?                So 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 this proposed regula




     tion and  thereafter  revise it as  may seem appropriate.   All

-------
    major substantive comments made at the hearing will be




    addressed during the preparation of the final regulations.




3               This is not a formal adjudicatory hearing with the




4   right to cross-examination.  The members of the public are to




    present their views on the proposed regulation to the panel,




6   and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting state




7   ments to clarify any ainbiguities in their presentation.  Some




8   questions by the panel may be forwarded in writing to the




g   speakers.   His or her response if received within a week of




10   the close of this hearing will be included in this transcript.




    Otherwise, we will include it in the docket.




12               The chairperson reserves the right to limit




13   lengthy questions, discussions or statements.  If you have a




14   copy of your statement, please submit it to the court reporter.




.,   Written statements will be accepted at the end of the hearing,
10



16   and if you wish to submit a written rather than an oral state-




17   ment, please make sure that the court reporter has a copy.




18               The written statements will also be included in




19   their entirety in the record.  Persons wishing to make an oral




OQ   statement who have not made an advance request by telephone or




91   in writing or by indicating their desire to do that on the




99   registration card this morning should return to the registra-




93   tion 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 and identify himself




    or herself for the court reporter and deliver his or her  state-




    ment.




                At the beginning of the statement, the chairperson




    will inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to entertain




    questions from the panel.  The speaker is under no obligation




    to do so, although within the spirit of this information  shar-




    ing hearing, it would be of great assistance to the Agency if




 9   questions were permitted.




10               Our day's activities as we currently see them




    appear like this:  Only a few persons have indicated a desire




19   to make a statement.  We may conclude this hearing this morn-




13   ing.  If necessary, we will break for .lunch at about. 12 :00 and




14   reconvene at 2:00, and we will conclude the day's session at




15.   about 5:00 o'clock or when all of the comments have been




16   received, statements have been received, whichever is earliest]




                If you wish to be added to our mailing list for




18   future regulations, draft regulations or proposed regulations,




19   please leave your business card or name and address on a  3x5




    card on the registration desk.




                Today's discussion is limited to the listed wastes




    appearing in the August 22 Federal Register notice.  The




,,3   chairperson reserves the right to cut off discussion of any




,,4   other aspect of the proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations  for




    which hearings have been previously held.

-------
 1
                Now I would like to  turn  the hearing  over  to

 2
    our chairperson, Lisa Friedman.  Lisa?

 3
                MS. FRIEDMAN:  Thank you.  I have one  issue I want!

 4
    to bring up today.  During the comment period on  the supple-

 5
    mental proposal, we received a number of requests  for  extensioiji

 6
    of the comment period on the ground that some of  the reference

 7
    material referenced documents of listed wastes were not avail-

 8
    able.

 9
                In response to these requests and because  we

10
    recognize these materials were not available, we  are extending

11
    the comment period on the following wastes:   wastes from

12
    equipment cleaning and test cleaning  in the manufacture of

13
    paperboard boxes, waste from press clean-up of newspaper

14
    printing, wash water from printing ink equipment  cleaning and

15                '
    melted ore  (?) of sand casting wastes from iron foundries.

16
                We hope to have list in the Federal Register later

17
    this week before we announce the extension.

18
                We have two people who have asked to  speak today.

19
    The first will be Mr. Kevin Gaynor of Nixon, Hargrave, Devans

20
    and Doyle.

21


22


23


24


25

-------
     PRESENTATION  OF KEVIN  GAYNOR,  Esq.
     NIXON,  HARGRAVE, DEVANS  & DOYLE:

                MR.  GAYNOR:   I am  an  attorney with the law firm

     of  Nixon,  Hargrave,  Devans and Doyle of Rochester, New York;

     Washington, D.C.;  and  Palm Beach,  Florida.  I am here today

     to  make a  statement  on behalf  of  a client engaged in the print

     ing of  books  and periodicals.

                While  our  firm will be filing more extensive
 8
     comments with EPA by the filing deadline, we feel this matter
 9
     is  of such importance  a  public statement must also be made.
10
                The purpose  of this statement is to protest EPA's
11
     proposal to designate-  as hazardous  all wash water from print-
12
     ing ink equipment cleaning. Promulgation of this designation
13
     is  both legally in excess of the  Agency's authority under
14
     RCRA and technically inaccurate.
15-
                In its August 22,  1979, proposal, which is the
16
     subject of these hearings today,  EPA announced its intention
17
     to  include, quote, "(SIC)  2893:  Wash   water from printing
18
     ink equipment  cleaning," on its  list of hazardous waster.
19
     Although the  SIC code  listed for  this item applies only to
20
     printing ink  manufacturing industry, the description of the
21
     waste,  which  according to EPA's original proposal is the
92
     determinative factor,  is sufficiently broad to apply to the
23
     printing and  publishing  industry  as well.
24
                Specifically, we believe that this item should be
25
     struck  from the list of  processes  generating hazardous waste

-------
 6





 7





 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                   10






since the principal substance covered by the description,




wash water, dose not fall within the definition of hazardous




waste under RCRA and is exlucded from regulation under this




Act.




            Specifically, hazardous waste is defined as a sub-




set of solid waste.  Expressly excluded from RCRA's definition




of solid wastes are, quote, "industrial discharges which are




point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the




Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended," end of




quote.




            Thus, wash water discharged directly to a water




body is clearly exempted from regulation as a hazardous




waste under RCRA.




            In addition, section 1006 of RCRA, which addresses




the applicability of RCRA vis-a-vis other laws, provides that




RCRA does not apply to any activity or substance which is




subject to the Clean Water Act except where RCRA requirements




would not be inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.




