COPY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY In the Matter of the Hearing on Disposal of HERBICIDE ORANGE Monday, April 28, 1975 San Francisco, Ca. Wm. E. Hendcrscheid & Associates CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES 41 Sutter Street, Suite 312 San Francisco, Calif. S4104 TELEPHONE 433-77M 1121 west California Street mill valley, Calif. 94901 TELEPHONE 383-1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY In the Matter of the Hearing on Disposal of HERBICIDE ORANGE Conference Room A# Second Floor 100 California Street San Francisco, California Monday, April 28, 1975 The abcve-entitied matter came on for hearing at MR. KENNETH BIGLANE, Director of the Division, of 011 and Special Materials Control, EPA, Washington, D.C. DR. JAKE MACKENZIE, Chief, Pesticides Branch, EPA', Region, IX, San Francisco. DR. HENRY ENOS, Director of Equipment and 9:30 o'clock a.m. BEFORE: BRYAN MOLLOY, Chairman PANEL MEMBERS: Techniques Division, Office of Research and Development, EPA Washington, D.C. REPORTED BY: DON BISCHOFF E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 393.1727 ------- 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 Testimony: Mr. Biglane Mr. Rogers Or. MacKenzie Dr. Welch Mr. Boyland INDEX Page* 3 9 12 17 43 E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 493 .7766 MARIN COUh 383 - 1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Good morning. My name 1s Bryan Molloy, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. I would like to open the hearing today on the question of the disposition of Herbicide Orange. 1 would like to Introduce the panel. On my left Is Mr. Kenneth Blglane, Director of the Division of Oil and Special Materials Control of the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. On my Immediate right 1s Dr. Jake Mackenzie, Chief, Pesticides Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 1n San Francisco. And on my far right 1s Dr. Henry Enos, Director of the Equipment and Techniques Division, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. I would like to now recognize Mr. Blglane. Mr. Blglane? KENNETH BIGLANE appeared as a witness and testified as follows: MR. BIGLANE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to Identify for you the operating program for Ocean Dumping. E. HENDERSCHEID Be ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7796 MARIN COUNTY 363-1727 ------- 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 4 As the Chairman stated, I am the D1v1son Director for the Division of 011 and Special Materials Control, and 1t 1s within this group that we have ocean dumping, the ocean dumping program 1n addition to the spill response program, responses to spills of oil and hazardous materials, the Environmental Protection Agency Impact statement for water program operations, the Environmental Protection Agency's Involvement 1n IMCO, which means the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, also has to do with bilateral agreements with Canada and 1n the foreseeable future with Mexico. My purpose 1n bringing these facts to your attention, simply that the Dlvlson 1s Involved rather heavily 1n the ocean, as well as 1n Inland waters. I, additionally, asked for this opportunity to repori to you last week on Mr. Wastler, who.is with us today, Chief of the Marine Protection Branch within the Division, and I received about an hour and a half of very penetrating questions from joint sub-committees of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, 1n Washington on the subject of ocean dumping. This committee, as you know, 1s quite concerned about the practice of ocean dumping 1n this country, and are additionally concerned about the programs which the Environmental Protection Agency conducts, the Coast Guard, . E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY 433 - 7766 363-1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 NOAH, and the Corps of Engineers. As I read the congress' feelings on this, they are quite Interested 1n having as much reprocessing of wastes, conserving of energy 1n this vein, and In addition to being quite concerned about the regulatory aspects of the entire ocean dumping program. Again, my purpose 1n relating this 1s to Indicate that since the passage of the Ocean Dumping Act, this committee has exerted very close observations over the federal agencies that conduct ocean dumping regulatory programs 1n this country, and we receive their message very loud, very clear, and what we do we want to become a matter of detailed public record. And that 1s one of the reasons for this public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Thank you, Mr. Blglane. This 1s the second session of this hearing. The first session was held on Friday 1n Honolulu, and we expect that there will probably be one more session at a later to-be- named location In time. The purpose of the hearing 1s to receive Information on the application of the United States Air Force to dispose of approximately two and one-quarter million gallons of a chemical known as Herbicide Orange, by Incineration at sea. The A1r Force has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a permit pursuant to the Marine E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433.7766 MARIN COUNTY 389-1727 ------- 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 6 Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to burn the material about 120 miles west of Johnston Island 1n the Pacific. The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Information made available by the A1r Force, and other Interested parties, and has made a tentative determination to Issue a research permit to the A1r Force that would allow 4,200 metric tons of the material to be Incinerated 1n the ocean under certain controlled conditions. The conditions as set forth 1n the Environmental Protection Agency's tentative determination are as follows: 1; The incineration will take place within the disposal site, the coordlnants of which are set forth 1n the Summary of the Application. 2. The emission rates will not be 1n excess of one-tenth of one percent of the total. 3. The Herbicide Orange will be removed from the storage drums and loaded on the Incineration vessel 1n such a manner that no TCDD escapes to the environment In measurable quantities, and the process of removal of Herbicide Orange shall employ the best available technology. 4. The drums from which the Herbicide Orange 1s taken will be triple rinsed with solvent prior to disposal or otherwise cleaned to an equal degree by jet rinsing, and the rinses will be added to the wastes to be Incinerated. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 7 5. The carrier will maintain a combustion temperature 1n each Incinerator of at least 1400 degrees Centlgrade. 6. The feed rate of the Herbicide Orange Into the combustion chambers will be as low as possible, and not 1n excess of 12 metric tons per hour for each Incinerator. 7. The applicant and the carrier shall maintain a sealed automatic monitoring device for constant review of the operating temperatures of the Incinerators. 8. The applicant will employ such other monitoring procedures as are requested by the Environmental Protection Agency. A final determination will be made following this, and any subsequent hearings, and the receipt of public comment on the proposal. A major consideration before a permit can, be Issued 1s whether there are any other feasible alternatives to the Incineration. There will be statements made today on this conslderatlon. At the hearing 1n Honolulu on Friday, we heard testimony from the A1r Force on the Incineration Itself, the selection of the site, the monitoring provisions, and the methods of removing the material from the drums. Testimony was also received from representatives of E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 4)3 - 7764 MARIN COUh 389 - 1727 ------- 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 8 Micronesia and environmental groups which tended to oppose the location of the site. Additionally, testimony was received from the owner of the Incinerator vessel, the VULCANUS, and the Marquardt Corporation. Today's hearing will not repeat that testimony. Our proposed method of operating today will be for several opening statements by the Environmental Protection Agency, followed by a statement from the A1r Force, and then opening up the hearing for comments and questions from the floor. The rules of today's hearing are as follows: This 1s an Informal hearing and there will be no cross-examination. Written questions from the floor should:be handed to one of the ladles by the door, and we will try to have all germane questions, the answers to which will be given, depending upon the restraints of time. 2. Everybody should Identify themselves by name and location. 3. The orders of speakers, as far as practical, win be, one, the Introductory remarks by the Environmental Protection Agency, and then the A1r Force presentation, and then we will take comments from any elected officials, federal, state and local government, and followed by federal, state and local agencies, and then groups and finally E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 776C MARIN COUh 383 - 1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 Individuals. If anyone has a time problem, they should make this problem known on the registration card, so we can shift the order, 1f necessary. If possible, we would appreciate 1t If statements were made 1n writing, and then summarized when speaking. We will take a 15-mlnute break at approximately 11:00 o'clock In the morning. A transcript of today's hearing 1s being made. If written statements are available, please give a copy to the court reporter^ and also to the panel, 1f you have that many copies. I would like to now call upon Mr. James Rogers, an attorney with the Office of General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency 1n Washington, O.C., who will summarize the law under which we are working. Mr. Rogers? JAMES ROGERS appeared as a witness and testified as follows: MR. ROGERS: My name 1s J1m Rogers. I am a lawyer with the Office of General Counsel 1n Washington. I would like to very quickly give an outline of the law as the staff used 1t, the law that would be applied 1n this matter. The basic statute under which this hearing 1s held, E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUIS 363 - 1727 ------- 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 and under which a permit would be Issued 1s the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. This Act was passed 1n October of 1972, and amended 1n March of 1974, so as to be consistent with the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter. This 1s the second ocean Incineration matter that has come before the Environmental Protection Agency. The first application was received from the Shell Chemical Company and related to the Organo-Chlorlne wastes generated by the Deer Park, Texas, facility. That application resulted 1n the Env1ronmental Protection Agency's granting two research and one Interim ocean disposal permits. Those permits allowed the incineration of those wastes for roughly three nine-day periods. The reports that have been written by the Shell Chemical Company, and by the Environmental Protection Agency as a result of that experience have been entered Into the record 1n this case. It may be useful for me, quickly, to mention four or five of the criteria that the Act sets out as matters that must be considered by the Environmental Protection Agency before 1t can grant a permit to dispose of matter In the oceans. These criteria are contained 1n Section 102A of the E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7799 MARIN COUNTY 383.1727 ------- 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 11 Act. In that section the Administrator Is required to consider the 'heed for the proposed dumping, the effect of such dumping on human health and welfare, Including economic,, esthetic, and recreational values; the effect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines and beaches. The effect of such dumping on marine ecosystems, particularly with respect to the transfer, concentration and dispersion of such material and Its by- products through biological, physical and chemical processes; potential changes 1n marine ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, and species and community population dynamics.8 As you can see, the Act 1s quite spedf1cs and I think you will also see that the presentation by the Air Force 1n many ways attracts the consideration that Congress has required the Environmental Protection Agency to make before granting an ocean disposal permit. The first Is a need for the ocean dumping, and this leads to the alternatives that may be available to show ocean consideration. One of the considerations, at least, viewed by the staff 1s whether 1t 1s more environmentally compatible to reprocess Herbicide Orange to make usable commercially valuable pesticides. I think you will hear some pertinent testimony by both EPA and the A1r Force on that matter. