TRANSCRIPT
FIRST PUBLIC MEETING ON THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
December 16, 1976, Washington, B.C.
This publication (SW-lOp) is reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections
by the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1977
-------
An environmental protect]on publication in the solid waste management series (SW-lOp)
-------
(9:10 a.m.)
MR. MEYERS: Good morning. My name is Sheldon
Meyers. At the table with me John Quarles, the Deputy
Administrator, and Roger Strelow, the Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management. We will be proceeding with the
program in a few minutes, but before we do, I would just like
to make a couple of generalized announcements. One, we have
had a request from the management of this building to have no
smoking in the sanctuary, and I would appreciate it if you
would all adhere to that; and secondly, we have a court
reporter and the proceedings are being recorded so that when
anyone gets up to speak, please describe who you are and your
organization or affiliation so that that can be in the record.
This meeting, we hope, will be quite fruitful on both
our parts, but one thing that it is not, it is not a forum to
provide for lengthy statements. We are here to mostly listen
to you, but if you have anything of great length, we can
include it in the record. But we would prefer not to just have
an hour discourse by somebody just to get it into the record.
You can get it into the record by putting it in the record.
So without any further ado, let me introduce John
Quarles, the Deputy Administrator, who will do the opening
remarks. John will be here for a while this morning, but he
will have to leave. Mr. Strelow, on the other hand, will be
-------
here most of the morning. So if you have any questions for the
Deputy Administrator to answer, get them out early. John?
MR. QUARLES: Thank you. I cannot tell you what a
pleasure it'is to hear Shelly Meyers make the announcement that
there will be no smoking here today, because I have sat through
many meetings next to Sheldon Meyers' cigars, and I know that
some of you may feel that that is a bit of a hardship. But it
is probably a greater hardship on Shelly than on anyone else,
and it is particularly appropriate, I think, for a person who
is an official of the Environmental Protection Agency to have
to put a curb on smoking, since if somehow we could discourage
people from smoking in this country that would probably provide
greater health benefits than virtually all of the rest of the
effort that we are making in air pollution control.
So I just thought I would start off with getting this
session off, on hopefully a note of informality which is really
what we want to have it be. This is theater in the round, and
really theater in the behind here. I am not sure we have got
the ideal arrangement, but I beliave it will be probably very
well suited for the type of easy communication that we look
forward to through this program, and a chance for everyone to
hear comments and questions from each other, which is really
the purpose of this, rather than to simply have you all hearing
statements from us.
We want to have your input and we want to try to be
-------
as responsive as we can be in giving as many people in the
country as possible some sense of how EPA views the program
that we are now starting out on, and provide chances for you to
come at us with the way you view the program and what you think
it ought to be that it perhaps is not.
My role in this program today is a rather limited
role, and that is essentially simply to try and set the
perspective for the meeting, make a few general opening
remarks, and I do have a 10:00 o'clock commitment, but I would
be delighted to try to answer questions prior to my departure,
and I do want to give you the assurance that the outcome of
today's program and similar programs that follow will all feed
into the considerations by the administrator, myself, and
others at the top of the agency as we attempt to formulate the
policies that will guide the development of implementing the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
There are, as you are well aware, lots of issues that
come out of any law passed by Congress, and there is a need for
a time to focus on what those issues are after Congress has
finished its work. During the course of the congressional
deliberations, there may be many different types of ideas
proposed and different people have different thoughts of what
the program ought to be.
While the legislative process is running, it is open
season to conduct a tug of war of what the program ought to be.
-------
Then after the law is passed, there is a need to try to develop
a consensus as to what the program will be. We recognize that
that process is not one that should be conducted by EPA alone.
The initial responsibility does rest with EPA, and we will not
shirk that responsibility to make many of the basic decisions
that are placed in our responsibility, to write the
regulations, set the definitions, give the direction, work with
the states to develop their program, and attempt to exercise
the overall management of this program.
the
But as we perform that responsibility that is ours,
we recognize that the program is not going to work as an EPA
program. The program will work only as it may become possible
for many people throughout the entire country to develop a
consensus of what needs to be done to serve the actual needs of
the society throughout the country.
I gave you some indication of some of the issues and
there are many more, and we want to hear from you what they
are. I think probably the first one that would come to
anybody's mind is the definition of hazardous waste, since so
much of the statutory program will depend upon just how
hazardous wastes are defined, and to the extent that they are
defined broadly, then that broadens the scope of coverage for
all of the provisions that tie onto the hazardous waste
definition, sort of the cradle to the grave control that is
provided for under the statute.
-------
To the extent that hazardous is defined narrowly,
then that places a little greater burden on the other parts of
the program for upgrading the land disposal areas and assuring
that some things that are potentially dangerous are not covered
by the hazardous.waste definition and protections, then there
must be sufficient protections and safeguards provided to the
rest of the program.
So there is a range of implications that will flow
from whatever definition of that term is adopted. One of the
implications that will flow from that and a number of other
features will bear upon the ability and the enthusiasm of state
agencies to develop state programs. There is not a Federal,
legal requirement upon the states to develop their programs, as
you are aware.
But the statutory framework, as we look at it,
clearly contemplates that the program will be carried out
through the development of state programs, and certainly if the
work is going to be done, and done successfully, one of the
foremoizfst challenges we face — I think that we all face — is
to foster and encourage ^the willingness at the s_tate level
among state governors, state legislators, and other state
leaders to pass the necessary legislation, put the necessary
funding and manpower into it, develop the necessary comptenece
so that the s.tate programs can be really effective, and there
are lots of questions that go into how is that to be carried
-------
out.
One of the other issues that is before us is a
question of how do we set up standardized objective criteria to
determine what particular substances are indeed classified as
hazardous waste;-what testing is required. The more that we
can test standardized objective criteria, I think the more
everyone will have a sense of confidence that those ground
rules are being applied even-handedly and uniformly throughout
X1
the country, and not a matter of arbitrary discetion.
A
On the other hand, a program that is based upon
standardized objective criteria is going to mean that testing
will have to be done and testing is expensive, and so there is
a need to understand what are the facilities available
throughout the country to do the testing, how much will it
cost, what is the testing burden that small business can
realistically be expected to carry.
Wastes are mixtures of different ingredients, and one
of the questions is how can we develop and apply tests that
will apply to mixtures of many different substances and include
the necessary suspected hazardous components.
In the definition of a sanitary land fill and the
obverse of that, an open dump, one of the questions is should
industrial pontoons and lagoons be included in the definition
of open dumps, and that is an issue that is very much up in the
air. Another question is if sanitary land^fills are defined
-------
and developed so that they would have essentially a zero
discharge to ground waters, then could they qualify within the
definition of long-term storage?
I am not attempting to go through all the issues. I
just am attempting to give you a suggestion of what some of the
issues are and to attempt to carry the discussion one level
down from the platitudes of saying it is a very complex program
and there are lots of issues. Throughout the day, I hope the
discussion will go down into what these issues are, because
there is a need to get all of the issues out on the table and
have a sense on your part and ours of what these issues are,
because this is a program that is starting off with an immense
challenge before it. It is going to require a very great
expansion of manpower and competence within the government and
attention within private industry in order to do the job that
is contemplated by the statute.
We are not looking here at something that is going to
be accomplished in three years. We are looking here at a
program that is undoubtedly going to occupy the attention of
people in government and out of government over the next 10, 15
and 20 years, and so what I think we need to do is to focus on
what are the things to be done first, not simply trying to
identify all of the things that need to be done. We know we
cannot immediately do all of the things that need to be done.
What are the things that are most important? I think
-------
one of the things we are seeking is the sense of priority.
Secondly, we are seeking a sense of what are the actions that
need to be taken, the emphasis that needs to be placed, to
build the foundation for the development of this program over a
period of time. In some cases, the collection of information,
building a data base, or the training of people, the
encouragement of the development of competence, or the
establishment of the institutional framework that can grow over
a period of time; these perhaps may be important to building
for the long-term solution of these problems, even though
immediately they might not get any ground or water or air
cleaner. And so I think we are looking, as I say, for the
priorities and particularly looking toward the long-term
process.
Now, I want to come back now to the place I began,
and that is the participation by you and by others with us in
the process of developing this program, because the comments I
have made so far in talking about the issues or our
expectations for today and for other similar occasions are
those, as I said, that are designed simply to try and put a
little more flesh on the skeleton of what it is we are really
talking about.
But what I am going to try and focus on in the
comments I am making is the process that the agency should
follow to deal with all of these questions. Some of you
-------
perhaps have been at the session that we held yesterday and the
previous day on the toxic substance programs, and to those of
you who may have been there, my comments are a little
duplicative, but I think you would be able to see that we are
attempting to follow a uniform approach in this program to the
approach that we are following in the toxic substance program
of attempting in both cases to open our doors to everyone and
develop a program deliberately in a fish bowl, deliberately in
a manner that will enable us to be battered by the conflicting
arguments that will come from all sides as to what we ought to
do in resolving the issues of implementing the statute.
We need to hear from you and we will go through this
step by step. One of the things that we have underway is the
task of developing a strategy for the program which will end up
being a written document that will go through a number of steps
of review within the agency, together with disclosure of the
draft to anyone who is interested outside the agency to get
comments on it, and that will be one place that we will really
try and sift out these priorities and principal issues.
In addition to that, we in the meantime are going
ahead and trying to develop straw men of some of the
regulations, and those we will need to disclose and get
reactions to. I think the bottom line of all of this is that
in order to make the program work there has got to be a
consensus that is arrived at through the involvement of all of
-------
10
the people who are going to participate in the program at all
levels, so that we can be in agreement on what we ought to be
doing and so that the agreement is correct, so that the
approaches tat we take will actually work and we will have the
benefit of the practical experience of people who know what
they are talking about and the different facets of the problems
that we are attempting to resolve.
We know that solid waste, and particularly hazardous
wastes, are a very much neglected problem in the country.
There are lots of environmental problems that occur as a
consequence of the fact that we have failed throughout the
years to develop a sound basis for disposal of solid waste, and
the correction of those practices is going to have to work at
the local level.
We need to develop solutions to these problems that
will work in Boston, in Boise, in Baton Rouge. We need to
develop solutions that will work in the cities, in the suburbs,
in the towns and villages, that will work at your local
neighborhood dump, because that is where the problems are, and
the solutions have got to work where the problems are, and we
are not going to find those solutions in the middle of the maze
at waterside Hall. We are going to find the solutions to those
problems only as the people who are on the front line of
dealing with those problems participate in shaping the policies
of EPA as we try to create an umbrella within which states will
-------
11
develop programs and local communities will develop programs to
deal with their problems.
We view our role, particularly in this statute, in a
sense as being supportive of the efforts of others, and
therefore the others have got to come in and be right with us
as we are developing the policy. I think that is really what
this whole day session is all about. Quite a number of the
principal people in this program were down in Dallas last week
and met for an all day session with a large number of the heads
of the state agencies who are concerned with this. We will be
holding a variety of other sessions with other groups around
the country.
The roster that we have of people who have signed in
this morning indicate that this is very heavily a gathering of
people from industry, and to the extent that that is a correct
observation, then we are by this meeting reaching out to one of
the groups which is tremendously concerned with the program
that we are devpioning. There are other groups, and we will
attempt through other sessions to reach out so that when we
finish we have reached out to all of the groups, and hopefully
through the melting pot process come up with the right answers.
I am going to stop at this point, Shelly, and I will
take a couple of minutes to see if there are any questions of
me, and if there are not, I am going to turn over to you and to
Roger for the morning's program.
-------
12
Does anybody have anything you want to get off your
chest before I leave? Yes, sir?
MR. WALPOLE: My name is Jim Walpole of the American
Mining Congress. How does this program relate with the Air and
Safe Drinking Water Act on the same problem?
MR. QUARLES: The quick answer to that is we don't
know yet. In other words, both of the programs, the Safe
Drinking Water Act program, which we initiated the study of
pits, ponds and lagoons, and this program here, have statutory
authority that provides some basis for us dealing with pits,
ponds, and lagoons. And we need to work out the way in which
we coordinate those two programs. We are very conscious of the
fact that the two programs do, in a sense, overlap on this
point, and that is one of the questions we want to work out.
Yes?
MR. LEHR: My name is Jay Lehr. I came here
particularly to address the point you raised where you stated
that it is up in the air where pits, ponds, and lagoons fit
into this legislation, and at some proper time when Mr. Meyer
decides, I think that I can prove the point that the bill
clearly does cover them in about eight minutes. I do not know
whether this would be the proper eight minutes or not.
MR. QUARLES: All right. Any others?
MR. HANKS: I am George Hanks of Union Carbide
Corporation. I do not believe that you meant what I think you
-------
13
might have said, and I would like to clarify this.
MR. QUARLES: I would, too, then.
MR. HANKS: The solution to hazardous waste problems
or solid waste problems in New York State or New York City, for
instance, might be quite different than the solution in a
completely different part of the country, and I trust that in
looking at the approach to this the agency will recognize that
theie needs to be flexibility in an approach and not a solution
that applies everywhere.
MR. QUARLES: Yes, yes. I hope I did not say
anything inconsistent with that. I agree.
Yes?
MR. GOOLEY: Carl Gooley, General Electric. You made
reference to priorities. Now, under the Toxic Substances
Control Act, there would be an interagency committee to serve
that purpose. Is consideration being given to the same
approach under the Solid Saste Act?
MR. QUAHLES: Not to my knowledge, no. The
interagency committee provided tor under the Toxic Substances
Control Act has the specific function of identifying various
toxic substances which are believed to pose the most serious
threats, and therefore should receive priority consideration in
our research and possible regulation.
There we are dealing with a variety of chemical
compounds or other substances which many other parts of the
-------
14
Federal government are almost equally involved in, or in some
cases more involved in. And the interagency committee,
therefore, has got a unique function. I don't think that there
is anything quite comparable in this program. Obviously, this
is a program that does require a lot of coordination with other
parts of the Federal government, as well as with state and
local governments, and we will very actively be involved in
what e bureaucrats refer to as interfacing, but not probably
with a committee precisely parallel to that interagency
committee.
Yes?
MR. PUCE: My name is Peter Puce. I am from the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. I would like to
pick up on something you said about the relationship to the
Toxic Substances Control Act. I would like to hear your
comments on the fact that it seems to me that the Toxic
Substances Act is an act that gives the Federal government
enforcement, whereas this act seems to grant it to the states
and local communities. Yet there seems to be quite a bit of
overlap between the two pieces of legislation.
I wonder how the agency is going to deal with that.
MR. QUARLES: Again, I think this is something which
will evolve over a period of time. Let me speak to this first
in regard to the Toxic Substance Control Act, and then more
specifically in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We
-------
15
view the Toxic Substances Control Act as providing authority to
the agency and responsibility to require testing of a wide
range of chemicals or other substances to attempt to evaluate
the health effects that they may cause, and one feature of the
program that will evolve under the Toxic Substances Control Act
is that it will be a means of creating a great deal more
knowledge about what the chemicals are that cause threats and
what those threats are.
As that knowledge is acquired through some of. the
testing done under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the
information may be utilizied for regulatory purposes under a
variety of other statutes and Federal programs. In
particularly, it will undoubtedly be utilized as we establish
abatement requirements under the Water Act, under the Clean Air
Act, as OSHA establishes requirements, and it will be in the
same way utilized as we develop the program under this law.
Now, once that information comes into the public
domain, it can help to guide the way this program is developed
because undoubtedly in the development of the solid waste and
hazardous materials control program there will need to be the
best possible understanding of which materials are most
hazardous and what levels of control have to be established.
So there will be a feed-in there.
These two programs certainly are very closely related
and I think probably at a number of points there will be a need
-------
16
for some judgment to be applied as to which regulatory
authority to use to deal with a particular problem once the
problem is discovered.
Yes?
MR. WORTH: I am Bill Wort, General Motors
Corporation. In light of the definition of disposal in the
Act, how do you see the interface between the definitions of
the Water Pollution Control Act, specifically sentences 307 and
311, interfacing with the Resource Recovery Act in terms of the
definitions?