            This section goes on to mandate that EPA integrate




its enforcement of RCRA and avoid duplication of regulatory




efforts.  Clearly EPA's proposed designation of wash water




as a hazardous waste does just the opposite.  Wash water which




is discharged indirectly to a water body from a sewage system




or a publicly owned treatment works is regulated under Clean




Water Act and in particular is subject to the pre treatment

-------
                                                         11

    requirements o that Act.
                For this reason indirect discharges of waste water
 3   to a POTW's sewer system are not intended to be regulated  unde
    RCRA,  Since wash water from printing ink equipment  cleaning
    can be subjected to pretreatment requirements if necessary,
    there is no reason to separate out this category of  water  from
    any other water for regulation under RCRA rather than under th
    Clean Water Act.
 9               Therefore, on the basis of statutory authority,
.„   it is inappropriate to define wash water as a hazardous waste
    under Subtitle C of the Hazardous Waste Management Program
19   and to regulate it under RCRA.  The statute simply does not
13   authorize direct RCRA regulation of the discharge of wash
    water itself.
.,               In comments made by the. Agency in its preamble to
lu
16   the December 18, 1978, proposal, it was clearly recognized tha
    the. Hazardous Waste Program does not apply to discharges of
ig
    water.  The proposal to list wash water is in direct contra-
ig   diction to EPA's announced interpretation of the proper
90   regulatory interface between the Clean Water Act and RCRA.
.,.               This preamble discussion explained that once a
99   hazardous waste enters a POTW, which by definition includes
.„   the conveyance sewer as well as the sewage  treatment plant,
94   the resulting mixture is no longer considered a solid waste
95   under RCRA.  This preamble comment goes on  to note that in

-------
                                                      12
    the absence of a surface impoundment, the proposed hazardous



    waste regulations do not apply to water to be discharged by

3
    an NPDES permitted facility.

4
                In view of this clear position taken by the Agency,



    wash water is simply not subject to control as a hazardous



    waste under RCRA.  Rather,  regulation of wash water must be



    achieved under the appropriate provisions of the Clean Water



    Act pursuant to which there is full authority to control

9
    these dis charges.


10
                In addition to  these legal, arguments, there are


    practical considerations which support the regulation of



    printing ink equipment cleaning wash water under the Clean


13
    Water Act rather than under RCRA.  The first is the matter of


14
    volume.   Wash water is by its very nature primarily water with



    very dilute amounts of contaminants in it.  A hazardous desig-

1 £

    nation under RCRA would force virtually every printing company,



    hometown newspaper, et cetera, to dispose of its wash water


18
    at a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility.


19
                Even the proposed 100 kilogram per month exemption


20
    for small volume generators would not be of help to printers



    and publishers because of the weight of water.  Any printer or

99
    publisher who uses more than 27 gallons of water a month to



    wash a printing press would be a hazardous waste generator.

94
                In the case of  one of our clients, the weekly



    cleaning of presses involves the use of approximately 50 gallonls

-------
                                                       13






     of water per press.   We ask the question:  where will this




     water be disposed of?  Presently in New York State where our




 3    client is located, there are only two licensed hazardous




 4    waste disposal facilities,  both of which are secure landfills.




                 These landfills because of potential leachate and




     groundwater contamination problems will not accept such liquid




     waste.  Even if these facilities did accept such waste, EPA




      must give serious consideration to whether the best use of




 9    these waste disposal facilities which are in short demand




10    is for the large volume of  printing equipment cleaning water




n    produced by the printing and publishing industry.




12                If printing ink equipment cleaning water does in




13    fact contain hazardous  material, it would seem more reasonable




14    and certainly more practical to remove and concentrate the




15    hazardous components.   Such treatment can be clearly mandated




16    under the Clean Water Act through section 402 (for direct




     discharges)  and section 307 (for discharges to POTWs) .




18                If EPA by applying its various hazardous waste




19    critera then finds that the sludges from the waste water are




20    hazardous, it can identify  these sludges in the solid form




     as hazardous wastes.




                 Let us turn briefly now to the question of




.,3    whether all waste water from printing ink equipment can be




.>4    reasonably designated as hazardous.  We are seriously con-




,,5    cerned that the hazardous components of this wash water

-------
                                                      14





    identified in EPA's support document — namely, lead,



9   chromate, phenols and isophorone — occur in only a small



    fraction of all printing ink used in this country.  Many ink
0


    and ink equipment cleaning fluid vendors have provided



    assurances to one of our clients that these four substances
0


    or classes of substances are not in most inks that are being
6


    used.



              From discussions with the publishers trade associa-
8


    tion, Graphic Arts Council, it appears that only tne colored
y


    inks, mainly yellows and reds, may contain these chemicals.



    Graphic Arts Council, nowever, pointed out that not all the



    colored inks contain tnese materials since many ink manufac-



    turers have, quote,  "seen the handwrinting on the wall," end



    quote, and have substituted non-hazardous components tor com-



    ponents said to be hazardous.



              Since many publishers rarely use colored inks but
16


    rely instead on black ink, this proposed classification is



    entirely too broad.  If finally promulgated as proposed, this
18


    designation will place an unreasonable burden and disposal
i y


    cost on the publishing industry.



              We feel that at present EPA's hazardous waste data



    base is totally inadequate to support this designation.  Many



    printers and publishers do not have the facilities or the



    money to test waste water, excuse me wash water, for the four



    substances or worse yet, to apply RCRA's tests for toxic,

-------
                                                          15
     toxic organic,  mutagenic and bioaccumulative properties as




 2    would be required if this proposal were adopted and a




 3    variance from these regulations were sought.




 4              Our client has demonstrated his concern by the




 5    research it has done thus far and by our appearance here




 6    today.  I have  been asked to call upon EPA now to do its part




 7    and devote more time and energy to researching this hazardous




 8    waste designation.




 9              EPA has the expertise to develop and appropriate




10    data base and apparently has already begun in connection with




11    developing effluent standards.  At the conclusion of this




12    research, EPA can make an informed decision as to which com-




13    ponents of which segment of the wash water waste stream for




14    the printing industry, if any, are hazardous.




15              Only then can EPA reasonably proceed to regulate




16    these materials.  Naturally our client and hopefully other




17    members of the  printing industry stand ready to assist EPA




18    in its efforts.