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 431 . 7766 MARIN COU* 383. 1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 There Is a novel Issue as viewed by the staff, and that Is whether the product of Incineration Is a chemical or biological warfare agent, and 1f so, whether this fact would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from granting a permit. The relevant section.of the Act says: "Except 1n relation to dredged material, as provided for 1n Section 103 of this title, and In relation to radiological, chemical and biological warfare agents, and high-level radioactive waste, for which no permit will be Issued, the Administrator will issue permits . . The staff has made a tentative determination that the very efficient Incineration and destruction of Herbicide Orange on board the VULCANUS would not be In violation of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Thank you, Mr. Rogers. I would like now to ask Dr. Jake MacKenzle to enter Into the record and summarize an Environmental Protection Agency statement on disposal of pesticides and herbicides. I emphasize that Dr. MacKenzle 1s not the author of this document, but he has kindly consented to enter 1t Into the record and has summarized It. Dr. MacKenzle? DR. JAKE MacKENZIE appeared as a witness and testified as follows: E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7796 MARIN COUNTY 389.1727 ------- 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 13 DR. MacKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit this statement for the record of this hearing. I am today representing both Mr. Paul DeFalco, Regional Administrator, Region 9, and Deputy Assistant Administrator Edward Johnson, 0PP8 Washington, D.C. The Environmental Protection Agency's disposal policy for pesticides has been set out formally 1n regulations promulgated under Section 19 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodundlclde Act as amended. This policy statement may be summarized as follows: "In considering disposal techniques, the first preference should be given to procedures designed to recover some useful value from excess pesticides and pesticide containers. "In light of current shortages of critical agricultural chemicals, Including the 24D component of Herbicide Orange, and consistent with the need to conserve an< reuse our natural resources, this policy has been followed with respect to disposal of Herbicide Orange. "To date, the following milestones should be noted: "The first of these milestones concern consideration of the reformulation option. "First of all, manufacturers of Herbicide Orange were not willing to take that material back. "Secondly, the Air Force could not dispose of E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 14 Herbicide Orange by sale to reformulators because, firstly, allowable levels of dloxln would only permit disposal of 30 percent of the stock. "Secondly, reformulation of the remaining 70 percent of the stock, which contained high levels of the dloxln, would present an unacceptable hazard to the public health. "Therefore, 1t was felt that reformulation could not be considered to be a feasible^option. "Having disposed of that option, the next step was to consider reprocessing. "The Office of Pesticides Program was at the time of the decision to consider reprocessing 1n possession of general Information which Indicated that a potential for reprocessing did exist which might destroy dloxln In the process or concentrate 1t Into readily disposable wastes. "Once reprocessing came under consideration, the A1r Force, through the Defense Supply Agency, placed an offering for bids to chemical processors to purchase and conversion of stocks of Herbicide Orange. "At this time, with regards to the reprocessing, there have been three process, descriptions submitted In support of bids. They have been evaluated by the Environ- mental Protection Agency and the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency technical experts. "One process description appears particularly E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7766 MARIN COUNTY 303 - 1727 ------- 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 15 promising. One company proposes to destroy, vla ,a selective chemical technique, the teratogen 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachloro- dlbenzoparadloxln (TCDD) present as a manufacturing impurity In Herbicide Orange. "The company plans, firstly, to hydrolyze the N-butyl esters of 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T, with caustic, to cause the production of 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T salts, and N-butanol. "Separation of the acids from N-butanol will be accomplished by physical methods Involving solvent extraction and distillation. The 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T acids produced will contain less than 50 ppb TCDD, far superior in quality to presently available similar registered herbicide formulations. Spent organic solvents containing less than 50 ppb TCDD will be incinerated 1n an approved Incinerator. Acqueous waste streams containing less than 225 ppt TCDD will be trickled through coconut charcoal, before treated effluent containing no detectlble TCDD (less than 10 ppt) will be pumped to an existing brine disposal well. Spent charcoal slurry will be combined with the spent organic solvent and Incinerated. "In the opinion of the experts above mentioned, the processes do appear promising: 1. In aspects of 24D and 245T recovery, and also as to the satisfactory destruction of the dloxln contaminant. VM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES san Francisco marin county CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS HUH 433 £m SM ,727 DEPOSITION NOTARIES ------- 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 16 "However, there were sufficient questions related to dloxln disposal and to 1n-process destruction to warrant a mandate for pilot studies, and these pilot studies would go up to 150 gallons of the Herbicide Orange per processor. "These studies would consider a confirmation of process claims, study of the effect of scale up on process efficiencies, close evaluation of dloxln destruction and disposal, and finally obtaining an accurate estimate of possible environmental contamination. "Obviously, a key Issue here Is the timing of these pilot studies. "It 1s assumed by the Office of Pesticides Program that a period of six months would be ample to allow collection of such data. "All processors Indicate that upon acceptance of a bid, reprocessing could commence Immediately. "Certain other considerations will have to be reviewed while the pilot studies are 1n process. "First of all, assurance of quality control over the dloxln content of the reprocessed commercial products; secondly, probable levels of dloxln In wastes generated by reprocessing, and, thirdly, consideration of safe handling, transportation, storage and drum disposal associated with the processing of Herbicide Orange; and finally, assuring of proper registration of end use product. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUfs 363 - 1727 ------- 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 17 M5. Recovery of useful value from pesticides 1n a disposal situation must be determined to be unfeasible before non-productive (destructive) means can be considered. "In the case of Herbicide Orange reprocessing to recover useful herblcldal value from the 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T components with concurrent destruction of the teratogenic dloxln contaminating component appear promising. "Pilot plant studies to accurately evaluate the chemical processes Involved 1n reprocessing are required at this time. They probably can be completed 1n six months. "EPA believes the reprocessing aspect 1s worthy of additional serious consideration, and If feasible 1t may well be preferred to ultimate disposal. "It might well, 1n light of current estimates, return 2, 4tD and 2, 4, 5-T to commercial channels with lower dloxln content than that currently manufactured." Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Thank you, Dr. MacKenzle. I would like to now call on Dr. Billy E. Welch, Special Assistant to Environmental Quality to the Secretary of the A1r Force, who will discuss the proposal from the A1r Force's point of view. Dr. Welch? DR. BILLY E. WELCH appeared as a witness and testified as follows: E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383-1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 DR. WELCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ladles and gentlemen. It 1s a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss this particular problem with you. Our approach will not be to present the detailed testimony that was presented 1n Hawaii on Friday, but to summarize this 1n strictly an opening statement. I would like to briefly recount some of the history regarding orange herbicide and summarize Air Force actions relating to disposal of this material 1n order to put this problem Into the proper perspective. First, we should recognize that herbicide orange 1s an equal mixture (50:50'by volume) of two commercially available agricultural products - namely 2,4,D1ch1orophenoxy- acetlc acid and 2»4,5-Tr1chlorophenoxyacet1c acid - or as we commonly refer to them - 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Herbicide Orange consists of what 1s chemically called the normal butyl esters. There are products registered by the EPA for use 1n this country, which contain mixtures of the butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. In general, these products are not as concentrated as Herbicide Orange, but one 1s nearly Identical, In April 1970, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, HEW and the Department of the Interior suspended certain uses of 2,4,5-T. Concurrently, the Department of Defense suspended the use of orange herbicide. As a consequence of VM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES apm SAN paANCISca MABIW COIII>ITV CERT.F.ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS RSgJ SM ,727 DEPOSITION NOTARIES ------- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 the suspension of some uses of 2,4,5-T, the U.S. Air Force, acting as the agent for the Department of Defense, was left with 1.5 million gallons of Herbicide Orange 1n Vietnam and 0.6 million gallons of Herbicide Orange at Gulfport, Mississippi. Following that suspension 1n April 1970, In September 1971, the DOD directed the A1r Force to return this material from Vietnam and to dispose of It In a .safe, efficient manner. Following that particular direction, the A1r Force published a draft environmental statement 1n January 1972, stating that Incineration appeared to be the best way of resolving the problem, and that we had numerous types of studies under way. Due to the fact that these studies were under way and had not yet been completed, 1t was felt that the Impact statement should be held In abeyance until the studies were completed. As a result of that, the material that was stored 1n Vietnam was moved In April 1972 to Johnston Island for storage, pending a final disposal decision. Since that point 1n time, the A1r force has conducted or caused to have conducted or assisted In conducting many studies to look at the various means for disposing of this particular material. The results of these E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 363-1727 ------- » 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 efforts has been documented 1n the environmental statement which 1s a part of our permit application. I will quickly outline these studies for the benefit of those who have not reviewed the statement. We conducted Incineration tests ranging from static tests In the laboratory, to small scale laboratory tests, to drum size tests conducted for the A1r Force at a facility on the West Coast. The results of these studies Indicated that the butyl esters of 2-4-D and 2,4,5-T acids are destroyed between 550-700 degrees Centigrade, and the tetrachlorod1benzo-p-d1ox1n or the TCDD 1s destroyed between 980 and 1000 degrees Centigrade. In addition to the Incineration studies, we looked at the potential for use. This particular material 1s not a registered herbicide; and, for 1t to be utilized, It would have to be registered or reprocessed Into some other material that would be useful. At this point, somewhere 1n mid-1973 to early 1974, when we were looking at this particular problem, 2,4,5-T was considered to be a material that had perhaps a limited lifetime 1n terms of acceptability for use, and Indeed the EPA had planned to hold public hearings 1n June 1974 to evaluate the overall use of 2,4,5-T 1n this country. These public hearings were subsequently cancelled with no decision being reached due to the lack of sufficient Information on which to base decisions. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 433-7766 MARIN COUh 303-1727 ------- 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 21 We looked at deep-well disposal. We looked at the prospect of putting the material in nuclear test cavities, at the prospect of burying it, and at microbial reduction with subsequent destruction of the dioxin. We also looked at the concept of chlorinolysis, which is complete chlorinization of the molecule producing phosgene, carbon tetrachloride and hydrochloric acid. We examined rather extensively the concept of soil biodegradation. This particular concept relates to putting the material.into the soil and allowing the soil micro-organisms to handle the biodegradation of the material, thus breaking it down. We also looked at the question of returning the herbicide to the manufacturers. In March 1972, we contacted the original manufacturers of the herbicide and inquired if they had any interest in the material. We inquired whether they could reprocess it to remove the TCDD and subsequently reuse the herbicide. This created what might be known as a wide wave of disinterest at that particular point in time. Subsequently, in August 1974, following EPA's decision in June 1974, we contacted the manufacturers again with the same type of results. They reported they did not have the capability nor the interest to reprocess the material. Im May 1974, we published a draft environmental impact statement in which we stated that incineration appears VM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO marin county CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS PGiffl M3-77M 3M 1727 DEPOSITION NOTARIES ------- 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 to be the best way of destroying the material. Further, it was stated that incineration at a remote site was preferable to incineration in the Continental United States. Accordingly, we said that incineration on or west of Johnston Island would be preferable. We looked at incin- eration as sea west of Johnston Island as having the least prospect of causing environmental damage. Incineration on Johnston Island is feasible and could be handled by building a facility that would be environmentally acceptable; but this option has the opportunity for potentially greater impact than incineration on the high seas. When we filed the draft environmental impact statement, the EPA position was that incineration on the high seas was not covered by the Ocean Dumping Act. Over 400 copies of the draft environmental impact statement were distributed. An LO-2 rating was given to the EPA. Subsequently, in December 1974, we published the final environmental impact statement. Again, we said that our primary option was incineration on the high seas west of Johnston Island or approximately 970 statute miles west of Hawaii. From the proposed site of incineration downwind, it is approximately 1200 statute miles to the next land mass, which is the Marshall Island group. The usual ocean currents and the wind move from Hawaii to Johnston Island and, thence, away from Johnston Island and from Hawaii. WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 776© MARIN COUNTY 383-1727 ------- 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 23 In the interim, between the filing of the draft and final statements, the EPA reversed their prior position and ruled that incineration on the high seas was within the purview of the Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act. On January 9, 1975, the Air Force requested that the EPA issue a special permit for the incineration of three loads of herbicide orange west of Johnston Island. The EPA on February 19, 1975, conducted a public meeting in Washington D.C., to consider several legal and factual issues that the EPA felt might arise in connection with processing the Air Force application. The issues, which the public was asked to comment upon, were: 1. Whether feasible alternative methods of disposal exist. 2. Whether Herbicide Orange is a "chemical" or "biological warfare agent" within the meaning of the Act, and whether it retains this character following incineration. 3. Whether incineration of Herbicide Orange at high combustion efficiency is compatible with Act, assuming the^ compound is a warfare agent. 4. Whether adequate techniques exist with which to monitor the incineration of Herbicide Orange. 5. Whether incineration is a feasible and environmentally safe means of disposal of Herbicide Orange. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7760 MARIN COUNTY 383-1727 ------- 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 24 6. Whether the disposal site requested by the "Air Force is an appropriate location for incineration of this waste. Approximately 60 persons were present at the public meeting, including representatives of the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Center for Law and Social Policy, which represents the Friends of the Earth and the; National Audubon Society. In regard to the first point concerning feasible alternatives, I have previously enumerated a list of alternatives which we have already studied, A modification of our direct use alternative is presently being evaluated. In November 1974, even before we filed the final environmental impact statement for incineration, we proposed to the EPA a concept of disposal that involves destruction only of the contaminant, dioxin. It was proposed that qualified chemical companies would be requested to submit information outlining how they would chemically modify the herbicide orange to produce another form of 2, 4-d and 2,4,5,-T. In the process of modification, the dioxin would be destroyed or removed. The EPA responded affirmatively in January 1975 and provided a list of companies they felt would be capable of modifying the herbicide and removing the dioxin. The Air Force supplemented the list by once again requesting the original manufacturers to express their interest. A total of 2^4 E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 .7766 MARIN COUNTY 383-1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 solicitations were mailed. Indications of interest have been expressed by some chemical companies. Those that appear to have proposed feasible reprocessing techniques have been requested to demonstrate their techniques on a pilot plant scale. We are actively pursuing this" potential disposal option. The second point concerns whether herbicide orange is a "chemical" or "biological warfare agent" within the meaning of the Act and whether it retains this character following incineration. Within the meaning of the Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act, herbicide orange is a chemical warfare agent. I emphasize within the meaning of that Act. There is specific legislative history indicating that herbicide compounds intended for use in warfare activities are regarded as chemical warfare materials, dumping of which is prohibited. This leads to the third point: Given that herbicide orange cannot be "dumped", is ocean incineration compatible with the Act? We do not consider that the Administrator is barred from issuing a permit for the incin- eration of herbicide orange upon the ocean. Based on our analysis presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and upon the success of the VULCANUS when it incinerated chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico and upon independent analysis of our conclusions, it cannot E. HENDERSCHE1D & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 -77«« MARIN COUNTY 303 - 1727 ------- 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 26 be reasonably anticipated that any constituent of herbicide orange will be detected in the mixing zone of the ocean environment. Monitoring of the incineration of herbicide orange was raised at the public meeting. Monitoring was again raised in the announcement of this public hearing. Our environmental impact statement explained the details of our sampling train and presented data to demonstrate a high recovery efficiency for 2,4-D and 2,4,5,-T. We felt confident that dioxin would be trapped in our benzene impingers if it was present, but we did not present quantitative data to support our contention We have