MR. QUARLES: I think that is maybe a more precise
question than I am going to be able to give you a precise
answer to. Do you want to consider that, Shelly?
MR. MEYERS: The definition of disposal in the Solid
Waste Act is rather broad, and the one thing that we want to
assure you of, we are not going to have duplicatory programs.
The areas overlap and where authority exists in both acts to do
the same sort of thing, the management of the agency will
designate one particular office or operation to make sure that
it does not get done twice.
MR. WORTH: What I specifically to see avoided is the
problem we have got with Section 311, with the permit programs
of the Water Act. This is going to be a type of conflict.
MR. QUARLES: What type of problem are you referring
to? 311 refers to spills.
-------
17
MR. WORTH: It refers to discharges.
MR. QUARLES: Excuse me?
MR. WORTH: Discharges, and you have got discharges
all through the Water Pollution Control Act, and you could be
technically in violation of 311 and other programs. Are we
going to have —MR. LEHR: The point brought up by the man from
General Motors is clearly exempted in Section 1004, Part 27 in
the definition of solid waste. It describes what solid waste
is, and then it says "but does not include solid or dissolved
material in domestic sewage or solid or dissolved materials in
irrigation return, or industrial discharges which are point
sources subject to permit under Section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended."
MR. QUARLES: There may be a need to pursue that a
little bit further. I think we ought to do it subsequently,
but at least we have got an issue out on the table.
There is a question over here. Yes?
MR. SCHIFFMAN: I am from the State of Maryland.
Maybe we can clarify this if we can present some not so
hypothetical examples which are leading questions. Let's take
the air area first. I have a company which has organic
hazardous waste. There is no question that is going to be
designated as hazardous. They take this waste and they
transport it one block to a high temperature incinerator which
is run by a company specializing in the destruction of these
-------
18
wastes. I do not think there is too much question that under
the Hazardous Waste Act this facility is a hazardous waste
treatment facility that they have transported one block.
That incinerator obviously has an air pollution
control appliance on it. Since it is specializing in the
treatment of hazardous wastes, it seems pretty clear that the
air pollution control is incidental to the Hazardous Waste Act,
and the hazardous waste facility type permit is required. It
has to be regulated, a manifest system, etcetera.
I have the same factory. I expand its boundaries by
one blockl; it now encompasses this incinerator. I have not
even moved the incinerator, all right? It now owns it. It
takes its wastes, its own wastes and brings it to the
incinerator. It would seem that this does not come under the
Hazardous Waste Act, subject to the air pollution control
requirements, because the incinerator is now part of the
factory they have essentially destroyed their wastes. So there
are no hazardous wastes. Would you agree with that?
MR. MEYERS: No.
MR. QUARLES: I am not sure we even want to hear the
hard one.
MR. SCHIFFMAN: Now, this is a very key issue, a very
key issue. What you are saying is the treatment facility and
the company itself, because it receives hazardous waste that
the company generates, does come under the Hazardous Waste Act
-------
19
and the air pollution control permit becomes incidental just as
if it was one block outside?
Now, let me get to the hard ones. Water: this
orgaic waste is amenable to biological waste treatment, okay?
You can put it through a biological waste treatment plant,
completely degrade it, and zero comes out. They take this same
waste, only now it is put through an incinerator. They take it
to a waste water treatment plant operated by their company, who
specializes in accepting this hazardous waste. It goes through
the waste water treatment plant, it gets changed, degraded to
zero, and there, is nothing present anywhere, completely
degraded.
They have a discharge permit. It is clear that the
discharge permit is incidental to this facility as a hazardous
waste treatment facility.
Same company now -- I am leaving you with some traps
now — it expands its boundaries. It now has a water treatment
plant, the same water treatment plant, all right? I would
interpret it again that this water treatment plant is
controlled by an NPDS permit. It does not come under the
Hazardous Waste Act, because they are in-plant reducing it.
Now, would you say no to that one?
MR. MEYERS: I am not sure.
MR. QUARLES: But you would still say no to the first
one?
-------
20
MR. MEYERS: Right.
MR. SCHIFFMAN: Same company now. He transports now
through a pipeline this degradable waste which does not
influence the treatment plant. Okay, is this entity which I
called before clearly a facility, a facility which is
transporting through pipe? I will give you the killer now.
What is the common name for this facility? This is called a
municipal waste water treatment plant and the pipe that it is
transported through is called a sewer line. You see the
problems I-have.
The reason I am asking these questions is Maryland is
implementing these programs and these issues are driving me
crazy.
(Laughter)
MR. QUARLES: I think we will all agree that we now
have gotten below the platitudes.
MR. SCHIFFMAN: Very specific details.
MR. QUARLES: All right. Any other questions?
MR. WIBLE: John Wible, State of Alabama Department
of Public Health. Mr. Quarles —
MR. QUARLES: Do you want to spell your name? I
think I would ask people throughout the day if you spell your
names when you answer.
MR. WIBLE: It is W-i-b-1-e. Is EPA going to
religiously meet the deadline set out in the act?
-------
21
MR. QUARLES: We are going to try. We have not met
the deadlines in any of the statutes that we have a
responsibility for implementing in all cases, although we have
met the deadlines in quite a number of individual cases, and in
this whole program we are going to try to meet the deadlines
and we are setting out with the objective of developing the
various regulations so that they can go through the full
process of internal development and public review in thrasing
out at informal and formal meetings with outsiders within the
times called for by the statute.
Now, one of the benefits of this statute is that it
did come along through Congress after some of the experience
under the other statutes, and I think the deadlines here are
somewhat more reasonable. One of the difficulties of the
deadlines in this statute is that it is essentially an 18 month
timeframe as of when the regulations are called for. That 18
month timeframe applies to a long list of regulations, and our
challenge is going to be to see how many of the regulations we
can bring along simultaneously to meet that deadline.
Experience would suggest that in regard to some of
them you either are trying to get several regulations through
the same bottleneck and you have to pick out which is more
important and should go first, or you find that some of them
encounter problems that take longer to reach an intelligent
solution to. So I think that it would be foolhardy at the
-------
22
outset to proclaim grandly that we are going to meet all the
deadlines. But we take those deadlines seriously and we are
developing our schedule with the goal of meeting them, and we
hope we will.
MR. XANTEN: There are no funds appropriated under
this act. They have only been authorized. Do you evaluate the
possibility of getting more?
MR. QUARLES: Do you want to comment on that?
MR. MEYERS: Well, you are quite correct. There are
no appropriations. We have had no additional new moneys as a
result of the act. We have made our estimates and we have put
them out and we will see what happens.
MR. QUARLES: We do expect — let me see if this
would be a correct statement -- just look at where we are in
relation to budget cycles, congressional budget cycles. It is
not realistic that we are going to be receiving more money in
the form of actual appropriations until next summer, or at
least the spring.
Now, whether it is even physically possible to go
through the processes of a supplemental to the "77 budget, is
very much in doubt. So we will, however, undoubtedly be
receiving funding for the program in the '78 budget, and in the
meantime we are making funds available through some
reprogramming within the agency to get the program started.
There is one question over here and then I think --
-------
23
MR. WARNER: Bruce Warner, W-a-r-n-e-r, National
Association of Metal Finishers. Our concern is the disposal of
metal hydroxides, and I think that I would like to get this
more specific. Will our association be given the opportunity
to provide input? Will the input be given serious
consideration and in the event that these two are true, how do
we make contact and with whom?
MR. QUARLES: Yes, you will be given the opportunity
to make input, and I think I can show you that it will be
seriously considered. One of the things that I would like to
deal with a little bit, in the same way that I raised this with
a group on the toxic substances program yesterday, is we do
have some limitations on our own staff capability to receive
this program with no new positions and get it going.
We would like to receive all the input we can get and
I think that the face to face meetings are one of the best ways
to really get a sense of what is most troubling to people about
the statute and the way that we seem to be headed in
establishing our regulations underneath it. To deal in a
thorough way with some of these very difficult problems you
have got to go to the format of a written document that can
really spell out precisely what it is telling you.
To the extent that a written document can be kept
within reasonable limitations of length and be set forth
clearly, that helps us. We certainly are going to encourage
-------
24
all of you to make some missons to us. I do not think there is
any single deadline that is critical because we will be going
through an evolutionary process and at different stages we will
be trying to come to grips with the policy issues at different
levels in a sense. But throughout the process of the next 18
months, we are going to be still making up our minds on most of
these issues before most of these things are really finalized.
What I was going to say is: I would suggest that we
not attempt to take on the burden of answering everything that
we receive in a detailed way because we are going to be flooded
with things and if you will look to the next draft, as it were,
for the next answer of our disposition of what you have
proposed, I think there will be enough of the back and forth so
that you will get a meaningful response.
MR. ROZIANNO: I am with the Association of American
Railroads. One of the concerns that we have in our industry
.that concerns everyone here is the overlap, the integration of
this law with other laws, specifically the Hazardous Materials
Act of 1974. What mechanism or policy has been established
within EPA to address these issues and to ferret them out so
that they do not become a problem to people trying to implement
the regulations, vis-a-vis you and EPA?
MR. QUARLES: One of the specific mechanisms that we
are attempting to establish is this type of meeting today. In
other words, I think that people on the outside often are going
-------
to be more sensitive to what that overlap is than we are
ourselves. You will see a conflict that may not appear to us
because you will look at it from the viewpoint of your very
specific constituency or problem and be conscious of the
difference in regulations.
Within EPA we ourselves will be carefully considering
the different regulatory systems we have got, just as the
reference was made earlier to the drinking water program and
this program under pits, ponds and lagoons. There are dozens
of other examples and we will be attempting to sort those out.
But we are going to need help and I think that the safeguard
ultimately is providing a sufficient opportunity for people
outside the agency to know what we are going to do before we do
it so that you can come at us and say, "don't do it because you
haven't considered the way it is going to impact on this
particular problem," and then we will try to consider that and
revise it so that we will eliminate that overlap.
One more. Yes?
MR. WIECHMANN: My name is Dick Wiechmann,
W-i-e-c-h-m-a-n-n, with the America Paper Institute. One of
the issues that we see from this act is the study under 8002J,
interagency study, to various solid waste management
alternatives, a two year study. I would like to ask, I guess,
two questions. One is: has any effort been initiated to set
up an interagency task force; and next — let's make it three
-------
26
questions — who at EPA — is it Shelly himself or someone
else? — is the individual who will be the prime project leader
for EPA; and is there any specific mechanism whereby we can not
only provide input as the study gets ongoing, but possibly be
part of the thinking going into how these studies might be
organized?
MR. QUARLES: I am going to let Shelly answer that,
if you all will excuse me.
MR. WIECHMANN: Fine.
MR. QUARLES: Then I will leave this to you.
MR. MEYERS: Thank you.
MR. QUARLES: I really thank you all for coming and I
hope this goes really well.
MR. MEYERS: We have not done very much on that study
yet. As soon as we get underway we will have identified a
project officer. I am not at all clear how the interraction
you are asking for would take place. The study is different
from regulation, but based upon other studies that you are
aware of. It would make sense to have interested affected
parties involved in the studies to the point where the data,
the information, and perhaps format is subject to public review
as we11.
I say I am not sure because now you are going off
into a different arena. We are quite agreeable to the agency
opening the doors to regulatory programs. I am not quite sure
-------
27
how you do it when you — well, you can take the next extension
in R&D as well. You know, what do you do research and
development on? What do you study that makes up the scope of
work? And I can tell you that we have not given that the
degree of thought that we have given the process of the
regulatory program.
So most of the answer I have for you is in the "I
don't know" category, except that once an individual is
identified as a project officer of that, we will let everybody
know who it is.
At this time I would like to again introduce Roger
Strelow, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste
Management, who has a few broad remarks as well.
MR. STRELOW: I will keep these very brief. I
challenged John Quarles before the meeting to see if he could
make his remarks sufficiently comprehensive that he would leave
me with little or nothing to say, and I have to admit that he
has almost entirely succeeded. But I do have a couple of very
brief comments I would like to make, some considerations that I
think all of us who are going to be involved in implementing
this law should keep very much in mind.
The point has come up about the relationship of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the basic solid waste
authority that it amends, to a number of other legislative
authorities. The Toxic Substances Act has been mentioned, the
-------
28
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act — you have not mentioned pesticides but
that certainly is involved — practically everything we do in
EPA. In fact, even the noise program, strange as that may
seem, I just had a briefing last night on possible noise
regulations for garbage truck compactors. So it is very
comprehensive.
But I think we should not just look at it in terms of
jurisdictional overlaps and, you know, does this authority in
the Water Act overlap with this one in the Hazardous Waste Act,
the hazardous waste authorities, for example. Obviously those
kinds of issues have to be considered because it would be a bad
idea from many standpoints to have unclear or overlapping
regulations that further enhance red tape, etcetera. But I
think a more fundamental point is that the enactment of this
legislation really closes one of the last gaps, undoubtedly not
the very last one, but at least one of the major remaining gaps
in the whole spectrum of environmental controls, pollution
controls.
We have air and water and other authorities, but have
up to this point had no national legislation and very little
state legislation, at least actively implemented, to deal with
particularly land disposal and residual disposal as a broad
category. We now have this opportunity, in fact this mandate,
EPA's charter and the very reason for its existence very much
-------
29
relates to the comprehensive and integrated dealing with
pollution problems of this sort. So I think it is certainly a
requirement on our part to try and do our job in this fashion.
Industries from time to time in the past, especially
some state agencies who already have perhaps more integrated
authorities than we have had at the Federal level, have
complained from time to time that, you know, the EPA takes a
narrowminded look and does one thing under the Air Act, another
thing under the Water Act that are not terribly related. I
know we have had problems in the past. We have had real issues
about whether we could condition Water Act permits, discharge
permits, under the Water Act to deal with the residuals
disposal that resulted from that and basically felt that we did
not have that authority under the Water Act.
So we are going to have to try to approach it in as
sensible and overall fashion, looking at all the authorities we
have, and trying to run programs that make sense from all these
vantage points. We are finding increasingly in the agency, as
John Quarles mentioned, that simply because we have the
legislative authority under one act or maybe more than one act
does not necessarily mean that the office in the agency that is
most closely associated with that act will necessarily deal
with it either at all or entirely under their authorities or
with their expertise. We are really having to become more and
more a single integrated agency.
-------
30
I think the same comment has to apply to industry,
for example. I know you all have felt sometimes in the past
that, as I say, we have approached things on a too narrow media
basis. I think in your view of this act, and in your comments
to us to constructively help us build the best kind of
framework for implementation here, please do not lose sight of
the very complaints that you yourselves were making or have
made over the years and quite properly in many cases.
In other words, let's all, I would implore, try to
view this in a very comprehensive sense and if in turn
something that we are doing here really requires us to go back
and look at something that we are doing under another law that
now has to be seen in a different light, or at least we
examine, fine, let's do that. But that is a major
consideration, one that we will have heavily in mind.
I think another major consideration as far as how we
all should approach questions of implementation, is again the
point that John referred to in a different context, namely the
fact that we are very, very heavily dependent for the success
of this whole act and its implementation on state and local
agencies. There is no way with all the funds that we could
possibly have -- and I know we will not have them under
whatever administration or whatever kind of conceivable
economic budgetary circumstances -- there is no way the Federal
government can or should, if it could, try to implement the
-------
31
requirements of this law, other than providing the national
guidance and criteria standards that are specifically called
for.
But the permit issuing, the actual implementation of
the program must be done at the state level. We realize there
are at least as great budgetary and other problems at the state
level, the local level, that we face nationally. We realize
that any major new program simply has to have some amount of
transitional effort. You cannot suddenly take the world by
storm overnight. I think we have learned that the hard way in
some other areas and hopefully we will not have to learn it
quite so painfully in this area, and that simply means that we
are going to have to make the viability of the program in state
and local hands a very major consideration in how the national
policies that we are here to talk about today are structured.