19              In conclusion, I would like to reemphasize that




20    addition of this waste category to the hazardous waste




21    regulations is  objectionable both because it does not comport




22    with the mandates of RCRA and because it is so boradly stated




23    that it includes a significant amount of non-hazardous waste




24    thereby placing burdensome and unreasonable requirements on




25    many publishers.

-------
                                                      16





              Thank you very much.  I would be happy to answer



    questions to the extent I can.  As I said, we will be submit-



    ting written comments; and to the extent your questions are



    technical, maybe I will have to defer to our written comments



              DR. VIVIANI:  The Agency was under the impression
J


„   that some of this wash water was drummed and sent to landfills
b


    We were told that maybe this wasn't a common practice.  It is



    done occasionally.



              We are certainly going to go back and reexamine our



    information, but if you can provide any information as to



    whether or not this wash water is ever drummed and landfilled,



    we would certainly appreciate it.



              MR. GAYNOR:  Would that have to be a sanitary land-



    fill or hazarous waste —
14


              DR. VIVIANJ:  It doesn't much matter what type of
15


    facility it is brought to, but we were told that in many
16


    cases or in some cases at least, it doesn't go out the



    effluent pipe but is drummed and land disposed.
18


              MR. GAYNOR:  It is not clear from the proposed
i y


    regulations that that is the procedure you would allow even



    if it is drummed.



90             DR. VIVIANI:  Well, I think the point is that that



    would certainly come under our jurisdiction, drummed waste —



              MR. GAYNOR:  Oh, I see what you are saying.



9.             DR. VIVIANI:  — and land disposed.  It would not

-------
                                                       17






     come under the Clean Water Act at all.




               MR. GAYNOR:  I see what you are saying.  Certainly




 3    if that is the delineation you are making of your jurisdiction




 4    it ought to be spelled out in the proposal so that members of




     the industry who are discharging directly into sewage systems




     would not be covered.




               Is that —do you intend to make that distinction?




 8              DR. VIVIANI:  I am not qualified to make any




 9    distinction.  Lisa?




10              MS, FRIEDMAN:  I think in our proposed regulation,




     there appears to be sort of misunderstanding that needs to be




,2    worked on.  We do not intend in our proposed regulations to




13    regulate the discharge of wash water into a navigable water.




14    We would regulate it as if it were treated as a lagoon area.




15              MR. GAYNOR:  Surely.




16              MS. FRIEDMAN:  Kind of a holding area or something




     like that.  Nor do we intend to regulate the discharge of




 8    wash water into a publicly owned treatment works sewage




19    system.




               MR. GAYNOR:  Well, it could be then that we have




.,    no argument with you since those are the two situations we




99    are concerned with.




93              MS. FRIEDMAN:  This misunderstanding will be




     clarified in the regulation.




.,5              MR. GAYNOR:  Good I

-------
 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                       18
          MS. FRIEDMAN:  I have one point.  You made the




statement when you gave your presentation that your client




did not believe that printing wash water is hazardous.




          MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.




          MS. FRIEDMAN:  Do you have the data on this wash




water?




          MR. GAYNOR:  We are going to try to supply that in




our detailed comment.




          MS. FRIEDMAN:  Okay, that would be very helpful.




          MR. GAYNOR:  We are in the process now of collecting




that information.




          MR. CORSON:  One other point to ask if you could




clarify for us.  In your client's comments, you did indicate




I believe that your feeling, your client's feeling, was  that




some of the colored inks may have this problem.  Now I notice




you mention yellow and —




          MR. GAYNOR:  Yellow and red.




          MR. CORSON:  — red, which I guess is two of the




three colored inks that you use, and everything else comes




from those three major and the three primary.  Perhaps you




could provide to us in your comments a more accurate descrip-




tion, if you think it is appropriate, of that part of the




printing industry to whom you feel such a ddesignation of




hazardous waste should apply.




          Because our intent is not to make it so broad  that

-------
                                                         19







     we are including 10 times the number to force them to test




     out.   We would like to make it fine enough to bring all those




     in that should be in, but also clear so those who are not in




     are not covered.




               MR. GAYNOR:  We are attempting to collect that data,




     and one of our problems I think is in the collection of the




     data, and it may be that this is an area that EPA could




     explore more, in more detail also.




 9              MR. CORSON:  Okay.




10              MS. FRIEDMAN:  One other point.  We will be extend-




u    ing the comment period —




19              MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  To when?  I didn't hear the date.




13              MS. FRIEDMAN:  I think it will be 45 days.




14              MR. GAYNOR:  Forty-five days?




15              MS. FRIEDMAN-:  Right.




16              MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you very much.




               MS. FRIEDMAN:  Which would take you up to November




18    25th.




19              MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you very much.




9Q              MS. FRIEDMAN:  Our next speaker will be Dr. Stacy L.




     Daniels.  He is with Dow Chemical Company.
23




24




25

-------
                                                           20
 1
22
     PRESENTATION OF:
 2    DR. STACY L. DANIELS,
     THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY:

 3
               DR. DANIELS:  My greeting to the panel.  I am glad

 4
     I am not the lead-off speaker like I was in St. Louis to be


     followed by Barry Commoner (ph) .  I don't see him in the

 6
     audience today, so I assume I am free from locking horns with

 7
     him today.

 8
               Miss Chairperson, I am Dr . Stacy L. Daniels,

 9
     Research Specialist in Environmental Sciences in the Health

10
     and Environmental Sciences Department of the Dow Chemical

11
     Company.  As chairman of our corporate RCRA task force, I

12
     wish to summarize our concerns on the issues raised by the

13
     Agency in the supplemental listing of hazardous wastes and

14
     the accompanying background document.

15
               We worked closely with the Agency. :and. with various

16
     trade organizations, professional societies and standard

17
     setting groups for the past two and a half years to develop

18
     a consistent set of meaningful regulations for hazardous

19
     waste management that will provide adequate benefits in

20
     protection of human health and: the .environment from unreason-

21
     able risk while demanding realistic expenditures of resources,
               Toward this goal, we have provided comments on all

23
     major aspects of this draft and the proposed regulations .

