From: David_Gossman@msn.com (David Gossman)
Subject: Enviroment and the Budget
Date: 21 Jan 96 04:04:18 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.environment

>David Gossman (70243.1722@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>: I have already provided a specific response providing an example of 
>: an EPA requirement to spike toxic metals during waste combustion 
>: testing.  This requirement is unneeded since EPA's own data 
>: indicates that testing at lower input rates can be used to 
>: conservatively project emissions.  The regualtory reference, since 
>: your so anxious to know, is 40CFR 266.103(c)(1)(ii).  Of course if 
>: you want the full scoop you had better read all of EPA's 
>: guidance(frequently self contradictory) on the implementation of 
>: these regs where EPA even provides reccomendations on what form of 
>: these toxic metals should be used.  This is one example only.  
>: There are others but I suspect you are not all that sincere in your 
>: desire, so why not show your true stripes on this one and then 
>: we'll talk about others.  The tecchnical literature as well as 
>: public correspondence with EPA exists to prove this case.>>>

James Acker writes:
>	Are you responding to this: (?)

>David Gossman (70243.1722@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>: Let me second your opinion that EPA has gone beyond rationality in 
>: its zeal.  What many people don't realize is that many of EPA's 
>: regulations are now negatively impacting human health and safety as 
>: well as the enviroment.  EPA and its leadership(primarily 
>: politically oriented attorneys) are interested in power, not 

>I responded:

>	This is serious, Mr. Gossman!  Please specify the regulations
>that are having such negative impacts so that we can publicize this and
>perhaps get Congress to take action.   It's something that the informed 
>scientific community should do at once.
>	Remember to specify the particular regulations.  I wouldn't 
>want to make an ill-informed broad-brush accusation about such an
>important topic.

David Gossman responds:
Actually you missed some intervening information which was:
" Here is your example.  Hazardous waste combustion regulations
 require boilers, industrial furnaces, and some incinerators to
 spike toxic metals to "worst case" levels during trial burns and
 other tests.  This activity requires tons of toxic metals such as
 Cd, As, Be, Pb, and Cr to be manufactured, transported, and handled
 prior to and during a trial burn at significant risk to people."
As you can see I had been asked for an example which I provided with 
a regulatory 
reference which you obviously did not bother to read based on what we 
find below.
Nevertheless for those whom might have a real interest(your rhetoric suggests
you may not) I will respond.

James Acker writes:
>	If so, here's my next response:

>A.  Your initial posting cites "many" of EPA's regulations as negatively
>impacting human health and safety, as well as the environment.  When 
>asked for examples, you provided one.  Does one = "many"?  I think not.

David Gossman responds:
I was asked for one example.  It is not the place of an internet newsgroups
to provide complete technical papers.  I have and continue to publish such
papers on this and other topics related to hazardous waste management, testing
methods, recycling and reuse.  I am personally only very familiar 
with the details
of RCRA regulations.  From what I have seen they are similar in technical 
shortcomings to the larger body of EPA regulations.  I provided this specific
example because the negative impact is easy to see and EPA has admitted in
writing that the technical basis for it is invalid - yet they do nothing!
(If you or anyone else would like copies of publications or copies of
the aforementioned correspondence you only need provide me with your fax no 
and a polite request.)

>B.  Furthermore, the example you cite shows zero impact on human 
>health and safety, as well as the environment.  Here's why:
>	The spiking is used to test stack emissions and the accuracy 
>of detectors or sampling methods, I believe.  If in the test the 
>process is spiked, for a few minutes in one day while sampling is
>taking place, emissions may rise to allow a direct correlation sampling
>(i.e., the amount added corresponds to a certain amount detected and
>analyzed).
>	Let's say that the generator is producing 2 nanomoles of Pb 
>per day, or 730 nanomoles of Pb per year.   In the spike test, the
>total release of the added Pb is 1 nanomole (which comes out 
>fast, allowing detection of higher amounts in the stack emission, and
>method calibration.)   So now, instead of a yearly release of 730
>nanomoles of Pb, the yearly release is 731 nanomoles.   As one can 
>see, if Pb in the environment is a problem (and it is), it's the 
>yearly emission that constitutes the hazard, not the single stack 
>test.