That leads to a third point, and my final point here,
and that is that as you probably noticed, those of you — and I
assume most of you — are familiar with the other fundamental
Federal environmental legislation: the Clean Air Act, the
Water Act, etcetera. It cannot escape your attention that
really this act, particularly in terms of its substantive
requirements, is much more flexible, provides much more
administrative discretion than the other acts. You do not
have — in the Clean Air Act, for example, you have a
requirement that air quality standards must be set to protect
-------
32
the health of all individuals in the population and those
standards must be met by a specified date. Well, that has not
happened, quite understandably I think; not that it is not a
good objective, but you had very specific constraints there.
You had the auto emissions standards set right in the
legislation and so on. Here that is not the case.
I was thinking, of example, of one part of the act
here where criteria for state — I believe it is the criteria
for state plan guidelines — talk about various factors that
should be considered by EPA in specifying those criteria, and
they use such words as "reasonable protection of air quality,"
"reasonable protection of the quality of the surface waters,"
etcetera. Well, that is just a whole different approach
philosophically than we have seen in these other laws.
But to relate it to the point about the need for
state and local flexibility, as usual we are going to have to
do a bit of a tightrope act, all of us together, because the
Congress in giving this kind of flexibility I think sets a
special demand on all of us to exercise that authority in a
responsible way. I mean if we do not want this law rewritten
five years from now or three years from now with much more
arbitrary and constraining provisions, we better make sure that
with the flexibility we are given we do it in a way that will
not betray the trust that the Congress has placed in the
Executive branch in this particular area.
-------
33
So while we have to build in the flexibility to make
the program a viable on in state and local hands, on the one
hand, on the other hand we also have to make sure that we are
acting in a responsible way so that we can clearly stand up and
be counted before Congressional hearings and, more importantly,
before the public to assure them that we really are doing the
job that people are led to believe this law is going to do.
So let me just leave on that note. I am sure I do
not have to argue to anyone that indeed it is going to be a
complicated and demanding task to implement this law, but this
is precisely the kind of forum that I think provides some hope
for success if we will all talk with one another and that is
exactly what I would like to get into now.
MR. MEYERS: Any questions or comments on what Roger
said?
MR. LEHR: Could I make my brief statement now?
Okay, I am a member of the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council. My name is Jay Lehr, L-e-h-r. I am the Executive
Director of the National Water Well Association. I am also a
member of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and I
have to get back very quickly so I will be very brief.
My purpose in a few moments is to prove to EPA that
this act may be considerably broader in its powers than people
are immediately aware, and after proving that it is much
broader, implore EPA to not use those powers in an overbearing
-------
34
manner, out be extremely flexible and to use it as they try to
get the states to deal with their problems.
The EPA has a manual just published that our research
organization produced for EPA. It is for the control of ground
water pollution. It defines all of the different problems in
ground water hydrology that lead to.ground water pollution. It
explains the laws that may control it. It explains how a state
may develop laws and regulations to control their ground water
pollution. It delineates in a series of charts and graphs 21
activities that can pollute ground water and how they can be
regulated.
The Safe Drinkng Water Act, which is the first
legislation that can control ground water pollution, actually
affects only three of these. This act, the National Water Well
Asssociation worked on passage of this act for about five years
to get some ground water pollution control regulation that did
not exist before. But we got with regard to regulation was
only the regulation of well injections. So of 21 activities it
only controls actually disposal wells, drainage wells, oil and
gas, secondary recovery and perhaps a fourth solution, mining.
We feel that there are seven other activities that
can be regulated in this existing Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. They are land fills, dumps, and excavations,
waste piles and stock piles — less obvious — accidental
spills, sludge and effluents, highway salting and holdingi ponds
-------
35
and lagoons, as well as storage tanks and lines.
Now, to point this out, let me first explain what the
Safe Drinking Water Act does not say, and taking directly from
the Federal Register on August 31, where the present draft of
the underground injection regulations were published, the draft
states that the proposed definition of underground injection
does not cover practices which in many cases endanger
underground drinking water because they cannot be deemed to be
underground injection. For example, leakage from sewer mains,
sceptic systems, highway salting and leachinq from land fills
appear to be very serious sorts.
In the preamble to the present draft of the UIC regs,
it exempts virtually all activities, except the direct
injection of pollutants into wells. It does say that it
controls dug wells, but defines dug wells as an excavation
which is deeper than it is wide, and in doing so, it eliminates
most pits, ponds and lagoons. It says what is clear is that
there are, however, tens of thousands of dug wells, including
industrial and municipal pits, ponds and lagoons used for waste
storage or disposal, which pose a very serious potential hazard
to underground drinking water, and all it proposes to do is
require the states to undertake a survey of dug wells to
determine the extent to which they function to place fluids
underground and the hazards they pose to underground drinking
water.
-------
36
It then goes on to say that once they collect enough
data they will look into amending their definition or amending
the very legislation. I propose that there is no need for
amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act to cover these
activities that pollute ground water because they are covered
in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and I will
follow this through very quickly with a fairly clear logic
pattern using the act itself.
In Section 103, under objectives, the Act
says -- 1003, excuse me -- "The objectives of this Act are to
promote the protection of health and the environment and to
conserve valuable material and energy resources by," and one of
the points is number 4, "by regulating the treatment, storage,
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes which have-
adverse effects of the health of the environment," a very broad
point. Again, "storage, transportaton and disposal of
hazardous wastes."
Then under Section 1004, under definitions, it
defines "disposal" as meaning: "the discharge, deposit,
injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any solid
waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that
such solid wastes or hazardous wastes or any constituent
thereof may enter the environment or be admitted in the air or
discharged in any water, including ground water." So it
clearly brings out any disposal that affects ground water.
-------
37
Okay, now we have to see what is solid waste and what
is hazardous waste. It defines hazardous waste, "the term
hazardous waste means a solid waste or combination of solid
waste which because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may," and
under (b), "pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed."
This clearly takes under what we do in pits, ponds and lagoons.
MR. MEYERS: Jay, could you wrap it up in another
minute? No more.
MR. LEHR: Okay.
MF. MEYERS: I think everybody is getting the point.
MR. LEHR: Okay. Under solid waste, it clearly
discusses solids that are in liquids, which takes into account
most of the effluent sludges that are placed in pits, ponds and
lagoons, and it states that the act will require standards for
the management of these things to protect, again, the quality
of ground water. That is Section 108.
So it is my contention that the act clearly covers
pits, ponds and lagoons, and that therefore it has tremendous
impact — at least on ground water — more than any other
existing act; and that in fact the ground water regulations
under this act are more important than those under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and that because this act is so broad that
-------
38
its importance "is greater than the new Toxic Substances Act
that EPA is managing, and that this act should be given the
very highest priority in implementing it, but again, in
conclusion, that EPA should not wield in a heavy handed manner
the power that it has under this act, but use it simply in a
cooperative manner to prod the states to develop programs to
meet their particular problems.
Thank you.
MR. MEYERS: Thank you, Jay. I should tell you that
we very quickly ascertained what you have just said and have
been working with our drinking water people to make sure that
there is no duplication of efforts. I think by the very nature
of this kind of meeting we do not intend to be high handed or
however you put it. We want the input of affected parties so
that we can come out with something that people can live with
that does what the law says and is not an extension and
grabbing onto things that you really do not have to do. So I
just want to assure you of that and others, and have a good
meeting.
MR. LEHR: Thank you.
MR. MEYERS: The manner in which we are going to
conduct the rest of the meeting will be to have some senior
people from the Office of Solid Waste give you a very quick
overview of the subject matter and then open it up mostly for
questions.
-------
39
Before we begin —
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I just ask one question?
I am with the Department of Environmental Action. You just
mentioned the fact that the agency is going to endeavor to
integrate various activities. My question was: will this
result in the reduction of the amount of review that goes on,
of regulation within the agency, which has proven in the past
to have impediments to meeting certain deadlines?
MR. STRELOW: Reduction of the internal reviews
within the agency?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right.
MR. STRELOW: There may be ways that we can -- in
effect, we have over recent months found at least some ways to
reduce the amount of time that it takes or the particular
procedure to accomplish a certain type of review. But I think,
you know, it is pretty obvious from many of the comments made
here that we are probably going to have to be even more
painstaking and careful in many ways in ensuring that we are
reviewing authorities in this act compared to others and so on.
This is really an area that we have not had to do nearly as
much under other legislative authorites where there was quite
clearly just one statutory base in the agency's arsenal to deal
with the problem.
Now many of the steps we may be taking under this law
are going to raise a whole host of potential impacts or
-------
40
conflicts or whatever with other laws. So I think it is only
fair to say that it is going to be a real challenge to meet the
deadlines, at least in all cases, particularly where you have
some of these real knotty conflicts to sort out, not only as to
which legislative authority you ought to use, but how they
relate to one another and so on.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But you do not plan anything
specifically to streamline current review procedures?
MR. STRELOW: They are being reviewed. The
interagency review procedures that we have implemented for a
number of years now have just recently been considerably
streamlined. We have looked at, on several occasions just in
recent months, at internal review procedures as well. But
there just are going to be more issues under this law that are
going to require some knd of review internally, and of course
the external reviews are going to be even more complicated,
too.
So it is going to be very tough, I assure you, to
meet the deadlines in a number of these areas if we are to do
the careful job that I think is needed of making sure how it
x
relates to other authorities, how it is going to impact on
other activites among the other regulatory agencies that are
involved, and the industries affected, and one of the reasons,
frankly, that it is going to be very important to have all of
the kinds of interests involved here included at every step of
-------
41
the way as we go about developing these regulations is that I
think, you know, it will become apparent to you as we go
through it just where some of these issues are, and if there
are places where various interests involved feel that we can
move more quickly, fine, we can be responsive to that. But I
think there are going to be other cases where people may all
come to some agreement that you know it is going to be worth a
couple of months' slippage here if that is what it takes, a
couple of weeks is maybe what it takes, to really resolve some
of these issues.
So hopefully we will all see that together, and there
should not be a feeling that, you know, gee the agency is kind
of off in the corner somewhere snarled up in its own red tape.
If we are snarled up in red tape, it is all going to be
together.
MR. MEYERS: We are behind schedule and we will have
plenty of time --
MP. LANDAU: May I address myself specifically to
that issue? My name is Emmanuel Landau, L-a-n-d-a-u. I am
with the American Public Health Association. One of the things
we have been the most unhappy about with EPA is its failure to
look at the totality of exposure of any individuals. The new
act apparently closes one of the serious gaps and we hope that
it will now be possible to take a look at all the routes of
exposure that an individual is getting, and this would make
-------
42
possible then some account being taken of the adequate effects
of all of the possible combined effects of the whole group of
pollutants which menace the human race today.
So I think that we would welcome this integration
that you mentioned.
MR. STRELOW: That is one of the things that the
Toxic Substances Control Act mechanism, I think, is going to
help focus because we are going to be with that act even more
thoroughly, I think, looking at all of the possible routes for
exposure. We have done that increasingly over the past several
years in areas like PCBs, for example. We have had Shelly's
people in terms of the disposal problems with PCBs, the air
programs looking not just at exposure to PCBs from the air, but
more importantly of course, the PCBs that are released into the
air but then settle out into the water. So you re quite right,
this is just all part of this increasing need for the agency,
and I think it is being responsive and has a good ways to go,
but being responsive in this area.
MR. MEYERS: Okay. The first subject matter that we
are going to speak to is the hazardous waste program, and
again, there will be a relatively brief presentation by Jack
Leahman, who is the Director of the Hazardous Waste Management
Division in the Office of Solid Waste, and most of the time
will be spent addressing questions that you raise.
Jack?
-------
43
MR. LE^HMAN: I would like to spend just a few
minutes running through the various provisions dealing with
hazardous waste in the new law, and point out carno af, first of
all, some of our philosophical basJTs; secondly, what the act
actually says we have to do; and thirdly, to highlight perhaps
in a little more depth some of the issues that we see, that we
are looking for input on from you all.
I think it is obvious to everyone from Mr. Quarles'
remarks and just reading the act that the definition of
hazardous waste in Section 3001 is the keystone of the entire
§ubtitle C, dealing with the hazardous waste management
program. The rest of that subtitle is essentially an
infrastructure to impose a new type of regulatory program on
these wastes, but clearly the definition is a key part of that,
and the rest of it takes effect after that has been done.
From a philosophical point of view, the requirements
for standards and regulations on hazardous waste generators,
transporters;and various treatment and disposal facilities we
looked upon in the general sense of negative incentives, if you
will. They are analagous to speed limits. If someone exceeds
these standards then they are subject to some sanction. On the
other hand, we look upon the permitting aspects of this law in
a positive sense, namely, that if a facility has a permit that
the
is de facto a Federal or state decision that that- facility is
safe to operate, it is safe for the community at large that
-------
44
the
that facility is accepting hazardous waste, true, but that
there are sufficient safeguards for the community at large.
And so the permitting process is, in our view then, a positive
statement as opposed to perhaps what you are used to in terms
e
of permits on discharges for NPDS or something like that.
A
Another major point which has been stressed before,
but I will do it again, is it is our clear reading of the act
that it is the congressional intent that the jstates implement
the hazardous waste portions of this law, as well as many other
parts of the law; and that the Congress provided special grants
for the development, and implementation of state hazardous waste
management programs.
Two other general points and then I will get into the
details: it is our reading that there is no retroactive
authority within this provision. In other words, the
provisions do not take effect until the regulations have been
published, and then six months after that they go into effect.
However, there is an imminent hazard provision within the act
which is applicable at the present time.
One other point I would like to make is that all of
the hazardous waste regulatory provisions call for the
opportunity for public hearings and we will follow that if they
are called for.
So let's move on to 3001, the definitions of
hazardous waste. The act calls for essentially three different
-------
45
functions here for us to do. One is to identify the criteria
for hazardous waste; the second is to identify hazarous wastes,
and by that we are taking that to mean methods for identifying
hazardous waste; and thirdly, a list of hazardous waste; and so
we are looking at all three of those. The criteria is
basically a number or some type of criteria that will decide
yes it is or no it isn't.
The identification methods in our view would be
standard sampling methods and testing methods which would say
whether or not the waste meets these criteria; and lastly, if
the waste does meet the criteria per the standard test, then it
would be put on a list. So the list is basically the end
product of these other procedures.
Some of the issues with regard to that are the fact
that we know a lot more about the nontoxic parameters of
hazardous waste than we do the toxic parameters. In other
words, there already exist standardized tests for flammability,
for explosivity, for corrosivity, things like that. But it is
.very difficult to get anyone to agree on what a standardized
test for toxicity might be. We lack data on the toxicity of
mixtures; the synergistic and antagonistic effects of mixtures
are just not well known. We also lack information on chronic
toxicity.
So these are restraints on us as to the scope of the
definition of hazardous waste at the present time, and also,
-------
46
but not least, one other issue is the cost and availability of
such standardized tests.
Going on to the next section on —
MR. STRELOW: Jack, excuse me. I assume it would be
easier if you have a specific question on something that Jack
has said as opposed to a comment that you would like to get in,
which we will get into, I think it probably be best to raise
your hand as he is talking so we do not forget it or get back
to a bunch of very specific questions. If you have got
questions on some specific comment, raise your hand.
Ye s, sir?
MR. WORTH: Bill Worth, General Motors. Basic to
this whole thing, I think we have got to consider what portion
of solid wastes are we going to be concerned with when you talk
hazardous? Are we talking about the solid material, the stuff
as it goes into a land^fill, or are we talking about leaching?
What is going to be the distinction?
MR. LE^HMAN: No, I think the point is, in our view
anyway, the decision as to whether a waste is hazardous or not
is independent of how you manage it. In other words, once you
have decided base on its properties or its potential for — let
me put it this way — its potential for public health or
environmental damage if it is not managed properly. That is
the criterion on which we decide whether it is hazardous or
not. Once you have decided that, then you decide how you, are
-------
47
going to manage it, and if it means land filling, if it means
incineration, if it means biological treatment, whatever.