recently completed experiments-to verify the efficiency of recovering dioxin. The sampling train consists of a quartz probe which will be placed through the sampling port on the stacks of the VULCANUS and into the stack exhaust. A 50-foot heated teflon line will carry the sample to our impingers. Based on our experiments, we can say that our train is capable of detecting the presence of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and dioxin in the stack exhaust; tht the teflon line, when properly heated, will transport the constituents from the stack to the benzene impingers; and that the train will essentially pick up 100% of the constituents entering the prob The second point on monitoring regards the marine environment. The notice of the public hearing stated: "The applicant shall also present evidence at the public hearing E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7766 MARIN COUNTY 363.1727 ------- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 as to its capability to monitor for TCDD, 2,4,5,-T and 2,4-D in the immediate marine environment during incineration.n I emphasize "during incineration". There are no instruments that we know of which will allow monitoring the ocean water for these constituents in real time during the incineration. We do have the capability to analytically determine the presence of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and TCDD in a properly collected sample of sea water. We would use a technique comparable to that of the DOW Chemical Company during our analysis. This type of monitoring should not be necessary, as we have demonstrated the efficiency of stack monitoring and will be to detect these constituents and determine that the permit conditions are being complied with. The fifth point as to whether incineration is a feasible and environmentally safe means of disposal has been answered by the studies conducted and reported on in the environmental impact statement process, by the tentative determination of EPA to issue a permit for incineration of a shipload of herbicide orange, and by the support of the environmental groups at the February public meeting. However the point of this hearing is to insure that undisclosed facts do not exist. The Air Force has, of course, already conclude) that incineration on board the VULCANUS is an environmentally acceptable means of disposal. Based on the comments received on our draft environmental impact statement, most reviewers E. HENDERSCHEID a ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 28 have come to the same conclusion. The final point raised for discussion at the public meeting concerned the appropriateness of the selected disposal site. The EPA, in their discussion of the proposed designatio of the site, stated that the proposed site is typical of tropical open ocean areas which are unproductive parts of the oceans. They also drew a comparison with the Gulf of Mexico site previously used by the VULCANUS, for which it was concluded that incineration was found to have no impact on the marine environment. We have once again reviewed a number of references, including information obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Environmental Data Service and from NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. This review indicated that the information presented in the environmental impact statement is correct and that the productivity of the general area is low. We know of no reason why such an area would not be suitable for ocean incineration. These comments of the State of Hawaii, along with others, were_included and addressed in our final environmental impact statement filed in December 1974. We distributed over 200 copies of the final environmental impact statement. My point in mentioning this is to indicate to you M. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS Ru*] MARIN COUNTY DEPOSITION NOTARIES KB 433 - 7766 383 - 1727 ------- 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 29 Ithat this particular public hearing we are having today iB not to discuss a problem that just surfaced, not to discuss something that the public ha3 not had an opportunity to be interested in or had an opportunity to comment on. It is our contention that we have documented the environmental problems relating to this particular situation and that these environmental problems are the same whether a permit is required or whether one is not. In the announcement of this hearing, there were a number of points addressed which are expected to be permit requirements. Each of these will be mentioned and commented upon. Incineration will take place in the designated disposal area. When a permit to incinerate herbicide orange at sea is issued, we will stipulate, in any contract we negotiate for ocean incineration, that incineration will occur within the designated boundaries. The emission rates of TCDD, 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T will not be in excess of 0.1% of the total amount of the respective constituents in the herbicide orange waste. This is also a situation which bears discussion. While we are confident the research burn will demonstrate tha : the above limits can be achieved—what if it does not? Of what significance would it be? Let me run over a few figures, Our herbicide has an average concentration of 2 ppm of dioxin. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 776C MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 30 For our some 24,000,000 pounds of herbicide, we calculate that about 48 pounds of dioxin is to be incinerated. In complying with the conditions I mentioned previously, no more than 0.1% emission is allowed. Thus, a total of 0.048 pounds of dioxin will be emitted during our total time of burn over an area of about 66 by 138 statute miles or 9117 square miles or 5,834,861 acres. If this dioxin were spread over the entire burn area, an application rate of about 8.2 X 10~® pounds of dioxin per acre would result or about four micrograms per acre. Now assume in standard weed control work that about two pounds of herbicide are applied per acre and that the dioxin concentration is 0.1 ppm, which is the current EPA criteria. Calculation will result in a figure of about 90 micrograms per acre. Our dioxin will be depositee in the middle of the Pacific, in an area known to be unproduct We can place only four micrograms of dioxin per acre due to incineration; but, in standard agricultural practice, an amount more than 20 times as much (90 micrograms) would be allowed on the land areas of the United States. The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, in a report on phenoxy herbicides, said that—and I quote—"The amount of TCDD distributed in the United States in 2,4,5-T is probably no more than eight ounces annually. This material is distributed over approximately; five million acreas at a rate of about 50 micrograms per acre...". Again we see tha : . E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 31 the permit restrictions will limit only the amound deposited on an unproductive area to only four micrograms. Here again, my point is that, while we will comply with the 0.1% requirement, we should be aware that more dioxin is allowed to put on the ground in the U.S. than we will be putting into the Pacific Ocean. And of course, if the burn area were larg< the amount per acre would be even less, I believe the next point regarding removing the orange from the drums and loading of the vessel in a safe manner has been covered, as has the requirment to rinse the drums. We will have spill prevention control measures, absorbent material in the event of a spill, curbs to prevent run off and specially designed facilities for de-drumming and rinsing. These permit requirements will be no problem and have already been incorporated in our planning documents. Drums will be rinsed with a pressure spray of diesel oil and will be burned. The carrier will) maintain a combustion temperature in each Incinerator of at least 1400 degrees Centigrade. The controls available on the ship were listed in the impact statement. We stated in our permit application thatrelectric waste pumps will not operate to feed herbicide on to the incinerator 'burners of that combustion chamber in which the temperature falls below 1400 degrees C. If such a situation occurs, the incinerator malfunction is corrected, and the E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 303 - 1727 ------- 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 32 combustion chamber temperature is returned to above 1400 degre C with conventional fuel before any herbicide is reintroduced. Alsoithe burners for a particular incinerator are automaticall shut down if any of the following conditions fall below preset levels: the air feed pressure to a burner, the herbicid feed rate to a burner, and the flame intensity of the burner. Also, operational controls and monitoring panels are manned at all times by an engineer whose sole ship responsibility is operating and maintaining the incinerator system at the desired combustion parameters. Thus, we do not foresee this as a problem, and we will comply. The feed rate will not exceed.12 metric tons per hour for each incinerator. We will comply with this require- ment and do not anticipate any^ difficulty in so doing. The feed rate can be set and monitored. A sealed automatic monitoring device.for constant review of the operating temperatures of the incinerator;— this presents no problem. The VULCANUS has this type of equipment installed, and its use will be required. The applicant will employ such other monitoring procedures as are requested by the Environmental Protection Agency. While this is generally acceptable, the words are far ranging. We assume the EPA does not intend to require monitoring, which past experience or analysis of available data would indicate is unnecessary. . E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY 433-7766 383.1727 ------- 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 " 31 If this material was not called herbicide orange Or Agent Orange, as so many term it, it would have either been used or destroyed by this time. Herbicide Orange carries with it an emotional connotation of something bad or sinister. There are good groups who do not want the material used at all-~who would prefer that it be destroyed—and the sooner the better. Nothing is assured concerning herbicide orange, except perhaps controversy. I believe we have laid out for consideration a very credible argument which should be sufficient to warrant the issuance of a research permit. We do have a problem in storeage of this material. It does cost money to maintain it. The material that is stored on Johnston Island is stored as it was received, in 55-gallon drums, but it is open storage. Johnston Island is roughly 600 to 650 acres in total area, with an average height of less than eight feet above sea level. So it is a fairly corrosive environment, and we have a major effort to maintain the integrity of the drums. During the past year (April-April) we spent about $140,000 to remove the herbicide from leaking and unsound drums and place it in sound containers. As the storage time continues and increases, the integrity of the drums will continue to degrade Salt spray and the age of the drums continue to be a problem. In order to preclude continued redrumming, continue E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 .7766 MARIN COUNTY 383-1727 ------- 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 34 utilization of money for the redrumming efforts, it is our desire and our charter, we think, to dispose of the problem in one way or the other: either by reprocessing into products that can be used or by destroying the material in terms of incineration, either on the high seas or on Johnston Island. Our position has been laid out in the Environmental Impact Statement. It is there for anyone to study, if they so care to; and we think that the solutions are fairly self-evident. We see the need to reach a conclusion on the option of re- processing. At the time the ocean incineration technique came tc our attention, reprocessing alternatives seemed technically and legally infeasible. We have always recognized that alternatives that returned the material'to legal and producti\ use, hopefully with a net .return to the-DOD, were preferable if the problems could be overcome. In recent weeks, there has been some progress in this area. Technical proposals received by the Defense Supply Agency, surplus property sales agent for the DOD, appear on paper to be potentially feasible, based on largely experimental data. The proposers have been requested to demonstrate their, techniques on a pilol plant scale and on an expedited basis. There "are many questions—technical, legal, economi< and political—to be explored with respect to reprocessing. At the moment, we cannot say whether all or any of the materi< tM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES EMI .... .. „ CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS Mud 43? 