24
     Today we wish to summarize our major concerns in four areas:

25
     first the supplemental listing and delisting; two, the

-------
                                                       21






     inapplicability  of  generic  listing;  three,  the lack of support




     ing  evidence;  and four,  the classification  of wastes by degree




     of hazard  and  facilities  by degree of control as  they pertain




     to generic listing.




               With regard  to  the supplemental listing and delist-




     ing,  the Agency  proposes  to add approximately 45  wastes to the




     initial listing  to  include  16 generic waste streams purported




     to contain significant quantities of chlorinated  organic




 9    compounds  and  28 specific processes  supposedly generating




10    hazardous  wastes.




               We have serious objections to  both the  general




12    procedure  employed  to  prepare the supplemental list and




13    particularly to  the use  of  generic format for listing wastes




14    as hazardous.  The  identification of some hazardous waste




15    is contrary to the  statutory mandate of  RCRA- which requires




16    proper publishing of criteria and listing of only paritcular




17    hazardous  wastes.




18              About  87  percent  of the newly  proposed  wastes are




19    based on three candidate  characteristics of hazard; that is,




     mutagenicity,  bioaccumulation,  and/or toxic organic;  which




21    are  not defined  as  characteristics and do not meet the defini-




     tion of hazardous waste.




23              We recommend,  therefore, that  all supplemental




24    wastes that are  proposed  to be  listed because of  mutagenicity,
25
bioaccumulation or toxic organic be deleted.

-------
                                                       22






               The  listing of hazardous waste based upon candidate




 2    characteristics having no validated methods and no verifying




 3    data on actual wastes is improper.  For the listing of




 4    hazardous waste, the Agency relies on only four characteris-




     tics of hazard; namely, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity




 6    and toxicity,  all of which have available test protocols.




 7    The use of the candidate characteristics for purposes of list-




 g    ing or delisting is pure speculation.




 9              We recommend that the candidate characteristics of




10    mutagenicity,  bioaccumulation and toxic organic be deferred




     from consideration until validated methods are developed and




12    sufficient data are generated to define their utility and




13    interpretation of hazard.




14              The listing of hazardous wastes based solely upon




15    characteristics for which there are no validated methods




16    preclude delisting of such wastes.  We believe that listing




17    and delisting should be conducted on equal bases.  If the




ig    Agency has no validated tests and no supporting data for




19    listing, then it should not require an applicant to attempt




     the impossible.




               We recommend that both listing and delisting be




92    based on identical procedures.




               We object specifically to the incorrect listing of,




24    quote, "heavy ends from the production of glycerine from




05    allyl chloride," unquote, as hazardous.  The Agency has

-------
                                                          23






 i    confused  process  intermediates,  wastes and final products.




 2    The  glycerine  still  bottoms  are,  in  fact,  a mixture of




 3    nontbxic  glycerine and polyglycerines  which are widely used




 4    in many commercial products,  including the toothpaste you may




 5    have used this morning.




 0              They contain no  detectable epichlorohydrin and less




 7    than two  parts per million of trichloropropane, the two com-




 8    ponents which  have formed  the basis  for the tentative listing.




 9    We will be happy  to  supply further details in a separate




10    communication.  You  are  considering  extending the comment




H    period for other  SIC codes;  I would  request that this one




12    also be considered.




13              We recommend that  heavy ends from the production




14    of glycerine from allyl  chloride be  deleted from the supple--




15    mental list.




16              With regard to the inapplicability of generic list-




17    ing, the  Agency has  proposed to  list 16 additional waste




18    streams generated in the production  of chlorinated organic




!9    chemicals as hazardous.  We  disagree with  the Agency's approac^




20    of a generic format  as invalid,  inappropriate and inapplicable




21    as an index of hazard.




22              We do not  believe  the  Agency has shown adequate




93    justification  for the use  of generalized elemental composition




04    or chemical structure in the determination of hazard.  Such a




25    simplistic approach  will only compound the already

-------
                                                          24
     overclassification of solid wastes as hazardous.
 9
   I            Generic listings of organic production  wastes such
 3  '
     as chlorinated organics,  brominated organics,  phenols and
 4
     aromatic amines,  which are being presently considered, are
 5
     scientifically indefensible and are contrary to the express
 6
     statutory language of the RCRA which provides  for the listing
 7
     of particular hazardous waste rather than a general or
 8
     universal listing.  The discussion of the proposed supplemen-
 9
     tal listing conveniently omits the adjective,  "particular."
10
     We assume this omission is unintentional.
11
               We recommend that all listings be restricted to
12
     particular hazardous wastes.
13
               Congress never intended to authorize generic list-
14
     ings of hazardous waste.   Explanation of listing  should relate
15
     to:  quantity; concentration; physical,  chemical  or
16
     infectious characteristics and other factors which contribute
17
     to the hazardous  nature of the substance and which EPA is to
18
     consider as part  of the listing process.
19
               We recommend that listing be restricted to specific
20
     factors adversely affecting human health and the  environment.
21
               We consider the use of generic listing  to be
22
     improper when based on criteria which have not been proposed.
23
     The Agency states that the mere existence of a generic waste
24
     group is not sufficient cause or justification for its
25
     inclusion on the  hazardous waste list.  And they  further

-------
                                                        25





    state their  intent to use  a  criterion  of  similarity of waste




    streams described by generic group  quantitatively  or qualita-




 3   tively so  that all individual members  of  the  set meet  the




 4   particular listing or characteristics  which indict the group




    as a whole.




               The Agency then  proceeds  to  identify  seven sub-




    criteria never subjected to  rule  making.   The previous listing




    of electroplating waste water treatment sludge  cited as  the




 9   precedent  for this action  contains  no  mention of generic for-




10   mat-



               We specifically  request that the Agency  withdraw




    the generic  categories of  hazardous waste and publish  the new




13   criterion  and sub-criteria for  public  comment.