The basic decision yoG or—ft« is based on the
characteristics of the waste and not its ultimate disposal
mechanism.
Yes, sir?
MR. WORTH: In other words, if you have a known
hazardous material it cannot be burned, it cannot be
solubilized, it cannot be biodegraded, this is a hazardous
waste even though it is totally inert?
MR. LE/HMAN: Not necessarily, no, sir. The
^s
standardized tests that I am talking about can and probably
will take into account the leaching characteristics of these
wastes. As I have said before, it is what would happen to this
waste if it did not reach a permitted facility. If it turns
out that such a waste is totally inert, it is tied up in some
calcine, for example, and no matter what you did with it this
hazardous component could not be released in the environment,
and therefore not cause a public health problem or
environmental problem, then it probably would not be classified
as a hazardous waste.
I know there are a lot of specific questions. We
could —
MR. MEYERS: Roger, I think it would be
— this is a short presentation.
-------
48
MR. LE/(HMAN: Ves, we should go through this quickly
*»x
and then come back to these questions.
MR. MEYERS: We will not go on tc the next portion
before we finish the hazardous waste program. So you will not
have to wait till the end of the day.
**\
MR. LE^HMAN: Okay. Let's talk for a moment about
the hazardous waste generator standards. I want to point out
that these are national standards applying to all Hazardous
waste generators, but the law does not require a permit for
hazardous waste generators. It requires a permit for facility
operators. In other words, if a generator also has a treatment
facility, then it does require a permit. But if the only thing
a generator does is generate and someone else disposes, he does
not require a permit.
However, he is required to keep records and report
the fact that he is generating waste and also follow certain
are
containerization and container labeling provisions as*to be
defined, and part of the responsibility for the generator is to
fill out, initiate a transport manifest system which is the key
transport control mechanism here. You want to make sure that
if a waste is identified as hazardous that it gets to a
permitted facility. So there nas tc be this control over the
transport link, and that is what this transport manifest system
is intended-do.
to
!Adl
Now, one of the key issues in that area, of course,
-------
49
is how to minimize this record-keeping and reporting burden and
at the same time maintain cognizance over the hazardous waste
situation. Another obvious issue is how these transport
manifests fit with the DOT requirements and the ICC
requirements for shipping papers and so forth. Another issue
is whether or not these transport manifests should be uniform
nationally, or whether each state should be allowed to have
their own form.
One aspect of this whole situation is that these
wastes,as opposed to municipal waste^are often transported
across s_tate lines and so you do have an interstate flow of
these types of wastes. There are many instances of these
wastes crossing tens of states before they reach their final
resting place.
Another basic issue that we are looking into is
whether or not there should be waivers or special conditions
for small business or for agriculture or for other types of the
society. Another standard is that applicable to the
transporters of such wastes, and here again there are
requirements for record-keeping, labeling, and manifest system
usage and compliance, and here again there is obvious interface
parameters with -febe-DOT, with the trucking, rail, barge, all
types of transport. We are very much aware of that.
I want to just amplify what was said earlier. We are
already in contact with DOT and working very closely with them,
-------
50
and you can be assured that we will not publish anything that
is inconsistent with what DOT has already in effect. But one
of the — well, let's go on.
The facility standards: now, bear in mind that these
are national standards applying to all facilities that treat,
store, and dispose of hazardous waste, and here again there are
requirements for record keeping and reporting, monitoring
requirements, standards for operation and management practices,
standards for facility location, design and construction,
standards" for contingency plans, and standards for ownership,
and we are thinking in that area in terms of such things as
long-term care provisions, liability insurance, performance
bonding, and that type of thing.
Now, some of the issues associated with these
standards are that the standards are to be performance
standards, and so when you start talking about performance
standards, you are led down certain paths and one of the-ee-
issues is if you are going to have performance standards,
should they be based, for example, on zero discharge philosophy
E
or a nondegradation philosophy, or somehow tie into the NPDS or
drinking water, or, if none of the above, then what? And so we
are contemplating all of these types of performance standards
and we are certainly looking for input from you on these.
Another basic issue is whether these standards should
be uniform nationally. There has been some talk about, well,
-------
51
we have to have flexibility, what works in Nevada will not work
in Boston, and so on. So should these be minimum national
standards applied uniformly across the country or should they
be regionally specific?
So I am just touching, highlighting the issues. The
permit program, section 3005, requires EPA to develop a permit
we are
program. wfce=fces» as I said earlier,^hoping that the states will
take on this permit program.
-------
52
But nonetheless, I think certain types of
administrative and legal procedures and so on, the usual thing
dealing with permitting programs. I might point out that the
law permits — and no pun intended -- an interim permit which
is automatic. You have an automatic interim permit if you
follow the following three things: number one, that the
facility was in existence the day the act was passed, on
October 21, 1976; second, that the owners of the facility have
notified EPA or the s_tate that they are in fact in the
hazardous waste business, so to speak; and third, that they
have applied for a permit. If you meet those three criteria,
you automatically have an interim permit while the permitting
process goes on.
This provision is a good one. I think it avoids
constipation of the system, if you will, while the permits are
being processed.
3*-e
I think that — i«- probably the key points. I will just
throw it open for discussion. Oh, one other thing, and I
mention this because it is often overlooked for those that are
skimming through the act, and that is under Section 3010, there
is a requirement that after the definition of hazardous waste
is published in the Federal Register in final form there is a
90 day period where everyone who generates, treats, transports,
stores;or disposes of hazardous waste is required to notify
-------
53
either EPA or the appropriate Estate agency. And so that is a
one shot notification system. It has nothing to do with
permits and so on. It is just everyone notifies the government
that they are in fact in this arena. And so I wanted to
mention that because it often gets lost in the reading.
Okay, let's throw it open for questions. I am going
';o go over here, sir.
MR. CARMICHAEL: Floyd Carmichael, New Jersey. Could
you elaborate on what resources would be available to the
s_tates to implement the hazardous waste program?
^\
MR. LEgHMAN: Okay. First of all, there is
authorized within the law a grant program in Section 3011 for
the specific purpose of developing and implementing these
programs. Now, at the moment I believe the law reads that
these grant programs are to go into effect in fiscal year '78
and '79. That is an authorization. There has been no
appropriation as yet and so I cannot comment on how much of
that money might be available to the states.
Secondly, there is within the act a call for resource
conservation and recovery panels which are in effect technical
assistance panels. Although the name is resource recovery and
conservation, it is clear from the discussion in the act that
it meant that these technical assistance panels cover other
parts of the act as well as resource recovery, including
hazardous waste and municipal solid waste and other aspects.
-------
54
So there will be available to the states and localities upon
request this type of technical assistance.
Yes, sir?
MR. CAKMICHAEL: Does EPA ask for full authorization
and appropriation throughout the entire act?
HP. LE/IHMAH: You are asking a question that I an not
prepared to answer.
MR. STRELOW: I do not think you can say that as a
flat matter. That was never really intended. The
authorization limits put in the act are intended to be an ample
maximum so that you are sure you have enough. Eut you assess
in any given year what your actual needs are going to be. In
some cases that comes up to the maximum and in other cases it
does not. It just depends on your best estimate at any given
point.
MR. CARMICHAEL: Will thece be a matching program for
the states? Will the states have matching moneys from the
Federal?
MR. LEAHMAN: I believe that the act specifies that
there can be no less of a match than is already in force.
Yes, sir?
MK. GRAZIANNO: Pau] Grazianno, the Association of
American Railroads. What are some of the parameters that you
are considering in your definition ot hazardous wastes? When I
"parameters," I mean what numbers are you talking about?
-------
55
MR. LEXHMAN: The general parameters are
flammability, reactivity, which includes explosivity,
corrosivity, oxidizing agents, etiological agents -- infectious
organisms -- toxicity in its various forms -- inhalation,
dermal and so on — radioactivity, because there are certain
radioactive wastes which are not covered under the Atomic
Energy Act which are covered under this act, and
biomagnificaton and persistence, which are explicitly called
for in the act to be taken into account.
So these are the parameters that we are currently
considering as part of the definition.
MR. GRA2IANNO: The basic parameters, cne same ones
used by DOT today, is that correct?
MR. LEAHMAN: A number of these are the same
parameters. Now, that does not necessarily mean we will arrive
at the same criteria level. We may use the same standardized
tests, but pick a different level. That is one possibility.
Yes, sir?
MR. GROSSMAN: Robert Grossman, ERDA. This is more
of a comment than a question. But the long-term storage and
disposal of wastes is going to be hundreds of years for
radioactive wastes. I suggest you consider the preservation
and the periodic review of the records of what is stored where
because we have to look out for changes in language as well as
the degradation of the records.
-------
56
MR. LEAHMAN: Good point. Let me go over here. Yes,
sir?
MR. HINES: Richard Hines. I have a question on the
philosophy of defining hazardous waste. You stated that one of
the approaches you are going to take is to look at wastes which
are not properly stored or transported or treated and could
$
pose hazardous wastes, and that would be one of the approaches
that you are going to take. It seems to me that one of the
dangers of that approach is that there probably is not anything
that given some degree of improper treatment or improper
handling or improper disposal would not pose a danger. I
wonder how you are going to deal with that problem.
MR. LE^HMAN: Well, the language of the law/, as I
recall it, without having it in front of me, is that the
definition calls for you to take into account substantial
danger or hazards to the environment, and so it is not meant to
just be an open mandate to describe everything within the
umbrella of hazardous waste. That is not our intent. We are
trying to resolve that issue, obviously, as to where is that
line.
Just as a general rule, our results to date would
indicate to us that something on the order of — and this is a
very broad number -- on the order of 10 percent of industrial
wastes look to us like they might be potentially hazardous. So
it is on that order that we are looking at right now. It may
-------
57
turn out to be more, it may turn out to be less, depending on
how these regulations are developed.
Yes, sir?
MR. WISHMAN: Dick Wishman, American Paper Institute.
Will you be publishing guidelines as to help industry define
hazardous wastes?
,<•"*
MR. LE/HMAN: There will be regulations and national
standards.
MR. WISHMAN: Will there be any early exposure to
these regulations?
••"•^
MR. LE/HMAN: Oh, certainly.
MR. WISHMAN: Drafts?
<-\
MR. LEXHMAN: As I say, this whole definitional
process, we intend to be completely open and we want to hear
from every source their ideas as to what kind of test
procedures might be useful, what kind of criteria are deemed
appropriate, etcetera. We want to have all this and then of
course there are these public hearing processes and the
proposed rule-making and so on.
Sir?
MR. PUCE: Peter Puce. Two questions: do you plan
to list specific chemicals, specific substances as part of this
act as hazardous materials?
-~)
MR. LEflHMAN: The act calls for us to list hazardous
o
wastes, so we intend to do that. Now, one of the issues is how
-------
58
do you do that without resorting to going into a chemical
description of chemical compounds, and so we are still
wrestling with that, but, yes, there will be a list and it is
not yet clear as to how that will be handled, whether we will
say wastes that contains chemical X to some extent are a
hazardous waste, or whether we will say wastes from a certain
process or this sort of thing are known to be a hazardous waste
and therefore are on the list. That is another possibility.
But there will be a list.
MR. PUCE: Okay, sir. If I understand you correctly,
you are leaving open the option that you may list things by
classes. For example, saying that --
MR. LEAHMAH: We may.
MR. PUCE: -- chlorinated hydrocarbons are included
as hazardous.
MR. LEgHMAN: Possibly, but not nearly that broad. I
think that is much too broad a classification. There may be
like mercury and all of its compounds or something like that as
a class. I am just using that as an example, not as a
statement. That might be possible, but I do not think all
chlorinated hydrocarbons will be on the list.
MR. PUCE: I have a second question. What about
long-term health effects, to what extent these will be given a
priority among your criteria, such as mut4genicity of
substances and how will that relate to the work of toxic
-------
59
substances?
MR, LE/HMAN: That is a good question. The law in
its definition of hazardous waste says that we are to take into
account present and potential damages and hazards, and so we
fully intend to do that. We are not going to look at just the
obvious acute hazards like flammability, explosivity and so on.
We are indeed going to take into account, to the best of our
ability, potential hazards in the future, and part of the
problem is, as I mentioned earlier, the lack of verified
chronic toxicity data, or chronic carcinogenic data or these
sorts of things. This is one of our problems.
And so we need to have as much information on that as
we can in order to guide us as we deal with that long-term
potential problem. But we do intend to take it into account,
definitely.
And the other question was how does that relate to
ecntrol
the Toxic Substances*Act, and,obviously, as I believe
Mr. Strelow or Mr. Quarles mentioned, the information that is
derived from TOSCA can be made available to us to help us make
that decision. There are within TOSCA some provisions that
deal with disposal and so there is some degree of mating, if
you will, between these two acts, and in fact one section of
TOSCA calls for disposal regulations on PCB, explicitly for
PCB; and so the way the agency is handling that is that the
TOSCA office, the Office of Toxic Substances, is in effect
-------
60
contracting with this office to do that.
So there are these overlaps and we are working within
the agency to keep them organized and integrated.
MS. BILLINGS: There could also be a two way street.
If we find that you have a two way problem, if we are concerned
that there is great deal of environmental exposure in transport
and you do not have another name for that substance, you could
also let the Toxic Substances Office know that this is a
problem.
MR. LE^HMAN: Yes, that is possible.
MR. GOOLEY: Carl Gooley, General Electric,
G-o-o-l-e-y. Will hazardous wastes that are sold be subject to
the same manifest system and regulations as they would be if
they were otherwise disposed of?
MR. LE/HMAN: Sold for reuse?
MR. GOOLEY: That is right.
MR. LEAHMAN: That gets to the heart of the matter of
when is a waste a waste, as opposed to when is it a commodity,
and that decision has not been made as to where that line is,
either. Another basic question, just to follow that up, is
that there are starting up in this country a number of waste
exchanges for industrial waste which do not necessarily involve
sale, but they may involve transfer without ultimate disposal,
and so the same question that applies there, too, is a waste
that is in a waste exchange subject to the controls of this
-------
61
act, and we are working our way through that. The answer is I
cannot give you a definition there. That is one of the issues.
Any thoughts you have on that matter I would appreciate
receiving.
MR. ECKDAHL: I would like to submit a statement
which I will simply give the reporter and not take the time to
read here, but an example of a waste that is sold and is
definitely is a waste would be used oil, which sometimes finds
•streams
its way into the fuel otrainc, is not processed at all, is
burned and generates great quantities of pollutants into the
atmosphere. This is sold; it might be recycled, it might be
reused over and over again, so there might be an example of the
waste that is a waste in spite of the fact that it is sold.
On that subject, it is our hope that used oil will be
included under the definition of hazardous waste. But there is
a staggering amount of used oil, and by "used oil," I mean
automotive crank case drainings, industrial lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, and the like, which come through the system,
a billion gallons a year of this stuff, most of which is
disposed of in some way which is damaging to the environment,
and hazardous to public health.
We estimate that half a billion gallons are simply
dumped, either flushed down toilets, dumped in back yards, into
the waterways one way or another. Another half billion gallons
are burnt, and then most of }t without any pretreatment. These
-------
62
oils contain high quantities of heavy metals, carcinogenic
materials and the tragedy of this is that all of these oils
really could be reused over and over again.
In West Germany, for example, they collect half of
this stuff and bring it right back to its original use. That
would be one and a half million gallons of this high quality
lube that could be saved a day. So it seems that this could be
a substance that would fit very nicely into the intent of
Congress here, and we would hope receive a high priority in the
EPA implementation of this bill. Thank you.
MR. LEAHMAN: Yes, sir?
MR. GRAZIAMMO: Bob Grazianno. Would you please tell
us what program you have with the transporters, the common
carriers, and how -- I take it you intend to write regulations
regarding the transport of these materials. Will those
regulations be published by EPA or possibly by DOT?
