Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Incineration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industry witness says RCRA‑permitted high‑temperature incineration can destroy PFAS; senators press for monitoring and standards
Summary
Clean Harbors told the Senate EPW Committee that RCRA‑permitted high‑temperature incineration validated with EPA testing can destroy PFAS at very high rates; senators asked about monitoring, municipal incinerator limits, and whether RCRA hazardous‑waste designation should apply to PFAS.
Eric Gerstenberg, co‑chief executive of Clean Harbors, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the company has completed full‑scale PFAS destruction testing at a RCRA‑permitted incinerator in Utah with EPA participation and that peer‑reviewed results demonstrate very high destruction efficiencies and low emissions. "This study was completed in partnership with the EPA office and the Pentagon's military office," Gerstenberg said, adding the tests showed destruction at levels exceeding six nines and emissions "2 to 8 orders of magnitude below any state ambient air limit or guideline."
Gerstenberg and senators acknowledged that operational details — including temperature and pollution‑control systems — matter for destruction. Several members, including Sen. Markey and Sen. Schiff, cautioned that many municipal or smaller incinerators do not operate at the temperatures Clean Harbors cited and asked whether some facilities are unsuitable for PFAS disposal.
Witnesses said EPA has not yet issued uniform federal rules governing PFAS incineration and disposal. Gerstenberg told the committee that thresholds could direct when material requires high‑temperature RCRA‑permitted incineration versus classification for subtitle C or subtitle D landfills and urged EPA to adopt implementable standards and monitoring requirements.
Senators also raised permit‑history concerns: one member noted the Argonite Utah facility's prior permit issues and asked what steps Clean Harbors had taken to prevent similar violations; Gerstenberg pointed to the EPA‑supervised testing, extensive monitoring devices used during testing, and the use of EPA‑permitted facilities as assurances of operating controls.
The committee did not adopt regulatory text or votes; members framed options that include codifying EPA enforcement discretion, creating de‑minimis exemptions, or pursuing a statutory approach to protect passive receivers while directing EPA to set technical thresholds and monitoring requirements.