14              With regard to the lack of supporting evidence, the




15   use of the generic listing is scientifically  unfounded.  The




16   Agency has not adequately  demonstrated that the chlorinated




    organics as  a class are hazardous.  The supporting evidence




    with the background document, BD-5A, is grossly insufficient




19   to support an overall generic listing.




               Reaction similarity is  overstated for chlorinated




21   organics.  Clorination is  a  process which may involve  a  wide




    variety of chlorine sources   and  the attachment of the chlor-




23   ine atom in  many ways resulting in  chlorine being  retained in




24   the final  product, recovered in a side stream,  or  simply




95   neutralized  into an inorganic salt.

-------
                                                       26







,               For  example,  and I  quote:  "Solution residues from




2    the  production of  chlorinated polymers,"  unquote,  often




c,    involve  the  aqueous  suspension chlorination  of a  previously
o



     formed polymer with  the final solution  residue being  an




,    inorganic  brine containing primarily sodium  chloride  rather
0



„    than a mixture of  any chlorinated  organics.




               The  toxicity  of  chlorinated organics is  not appar-




     ent. The  toxicities of 45 compounds reported by  the  Agency




     in Appendix  E  of the background document  is  a random  compila-




10    tion of  chlorinated  and non-chlorinated compounds  supposedly




     indicted from  earlier appendices.   These  data are  a hash of




12    different  animal species subjected to different routes of




13    exposure and evaluated  by  different bases of mortality.




..              The  characteristic  of toxic organic is  supposedly




15    based on a calculated equivalent leachate concentration as




16    derived  from acute oral mammalian  toxicity to the  white rate;




17    namely,  LD50 in units of milligrams per kg.




18              We have  compiled comparable values for  this specific




     parameter  for  49 listed compounds  contained  within the main




9Q    body of  the  background  document in Appendix  E. These values




91    range from 46  to 28,700 milligrams per  kilogram, with both




.,2    extremes being for non-chlorinated compounds.




93              Ten  compounds, including five chlorinated organics,




,,4    are  less toxic than  the acetic acid proposed as a  simulated




95    extractant and excluded as non-hazardous. There  is no clear

-------
                                                       27






    distinction between chlorinated and  non-chlorinated compounds




    over a range of three orders of magnitude.




 3              The aquatic toxicities as  reported  by  the Agency




 4   are incomplete and nonspecific.  This  is  the  fault of  the




 5   NIOSH registry which is an  incomplete  source  of  aquatic




 6   toxicity data.  We have compiled values for the  acute  toxicity




    to the fathead minnow expressed as LC50 in units of milligrams




    per liter  for 32  listed compounds contained within the main




    body of the background document and  Appendix  E.




10              Values  ranged from 28 to 1,620,000  micrograms  per




    liter.  Nine compounds, including five chlorinated organics,




12   were less  toxic than acetic acid.  There  was  again no  clear




13   distinction between chlorinated and  non-chlorinated compounds




14   over a range of almost five orders of  magnitude.




15              Specific composition formulations do not reveal




16   high concentrations of toxic chlorinated  organics.  Only five




17   of 25 wastes reported by the Agency  in the background  document




18   in  Appendix A  have quantitative analyses.   Most  of the rest




19   are limited to the qualitative presence of three or less




20   specific compounds.




91              No criteria have  been provided  as to what consti-




    tutes high toxicity or high concentration.  This is in direct




23   disregard  to the  Congressional mandate to consider quantity,




24   concentration and chemical  form.




25              Threats to human  health and  the environment  are

-------
                                                       28






     not proven.  The background document does not provide an




     adequate data base to support the generic listing of chlor-




     inated organics based on damage cases.  Two of the cases




     cited by the Agency are attributed to a single compound in




     each case.  The third case involved a small group of compound




     detected in groundwater at a single site with no demonstrable




     damage.




               Only three of 143 groundwater analyses exceed the




 g    calculated equivalent leachate concentration — that is, the




10    0.35 factor times the calculated human LD50 — which is the




n    apparent basis for listing.  Only two analyses exceed the




12    median aquatic toxicity for the respective compounds.




13              We conclude that these limited cases are not




14    representative but indeed are limited in scope, deficient in




15    substance and inconclusive for purposes of generalization.




16              We recommend the Agency limit their attention to




17    specific process streams which actually generate a signifi-




18    cant hazardous waste.




               And finally with regard to classification of wastes




20    by degree of hazard and facilities by degree of control as




     they pertain to the generic listing; the Agency has correctly




22    identified degree of hazard as a major issue.  We have




23    repreatedly indicated in our comments on section 3001, in our




24    special supplement on degree of hazard, and in the subsequent




95    addendum submitted to the Agency at their specific request,

-------
                                                        29






    that  RCRA  requires consideration  of  degree  of hazard.




 2              Both  the legislative  history  and  the statutory lan-




 3   guage of RCRA indicate  that  hazard is a function  of both




 4   varying effect  and varying exposure.  Effects are dependent




    upon  the nature of individual wastes; exposures are dependent




    upon  the nature of individual wastes and upon the method of




    control andthe  specific site of disposal.




               Attempts to classify  facilities without classifying




 9   wastes is  an incomplete response.  The  use  of a generic  format




10   would negate any  degree of hazard classification  by incor-




    rectly assuming that all wastes of generalized elemental com-




12   position or chemical structure  have  the same  effect upon




13   exposure.




14              This  assumption is clearly and scientifically




15   incorrect.  Generic listing  is  fundamentally  incompatible- with




16   the requirement of listing by degree of hazard.  The use of




17   a  generic  format  is a regressive  approach which will result in




18   a  waste being denoted as hazardous through  guilt  by associa-




19   tion  rather than  as a function  of specific  properties.




               We recommend,  therefore, that classification of




21   wastes be  based on degree of hazard  and that  classification of




2   facilities be based on  degree of  control.




93              Thank you.




24              MS. FRIEDMAN:   Will you take  questions  from the




95   panel?

-------
                                                       30
 I              DR. DANIELS:  Yes, I will.