MR. LEAHMAN: Our intent at the moment is for EPA to
publish these regulations with a great deal of interaction with
DOT, and that is our current plan. You have to, I think, bear
in mind that we in no way want to duplicate what DOT calls for
already, but part of the problem is that many of the DOT
regulations and the ICC regulatons only apply to interstate
carriers, and what we are trying to get at here is all
transporters, whether they are a block, as a gentleman
mentioned earlier, or 2000 miles. So there are some
-------
63
differences here.
Yes, sir? You have been very patient/
MR. WORTH: Bill Worth. First a comment. In tho
^9^init'i"n "r in developing the operational definition of
hazardous waste, I would hope that this would be a consensus,
all points are listened to and everyone is given a chance to
comment, obviously, because this is a very important concept, a
very important definition. As the gentleman from the Refiners
Association points out, we have gotten into some very broad
areas here, so I would hope that this would be a consensus
opinion.
Now, a question. The generators of hazardous
materials are not subject to permit. However, storage is
subject to permit. A typical industrial situation would be the
ovf r
generation of a small amount of a hazardous waste -&f- a period
of time. For example, 100 gallons a day of some very obnoxious
material which would be held for a period of time until you got
a volume that you could dispose of. Now, with this type of
holding, would storage require a permit?
MR. LE^HMAN: Again, we are sorting through the
various options in terms of who should have a storage permit
and who should not. I think there if you are talking in terms
of a storage tank of hazardous waste which might be held for
months before it is emptied, I think that our current opinion
would be that, yes indeed, such a storage facility would
-------
64
a
require,permit. If you are talking about holding materials for
a few days until you get enough together to have a truckload to
take away, now perhaps that is a different category and
a in
somewhre.between the lines there you have got to draw a line
and be reasonable as to who requires a storage permit and who
does not.
But I think if you are talking about storage in the
sense of weeks or months, that is different than merely
accumulating a batch for shipment in a short period of time.
So we recognize these differences and, here again, any thoughts
you have about what is reasonable in that area would be welcome
because there may be a different kind of permit for short-term
storage than there is for long-term storage, for example. That
is one of the options available.
Yes, ma'am?
MS. DIDKIKSEN: Paula Didriksen. I would like to
return to something that the man from New Jersey brought up
regarding the identification and the listing of hazardous
wastes. Are you contemplating developing that list on an
industry specific basis, or will it be material specific?
MR. LE^HMAN: No. Our current plan is not to have
this industry specific. In our view, one of the reasons that
we are very much interested in developing these criteria and
standardized test techniques is that that would be an equitable
way to decide what is and what is not a hazardous waste,
-------
65
irrespective of its source. So that is our current philosophy
or our goal.
MS. DIDRIKSEN: Our second question: regarding a
specific waste program for desulfurization of sludge, would you
venture at this point an opinion as to whether or not that
would be considered hazardous? I know you do not have the
statistics.
•*^
MR. LEXflMAN: The question is whether FGD sludges
would be considered hazardous waste and would I venture an
opinion, and the answer is no because clearly that has to wait
for the definition and the development of these criteria. It
would be certainly premature to make a statement that all FGD
sludges are or are not hazardous waste until we find out what
the criteria say. So that is why it is hazardous to venture
such an opinion.
Are there any others? There is a lady in the back.
MS. GIBBONS: Ann Marie Gibbons. Will you be looking
at radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants?
MR. LE^HMAN: No. The radioactive wactoc that I wac
-c-eforring -fee—— one of the parameters we are looking at is
radioactivity and the law is explicit that it covers all
hazardous wastes except those that are regulated under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended. But there are lots of
other radioactive materials besides those. For example,
natural radiant is one; materials that are generated in
-------
66
cyclotrons, for example, I believe are not covered under that
law and so there are some wastes that are not covered under the
other law that could be covered under this law.
So we do not intend to duplicate what NEC and ERDA
are working on in that area.
Yes, sir?
MR. HINES: Richard Hines. I have another question
on the permit program. Do you believe that when you see the
permit program, will it be taking into consideration a number
of different permits that a particular industrial company may
need for a particular process, or is each permit program for
treatment facilities, is that going to be run independently of
the permit program/, sftorage facilities and transportation,
even though as an individual plant you find it meets all those
criteria?
MR. LE/HMAN: Well, I think what you are expressing
is a general frustration that it is just one damn more permit
that we are going to need. We are very conscious of that. We
are attempting to — the concept of a one stop permit or
e
integrating permits with NPDS or whatever is certainly one of
the options that we are looking at. Part of the problem is
that each legislative mandate is aimed at a slightly different
area and it is often very difficult if not impractical to marry
these permits all together.
But nonetheless, we are sensitive to your concern and
-------
67
we will attempt to minimize this kind of duplication or add-ing
to your burdens in terms of permits. We are very much
concerned about that.
This side of the room seems to be more silent than
the other side. Yes, sir?
MR. WORTH: How do you see the term or the concept of
quantity in the definition of hazardous wastes?
MR. LE/HMAN: Okay. The whole concept of quantity as
\
it relates to hazardous waste is a very difficult one to deal
with because quantity in the absence of talking about
concentration is essentially meaningless, and so you have to
marry those two concepts together in order to really get a
handle on what you are talking about.
Furthermore, you have to deal in terms of the
capacity of a particular -- say if you are talking about land
disposal, you have to talk in terms of the capacity of that
land to absorb that material in terms of its attenuation
capabilities and so forth. And so it is a very difficult
process. You can take, for example, a teaspoonful of cyanide
waste and spread it over an acre, but if you took 10,000 tons
of that same cyanide waste and put it on the same acre you
would have a different environmental and public health effect.
So this whole area of quantity is a difficult one. All I have
been able to do at this point is tell you how difficult it is.
We are looking into that. Again, any comments you
-------
68
have on that subject we would certainly welcome and take into
account.
Yes, sir?
MR. POPP: Walter Popp, Environmental Action
Coalition. Does the new law give EPA powers to do anything
about hazardous waste that has been disposed of in the past but
which can still be considered a hazard?
MR. LE^HMAN: As I mentioned earlier, I do not
believe that it does. I do not believe it is a retroactive
act. However, if a waste is in storage, and then, after the
regulations go into effect it moves from storage into disposal,
then it would.
MR. STRELOW: Wouldn't the imminent hazards provision
also — if there is something already in place that you
discover has been there for ten years, and you discover the
hazard, I think we could deal with it if it met the criteria
under the imminent hazards provision but not the permit
provision.
under
MR. LEMMAN: Not, the permit provision.
c A
Yes, sir?
MR. WILLOUGHBY: Bud Willoughby. To go a little
further on that question there, would it be possible to
consider making provisions for a community or a large
corporation that has an exposed dump of hazardous waste
It
material, and let's just say that has been into a cavity so to
-------
69
speak, and yet it continues to harm the environment. In order
to place limits for that harm and avoid that particular
hazardous waste in a state of neutralization, has there been
any thought of that?
MR. LE^HMAN: That fits into the whole question of
remedial action on old problems if you will, and we do have a
research and development program aimed at exactly that point.
But I do not see that the regulatory provisions of this act are
going to apply to those situations, other than the imminent
hazards provision. We recognize that as a major problem and we
do have a research and development program which will be
generating some answers hopefully in the next few years.
Yes, sir?
a
MR. TOROSIAN: My name is Joe Torosin,
A
T-o-r-o-s-i-a-n, from General Electric. I have a question
pertaining to permits for treatment facilities. We have a
brand new treatment facility in operation. It went into
operation before this law went into effect. Do I have to have
a permit for that facility because, one, I am either treating a
hazardous waste, or two, is it because it is a treatment
facility?
MR. LEAHMAN: No, no. It has to meet both criteria;
that it is — that you are dealing with an identified hazardous
waste and that you are treating it. In other words, if you are
treating something that is not on the list, in other words, you
-------
70
are treating nothing that is on the list, then you are outside
of this regulatory program, the way I see it.
MR. TOROSIAN: I would like to ask this question:
the end result, I think that the end product is not hazardous.
Now, what is the interface between the guy that is taking that
sludge away from me?
MR. LE£HMAN: Well, if the end product of your
treatment does not meet the criteria for hazardous waste, then
it can be handled like any other waste. However, if the
if
treatment is not total, in other words, that after treatment
you still have a waste that meets the criteria, then you have
<3S
to treat that waste like—it is a hazardous waste as well.
Yes?
MR. PURLIE: Section 30C5 provides that a storer and
treater and disposer of hazardous waste must proffer a permit,
but then he is held to do nothing more until the permit is
processed by EPA. How do you interpret the act as dealing with
the activities that deal with the interim period during between
which you appraise and between which the permit is granted?
MR. LE^HMAN: Well, I think it our intent,
obviously — well, first of all, you are assuming that it is
EPA that is going to be processing the permits and we are
hopeful that it will be the states that will be processing
these permits, and so all I can say is that I think it is our
intention and I am sure it would be all of the states'
-------
71
intentions to process these permits as fast as they can, given
the resources and the technicalities of each individual case.
But I think the provision still is a good one because otherwise
you would have no facilities that had a permit when the
regulation went into effect.
So you have got to have some leeway there, some
to
transition, if you will, from practices in the past and all
practices being under permit. There has to be this middle
ground, and I think what you are concerned about is the length
of time it takes to get those permits finalized.
MR. STRELOW: Jack, isn't the question,
though — let's say that the definition of hazardous wastes are
out, there are certain standards that are applicable. Are
those not or are they applicable to this person even though he
does not have a permit during this interim time when the permit
is being processed? If you found out during the midst of that
process that he was clearly disposing in an improper way of a
waste that met the hazardous definition, I assume he would not
be immune from liability, from injunctive relief or something
else, simply because there was no real permit.
MR. LE^HMAH: I think that is a good point, that the
law has both national standards and permits, so if a facility,
even though it has an interim permit so to speak under this
other provision, it may still be then subject to the national
standard.
-------
72
MR. STRELOW: I think the issue that this transition
was attempting to deal with was the one that came up under the
old Refuse Act when that was being used to deal with water
pollution control. Initially, when that old act was sort of
first rediscovered, it was illegal simply not to have a permit.
If you could prove that somebody was discharging anything into
a navigable waterway and he did not have a permit, that very
act was illegal, and I think this transition provision simply
ensures that a person is not going to be held in violation of
the law simply for not having had a permit when he in good
faith applied for one.
But I would think that any applicable substantive
standards would apply to him nonetheless.
MR. PDRLIE: I mean many people are going to have to
go through, obviously, building new facilities and major
modifications of old facilities, and presumably the permit
would be how to have a proposed step by step to get into
compliance.
MR. STRELOW: You are right, that could get to be
pretty tricky. On the one hand, I suppose the person could
say, well, I could not start doing anything until I really got
my permit and knew what it was I was required to do. On the
other hand, I would think if he were just blatantly disposing
of a clearly defined hazardous waste without any attempts at
all to control it and ameliorate any environmental harm, that
-------
73
he probably would be subject to liability. That is a very good
point and certainly one that we have got to explore in some
considerable detail legally as to what our remedies and those
of the states might be.
s
-------
74
not have before?
MR. LE^HMAN: Well, the whole thrust of the solid
waste program prior to the passage of this act that were
discussed today, was to provide this technical assistance and
help to the s^tate and local governments, and so there is
already in progress, not only out of the headquarters here but
through our various regional offices, through their technical
assistance and also through grants that are in effect right
now, both technical and financial assistance to most states to
do just that, to help develop a program. But this will be
accelerated obviously as a result of this new act.
MR. MEYERS: Thank you, Jack. We would like to get
on with the rest of the program. Before I do, though, we have
mentioned a number of times that if you have something to say,
please let us know. I would just like you to know how to do
that. Address anything you have to the Office of Solid Waste,
EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460, attention:
=r
public participation officer (AW462).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there a phone number for
that office?
MR. MEYERS: We do not have a phone number yet, but
someone will be designated to receive that mail and see that it
gets to the right people. *
Okay, the next part is the land disposal portion of
the act, and George Garland, who is with the systems ma-nagement
-------
75
division, will give that presentation.
MR. GARLAND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act deals with land disposal in a number of places, and it is
somewhat complex. So what I intend to do is weave together the
various parts of the act that deal with land disposal and try
to make sense out of how it will impact on you.
To begin with, the act calls for criteria. In one
place, in Section 1008, guidelines, it calls for criteria for
open dumping. In Section 4004 it calls for criteria for
sanitary landfill. If you put the two together, you get in a
sense the same thing. The criteria for open dumping will
define what is not a sanitary landfill, and vice versa.
Now, these criteria will raise a number of issues.
For example, how do we protect ground water in the United
States? This is an issue that has not been dealt with very
comprehensively in the past and through these criteria we will
begin to raise that issue and the states will be deciding how
each of them will be dealing with it.
Now, after the criteria are promulgated in one year,
we will have an inventory. The criteria will reference
guidelines for sanitary landfill. These guidelines will be
published under Section 1008. We presently have land disposal
guidelines. We plan to update those guidelines, especially
with respect to the portion dealing with ground water. These
guidelines will give substance to the criteria in that they
-------
76
will pose options for the various criteria that are raised.
Now, the inventory which will take place once the
criteria are published will be carried out by the states. It
is likely that the states will have a great deal of latitude in
determining the coverage of that inventory and some latitude in
interpreting the criteria that determines what is an open dump
that needs to be inventoried. Once open dumps are inventoried,
they become illegal. We will be publishing that inventory one
year after the criteria are published, or in two years,
assuming that all the deadlines are met.
The s_tate, by participating in the planning
provisions of subtitle (d) will gain a five year grace period,
so we will not have the chaotic situation of everyone having to
close open dumps overnight. In participating in the planning
provisions, the states are supposed to come up with compliance
schedules which show over a five year period or shorter how all
of these open dumps will be brought into compliance, either
through closure or upgrading. In coming up with a safe plan,
the state will create, if it does not already have, an
enforcable program for prohibiting the establishment of new
open dumps.
Subtitle (d) calls for then a state and local
institutional framework to deal with the land disposal
provisions in the other parts of the act. I said "state and
local" because the locals are the people where in general the
-------
77
waste is actually handled; in some cases by the private sector
and in some cases by the public sector. Subtitle (d) also
calls for planning at the local level for dump closure, and a
variety of other things, but in my view primarily priority
would be on dump closure.
Okay, with that broad outline, I will throw it open
to questions. Yes?
MR. YOUNG: Earl Young, the American Iron and Steel
Institute. We see one problem in the interpretation of this
act which is its designation of any acceptable land disposal
facility as a landfill. The disposal provisions appear
generally reasonable, but the result of this apparently is that
there can be many types of sanitary landfills, that this is
inconsistent with a state definition of a landfill, a^f sanitary
landfill, which are specifically directed at municipal wastes.
So that I think there could be a real problem in implementation
of when is a sanitary landfill a sanitary landfill?
MR. GARLAND: You have heard earlier today about the
broad definition of disposal and a very broad definition of
solid waste, and there may be many solid waste acts on the
books which are notequipped to deal with this breadth of
definition, so that there will have to be a rethinking of what
is a sanitary landfill.
For example, a pit, pond^or lagoon which was
considered an open dump because of its effect on ground water
-------
78
that needed to be brought into compliance, well, the state
would need to decide what is an acceptable pit, pond, well^or
lagoon. So that we begin to get at, if we attack that issue,
sanitary landfills that are acceptable pits, ponds,.and lagoons.
So indeed there will have to be a rethinking and in some cases
states may need to plan for a new legislative base for that.
The planning provisions in subtitle (d) should help
to ease the transition. Yes?
MR. HINES: Richard Hines. The statute contains a
definition — a prohibition, excuse me — against open dumping,
without any particular timeframe attached to it, and you just
indicated that EPA's interpretation is that that takes effect
after the inventory of open dumps is published. My question
is: is it really reasonable to assume that the s_tates are
going to have plans calling for the phasing out of these open
dumps within that two-year timeframe, because I assume if they
do not, that that prohibition goes into effect?
