Russell A. Kelly
Permits and Services Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1400 Coliseum Blvd.
Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059
Dear Mr. Kelly:
Environmental Review, Inc. has reviewed the Fact Sheet for the proposed issuance of a variance and public comment periods beginning July 13 and has the following comments:
1) Page 1 section II, Procedures for Reaching a Final Decision section second paragraph incorporates 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 268.44 which describes the requirements for a variance from a treatment standard. Meeting the requirements under this section has not been adequately justified because under 40CFR section 268.44 (m) “For all variances the petitioner must also demonstrate that compliance with any treatment standard variance is sufficient to minimize threats to human health and the environment posed by land disposal of the waste. In evaluating this demonstration EPA may take into account whether a treatment variance should be approved if the subject waste is to be used in a manner constituting disposal pursuant to 40CFR266.20 through 266.23. Here there “demonstration” is not based on any “supporting tests” or “studies” as would be expected under 40CFR200.20(a)(4) so the request for a variance should not be granted.
2) Page 2 of the Fact Sheet, the last paragraph (above the contact information) states that it was based on a “demonstration provided by Chemical Waste Management…” however no demonstration was made.
a. Please remove the word “demonstration” from this paragraph since no “supporting tests” or “studies” where included which would be expected under section 40CFR200.20(a)(4) that would qualify as a demonstration.
b. Require the generator to conduct supporting tests and/or studies which would qualify as a demonstration.
3) Page 2 last paragraph last sentence states that the “motors never contained any propellant and were manufactured with concrete cores and are surrounded by a Kevlar/non-friable asbestos resin exterior coating.”
a. Here it is unclear if the coating was placed on the missile casings prior to use in training or it was placed on in preparation for disposal?
b. It is also unclear if the coating covers 100% of the missile casing?
c. Are photographs available?
d. Are any tests of the coating available which would demonstrate that potential leaching of the hazardous substances including cadmium (hazardous waste code D006) and chromium (hazardous waste code D007) will be adequately immobilized?
4) The attached letter by Chemical Waste Management Introduction section first paragraph states that the table was prepared based on specifications sheets, those should be included in the document.
5) Waste Management’s letter dated May 20, 2017 page 2 – under the citation of 40CFR268.44(i) “Treatment to the specified level or by the specified method is technically inappropriate.” There was not adequate justification given as to why it is considered technically inappropriate to conduct treatment. While it may be convenient to not have to properly conduct treatment, poor planning in the manufacture of these training devices, as appears to be the case here, should not be considered a reason why it is technically inappropriate to conduct treatment.
6) Waste Management’s letter dated May 20, 2017 page 3 under the paragraph heading “40CFR260.20(b)(2) A statement of the Petitioner’s Interest in the proposed action” in the middle of the paragraph the use of the phrase “completely inert” is inappropriate. If that wording is retained, what supporting studies and/or tests were conducted to demonstrate that the materials are “completely inert”?
7) Waste Management’s letter dated May 20, 2017 page 3 under the paragraph heading “40CFR260.20(b)(2) A statement of the Petitioner’s Interest in the proposed action” the last sentence states that “Redstone Arsenal, as the generator of waste stream, would like to respectfully defer the treatment standards for D006 and D007 in the disposal of all C-4 rocket motor stages described in Table 1 listed above due to the motor cores being filled with concrete.”
a. The rationale provided for the variance is that the missile casings are filled with concrete. Again, was the concrete put in before or after they were used in training?
i. If before, then poor planning in manufacturing in this manner should not qualify as adequate rationale and a variance should not be granted.
ii. If after, then poor planning for disposal should not qualify as an adequate rationale and a variance should not be granted.
8) Waste Management’s letter dated May 20, 2017 page 3 under the paragraph heading “40CFR260.20(b)(3) A description of the proposed action” includes the sentence: “Because the motors were manufactured with cement cores, there is no practical expectation of leachability.” That doesn’t make sense. If we understand correctly, the rocket missile casings are the motors (if filled with propellant), so by filling the casings with concrete that does not prevent leachability outwards (away from the inner concrete core).
9) Waste Management’s letter dated May 20, 2017 page 3 under the paragraph heading “40CFR260.20(b)(3) A description of the proposed action” includes a statement that “It is Chemical Waste Management’s opinion that the composition of the rocket motor with a concrete inner core and an outer shell of Kevlar and non-friable asbestos resin coating would be sufficient to ensure that no additional measures would be required to prevent metals from leaching…” Since the proposed variance is only based on an opinion, here the Alabama Department of Environmental Management should deny the proposed variance application since an adequate demonstration including supporting tests or studies as required under section 40CFR200.20(a)(4) is absent.
10) Since the electronic public notice for this project did not include an email address, please include email addresses on future public notices to foster community involvement.
Sincerely yours, Tom Price-Director, Environmental Review, Inc. P.O. Box 2756, Berkeley, California 94702, http://www.envreview.org/