 2              DR. VIVIANI:  Stacy, when we developed a generic




 3    listing, we went through about 20 or 30 chlorinated organic




 4    waste streams; in fact, all the ones we had data for at




 5    headquarters, and then we went out to the regions and we




 6    looked at maybe another 10 or 15.  I think they are all in




     the background document.  And we looked at the analysis we




     had.




               In every single case there were what we thought




     very high levels of chlorinated organics found in them.  Now




     the fact that we were unable to find even one waste stream




12    in these processes that didn't contain chlorinated organics




13    certainly indicated to us that there was some sort of a trend




14    here.




15              If you have information that indicates this is not




     the case and if you can supply us with analytical data from




17    these waste streams indicating that in many cases or even in




18    a majority of cases high concentrations of chlorinated organ-




19    ics are not to be found, we would certainly appreciate the




,,0    information.




               DR. DANIELS:  We will be pleased to do that.  On




 2    the two that I mentioned here, the solution and chlorination




23    of an already formed polymer and also the glycerine still




24    bottoms — those are two specific ones.  However, it is hard




25    to respond to something on how high is high.

-------
                                                       31






 1              DR.  VIVIANI:   Well,  even if you could just give us




 2    the analytical data on  the ones we specifically mention in the




 3    background data;  if that information is incorrect,  in fact it




 4    was either a  bad  sample or bad analytical technique or for




 5    some reason those chlorinated  organics are not typically found




 6    in  those waste streams, we would like to be made aware of that




 7    Because we can only act on the information we have.




 3              DR.  DANIELS:   If you can extend the comment period




 9    on  those two  that I mentioned, we can talk specifically on




10    those  and attempt to add to that all we have on the other




11    ones.




12              Specifically  though, with regard to the toxicity




13    values  and things like  this, this is the other thing that




14    isn't really  factored into that.  If you have a concentration




15    of  X parts pe-r million  of alpha-methyl ump-de-gump; is that




16    a hazard or not?   And while you admit in the background docu-




17    ment that you are not indicting by mere presence, there seems




18    to  be a lot of indications to that; and that is what I would




19    like to have  clarified.




20              DR.  VIVIANI:   Okay.   I think that if you  go back




2i    to  the  background document —  I am sure you have read it many




22    times — you  will notice that  it is never a case of us having




93    just one chlorinated organic.   It is usually a range, and in




24    many cases, there are things like HCBs and other hydro-




25    chlorinated,  virtually  .indestruetable organic chemicals

-------
                                                       32







 !    in the waste stream.




 2              Again/  if this range does not occur,  if you find




 3    that it is typically just one or two of the less toxic ones




 4    that you mentioned in your paper that are only  present in




 5    these waste streams;  again we would be very happy to see that




 6    information.




 7              DR. DANIELS:  I think that this is a  case of the




 8    OSW being guilty  of the same trend within the Agency that




 g    the chlorinated organic is a bad compound and a persistent




10    compound,  and that is not true across the board.  It is just




u    the generalization that I object to; that a chlorinated




12    organic could be  biodegradable, it could be relatively non-




13    toxic compared to something else.  It could be  insoluble.  It




14    could be volatile.  There are a lot of physical properties




15    that aren't fully considered here that really don't indict




16    chlorinated organics as a class.




17              Everybody else is very quiet this morning.




18              MS. FRIEDMAN:  I have a question.  In your statement




19    you said you would be happy to supply details on the data you




o0    have on glycerine still bottoms.




21              DR. DANIELS:  Yes.




09              MS. FRIEDMAN:  If you could submit that,  —




03              DR. DANIELS:  We will be providing detailed written




04    comments by the formal closing date, which is Friday.




05              MS. FRIEDMAN:  With respect to glycerine still

-------
                                                       33







     bottoms,  you  made  a  statement that some contain nontoxic




     glycerine and polyglycerine.   If there were a procedure which




 3    would allow to do  this,  glycerine still bottoms if they con-




 4    tain nontoxic as opposed to toxic glycerine;  would that meet




     some of your  concerns?




               DR. DANIELS:   Well, glycerine specifically is about




     the  least toxic compound next to water that I know of.   It




     is the other  trace organics that are apparently indicted in




 9    this particular case.  And I  think it is a miswording that is




10    the  confusing part of this particular waste.




               Because  there  aren't really wastes  associated with




12    this process  other than  waste water and the final  product.




13              MS. FRIEDMAN:   You  made a criticism that we had




14    given no  opportunity to  comment on the criteria and sub-




15    criteria  for  the generic listings which are contained in the




16    background document. You don't feel that you can  comment




     on this criteria contained in the background  document?




18              DR. DANIELS:   That  the first place  that  they  have




ig    appeared.  We have never seen them before in  any official




9g    channel.




21              MS. FRIEDMAN:   But  you still feel that you can't




     comment on them as part  of the background document?




23              DR. DANIELS:   Well, we are commenting in a.'.limited




94    time that we  have, in the 45-day period.  Specifically  I am




95    referencing the sub-criteria, those seven items that begin

-------
                                                        34
     on page four of BD-5A.
               MS. FRIEDMAN:  My last question is:  Apparently you
 3   do feel that some chlorinated organics are hazardous, and
 4   we would really appreciate any information that you have on
     ways that we could distinguish between those which of the
 c   chlorinated are hazardous or non-hazardous.  In other words,
 o
 7   what we can shoot at as the dividing line.
               DR. DANIELS:  If the definition of hazardous waste
 9   would settle down instead of being  a moving target, I think
,0   we could comment a little more carefully on that.  But at
u   the present time, we are faced with comparing LDSOs and
.„   LC50s and things like this.  We can't comment on mutagenicity
13   because the data has not been supplied by the Agency at this
     point
15             .MS. FRIEDMAN:  Well, apparently Dow Chemical has
16   its own opinion of where that dividing line should be, and I
17   think it owuld be very helpful for  us if you could provide
18   that, of where you think the cut-off point should be for
ig   listing or not listing these various chlorinated organics
20   in it.
               Thank you very much.
99             Would anyone else wish to make a statement?
,,3              (No response)
.,4             VOICE:  I have a question.
•>5             MS. FRIEDMAN:  We made an initial statement that

-------
                                                          35







     we are not going  to  answer any questions today unless for




     clarification of  a proposed regulation.