MR. GARLAND: It is not clear to me when the
prohibition goes into effect. Jack Leafhman mentioned the
imminent hazard provision, for example. So I am not really
prepared to address that issue.
With respect to whether the states are in a position
to deal within the two-year timeframe, I should point out that
about $40 million has already been spent in planning in the
solid waste area under other previous versions of solid waste
-------
79
acts, and the states have programs right now. So it is not as
if they are starting from zero. It is likely that most states
will be able to cope, although, as I say, there will be some
difficult transition issues in broadening the scope of their
programs to fit the new definitions in the act.
MR. BERRANI: My name is John Berrani from the First
National City Bank of New York. Has there been any thought
given to the volume of financing that will be required to
convert some of the open dumps to acceptable dump facilities?
MR. GARLAND: Hot directly. We do not have a
publication on that sort of thing. What are you looking for?
MR. BERRANI: Information.
MR. MEYERS: Let me just say that before the
regulation is published that defines an open dump or defines a
sanitary landfill, we have an internal requirement in the
agency to prepare what is called an inflationary impact
statement, and it is very likely that by virtue of doing that
we will get a handle on the resource implications for following
through. But we do not know the answer now.
MR. GARLAND: Yes?
MR. CAREY: Solid waste in this country has always
been put on the back burner, so to speak, in all environmental
legislation. Do you envision calling upon the private sector
groups who have had substantial experience in this area, in the
county governments, to develop this inventory list of dumps,
-------
80
a
and also, the total development of -h«- comprehensive plan of
solid wastes at the regional and state level; and secondly, are
there programs at the Federal level thai- are now working at the
local level where municipalities have to develop comprehensive
plans for community development, economic development, and some
of these things?
Would it be possible for EPA to integrate the solid
waste scope into these other agencies and how local governments
use their land, especially in areas that are limited in their
options o'f" solid waste management and disposal?
MR. GARLAND: With respect to the inventory, this is
going to be a very big job perhaps, and the states may need to
use people other than their own staff in carrying out the
inventory, so that they would be using the private sector in
the carrying out of the inventory.
In the case of local planning, it is our intention to
establish linkages between people who are actually operating
solid waste management systems and the people who are doing the
planning. It is barely possible that there are some planners
in this country who do not think it is important to talk to the
people who are actually going to be doing the job when they do
the plan. In that unlikely event, we will make sure that they
are made aware of that in our planning guidelines.
Now, let's see, your second question?
MR. CAREY: It dealt with other Federal programs that
-------
81
were mandating local governments.
MR. GARLAND: Perhaps the most significant of the
other Federal programs, the planning programs, is the 208
program under Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and you may
know that that program is referenced in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. We are working very closely
with the people who administer that portion of the water act to
make sure that their planning program is well integrated with
ours, and so that consideration is very high.
In addition, A95 agencies, in the regular process for
integrating the various planning programs, will have a role,
and I guess we would be relying on them, unless you have other
suggestions for ensuring that other planning programs get into
it.
Yes?
MR. CRANE: My name is William Crane, C-r-a-n-e,
Government Liaison Associates. The question I have is: how
are you going to define — I am not sure the act defines
it -- what is an open dump or sanitary landfill? For example,
a dump or a landfill on industrial property, or does it have to
be one that is used by public contractors or for disposal of
household trash, or for example, a large industrial firm with
its own property would have a landfill of some kind. Would
this be expected to be inventoried and therefore controlled by
regulations and so forth?
-------
82
MR. GARLAND: This is an issue that we wll be
addressing in coming up with our criteria. It is a coverage
issue, and it seems to me on the face of it that if we are
concerned about, for example, protecting the ground water and
you have a pit that is on industrial property, there is sand
between it and the ground water, it is clearly leaking a lot of
stuff into the ground water, it would seem to me that it is the
attempt of the act to call that an open dump, irrespective of
where it is located.
MR. CRANE: You are not really sure?
MR. GARLAND: True.
MR. CRANE: The second question: in forestry
operations a lot of material left in the woods after the trees
are cut and the so-called slash is taken off, is this going to
be a solid waste problem that will be addressed in this act
also?
MR. GARLAND: This is a coverage issue that will be
addressed to some extent by us -- that is an open question as
to the extent we will deal with that — and to some extent by
the. s_tate. If there is a state that is especially concerned
about this problem and feels that there are effects which are
dealt with in our criteria which are significant enough and are
able to be tied to this particular problem in such a way that
you can say this is a waste disposal practice that ought to be
covered, then the state would do that.
-------
83
MR. CRANE: At what point would you deal with that?
The definitions, when you establish them?
MR. GARLAND: The way we will have our largest impact
is in establishing the criteria, and those criteria are pretty
much spelled out in the act right now.
Yes?
MR. WIBLE: John Wible, W-i-b-1-e, Department of
Public Health, State of Alabama. On the definition of open
dump, in the act itself it defines it twice.
MR. GARLAND: True.
MR. WIBLE: And it is basically the same, but tl.e
subtle differences are do you anticipate any problems with the
two definitions?
MR. GARLAND: No. As I said, we anticipate putting
out one criteria for open dumps and sanitary landfills in which
we would say that an open dump is something which; a sanitary
landfill is not an open dump, for suggestions on how to deal
with these issues to have sanitary landfills, see our sanitary
landfill guidelines.
Yes?
MR. CARROLL: Tom Carroll. I would like to follow up
the comment that the gentleman made from New York, that the
cost of upgrading dumps to landfills -- you said that you have
not done an analysis yet, what that cost is going to be. Do
you intend to give financial assistance to local governmments
-------
84
to undergo that process?
MR. GARLAND: There is only one provision in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which might deal with
that. That is assistance to rural areas, and in that
provision, I believe it is 4009, upgrading open dumps is
specifically mentioned. That is the only place in the act that
deals with that concern.
Yes?
MR. MCCALEY: I am Ron McCaley. My question is: to
what extent is agriculture coming under the provisions of this
act, particularly in relation to solid waste disposal, and you
know, the trace elements that have been given attention in
manure? Will it be covered and to what extent, and also, is
disposal of manure considered or the definition of the disposal
site applicable to the disposal of manure?
MR. GARLAND: The basic definitions in the act are
very broad and would include agr iculturaj/solid waste, and in
particular, the kind you are concerned about. The question
then is one of coverage; whether the practices in a particular
state are sufficiently in violation of the criteria which we
promulgate on open dumps, that the state wants to cover those
in its inventory of open dumps and begin to get them under
compliance schedules.
Yes?
MR. BLAKE: How do you plan to define, for instance,
-------
85
application of sludges on agricultural land?
That
MR. MEYERS: -ih«-gets into definitions again: when
is a waste a waste? If it is going to be of beneficial use, is
it a waste, or is that considered disposal? That is the kind
of question that we have not addressed yet and we are
interested in what the public thinks we ought to do in that
arena. But that is one of the dichotomies that we do have.
(Pause)
MR. MEYERS: If there are no more questions on this
particular section of what we have talked about, are there any
questions on anything else we have talked about? I note Jack
Le/hman is just getting back.
MR. GRAZIANUO: Would you kind of lay out for us what
you plan to do this afternoon?
MR. MEYERS: This afternoon at 1:30 we are going to
go over the resource conservation and recovery portion of the
act. At 2:30 the state program of development; at 3:36
technical assistance, training, public information and public
participation; and it seems that we are pretty much on
schedule, so I think you can count on those times.
MR. NYE: Gary Nye. Have you anticipated at this
point in time how much extra staff you will require in your
office to implement these various program?
MR. MEYERS: We have gone through those estimates and
we constantly go through them. As of today there have been no
-------
86
increased resources at all.
(Whereupon, the hearing was recessed for lunch.)
-------
87
A_ F T E F N 0 0 N SESSION
(1:40 p.m.)
MR. MEYERS: To start off this afternoon, Hick Humber
will start off speaking this afternoon.
MR. HUMEER: Well, this morning you heard all about
the regulatory aspects of the law and our waste management
strategy at EFA is not just a stick but is a carrot and stick
approach, the carrot being activities of resource recovery and
resource conservation, and I think one can look at the law in
two ways. I'm not sure if it makes that much difference which
way you look at it, but one could say that resource recovery
provides options to current disposal practices. In other
words, if s^tate governments are going to reduce the poor
practices that exist with land disposal, other options must be
provided. Resource recovery is one such option to dumps,
certainly. And another way of looking at it is if one wanted to
implement resource recovery and resource conservations matters
and reduce the chief alteratives to that--in other words,
eliminate expensive land fills which don't reflect the true
environmental cost. The real lesson is that th^ey do go hand
in hand and that it is a true carrot-stick approach. At least,
it should be pursued that way--as a regulatory program and a
program of providing options.
Specifically, resource recovery is one option, but
there are other options, in technical assistance, in providing
-------
better disposal practices. How the philosophy in the act, with
regard to—let's take one specific issue/ which is construction
of alternates--is not to provide a large grant or construction
subridy for resource recovery plants, for transfer stations,
for land fills. I mention that because it's in contrast to the
approach in the water program, which has heavily subsidized
construction. Instead the approach here is to look at economic
incentives on the market side. Specifically, the act calls for
the creation of a resource conservation committee. This is an
inter-agency committee looking at different demand options, in
other words, economic incentives, that would rr.ake the use of
recycled materials more attractive.
I think that this has the effectiveness--or the
potential for this is understand to soire effect. In other
words, after the two years, the committee could make
reconmendations that would significantly reduce the wastes that
are available or that require disposal. So that's clearly an
option in handling our waste problem—is just to reduce the
wastes that are generated, or of those that are generated, to
reduce those that require disposal, because they have been
recycled. Or a good portion of them can be recycled.
Now clearly resource recovery is not meant to
eliminate^ the need for land disposal. It's just: technically
impossible. There will still be a great need for land
disposal, but certainly for improved practices over scr.e of the
-------
89
current practices.
.The other area the act emphasizes, as I said, is
resource conservation. It goes just beyond economic
incentives. It also requires a more general resource
conservation approach, specifically looking at options for
reducing waste generation. To date we've looked primarily at
economic incentives in our agency, but other, more regulatory
approaches could be considered. We're intuitively
initialitvely not very supportive of strong regulatory
approaches for, say, packaging, et cetera, and feel they're
very complicated and very difficult to implement, but
nonetheless, there may be some, and I'm certainly not blind to
them.
Somebody asked me when I said that last week, why was
the agency developing information about the beverage container
issue, and I guess I clearly see that as an economic incentive,
not as a regulatory approach. In other words, one can still
purchase containers that dcr.'t recuire deposits, or if he pays
the deposit, he can still throw it away. So it's certainly not
regulatory, but it's a strong economic incentive. That's why I
think it works within the current market system, that many
industrialists promote.
Other elements, quickly, of the law, are that it
continues our demonstration and our K&C authority. now this is
not demonstration and just resource recovery. It's
-------
90
Demonstration of a broad range of solid waste management
options, including selection disposal, hazardous waste, sewer
separation.
A question I'd like some help on is, is there a need
for more demonstrations of any of the technologies, in land
fills and resource recovery, hazardous waste source
separation^? If there's a need, is there a need for
demonstration of operational systems, or is there a need fcr
more research and development?
Another major issue, which we'll discjss later, is
technical assistance. In lieu of providing large federal
subsides, we've been providing informational and advisory
assistance to communities in helping them obtain financing,
understand the market considerations, and understand some of
the legal constraints, because some of the new issues in
resource recovery are much more complex tnan they have been in
the past, for municipal functions.
Another element is that resource recovery and resouce
conservation, in addition to the past elements of state
programs, have become more prominent. In other words, state
programs typically focus on disposal issues, and the act
encourages them to look at conservation issues in the state
programs.
I think that summarizes pretty much the elements of
the act that have to do with resource recovery and resource
-------
91
conservation^. I'd like some questions. Yes?
EUSS RE3INEHART: Russ Rhinehart. I'm all for resource
recovery. That's a good idea. However, there are a lot of
other issues involved. If you try to put economic incentives
on resource recovery, essentially there would be taxes or
subsidies or some inflationary technique. Vihere is your
balance? How inflationary are you willing to go?
MR. HUMEER: Well, the reason we are considering
those is that the options to resource recovery are essentially
subsidized by the government. In other words, to date, one of
the options to resource recovery is in expensive land disposal
that has not been paying the full environmental costs, and so
that in turn is subsidized and makes the competition more
difficult. In other words, if land fills costs $2 and if
dumped properly they would cost $8 per ton, and in fact they
are being subsidized to the tune of $6. »."hen recovery systems
sell materials and energy, typically the materials are
subsidized to som.e extent to government tax programs right now.
So in that sense the deck is stacked against resource recovery.
c
So we are saying that those disincentives to recovery
and incentives for consuming virgin rather than secondary
materials should be reduced or they should do some kind of
compensatory programs, so that they can be more economically
equal.
Yes?
-------
99
WfV
DICK WIECHMAUN: I'm Dick Kiechmann, American Paper
Institute. I'd like to make a brief comment, and then ask
questions.
First of all I think one of the major problems in the
solid waste area is availablity of land, as you indicated at
the beginning, in certain areas--urban and suburban, basically.
I think of my own suburban area in Connecticut. They have to
ship the garbage out of the town, because there's no place
left, and this is true in a lot of these small communities.
I think ultimately--! think our industry has been
v/
promoting this for some years no—the solution has to be in the
area of resource and energy recovery, which will lower the
total volume of land fill to a small fraction of the total, if
you can do this. I agree with you—I think we are a long ways
a way from it. I think, I would hope that this program of the
Office of Solid waste will do whatever it can to see how the
whole technology can be implemented and spread. I think this
is necessary as the ultimate solution.
That's my comment. My cuestpn deals with a copy of a
draft of the, one of the chapters of the EPA fourth annual
report to Congress, Chapter 7 specifically, which I have seen,
which deals with waste disposal charges. I would like to get
your comments, if I could, as to why, with the interagency
study under 8 double C 2 J, saying tnat the EPA should, along
with the other agencies, be looking at various solid waste
-------
93
management alternatives, including waste disposal charges^
J
-------
94
reduction as viable alternatives in certain situations to
current disposal policies, there really, in terms of action on
the part of EFA, has been very little done, specifically, in
relation to source separation programs.
There are currently two demonstration projects,
Marblehead and SOnlmerville, and we're pleased tiat they're
going very well, but the source separation area of EPA is
sorely understaffed. It's impossible for the people to get the
information out to the cities that could use it to develop
demonstration programs of their own.
One of the things that you brought up was was there a
need for further demonstration of some of these things. I
would say certainly there is a need for further demonstration
of source separation programs, and a need for a real commitment
on the part of federal EPA to source separation as an
alternative, and an ability for EPA to get out to the
localities to tell them the information that is available, that
the technical information is available, and that there really
is some creditability there.
MR. HUKBER: My question is, how do you measure that?
In other words, you made those comments. Are you commenting on
the number of people we have, on the budgets we have, or how do
you come to that conclusion? Because I don't have the same
conclusion you do. For example, we have four' people in source
separation snd we have four people in all the other resource
-------
recovery technologies. We have the same budget for source
separation in 1977 as we do for all of resource recovery
technology. !3ow granted they're both very small. They're only
a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But they're comparable
at this time.
MS. KOEHLER: Perhaps what I should say—
MR. HUMEER: I think you're right in comparing what
we do to what we could do.
MS. KOEHLER: One of the things perhaps is that
industry has provided a lot of technical information and a lot
of public relations and advertising, but on resource recovery
there's information available to cities from a lot of different
1
sources in acldtion to EPA on resource recovery. There is not
A
that same kind of information available on source separation.
The cities simply just don't know how to go into source
separation programs, or if it's worth trying. I think there
has to be further demonstration, and EPA has to make up for the
lack of information on the private sector's side by providing
that information.
MR. HUHEER: You're right. In source separation
there's very little. Eecause of the capital involved in the
business activities, which are miner. I agree with you.
MS. KOEHLER: Can you tell us what the plans are in
repect to source separation?