7»«i l« ,«TV DEPOSITION NOTARIES 383-1727 ------- 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 35 can be reprocessed. We recognize that, under the tentative decision, we have the burden of demonstrating that there are no technically feasible and; environmentally sound land-based alternatives to ocean incineration. To allow sufficient time for this information to become available, we are asking that the hearings be adjourned temporarily after the San Francisco session, to be convened in Washington, D.C., within ten days of a request by the applicant. We will make this request as soon as there is sufficient data to demonstrate the feasibility, or lack of it, of reprocessing some or all of the herbicide. We do not expect this to be too long a period hopefully no more than ninety days. Let me underline that th< Air Force is most anxious to proceed with disposal of this material in an environmentally acceptable manner at the earlL possible date. We understand that.the 180-day decision period will be suspended until the third hearing is held. This concludes the Air Force presentation. We will pursue this some vigor in an attempt to bring this matter to a head so that disposal either by destruction or by reuse can become a reality and this matter resolved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MOLLOYt Thank you very much, Doctor Welch, I had a few questions. I realize that some or all of these points are E. HENDERSCHEIO Be ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 439 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 389 - 1727 ------- 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 _ probably covered very well in the EIS or other documents that are on the record, that is the environmental impact statement/ but I wonder if you would, either you or members of the Air Force team try to answer them today. The first question is: How long will it take you to analyze the samples and get the results from the monitoring program on the vessel if you go to ocean incineration? That is from the time you take the samples from the vessel to the time you get a result? DR. WELCH: Our concept and approach to monitoring the stack gases of the VULCANUS would be to sample approximate three times per day, gather the sample in the collection train that we have discussed, keep the sample on board the VULCANUS until the termination of that shipload of material, take the sample at Johnston Island, concentrate it down, move it by air to our laboratory, environmental health laboratory at Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas. So depending upon whether you are talking about the first sample that was taken at the start of the burn, or the last sample, it would be roughly a nine-day period, there. Following that last sample, we would anticipate that it would be something in the order of maybe five days per data. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Dp you know the total time frame E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 * 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 37 that we are discussing here from the time that the vessel would pick up the material in Gulfport, take it to the Pacific, incinerate all the material, and then return to Johnston Island? Do you have a feeling for the total time? DR. WELCH; Well, are you alluding now to the entire 2.3 million gallons? CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Yes. DR. WELCH: Roughly 27 days of burn time and then the steaming time from Gulfport to Johnston Island— MR. MERRILL; It will take about 90 days. DR. WELCH: A total of 90 days, is the estimate. We can break that down for you. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: No. That is fine. Could you indicate any potential problems that you see that if instead of burning one third of the material, roughly, on the initial burn, you burn, say, only ten percent of it, and then analyze the sample to determine whether or not you were getting the efficiency you had anticipated, and then, either, assuming it was acceptable, then continuing the burn? Can you anticipate any problems from that approach/ DR. WELCH: Well, if you approach it in the context of our permit application, which speaks to incineration of the material west of Johnston Island, which is west of Hawaii and I presume, from San Francisco nobody knows where Hawaii ii It is a long ways away. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 • 7766 MARIN COUNTY 363 - 1727 ------- 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 38 Our concept was that the vessel which is based in Holland, would call at Gulfport, Mississippi, load the materie that is stored there, steam to Johnston Island, destroy that load, and then load up approximately 2 more loads, which woulc take care of the products stored on Johnston Island. Now, if she called at Gulfport, and picked up 10 percent — CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: No. I would anticipate they woulc pick all of it up and only burn 10 percent or so. DR. WELCH: That might be a possible thing to do, though my logestician friends tell me that you don't load something iip if you don't know where you are going to put it down. We have not given a great deal of thought to that due to the distances involved. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Finally, again, I know, though it is in the Environmental Impact Statement, could you outline some of the pros and cons that you found of the onland incineration versus the incineration in the ocean? DR. WELCH: Yes. We looked at the question of on- land incineration and most of the — initially, we had hoped that a commercial incinerator in the business of destroying commercial waste could be contracted to do this particular job for us. It appears that those companies are located in rath« VM. E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES REftl SAN PRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS |U^ 433-7768 383-1727 DEPOSITION NOTARIES ------- 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 39 congested areas, and this raises certain concerns about safety and this type of thing, bringing it into a given area like that. WS also express some concern that ,if the incineratio were not very very good, on the order of 99.9 or greater, that you conceiveably could get herbicide damage due to some very sensitive plant material that could be growing. For example, we looked at one place as a potential to do a test, and we looked around there and there was tomatoe plants and bean plants and things like that, which said to us that that would not be the best place to either do a test burn or to do that type of thing, since plant material would be sensitive to it. And that combined with the emotional aspects of "don't try it in here and do it somewhere else, but don't do it where I live", or something like this, led us to believe that the best way of resolving the problem was to do it in a remote area. After all, if one was available, and the ocean-goinc incineration concept does give you a remote area in which to do the job, then why not take advantage of it? CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: What about the proposals that burn it on land at Johnston Island? DR, WELCH: Well, we considered Johnston Island to be a remote area, initially, to begin with, point one, and E. HENDERSCHEID Bt ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 .7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 40 point two, it .has no civilian population as such there. It is strictly a contract operation. It is a U. S.-owned island. So you know it is an industrial site,' so it could be done there. The herbicide is stored at the downwind portion of the island. So you would have little difficulty or little problems with controlling the plume back up over the populated area. And due to the fact that we are downwind, we would not anticipate that it would have any adverse impact on the plant material that is there. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: So that is still an open option. Is that correct? You are still considering that or do you feel the ocean incineration is better? DR. WELCH: Well, our analyses indicated that the potential for environmental impact was less in ocean considers than on the island. Number one, you've got a lagoon that is there that is reasonably productive in terms of sea life, said, number two, right off of the end of the island where the herbicide is stored, and where the incineration would take place, there is a restructure there that some of our technical advisors felt that could be adversely affected by the continuous hydro- chloric acid plume encountering the water at that particular spot, since it would be a stationary incinerator, and it turno E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 41 out that it would be an area that we would predict not a significantly high, but the highest concentration of hydro- chloric acid to hit the water at that point. So we felt, plus it is a small island, so it is roughly a square mile, 640 acres, and the approach that we looked at with the Marquardt Corporation, for example, using a number of their sudden expansion burners ganging together would be fairly noisy, and this would be something going on continuously without a lot of room getting away from us. So we just felt it was better all around to do it on the high seas. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Thank you. Any other questions from the panel? Mr. Rogers? No? Thank you. At this time I would like to enter into the record a letter dated April 23, 1975, addressed to Mr. Paul DeFalco, Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, California. It is from Mr. Kenneth S. Camlet, Counsel to the National Wildlife Administration. Mr. Camlet discusses the alternative of reprocessinc the herbicide orange, and sets out several considerations that he believes are important and should be considered by the Environmental Protection Agency before any decision is made. He then states that "if the indicated steps and E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES , CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 precautions are taken by the Environmental Protection Agency, it is possible that reprocessing and reuse of the Agent Orange can be carried out safely. While we would not endorse, we would not opposo this course of action under tho3© circun^stances. On the other hand, w© could endorse ocean incineration carried out in the scanner we have previously suggested as environmentally sound." Ha then finally suggests that, "unless the Environmental Protection Agency decides that the risk of reprocessing are unacceptably great, a course it should consider seriously, it might b© appropriate to recess the Konolulu-San Francisco hearings until pilot plant testing can be completed on the reprocessing alternative." Appended to Mr. Camlet's letter are the positions taken by the National Wildlife Federation previously on the proposal to incinerate herbicide orange." I have only person who has indicated a desire to speak today. If there ..are any others, please fill out on© of the registration cards. The one person who has indicated he would like to spealc is Mr. J. L. Eoyland, Deputy General Manager Environment Systems Division, of the Marquardt Corporation. Kit. Boyland? E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES on 5AN FRANCISCO 433 . 776C MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 .13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 MR. BOYLAND: Do you wish to go into that now or are you going to Bake the same presentation that you mads in Hawaii? CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Wo. VJg are not. We have just completed our presentation, and so you are the only person who has indicated he would like to speak. PRESENTATION BY MR. JAMES L. BOYL&ND, Deputy General Manager, Environmental Systems Division Marquardt Corporation MR. BOYLANDi My name is James L. Soyland, X am Deputy General Manager of the Environmental SystemsqDivision of the Marquardt Corporation. We are the company that did the pilot incineration work for the Air Force to establish parameters. Our statement was read and presented into the record, and so I am going to hit only the key points o£ that statexaent, and will not go through it again. Part of your comments are incorporated into the comments section on the Environmental Impact Statement. Basically, which has not come up in this meeting, is that our burner ia not a typical commercial incinerator. It works on a different principle, but it is a cosmarcial unit that is in use today, but it does satisfy the terms of1 the ircpact statement, in that it is a commercial incinerator,. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUN 383 - 1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 Zt was mentioned, the governor°e representative made a statement in Hawaii„ that he would like the ineinerati process to be scrubbed„ Our aysteia can incorporate a scrubber if it is mounted on Johnston Island. Dra Welch commented about the noise application of th® land-based unite I would point out that such a unit is mounted on a pink bake oven in th® Ford Motor Company at Louisville« Kentucky and operates within the noise limits0 Z believe that our section in th© report dealing with noise was on&tted from the appendix report in the Environmental Impact Statement; but I think you will find that it falls within the guidelineso It will be acceptable from a noise level, BAsically, our position on the incineration on the VULCANUS „ is simply thiss we have no position at this point asi.to whether it is a good or bad idea* Our only statement is that the burn be limited to a reasonable amount of material that will allow the testing to be completed before a complete shipload is incinerated. Dr. welch mentioned this ntoming it would take about 9 dayso We constant®d in our published statement that one tank, either the smallest to the largest; be used for a trial purpose, and that is all that would be loaded on the E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7789 MARIN COUNTY 383.1727 ------- 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 45 ship until the results are known. Xf the unit does check out to be 99.9 percent efficient, or whatever acceptable limit? then we have no objections» It was stated earlier in the EPA meeting that the ship cannot be off-loaded, therefore to take on a whole load and then run a small test* If you find out that it didn't work as well, you then have a problem; in fact, you have a shipload of material. 1 do not have any further comments at this point to make. I thank you for this opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Thank you, Dr» Boyland. Are there any questions from the panel? Yes, Or. Enos? DIU.ENQSs In evaluating a system like the VULCANU3, our concern, of course, has been primarily focused onr the TCDD emissions, because this represents one of the snost tonic organic synthetic compounds man has ever produced. And in so doing, and considering the temperature requirements for complete destruction of that particular molecule, we have spent a good deal of time concerning our- selves with the* efficiency of collecting the vapors of the material from'the is tacks. Do you have any other suggestions relative to the monitoring of the stacks or would you be satisfied with data E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7706 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 which addressed that particular compound along with the 24 D or the 245 T? MRo BOYLAND: Z think if the similar testa were run as well as the ones that were run on our unit* the data would be approved and that would be it. DRo BNOSs Thank you0 CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Any other questions from the panel staff? Thank you, Mr« Boyland0 I guess there arc no further questionsa we have no e©re cards indicating people desiring to speako Are there any poiopl© here today who would like to speak? MR. HERZj Is it possible sinply to direct a few questions to the people who have spoken today? CHAXR^tK MOLLOY: I guess so, if they are not too complicated« Could you go to the podiuxn? Identify yourself; please, and go to one of the microphoneso MRo HERZs Ky name is Mike Hers. I am from the San Francisco Say Chapter of the Oceanic Society. In our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact.Statement, w© raised a couple of points» Not having heard what went on in Hawaii, I am not VM. E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES HfEnS san Francisco marin county CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS W 433.7766 383.1727 DEPOSITION NOTARIES ------- 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 47 sura what of these were covered, but I would like to raise them hero. They have to do with the possible difficulties and accidents involved in the transferring of the materials Particularly, in terms of the reprocessing alternati in tems of moving large amounts of materials across various states, moving than for example, moving some of the material from Johnston l3land where the largest portion is stored, to this country. I think the incineration alternative involves the smallest number of moves, and as the Mr Force representative already Indicated, the containers that are sitting on Johnston Island, and Z would assume those in Gulfport too, although to a lesser extent, are corroding away as the/ bureaucracy moves slowly towards solving this problem. X really see one of the big problems, in addition to the ones discussed in great detail, having to do with the components, the very simple mechanical problems of moving these things around from one location to another, or one set of containers to another, and if it ever comes to the point of moving it to a reprocessing plant in this country, the problems of moving it by train, truck, what have you, across the country, and the amount otopposition that I am sure would be encountered by all the state and local governments involved, whose territory was being covered. E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 .7766 MARIN COUh 38).1727 ------- 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 I wonder if some of the members of the panel could address themselves to these issues» Thank you. CHAIRMAN MOLLQY: Dr. Welch? Can anyone from the Air Force discuss that? DRo WELCHs Well, in thinking, in thinking over the rather broad number of issues that you have raised, I think we can not give you a hard and fast detailed plan today, that would be a 1, 2, 3, 4-type thing, that somebody could look at and says "you covered the whole thing". I think we have looked at the requirement for being alert to and attempting to control spills from the point of view of the de-drumming area, the point of view of the movement of the material from its storage site to a vessel for subsequent incineration. We have not given it yet as much thought to the problems of transporting the material to a reprocessing site, since, A«, a reprocessing site has not been as yet identified. It could be inland, and it could be on the coast, so it is kind of difficult to say what we would do. Mr. Merrill, sitting to my right here, is in the logistics business, and he assures me that we are going to have an argux&ent if we try to push him to move the material in ooae of the present containers, because he doesn't feel E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7766 MARIN COUNTY 363 -1727 ------- 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 49 that th© containers are sufficiently sound, and that if the material is moved to reprocessing, and moved in druiss to reprocessing sites, we will have to do a significant amount of redruraraing to put tho material into sound containers before it happens. (Continued on the following page) E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 50 Ultimately. It would be to redrum 1t and ship It in bulk, either by boat or by rail, depending upon where the sites might be. So we are not unmindful of the problem, but there Is sufficient unknowns that I think the only thing we can say is that we are aware of It. CHAIRMAN MOLLQY: I am also going to ask Or. MacKenzle to outline some of the considerations that would go Into the reprocessing alternative. Or. MacKenzle? OR. fMCKENZIE: Yes. fir. Herz, I will try to give you a very short bureaucratic answer to your question. We do recognize 1n the Environmental Protection Agency that consideration of the safe handling, storage, drum disposal and other potential dangers associated with the reprocessing option do exist, and recognize this In our policy statement, that as the material would be looked at 1n the pilot stage 1n terms of the actual reprocessing Itself, that there would also have to be a consideration of these problems, and that adequate safeguards must be apparent before the reprocessing could be given the final approval. I don't think we could say any more to that at this time, any more than Dr. Welch or his team could, but they certainly would be given full consideration. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Mr. Braun, I see you there, and we have some questions on technical operation of the E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 363 - 1727 ------- 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 VULCANUS. While we can't require you to answer them, 1t would be helpful 1f you would agree to try to answer them anyway. Would you go to a microphone? MR. BRAUM: My name Is Manfred Braun, and I am with the owners of the VULCAilUS. CHAIRMAN MQLLOY: There are six questions and a couple of subquestlons. Be ready. MR. BRAUN: Okay. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: There are three burners per Incinerator: Is there any control that monitors each burner and will cause corrective action If one burner flames out. I.e.. Is there an Independent flame sensor for each burner, a total of six? MR. BRAUN: I think. 1f you'll ,Just excuse me for a minute. Captain Vogt, he 1s the-technical director of the company 1n Rotterdam, and he 1s a Master Marine, and he has been running the ship temporarily. I think he would be better qualified to answer that. (Remarks soto voce between Mr. Braun and Captain Vogt) MR. BRAUM: Okay. Each burner has an Individual acoustic and optical alarm that shuts off the particular E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 493 - 77C6 MARIN COUNTY SB).1727 ------- 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 5 2 burner 1f either the temperature falls below the required preset level, or If the flame goes out. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Question number two. CAh the main chamber continue operation on two of the three burners, and If yes, what Is the effect on system efficiency? (Remarks soto voce between Mr. Braun and Captain Vogt) MR. 3RAUH: Well, the incinerators can continue operating with only two burners, yas, but this 1s generally not done. The efficiency will suffer and the temperature 1n the Incinerator will gradually decline, so 1t Is preferable to work with three burners at a titne in one incinerator. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: What do you do whan that occurs?. (Remarks soto voce between Mr. Braun and Captain Vogt) HR. BRAUN: When that occurs? If that occurs, then all the three burners are being shut off, and the problem Is rectified on whichever burner has a problem, and If the temperature has fallen by then, it will be raised again with diesel Oil or gas oil or when the preset level, gas level, Is reached, then all the three burners will start operating again. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: The next question Is: chamber E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- 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 53 (oven) temperature 1s mentioned by means of a thermo couple In the exhaust. (a) What 1s the response time of the Instruments? (Remarks soto voce between Mr. Broun and Captain Vogt) MR. 3RAUN: 1 don't think we quite understood your question. Do you mean the time between -- from — the thermo couples, the time that the thermo couples need to transfer the data Into that black box that reads the temperature? CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: I would assume the question Is, How long is 1t before the temperature drops below 14Q0 degrees? Ooes It take until the thermo couple registers the reduction 1n temperature and shuts down the operation? HR. BRAUN: Well, that 1s Immediately. If the temperature drops below 1400 degrees, 1t 1s shut off Immediately. OR. ENOS: What the gentleman's question 1s trying to get at Is what 1s the lac; time. The thermo couples are embedded a few centimeters into the wall, and there is a lag time. It says amissions. I assume he doesn't really mean a thermo couple up at the stacks, but really the thermo couple that controls Is down 1n the box itself, right, 1n the central portion of the Incinerator? HR. BRAUN: In the Incinerator wall. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 776C MARIN COUN 383-172? ------- 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 5 4 OR. ENOS: And It Is a few centimeters back. What 1s the lag time before that would sense the temperature dropping Inside the Incinerator, you know* below the 1100 degree mark? (Remarks soto voce between Mr. 8raun and Captain Vogt) HR. 8RAUN: Okay. I think we got It now. The thermo couples are set 1n the wall, as we said, about one centimeter inside from the inner surface of the wall, and there is, of course, a difference in temperature anyway between that particular location where the thermo couple Is 1n the wall, and the center of the fireball In the Incinerator, and the difference Is approximately 200 degrees. So whan you have a temperature of 1400 degrees In the center of the fireball, you would only have 1200 degrees that 1s physically shown through the thermo couples because of that difference. And when that falls below the 1200 1n that case, that the thermo couple shows, It would shut off so there Is no lag time. Because the temperature measured In the wall 1s less than what Is in the flroball. CHAIRMAN MOLLQY: The next half of that question Is, does a drop 1n chamber (oven) temperature activate an automatic control system that Introduces clean fuel Into the chamber for a purge cycle? E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN FRANCISCO 439 - 7766 HARIN COUh 363 - 1727 ------- 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 5 5 (Remarks soto voce between Mr. Braun and Captain Vogt) MR. BRAUM: Ho. When 1t Is shut off, nothing is Injected Into the chambers, nothing at all, only air. A1r 1s continued to bo blown into the Incinerators 1n order to cool the cups which would otherwise bum out because of the temperature. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: The next question there 1s: What actions are taken and how fast If a temperature drop Is experienced? That 1s» the Herbicide Orange 1s stopped from entering the system, and air Is Introduced? Is that the entire sequence of events? MR. 8RAUN: No. What happens 1s that all three burners shut off thermostatically, and no herbicide or other waste that Is being burned Is being Injected through the burners, except air, and that 1s only to retain the cooling of the rotating cups 1n order to keep thera from burning. So, 1n other words, nothing goes through the burner and the burners are being opened then, whichever has a prob- lem, If that occurs, and that is rectified. CHAIRHAN M01L0Y: Haste material feed lines to the incinerator are subject to plugging. What-1s the history of feed line plugging during operations, and what is the correc- tive actions taken? E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 493 • 7706 MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 & (Remarks soto voce between Mr. Sraun and Captain Vogt) MR. SRAUN: Wall, there have been only two occurren- ces, and one, as you know, was 1n the Gulf of Mexico, when we did this burn for Shell. The other one was In Europe, which was simply a clogging that did not have to be opened, and when that occurred, and the burner was shut off, the material 1n the line was pumped back Into the holding tank, and was then pumped again Into the Incinerator In the direction of the burner, and It cleared Itself. The second occurrence was In the Gulf of Mexico, which was a little eiore difficult because a previous material that was burned 1n Holland did not -- was not quite 1n accordance with the constituents which were given to us before. It has hardened 1n the lines, and had completely clogged one of the lines. It had turned Into a tar-11ke material* So what we had to do, we lost, I think, two days In the Shell burn. We had to open and replace lines which was done on the ocean, an< those lines were replaced, and then the operation was con- tinued. Those were the only two occurrences that we had. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: When that occurred, did you have E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIE8 SAN PRANCISCO 433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 983.1727 ------- 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 57 any of the waste material Incinerated, at a lower temperature? MR. BRAUN: None at alii CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: The next question 1s: Is the ship underway at all times during normal Incineration operations? MR. BRAUN: Hot at all times. She normally Is, which depends on the wind condition. What the ship tries to do 1s stay out of the plume, and 1f there 1s no wind at all, the ship has to move at a speed of about two, three, four knots, 1n order to keep out of the plume, but If there Is a strong headwind, then 1t happens that she moves on the stand spot or sits on the same spot without moving. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: The last question 1s: If the ship lies dead In the water and utilizes the wind to carry the plume away from the ship, what 1s the effect on the ocean of concentrated absorption of emission products, and was any monitoring and water sampling conducted when the ship was burning and not underway at all? I don't think you have to try to answer the questlo of what are the effects on the water, but do you know of any monitoring that was done? (Remarks soto voce between Mr. Braun and Captain Vogt) HR. BRAUH: I believe that what we had submitted In E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO . '433 - 7766 MARIN COUNTY 383•1727 ------- 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 58 the record 1n Hawaii would show that. I do not recall that the monitoring that was done was done while the ship did not move or whether It was done only while the ship moved. On three occasions we have done monitoring, one which was done on the Gulf of Mexico, and the other two by the Outch Government, and the Government of France. Do you know? (Mr. Braun directs this question to Captain Vogt) MR. BRAUN: Yes. I understand that on one occasion the ship was evan anchored, so she was at a standstill when the monitoring was done 1n Europe. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: And those are available In the record, the French and Dutch reports, I believe, that were put Into the record In Honolulu. Thank you» Mr. Braun. There are no further question Again, we have no further Indication -- I hold that. These look like A1r Force questions. I will just read thera out, Or. Welch, and you can pick somebody who can answer thew. 1. Has there been an energy Impact analysis done for the various methods of disposal (Including energy to produce an equivalent amount of 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T If the burning option Is chosen)? DR. WELCH: No. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 -776C MARIN COUNTY 383 - 1727 ------- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 P CHAIRMAN MOllOY: Number two has a comparative economic study bean completed for each disposal option? If so, could a general description bo given? DR. WELCH: Yes. A comparative* an overall comparative economic analysis has been roade,. Lot na say that we prefer not to get Involved 1n a detailed discussion of economics, inasmuch as the ultimate means of disposal of this material has not been decided upon, contracts have not been signed, and It 1s a rather ticklish position to operate In a completely open environment when you are still at the mercy of the bottom line on the contract. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: I take 1t» you have not entered Into any contracts whatsoever, for ultimate disposal of the material? OR. WELCH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Question number three. Do you have a feeling or Idea why commercial raprocessors have taken so long to become interested 1n the reprocessing option, or 1s there any new technology around? DR. WELCH: To answer that would be very obvious. I wouldn't put a dime Into trying to figure out how to use 2, 4, 5T a year ago, when the Environmental Protection Agency might be putting It off the market completely. CHAIRMAN HQLLOY: The last question 1s not E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 .7766 MARIN COU1S 303-1727 ------- 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 6 0 addressed to the Air Force. And maybe Or. Enos, you can take a stab at this one. 4. What was monitoring used for Shell 011 burning? What 1s proposed for monitoring of Johnston Island burn? Are they essentially the same or how do they compare? DR. ENOS: The Shell burn monitoring program breaks down Into two categories: The monitoring that we attempted' to pursue 1n the first sailing of the VULCANUSi which was only moderately successful, and the monitoring program which Involved the second sailing of the VULCANUS, which, I thought, was very successfuli The monitoring categories that one has to consider 1s, first, the monitoring of the tnarlne environment, and, secondly, the operational monitoring aboard the vessel, which Is essentially the observer on the ship during the burn, and, third, the monitoring of the stack gases. If anyone 1s Interested In the breakdown of the marine monitoring, I would ask Or. Hastier to address that particular point. I will discuss Just briefly the kinds of monitoring that we put Into operation, and requested Shell to carry out during both the first and second burn. On a relatively short notice, for a lot of reasons I won't go Into, we find ourselves having to address ourselve WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433-7766 MARIN COUN 363 - 1727 ------- 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 6 1 to the question of monitoring In an extremely hostile environment. I would point out that monitoring In this kind of environment has never been carried out before, even with a reasonable period of time to consider the problems. Shell Chemical attempted to run a line from the sample port to one of the stacks in the Incinerator, Into the side port of the vessel, and worked out an extensive aionitorlng train which was capable of handling the hydro- chloric add, measuring the carbon monoxide level and measuring the hydrocarbon emissions. In addition, they had a sample 1mp1nger train,which was designed to trap for subsequent analysis any organo- chlorlne emissions from the stack. The backup equipment that should have been availa- ble for this kind of operation was not, 1n fact, available. And the scrubbing devices and the heated lines, and so forth, that one would associate with monitoring activities of this kind were marginal at best. When the vessel went out for the second burn, they had themselves fairly well organized. The had a glass Insert for the stack emission sample, they had heated lines. In addition to that, in the laboratory, and again, on board the vessel, they evaluated the sampling line in E. HENDERSCHEID Si ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 . 7706 MARIN COUNTY 363.1727 ------- 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 62 terms of Its ability to transmit the organo-chlorlne wastes of the kind they were burning to the Implngers. The efficiency of this operation varied between 70 and 90 percent. In addition, they had duplicate Instruments for measuring carbon monoxide on a continuous basis, they had Implngers for trapping the hydrochloric acid vapors. The samples for the orgaho-chlorlne analysis had to be analyzed subsequent to the burn, and they were analyzed back in the laboratory. Shell has Indicated In its own reportwh1 ch 1s a matter of record 1n this proceeding, as appendix A to the Environmental Protection Agency's summary of Its experi- ences 1n raonitorlng around the VUICANUS on the two research permits, Shell has pointed out the extreme problems Involved and has summarized this information, and I think 1n an admirable fashion, so that 1t once and for ell documents the kinds of problems and how one approaches them 1n this situa- tion. Trading on these experiences* we have worked with the technical people that the airport has indicated would be involved In the stack monitoring, -Mr. Gokelman and Mr. Rodriguez, and my own background 1s 1n specified residue analysis and dloxine analysis 1s not unfamiliar to me. We have devised a system which has since been E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 - 7760 MARIN COUK 383.1727 ------- 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 tested by the Air Force for determining and trapping TCDD which 1s the compound I an primarily Interested In: the 2, 40 and 2, 4, 5T would automatically fall 1n place because If you road the Environmental Impact Statement, you will note that that sampling train has already been evaluated for those two compounds. There was a paucity of data on TCDD, I think, none in the Environmental Impact Statement, but I knew that some was available for that particular sampling train. The uncertainty was whether or not the TCDD could be transmitted successfully from the sampling port Incinera- tor to the sampling train. Laboratory experiments which are documented in this hearing by the Air Force, indicate that even at a lower stack gas emission temperature than they would actually be experi- encing 1n the field, they wore able successfully to transmit the TCDD down the 41 feet of teflon tubing into the 1a»p1nger. If someone would like toask further questions, I will be glad to expand, but most of the Information that I can give at this point In t1r,ie is in the record. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: I would like to point out that th Envlronmental Protection Agency 1s preparing a report on the Incineration of the Shell wastes. This report was entered into the record 1n draft foria, and whsn It 1s finalized, 1t will be available on E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 493 .7746 MARIN COUNTY 393 - 1727 ------- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 4 request. You can get a copy of it by writing to the 011 and Special Materials Control Division (WH443), attention Chief, Marine Protection Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, Q.C., 204G0. DR. ENOS: I might add Just one more thing. Since it came up earlier, some question relatively to the plume, or I surmise that there was an intent to cover that problem. When we were considering the permit for Incinerating organo-chlorlne wastes In the Sulf of Mexico, and there was great concern for the hazard that might be involved for hydrochloric acid vapors impacting on birds 1n the transmigration mode, and since there is no visible plume from the V5JLCAHUS, It became of soma concern to determine precisely the shape and condition of the plume. We brought In modelers from our research laboratori Research Triangle Park in Raleigh, North Carolina, and they propose two alternatives to us: the question then was which of the alternatives truly described the case. In one alternative it was conceivable in the worst case condition that we could have significant concentrations of hydrochloric acid above the vessel. In the first burn we attempted to fly 3ome missions over the vessel 4n<* Murphy's Law prevailed* and I won't go through the unbelievable number of failures in motors, E. HENDERSCHE1D 8t ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 .7766 MARIN COUN 363 - 1727 ------- 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 6 5 Instruments and operational procedures that prevented us from doing that* but on the second burn we actually flew three Missions and transcepted that and traversed the plume 1n all directions, and provided sufficient data to establish that 1t Is essentially a plume which 1s somewhere between an eddy current dlfuslon plume, and the standard plume that one considers 1n atmospheric modeling on land, which means 1t spreads out behind the vessel at some low altitude and then Impacts on the surface of the ocean. The concentrations that we encounterd 1n flying a continuous monitoring device, which has just been perfected for the Space Agency, we never entered concentrations above three parts per million In the plume, and we actually had flights that not only transsected the plume, but ran the middle line of the plume of the vessel and never encountered concentrations 1n excess of three parts per million. CHAIRMAN HOLLOY: We have another question again directed to Br. Braun. It 1s about the thermo couple. Norraally shielded thermo couple response Is measure In terms of functions of a second or seconds. Burled thermo (Continued on following page/ E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 439 - 776C MARIN COUNTY 363.1727 ------- 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 $ 6 Buried thamso couples have much slower response tiKVSiSo Has the response of buried tharxno. couple been sieaaurad? (Remarks soto voce between Mr» braun and Captain Vogt.) KRo BRAUN: No. We don't have such data. It has not been measured= CKAIHMAM MALLOY: Thank you. I have no further questions. You have a question. MR. BRAUW: I just have a suggestion to make. In the interest of expedience it was mentioned by one of the previous speakers that it would not be preferable to make a burn of the entire shipload of 1,200 tons but rather of one tank only,. It doesn't appear practical or expedient for us to send an ocean tanker from Rotter darn to Johnston Island with a couple of tons on it and sit around and wait for the results o He are currently negotiating with Shell Oil Company again. We have expressed interest in the incineration of another couple of ship loads which we have done last year at another site, and they will be submitting an application to E. HENDERSCHEID ft ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 433 -7768 MARIN COUN 303 - 1727 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 tile Enviornciental Protection Agency very soon. It occurred to mo that on that particular occasion it i&ight be possible for the ship„ or it will be possible for tiis ship to pick up a faw tons of Herbicide Orange in Gulfport, Mississippi, and do that test burn in the Gulf of Mexico, provided that would be considered by the Enviornmentai. Protection Agency. The smallest tank of the vessel is 115 cubic meters which could be loaded up — or lass than that — and that would give enough time to do this test, and to evaluate the results without the ship sitting around in Johnston Island, waiting. CHAIRMAN MOLLOY: Thank you, Mr. Braun. X can't think of all the problems that would occur. I am sure many of them, but that is a very con- structive suggestion and X an sure we will consider it. Thank you. 1 have no further indications of questions. Do any of the panel raeinbers have question or comments„ Without any further questions or comments, this session of the hearing is adjourned. (VThereupon at the hour of 11:30 o'clock the San Francisco Session of the Enviornnental Protestion Agency's hearings on the Ocean Disposal of Herbicide Orange was Adjourned.) WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION NOTARIES SAN FRANCISCO 413 - 7768 MARIN CO UN 383 - 1727 ------- |