This portion of your response provides the truest indication of your own
ignorance and bias.  
1. Spiking is not used to "test stack emissions and the accuracy 
   of detectors or sampling methods".  It is used to create EPA defined
   worst case operating conditions, including metal input rates. 
2. Spiking, in order to meet EPA regulations and guidance must be done
   for 30 to 72 or more hours, not "a few minutes in one day" as you
   suggest.
3. Instead of talking about "nanomoles"  lets talk about tons.  In tests at
   34 kilns in 1992 a minimum of 14 tons of lead was spiked.  Other
   spiked metals include As, Be, Cd, Cr, Sb, Ba, Hg, Ag, and Tl.  This
   information was published in a paper that I coauthored for a AWMA specialty
   conference in 1994.  Spiking rates are frequently multiple orders
   of magnitude higher than actual rates because EPA assumes that feedstreams
   with nondetects during testing are at zero but during ongoing
   compliance are at the detection limits.  It therefore becomes necessary
   to spike additional material to account for this.
4. You then state "the example you cite shows zero impact on human 
   health and safety, as well as the environment."  Perhaps you should
   tell that to the workers whom handle and perform the spiking?!  Then 
   there is the transportation, manufacturing, lab testing, mining, mining
   wastes and so on.  Perhaps it is you whom should be backing up
   your claim of "zero impact"!  The only thing you got right is the lack
   of an impact from the emissions, wether or not spiking is performed.
   In not one of these tests has a facility exceeded the EPA determined
   conserative limits established for these facilities.  Most results are
   orders of magnitude less.  The industry has actually petitioned EPA for
   lower limits!  That of course brings up the question of wether or not the
   stack testing is needed at all.  Have you ever examined the risks in
   performing stack testing - just check the insurance rates!  Opps - that
   just sounded like another example of an unnecessary regulation that
   increases risk to human health and safety.  Don't forget to mention that
   one when you take these concerns to your Congressman.

>C.  I find it remarkable that you think EPA's specification of
>the form of metal to be used is a bad thing.  It would seem that 
>this recommendation is already underlain by testing, so that the 
>minimal toxicity occurs.  Probably minimizes the danger to the 
>persons performing the test, as well.

Wrong!  EPA's guidance in this area is internally contradictory and
technically flawed - just what you'ld expect from a low bid EPA contract.
Perhaps you could tell all of us, as a scientist of course, what you 
would expect to happen when you spike high concentrations of soluble
dichromates into an organic waste stream.  None of EPA's advice in this
area appeared to be based on real world experience.

>D.  In the broader case of environmental regulation, it would be
>unsurprising to me that an occasional poorly-written regulation 
>slipped in.  There's a lot of work to be done, and frequently 
>implementation lags behind technological advance.  Thus, with 
>improvements in technology, better methods can be put in place.
>But until that is done, the tried-and-true still provides useful 
>data.  Based on what you've written, this would appear to be the 
>case with the regulation that you cited.

There is nothing about this set of regulations that is "tried and true".
It is just plain wrong.  This broader set of regulations, commonly
referred to as the BIF regulations was bad when it was originally
drafted and was worse in its final form despite numerous industry
comments.  I was originally a strong supporter of the need for regulations
for this industry.  The EPA product did nothing to reduce emissions
and in more than one way increased both risks and pollution.  I have
come to understand where much of the push in Congress has come from,
although I do not see the need for a cost/benefit evaluation of regulations.
A simple analysis to verify that the net impact of a regulation is 
beneficial would suffice to prevent much of the abuse that is now
going on.

>Summary:  You have not supported your initial claim.  If you 
>wish to try again, feel free.  Remember to show environmental 
>IMPACT, and _negative_ effects on human HEALTH, and human 
>SAFETY, as you claimed in your initial post.

>	As always, when making remarkable claims, the burden 
>of proof is on the one making the claim.  I'm a scientist, and 
>would like to see you prove your case scientifically, not
>rhetorically.  If the situation is as you claim it to be, then
>it is a serious situation and should be addressed.  As it is, 
>the claim appears to be a bald-faced unsupported accusation which
>is utterly specious.  

As a scientist perhaps you need to reconsider from where the rhetoric
comes.  It is EPA and the politicians whom control it whom make
bald-faced accusations that are utterly spcious.  Turn your attention
to their claims, you may find that what sounds good on the surface
has little basis in scientific reality.

By the way, from my perspective the "remarkable claim" is your assertion,
or at least implied assertion that EPA regualtions do not negatively
impact the enviroment and human health and safety - care to take on that
burden of proof?!  I suspect from your comments that you have not worked
with EPA regualtions in depth.  If that is the case, think of the IRS, now
think of the IRS trying to protect you.