MR. KUKDEE : All I can say is we have limited
-------
96
budgets, very small budgets in very both areas this year, and
so they're both small areas. The amount of technical
assistance we provide in the resource recovery system is small
compared to what cities would like, and I agree with you, it's
small in source separation too.
MR. KEYEES: Let me say something there. Since this
is an open forum, Sherri, I think we'd be kidding you if we
gave you any impression at all that we're going to be doing the
same sorts of things that we've done in the past in any area
that we've worked on in the past. It's just not true. l,e have
a certain number of people. i;e have got a very r.uch increased
work load. tvhat Hick's telling you is that either with that
increased workload, we're trying very hard to keep it where it
was, which may be very difficult. There are many things which
we have to do that we didn't have to do before and that we're
talking with you about today.
And it has rade the box binger. ',,e are trying to
keep it going in the basis of--keer. it going.
MS. KOEHLEE: what I should just leave you with is
that there are definitely a group of people out there that care
very much about source separation, and want soire attention
paid.
ME. HUMEEK: In the next six months or so, as in the
last six months, we have a guideline requiring federal agencies
to source separate. T.ve concentrated on implementing that.
-------
97
That has taken up most of the time of those four people,
because we feel it is a big example in terms of studying an
example.
After that I think we w/^ill concentrate on the
residential.
MS. KOEHLEP: I do applaud that program. I think
it's spectacular.
MR. liUPEEF: Yes?
VEIL SELCEi:: Hy name is l.'eil Selcen, from the
Institute for Eocal Eelf-Feliance, and I'm also interested in
source separation and ether low-technology systems, and I would
point out that although the staff and the budget at this point
seems to be balanced cehind lew-technology, the amount of funds
available for high-technology projects, has over the past few
years, beer, counted in tens of millions of dollars, whereas the
amount of money for lew-technology systems is, oh, probably
under e half a million.
HF. L'Ci'TCF: That's right. It's about a million.
It's still small.
r.E. SCLCEti: That's right. And considering the
potential payback in low-technology systems, and in the
spontaneous activity around the country with these systems, I
would sey that not only should tne investment patterns but that
>
the government would get more payback for its money if more
funds were allocated to low-technology systems.
-------
93
MR. HUMEEF: Ckay, similarly, because they are low-
o
technolgy, they may require less investment, so if we're
spending—our spending pattern is relative to the investment
needed, we are probably similar. In other words, the large
systems, that demonstrate a large system, they cost large
amounts of money.
MF. SELDEN: Yes, but the indication is that the low-
technology systems, with their low-technology capital
investment, can handle a good deal of the problem that the
high-technology systems are supposed to handle, so given that,
I think it should be tested out to see how far we can go with a
minimal investment in low technology before we make a massive
investment in high-technology systems, because we may find out
that high-technology investment is not necessarily, that it is
not necessary.
nr. IJUt-EET: Ckay. I would be surprised, but IV
willing to test that hypothesis.
Yes?
JUDITH DliGSKIM: I'm Jud\t/i)h Cwoskin, from the
Scientists Committee in ::ew York City, and I would like to
knew, in your resource recovery efforts especially, how much
emphasis for going towards co-dispesal--sludge and solid
wastes disposal together. Hew York City does have a very big
problem. We won't be able to dump it in the ocean in anojther
three years, and to build another whole set of facilities, we
-------
have no research for resource recovery for garbage. It's very
expensive—not only building but operation and maintenance.
I'd like to know what emphasis you're putting on this.
MR. HUMBER: Yes. I agree with you. That point has
been brought to my attention several tiires in the last few
months, and we have hot been doing very rnuch in that area
before that. There are a couple of private efforts that we
have not, but we shall. We just started as a rratter of fact,
and I think that's a very good point.
ECE DAVIS: Bob Davis, Garden State^ Paper Co. \e
live and die by source separation, and one thing I'd like to
know, Hick, is that, is there anything that is in the cards in
the upcoming to show the compactibility between the low- and
the high-technology systems, to get that word to the public?
We view it as a compatible alternative, a thing that will work
hand in hand. The source separation for their resource value
and, you know, what can vv6--be used for a resource to cut into
energy.
MR. HUKCER: All right, last week at the national
Solid Waste Conference, which was a technical session in
Dallas—that's the association of the private collectors—John
Skinner presented a paper on the compatibility or lack of
compatibility of source separation of beverage container
and
ordinances i«-large systems, and we found that the effects,
which boiled down to a cost per ton, were in the range of 5C
-------
100
cents to $2.50 depending on how the real and conservative,
depending on how liberal and conservative the estimates were.
But an acceptable level, say, $1.00 to $1.50, assuming a very
successful program in either area, that amount of money that is
comparable to the change in interest rates from one project to
another, it's comparable to the accuracy of estimates, so I
don't feel that that's a significant fact, and I feel that they
are quite compatible, and if there is some impact, that there
can be actions written into the contracts to compensate the
appropriate parties for their.
I!R. DAVIS: Cack in Akron, things are happening where
source separation really is taking the shorts, so to speak.
You know, the contracts were written where the city owns the
waste. They--the disposal site, the recovery facility, the
energy-recovery facility owns the wastes, and source separation
is not implemented there. I just wonder, I just think thdt
that message of compatibility between the two alternatives is,
it needs to be gotten to those.
And I have a second question.
KE. KUt'.EEF.: On that, I agree that we haven't done a
very good job on that apparently, because there's still a lot
of people, a lot of cities who feel that way. They feel that
there is an antagonism there. And that has to be a
responsibility on sorr,e extent. But en the other hand, the
people who are interested in source separation, who feel that
-------
101
we are not doing a—when I went to a conference last week with
the collectors who have to run these systems, and we talked
quite a bit about them. They felt that we were a little crazy,
because they've seen the paper market, for example, go up and
down. Even though we recommend longterm contracts, they think
we're pushing something that's not a good idea. So I feel
that/ I could use some help in getting to those people—your
help in—
MH. CAVIS: I think there's a need to. Of course,
we're in a unique position of offering longterm contracts, and
we are working with industry now, and we have quite a few
contracts with private industry now, and we have quite a few
contracts.
The thing I think that also--we have to run hand in
hand. We of industry have to help you also, and there has to
be more of us in the paper industry, the glass industry, the
metal industry that are willing to provide longterm contracts
and help the private haulers, indeed the municipal hauler.
MR. KUKEER: I think that's true. The people that
are more willing to commit to longterm contracts--it makes the
municipality much more secure going into those activities,
because we were successful two or three years ago in getting
£Cf>iivi ~ r> it i.f s to
many amoniti^o—tehat go into source separation, and many of them
have not been able to continue because the paper market went
down to zero.
-------
102
There are a lot of other contracts which it is not
economically feasible, and the cities are not wiling to go
back, so we're trying to be more cautious.
MR. DAVIS: Okay, my second question is, really, is
there anything more in the demonstration aspect? I think you
should go to that a little bit more, because I think there's
more than SOafeerville and f!arblehead. You had one in San Luis
Cbispo and one in Idaho.
MR. NUMBER: We have about five in addition to
Karblehead.
MP. DAVIS: Is there anything that we could look at,
the equipment, you know, anything? The Marblehead thing? Is
there anything that we could lock at more in the way of
equipment? How do you change equipment to rake it compatible?
hR. HUMEEP: That's one of the things we requested
funds for.
KF. E-AVIE: Cecause I think in the long term, though,
it's been proven in the newspaper and paper in general can be
collected viably by itself, the glass and can issue is still up
for question. And I think and we think that we can get more
paper out if we can also garbage, or, excuse me, glass and cans
along with the thing. And I think that, you know, a truck or
something, a piece of equipment that's compatible to a, you
know, a total source separation capability--that would mean
paper, glass and cans--is really needed. And I don't know
-------
103
where to push this from. You say, well, why doesn't private
industry come up with it? Well, I don't know why private
industry dosen't corre up with it. If there is a demonstratable
piece of equipment, which I think is not a--it's not the cost
factor—you know, you could get $6C,0CC to go around and
collect the cycle, but you need a truck like the Harblehead
thing, which we all know—the Marblehead program is a very
s
successful program, but it's also not optimized by any means,
becaue you're not optimizina the caper aspect of it. You're
\
hoping to get over five tons per load and you get three-and-a-
half tons per load.
linen you get into an environment that you have a
tremendous disposal charge of $19 a ton or whatever it is,
where they have a big--
i'F. HUi-'.EEP: Ho need to talk about that.
rr,. CAVIS : Okay. You know, we just need to optimize
that piece of equipment, to lock at all these materials, and I
think it will do a service to all of tne industry, you know,
paper, glass and metal, if we can come up with something that
( U
we can request from the homeqn|wer cooperation and we can recoup
these materials.
That's more of a statement. Thank you.
:V£EK EULLIVAi;: I'm Hark Sullivan of the National
i.ildlife Federation. Mention was made this corning about the
provisions in the act for assistance to rural areas. I was
-------
104
wondering if there was going to be anything in the way, in your
division, of research and demonstration for resource recovery
for rural areas, and when I talk about resource recovery, I
tend to lump source separation into that, because we tend to
see that as about the only possible approach for rural areas.
You can't really talk feasibly about technology intensive
things in rural areas.
But I wanted to add also that we've heard a let of
comments about, well, in rural areas the only need is for good
sanitary landfill legislation. We've learned more and more in
our work that sanitary landfilling, while it's very good for
rural areas, there's also a feasibility of recovery. In some
areas it's a necessity because of the cost of sanitary
landfilling, the lack of available land for good sanitary
landfilling.
r->R. HUMEEP: Yes, I feel that our source separation
program provides one set of options to you. Certainly, I knew,
for example, in the State of tlew Hampshire, which is
predominantly rural, there are several source separaton or
recycling systems, so people are interested in recycling, even
where they iray have land available.
Secondly, we've seen some systems that recover
energy, on the order of a 5C-ton-per-day system, and we're
looking more into those. We want to look more into those. And
we haven't done that, we've done one evaluation. So those are
-------
105
really the two options. I agree with you that probably source
separation is the best option.
MP. SULLIVAN: Well, the source separation programs
that have been 'funded so far have been with collection, I
understand. Cf course, the emphasis would be on collection
systems, because most of the waste of the nation are in areas
where there are collections, but in rural areas where they
would have to take their waste to a site. And you meantioned
•Cs
in New Hampshire, for example—these are feasible examples for
a neighborhood facility of this kind.
MR. KUMEER: Yes, I think those have been
demonstrated. There are also a few in the suburban areas of
Massachusetts. I just happen to be more familiar with that
area of the country. I'm sure there are others in the country.
So, as I say, I think those have been demonstrated. You'd
probably also say we probably should give out more information
about them.
MR. SULLIVAN: Eight.
MR. HUMBER: we have not.
MR. SULLIVAN: I'd like to echo that. There's little
available in the way of information on resource separation to
disseminate to people, and that most people assume that the
only options are varying technology-intensive approaches.
That's an unfortunate impression.
MR. KUNEER: Okay.
-------
103
BLAKE DEARLY: MY name is Blake pearly, with
Environmental Action. Recently the Office of Solid Waste
completed a milk container study, or they're in the final
throes of completing a milk container study, which has created
quite a bit of reaction from the industry. I'm wondering if
this is going to have a chilling effect on the Office of Solid
Wastes plan for further rese"^)ch in the source reduction area.
I
MR. HUt!EEK: A chlling effect—you mean on that
K
specific study? Or we're not going to look into other options?
•
-------
107
function for the committee rather than the Office of Solid
Wastes itself?
MR. HUKEER: I would prefer that it be there. I
\
think we'd get more visibility into that approach.
HR. DEARLY: Thank you.
ME. MEYERS: The committee will come out with a
report that hopefully lays out options for the future. It does
not mean that we are going to abandon completely doing work
ourselves.
MF. DEARLY: I hope not. That's one of my major
concerns.
r.F. MEYERS: I thought it was.
MR. HLTCCR: That's it.
MR. MEYEFS: That last question brings up an
interesting point, and I'd like to hear some discussion myself,
particularly from the environmental groups and perhaps the
ether governmental organizations, as opposed to industry, and
that has to do with the heavy rr.andate in the lav;, with dates on
it, to provide some regulatory program, and clearly any
organization, whether it be government or industry, is always
constrained by its resources to certain jobs.
What's the feeling about the good kind of thing that
the Solid viaste Office has done in the past with regard to
providing
proivind technical assistance, with regard to providing the
kind of reports that a local governmental unit can pick up and
-------
103
say, gee, I never thought of that, and implement something that
we did for, say, $100,000 and save themselves $2 million.
We have a feeling that even in this rush to implement
the act with regard to its regulatory activities, we still in
/
the early stages want to maintain what I/call a viable and
visible program that still provides some of those services,
recognizing that in the short run it might have to be less than
it has been in the past, simply because we have a rather
horrendous job to do in the short term with no additional
resources to do it.
I wonder how you all feel about that, particularly
the—I say, not the industry people, because asking industry
people if they want to be regulated is sort of a mcot auestion.
Anybody want to address that? Clake?
MF. I/EARLY: Could you parjda)hrase the question?
(Laughter)
HP. MEYEFS: Why don't you try it?
MR. FIUMDER: I was talking about the carrot and stick
approach in the agency, the stick being the regulatory part,
and the carrot being technical assistance and resouce recovery
activities. Well, EPA is a stick agency. They regulate people.
Sheldon's question is, how co--first of all, should we
encourage or continue other programs that are not regulatory,
such as resource recovery, such as technical assistance? And
secondly, if so, how do we do that? Cecause the forces in EPA
-------
103
are to forget about the carrot programs and to concentrate on
regulatory programs, because that's what we're in business to
do. It's not so much the agency that consciously does this,
but when there's a date in the law that says, thou shall do
something by such-and-such date, the tendency is to try to do
it by such-and-such date. There is no mandate in the law that
says, thou shall deliver technical assistance by this week,
next week or the week after. It does provide a financial cut-
off in the sense that 2C percent of the general authorizations
are to be used for technical assistance, but it doesn't say
when.
ti'e're in a position of looking at those dates and
trying to do everything we can to meet their because they have a
certain beneficial and environmental effect once it's
implemented. now we have a feeling that there is also a
beneficial environmental effect to telling a community that, if
you pick up your garbage this way rather than that way, you're
going to save yourself X millions of dollars. That is sort of
a statement and a question and—you know--where we will get all
the help we need, putting together guidelines that are
effective, but this is a different area that affects people
too, but not in the same way. If you're going to do somebody,
something to somebody that is going to regulate them, they all
want to get in the picture, and say, here's how you can
constrain it. It's rare that somebody comes in and says, hey,
-------
110
here's I want you to do good things for me. It's just, send
more of it. And you know, just sending more of it is a little
too amorphous.
Has anybody got any thoughts on that?
SPEAKER: I would say that it has to do with the
definition of technical assistance. Uhere does that go?
MR. MEYERS: It would be difficult to find in any
circumstance, but it is generally aimed at providing know-how
that we have or have developed with public funds, to state,
local and industrial people to implement, if it's
impleir.entable, or to give them information if they just want
information.
Sherri?
f>'S. KOEHLEF: Is what you're asking for the
environmentalists' endorsement of CPA's providing technical
assistance?
t'F. MEYERS: llo, it's not an endorsement. I
mean—clearly it's nice to do good things, but I've put it in
the context of the other things we have to do and trying to
point out that at least in the short term, we're going to have
to put certain things on the back burner, and these are the
kinds of things that are amenable to being put on the back
burner. And we're having to try to consciously keep something
viable and visible going in that area at the same time that
we're rushing ahead to meet the mandated dates of the law.
-------
Ill
Now, it's not an endorsement I'm after.