 3             VOICE:  No  questions?




 4             MS. FRIEDMAN:   No.




               This hearing  is adjourned.




                (Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m.,  the public hearing was




     adjourned.)
 9





 LO





 11





 12





 13





 14





 15





 16





 17





 18





 19





 20





 21





 22





 23





24





25

-------
                                                              36
2

3                     REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

4

5   DOCKET NUMBER:

6   CASE TITLE:   Public  Hearing:   Proposed  Amendment  to  List  of
                  Hazardous  Waste
7   HEARING DATE: October 9,  1979

8   LOCATION:     Washington,  D.C.


9

10        I hereby certify that the proceedings  and evidence

    herein are contained fully and accurately in the  notes

12   taken by me at the hearing in  the  above case before  the

    Environmental Protection Agency
lo

    and that this is a true  and correct  transcript of the same,


15

L6

17

18                                  Date:  October  9, 1979


19

20

21
23
 25
                                      Official Reporter
                                      Acme Reporting Company,  Inc.
                                      1411 K Street, N.W.
                                      Washington, D.C.    20005
24

-------
     RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT







   Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations



     Comments on Supplemental Proposed Rule



Additions to Proposed Listing of Hazardous Waste
            The Dow Chemical Company



                     to the



      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



       Hazardous Waste Management Division



               Office of Solid Waste
                 Public Meeting



                Washington,  D.C.
                 October 9,  1979

-------
Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, Research Specialist



in Environmental Sciences in the Health and Environmental



Sciences Department of The Dow Chemical Company.  As Chairman



of our corporate RCRA Task Force, I wish to summarize our



concerns on the issues raised by the Agency in the supplemental



listing of hazardous wastes (44 PR 49402-5, August 22, 1979),



and the accompanying Background Document (BD-5A).







We have worked closely with the Agency, and with various trade



organizations, professional societies, and standard setting



groups, over the past 2-1/2 years to develop a consistent set



of meaningful regulations for hazardous waste management that



will provide adequate benefits in protection of human health



and the environment from unreasonable risks while demanding



realistic expenditures of resources.  Toward this goal, we



have provided comments on all major aspects of the draft and



proposed regulations.  Today we wish to summarize our major



concerns in four areas:   (1) the supplemental listing and



delisting, (2) the inapplicability of generic listing, (3)



the lack of supporting evidence, (4) the classification of



wastes by degree of hazard and facilities by degree of control.

-------
(1)  Supplemental Listing and Delisting





The Agency proposes to add approximately 45 wastes to the



initial listing (43 FR 58946, 58957-9, December 18, 1979) to



include:  16 generic waste streams purported to contain signi-



ficant quantities of chlorinated organic compounds, and 29



specific processes supposedly generating hazardous waste.  We



have serious objections to both the general procedure employed



to prepare the supplemental lists and particularly to the use



of a generic format for listing wastes as hazardous.







The identification of some hazardous wastes is contrary to the



statutory mandate of RCRA which requires proper publishing of



criteria and listing of only "particular" hazardous wastes.



About 87$ of the newly proposed wastes are based on three



candidate characteristics of hazard, i.e. mutagenicity (M),



bioaccumulation (B), and/or toxic organic (0) which are not



defined as characteristics and do not>neei the definition of



hazardous waste.







We recommend that all supplemental wastes that are proposed



to be listed because of mutagenicity,  bioaccumulation, or



toxic organic be deleted.

-------
The listing of hazardous waste based upon candidate character-
istics having no validated methods and no verifying data on
actual wastes is improper.  For the listing of hazardous waste,
the Agency relies on only four characteristics of hazard, namely,
ignitability (I), corrosivity (C), reactivity (R), and toxicity
(T), all of which have available test protocols.  The use of
the candidate characteristics for purposes of listing or delisting
is pure speculation.

We recommend that the candidate characteristics of mutagenicity,
bioaccumulation, and toxic organic be deferred jTrom consideration
until validated methods are developed and sufficient data are
generated to define their utility and interpretation of hazard.

The listing of hazardous wastes based solely upon characteristics
for which there are no validated methods fca preclude delisting
of such wastes.  We believe that listing and delisting should
be conducted on equal bases.  If the Agency has  no validated
tests and no supporting data for listing, then it should not
require an applicant to attempt the impossible.

We recommend that both listing and delisting be based on
identical procedures.

-------
We object specifically to the incorrect listing of "Heavy



Ends from the Production of Glycerine from Allyl Chloride"



(SIC 2869, BD-5A at 92) as hazardous.  The Agency has confused



process intermediates, wastes, and final products.  The glycerine



still bottoms are, in fact, a mixture of non-toxic glycerine



and polyglycerines which are widely used in many commerical



products.  They contain no detectable epichlorohydrin and less



than 2 ppm of trichloropropane (1,2,3-).  We will be happy to



supply further details in a separate communication.







We recommend that Heavy Ends from the Production of Glycerin



from Allyl Chloride be deleted from the supplemental list.







(2)  Inapplicability of Generic Listing





The Agency has proposed to list 16 additional "Waste streams



generated in the production of chlorinated organic chemicals"



as hazardous.  We disagree with the Agency's approach of a



generic format as invalid, inappropriate,  and inapplicable as



an index of hazard.  We do not believe the Agency has shown



adequate justification for the use of generalized elemental



composition or chemical structure in the determination of



hazard.  Such a simplistic approach will only compound the



already overclassificiation of solid wastes as hazardous.

-------
Generic listings of organic production wastes, such as chlori-



nated organics, brominated organics3 phenols, and aromatic



amines, are scientifically indefensible and are contrary to the



express statutory language of the RCRA which provides for the



listing of "particular' hazardous waste rather than a general



or universal listing.  The discussion of the proposed supple-



mental listing conveniently omits the adjective "particularrt.



We assume this omission is unintentional.







We recommend that all listings be restricted to "particular"



hazardous wastes.







Congress never intended to authorize generic listings of hazard-



ous waste.  Explanation of listing should relate to:  "(Q)uantity,



concentration, physical, chemical or infectious characteristics...



and other factors...which contribute to the hazardous nature



of the substance and which EPA is to consider as part of the



listing process."  (House Report at 25, emphasis added).







We recommend that listing be restricted to specific factors



adversely affecting human health and the environment.







We consider the use of generic listing to be improper when



based on criteria which have not been proposed.  The Agency



states that "the mere existence of a generic waste group is

-------
not sufficient cause or justification for its inclusion on
the hazardous waste list."  (BD-5A), and their intent to use
a criterion of "similarity  of waste streams described by
generic group quantitatively or qualitatively so that all
individual members of the set. meet the particular listing
of characteristic(s) which  indict  the group as a whole."
(BD-5A at 3-4).  The Agency the proceeds to identify seven
sub-criteria never subjected to rulemaking.  The previous
listing of Electroplating Waste Water Treatment Sludge (BD-5
at 61-2) cited as the precedent for this action, contains no
mention of generic format.

We specifically request that the Agency withdraw the generic
categories of hazardous waste and publish the new criterion
and sub-criteria for public comment.

(3)  Lack of Supporting Evidence

The use of generic listing is scientifically unfounded.   The
Agency has not adequately demonstrated that the chlorinated
organics as a class are hazardous.  The supporting evidence
(BD-5A) is grossly insufficient to support  generic listing.

Reaction similarity is overstated for chlorinated organics.
Chlorination is a process which may involve a .wide variety
of chlorine sources and the attachment of  the chlorine  atom

-------
in many ways resulting in chlorine being retained in the final



product, recovered in a side stream, or neutralized into an



inorganic salt.  For example, "solution residues from the



production of chlorinated polymers11 often involve the aqueous



(suspension) chlorination of a previously formed polymer with



the final solution residue being an inorganic brine containing



primarily sodium chloride rather than a mixture of chlorinated



organ!cs.







The toxicity of chlorinated organics as a class is not apparent.



The toxicities of 45 compounds reported by the Agency (BD-5A,



Appendix E) is a random compilation of chlorinated and non-



chlorinated compounds supposedly indicted from earlier appen-



dices.  The data are a hash of different animal species subjected



to different routes of exposure and evaluated by different bases



of mortality.







The characteristic of toxic organic is supposedly based solely



on a calculated equivalent leachate concentration as derived



from acute oral mammalian toxicity to the white rat (LD50,



mg/kg).  We have compiled comparable values for this specific



parameter for 49 listed compounds (BD-5A and Appendix E).



Values ranged from 46 to 28,700 mg/kg, with both extremes



for non-chlorinated compounds.  Ten compounds including five



chlorinated organics, are less toxic than the acetic acid



proposed as a simulated extractant and excluded as non-hazardous.

-------
There is no clear distinction between chlorinated and non-



chlorinated compounds over a range of three orders of magni-



tude.







The aquatic toxicities as reported by the Agency "a-s incomplete



and nonspecific.  We have compiled values for the acute toxicity



to the fathead minnow (LC50, mg/L) for 32 listed compounds (BD-5A



and Appendix E).  Values ranged from 28 to 1,690,000 ;ig/L.  Nine



compounds, including five chlorinated organics, were less toxic



than acetic acid.  There was no clear distinction between chlori-



nated and non-chlorinated compounds over a range of almost five



orders of magnitude.







Specific composition formulations do not reveal high concen-



trations of toxic chlorinated organics.  Only 5 of 25 wastes



reported by the Agency (BD-5A, Appendix A) have sufl quantita-



tive analyses; most of the rest are limited to the qualitative



"presence" of three or less specific compounds.  No criteria



have been provided as to what constitutes "high" toxicity or



"high" concentration.  This is in direct disregard to the



Congressional mandate to consider quantity, concentration,



and chemical form.







Threats to human health and the environment are not proven.



The Background Document does not provide an adequate data base



to support the generic listing of chlorinated organics based

-------
on damage cases.  Two of the cases cited by the Agency are



attributed to a single compound in each case.  The third case



involved a small groups of compounds detected in groundwater



at a single site with no demonstrable damage.







Only three of 1^3 groundwater analyses exceed the calculated



equivalent leachate concentration (0.35x calculated human LD50)



which is the apparent basis for listing.  Only two analyses



exceed the median aquatic toxicity for the respective compounds.



We conclude that these limited cases are not representative but



indeed are limited in scope, deficient in substance, and incon-



clusive for purposes of generalization.







We recommend the Agency limit their attention to specific pro-



cess streams which actually generate a significantly hazardous



waste.







(4)  Classification of Wastes by Degree of Hazard and Facilities



     by Degree of Control





The Agency has correctly identified degree of hazard as a



major issue.  We have repeatedly indicated in our comments on



Section 3001, in our special supplement on degree of hazard, and



in the subsequent addendum submitted to the Agency at their



specific request, that RCRA requires consideration of degree



of hazard.  Both the legislative history and the statutory



language of RCRA indicate that hazard is a function of both

-------
varying effect and varying exposure.  Effects are dependent

upon the nature of individual wastes; exposures are dependent

upon the nature of individual wastes and upon the method of

control and the specific site of disposal.  Attempts to classify

facilities without classifying wastes are an incomplete response.

The use of a generic format would negate any degree of hazard

classification by incorrectly assuming that all wastes of

generalized elemental composition or chemical structure have

the same effect upon exposure.  This assumption is clearly

and scientifically incorrect.  Generic listing is fundamentally

incompatible with the requirement of listing by degree of hazard.

The use of a generic format is a regressive approach which will

result in a waste being denoted as "hazardous" through guilt

by association, rather than as a function of specific properties.



We recommend that classification of wastes be based on degree

of hazard and that classification of facilities be based on

degree of control.
                                                        ua 1876
                                                        SW-813

-------