TOM CAROL: Tom Carol, with the United States
Conference of Mayors. Certainly from where I sit I would
encourage CPA to proceed with these panels immediately and to
give technical assistance, particulary in the resource recovery
area. Cities are contacting me and saying that we have been
looking at resource recovery a year, a year and a half now. We
are about ready to make some sort of investment in some
direction, and we need some technical assistance, we need some
professionals who can corne in and give us an objective
evaluation of what our risks are in buying this new technology,
what are the problems we're going to face ten years fron now
with what we're investing in. It seems that it's a very risky
business, and they need a lot of assistance in that area. So I
would certainly encourage that sort of thing.
And I'm kind of disturbed to hear that these panels
or commitees are going to be doing studies. I don't think they
should—
MR. HUMEER: They're two different groups.
MR. CAROL: Okay. You're talking about two different
groups. Because I'm hoping that the resource recovery panels
will spend a lot of time going to the communities and giving
them assistance particularly.
MF. HLTEEU: Yes, to clarify that, there's two
groups. I can't even remem^ber their names, but one's the
-------
112
Research Conservation Committee, and that is to look at
resource conservation methods, either economic incentives or,
as Blake was suggesting, look at the environmental iirpacts of
different packages, different products. That's one area.
That's primarily a study area. It's mandated by Congress that
it report out in two years.
The second is called the Resource Recovery Technical
Assistance Panels, and, first, it's misnamed, because it will
be providing a wide range of technical assistance, not just in
resource recovery, but also in hazardous waste and in
landfilling and collection. And that's what we're talking
about, providing a service to cities in that area.
>!P. HUfirEF: Cver here?
r'F. ."1EYEPS: Sir?
MATTHEW CAFEY: !',y nar;e is Matthew Carey, American
Consulting Engineers Council. The consulting engineers around
the country—consulting engineers, financial administrators,
architectural engineers--!t's spelled out en page 14 of the
House report--that there are certain areas of technical
assistance in which Congress feels the private sector
engineering profession can be valuable to the Office of Solic
Waste iXanagenent. Cne of them is in this area of deciding or
helping to decide which area of solid waste management might be
most feasible for the particular community. ."'any of these
engineering firms have been working with municipalities and
-------
county governments in the last twenty years. Some have been
very good in this area. Others have been held down on the
basis of a community's willingness to go into a particular area
of solid waste management in general.
T>
The point is that if these pabfels are going to be
effective in technical assistance other than just distributing
publicatons or whatever, I think it would be valuable to make
available to the communities lists of engineering groups and
So
professions that have had some experience in this area, and -£e-
from there in deciding on cost factors.
!'R. KUJ'iEER: Okay, first of all, we have three
are
contracts now that include consulting engineers that ..our-
providing technical assistance to cities. Those have just
begun. And secondly, I think we've provided lists of
companies, of consultants, of environmental groups of many of
the parties that have participated in successful resource
recovery implementation.
I don't know if you've seen those. If you feel that
we should improve them, fine, but I think that we have at least
attempted to do that.
KK. KHIlJEIiAFT: Russ Ehinehart, International
I
Disposal Association. You mentoned on you options economic
incentives to make options go. One of the things that you'll
be figuring in are the true economic value and the economic
penalty of open land fills and current practices. You're going
-------
114
to try to encourage recycling of resources. There are other
economic options, or economic factors that I hope you will be
considering in certain items. For instance, in hospitals
surgical goods, a lot of it is disposable, not just for
economics but because of the costs of health and recurring
diseases. You get laundries where safety is involved, which is
definitely an economic factor to consider.
Also, there's just the esthetic value in living.
ble
Disposal sanitary napkins are a big esthetic value, versus-a
reusable napkin. Those are some things to consider in your
choices of which raw materials should have heavy economic
incentives for recycling.
My question is, how arr. I going to find out what
you're considering giving us option on.
MR. MEYERS: Keep in close contact.
(Laughter)
NP. HUFEEF: Ve will announce them in the federal
register.
Any other?
BILL hARD: I'm Bill Ward, with General Motors.
First, a quick comment. Ive do a certain amount of recycling in
our industry. We have an engine manufacturing operation, which
involves the melting of iron. As part of the basic charge in
an iron foundry, we used crushed automobiles. \~,e don't care if
it's Ford or Chrysler, we'll make GM engines out of it. Eut
-------
115
there is a problem in using crushed automobiles, recycling
crushed automobiles in this way. When the car is crushed, it's
th
generally crushed with about everying that was in it—the
A
seats, the glass—usually the battery isn't there, but there's
a certain amount of non-ferrous metal in the automobile.
This goes into the cupola. It is melted and is
generally changed into a particulate which is blown out of a
stack and winds up in the air pollution control device b1ovv-
down to water strength. t'ow we've got a problem in terms
of--we have this mass of copper, zinc, lead, et cetera, in the
sludge. How we have a hazardous waste. This is something th?t
I think should be addressed.
I would also like to propose a deronstraticn project,
possibly. Ue recycle a certain amount of paper. Ke have one
plant in the corporation that takes packaging materials and has
them reprocessed into cardboard headliners. This is when you
look at the roof of your car and you've got that fabric up
there. This is normally recycled paper. Kov what I would like
to propose is that the EPA, working possibly with the paper
recyyders, determine how much extraneous material can be
tolerated in the paper that goes into reclamation. The problem
here is specifically that we use cardboard on the floors of
assembly plants for soaking up drips and spills. Can this
material be recycled? Is the material that's spilled on the
paper going to interfere with the recycling of this paper? I
-------
116
think this is something that'I know we would like to look into,
and maybe this is a possible demonstration project.
MR. HUMEEP: Yes, I was going to ask somebody from
the paper industry.
PAUL VvCF.TH: I'm Paul V.orth. That depends entirely
on your paper specification.
MP. WARD: We buy cardboard boxes from anybody that
will make them.
iiP. HUHEER: Uo, but you probably have some
specifications on them that you ray not be aware of, that
discourage that. I don't know if you do or not.
HE. tvARD: The Department of Transportation
specifications.
MR. HUt-'EER: Well, I know, for example, like the
glass and steel industries advertising recycling programs, but
the glass specifications for buying recycled cullet means that
they don't want any. I mean, it's very difficult to meet.
It's almost impossible. A lot of communities--! can't verify
this or not--complain that when they try to sell ferrous scrap
or tin cans, that they cannot. And so I think there may
sometimes be prohibitions to that, to the industry
specifications. They may be apprropriate and they may not.
MK. WARD: Well, is this something that EFA could
look into in terms of working with the recyclers and the basic
material manufacturers, to see how much contamination can be
-------
117
tolerated to obtain this, a decent product?
MR. HUHEER: Yes, we'd be interested in doing that.
I'd like to find out to what extent that has been done. I know
we've done some. I also know that when prices are very high
for paper, you can have a great deal of contamination. v.hen
they're low you can't have any. So that's kind of a floating
standard that's hard to get ahold of.
SPEAKER: There's another problem. If that is, if
the recycled paper is going to be used for packaging food, it's
being regulated by FCA, and there sre very definite regulations
on that, and so forth, on that.
MR. MEYERS: Any other questions?
MR. SULLIVAIT: Mark Sullivan, national Wildlife
Federation. In the issuance of guidelines for plants, it talks
about resource conservation and recovery being addressed in
these. Has your division given any thought to exactly what the
guidelines that EPA is going to issue is going to say about
what state plans, how they should address these two elements?
MR. HUflBER: tie, we haven't come up with anything
profound at this time. There are a lot of ideas that are
fairly obvious, that they should look at different options,
they should consider population densities and waste generation
rates, but absolutely not very profound idea. That's part of
this activity, to find some new ideas that we should consider.
KP. SULLIVAU: Well, let's follow up on the
-------
118
deliberations on the act in the Senate and the House. They
talk about the even-handed approach to resource recovery. Do
you think that the guidelines will stress this?
KR. HUMEEF: I've forgotten what that means.
MP. SULLIVAH: resource recovery, all of the various
types of approaches to resource recovery, not just--
MR. HUKEER: Ch, certainly.
MP. f-iEYERS: Well, there doesn't seem to be any more
questions. Let's go on to the next topic, which is state
program development. That will be given by Lanny Ilickman, who
is the director of our management information staff.
Let's quiet down.
LAIUJY HICKHM': I'm. certainly glad to see that we
have stimulated a great deal of interest about the states
already. Half the audience left. As we talk about the state
programs that are authorized under this law, let's remember
that the purpose and intent of the state program development
aspects of R/CKA are directed toward dealing with the three
issues that we've discussed today—hazardous waste management,
land disposal, resource conservation. Interwoven throughout
the law, in Subtitle C consistently and Subtitle C, are direct
references towards dealing and integrating these three aspects
of solid waste management into what we might want to call an
effective or comprehensive state solid waste management
program.
-------
110
What I want to do for a few minutes is to review some
of the key provisions and raise some of the questions that
these provisions pose, on how we basically proceed to implement
and encourage you to think about these questions, if not at
today's meeting, as time goes on, and give us feedback. So the
last portion of this program today is directed toward the
concept of public participation, and the office is very sincere
about that. The agency is very sincere about that. We will
i
discuss our public participaton program in some skeletal form,
4
in a sincere effort to try to get you involved, because we view
the law as a state programs bill, with authorities that flow
through the sate programs and into local programs, and with the
implementation of this lew, so gees the success of the solid
waste program as a national program, meaning all of us who are
involved in the business.
Subtitle E requires that we provide the sources to
develop the state solid waste management plans. i;ow these
state solid waste management plans are not plans necessarily
developed by .state governments. The law is very clear on this.
State and local government must get together and decide how
they are going to plan and develoo the solid waste management
plan. For the purposes of planning this law, we're talking
about solid waste management as defined in the act, and that
means planning for hazardous waste management aspects of the
s_tate program also. So every time I use solid waste
-------
120
management, remember, it isn't just what you put out the back
door when you finish drinking your beer.
The definition is very broad. The Congress obviously
intended to tie all the management problems with various
residuals that we generate, both liquid and solid, and a great
number of stuff in between those two spectrurr.s> into closing the
loop with other environment laws that we're now dealing with.
The goal is to get all solid waste, either into a
sanitary land__fill or recovered through resource conservation.
That is the purpose of this lawj ^he purpose in developing
these state programs. It ties in with Title C, for more
comprehensive management witn those wastes the Congress views
to be major, serious threats to health and the environment. It
was designed to create effective state solid waste management
programs, and strong local solid waste management systems to
deal with the problem of solid waste management.
Now there's no requirement that anybody play this
game, except for that portion that has this waste, because if
no one decides to play, the Feds will play with hazardous
waste. The £tates do not have to get involved with this law,
if they don't want. But their not participating creates a
great deal of problems for everyone.
Section 4002 requires the administrator to issue,
within six months,guidelines which will identify regions for
the purposes of faciliting the development of regional
-------
121
planning. What does that mean? Well, we're not quite sure
what it means. We have questions, like how do we tie this in-
to other planning that is going on now at the sub-state level
and at the state level? How does this fit in vvith the 7C1
agencies of the old planning efforts under HUD? How to they
fit into the 2C8 programs that are going on now under the Water
Act? Kow do we make sure that work done in the past
planning—both solid wastes, land use, residuals ;f.ar,agement--is
factored into writing this guideline? Who are the people that
should be giving us advice on this? The state government,
local government, regional councils? environmental groups?
How do we factor all these things together?
It also requires us to write guidelines on what is a
s_tate program or what is a state plan. And, as I mentioned,
the law recognizes the development of a s_tate plan, and the
implementation of that plan is a joint effort between £tate and
local government.
How do we consider all of these things--writ ing a
guideline for regional planning and for s_tate government,
recognizing the geographical, demographic, political waste
management differences and practices that reach around our
country and not come up with 5C different sets of guidelines?
How do we do that?
now Section 4C03 requires s,tate and local governments
do these few certain things. It sets the minimum requirements
-------
12
for £tate solid waste management plans, but it says that the
state government and elected local officials must get together
and agree on how _state planning and state plan implementation
is going to occur/. What level of government is responsible for
what aspect of the solid waste management? now the questions
that arise immediately are how can state government and local
government agree on anything, much less solid waste management,
and how do we get them to agree? What represents agreement?
How can we determine? Does everybody vote/? Is it a majority
of the "political body? Is it the majority of the elected
officials? What mechanism can we assure, for the purposes of
this act, that state and local government come to an agreement
on how this law is to be implemented?
Now the minimura requirements for the plan also
that
require.the sjrate provides for mechanisms to eliminate open
dumping on schedule, either through the conversion of the
31-1
unacceptable sites, to,acceptable site, or closing of those
sites that cannot be converted and provide for no future open
dumping in that _state. George talked about the criteria for
open dumps and land fills. That is very carefully intertwined
with this law. The law intends to eliminate open dumping,
an
whatever that is, by 1984. It requires, inventory,, and the day
that we publish that inventory of open dumps, every site on
g
that list is in violatin of federal law.
A 5
Now it's not enforceable by the federal government,
-------
123
but it is in violation of the federal law, and is subject to
suit in the federal court system. There's a motivation^ for
the jstates to get involved and for the local governments to get
involved, because the state is in the process of planning or
scheduling a mechanism by which these sites will be brought
into compliance with the intent of rectifying it. Then
everything is cool.
Another minimum requirement is that the _s_tate must
find mechanisms to eliminate any constraint that is tied up
with short term contracts that will prevent the government from
entering into long term contracts for the purposes of resource
conservation or any other aspect of solid waste management.
The Congress has recognized this to be a problem. It tells the
states and the s_tate plan, which is an exercise in both state
~ ~ tc ~
and local government,.find a mechanism by which you're going tc
eliminate this constraint, so that resource conservation can
become more competitive as an option in solid waste management.
It requries that the s_tate must have regulatory powers, or be
developing the mechanism for having regulatory powers^ for the
purposes of implementing the plan.
And last but not least, it seys what the jjbate must
plan for, that all solid waste either go through resource
conservation or to sanitary land fills. resource conservation,
defined very broadly under the law, covers waste reduction, as
well as materials and energy recovery, and a host of things
-------
12 4
already, so the question comes up, how can state and local
government agree? I've already mentioned that. What
represents an agreement? You have absolutely no idea what
would represent an satisfactory agreement. We don't know how
all of this and the implementation that's required within this
array of decisionmaking between the state government and local
government. And the implementation of that factors in in 22G.
Mention 2C8 in a solid waste management meeting, and
the garbage guys go bananas. That is a fact. Now there's
have
reason^" for their concern, and we^a challenge before us to deal
*rf
with that concern, because the 2Cc process is view, as a water
plannig process, and the 208 provisions require that they must
also decide how those regional 2H8 plans will be implemented.
And people out there who have disposal sites that are not part
of government are concerned about that, because they can see
the implementation aspects of this squeezing out the private
sector for the disposal business, a pr icr i, or by some
mechanism, because planning agencies will be framing the
decisions on residual disposal. l.'e must deal with this. How
do we deal with this? How do we integrate these programs
today? And last, how can we get an assumption of these
responsibilities at the state government level and the local
government level? There is noli mandate for them to do it, as I
mentioned.
You know, we see problems--the umbrella statejplan
-------
125
that is required, that could be developed by various le"els of
government, can provide protection for those sites that lon't
meet the criteria of law for sanitary dumps and land^fuls.
What do we do that, with the FY '79 limitations for planning,
we don't see this as a two-year exercise. The planning
portions, yes. As I mentioned earlier, this is not the first
time we have been in the solid waste management business. Most
states have a plan of 'sore sort. t^ost states have a strategy
•to
deal with resource conservation, hazardous waste and land
disposal. It's not like this is a great big new secret for us.
v.e have been getting ready for it. A lot of the provisions are
sort of a surprise to us, the way that they came out, but it
isn't like there isn't something cut there. There is a
limitation on money.
The states have to tool up for this. They have their
own budgeting cycle. Some states only meet every other year
for their budget. Kov/ do we deal with tins framework of an FY
'79 closure of federal funds? t-any do net have the legislative
base in order to comply or get into the planning exercise.
What sort of matching relationship between federal and state
dollars? There is no provision within the law as to how that
should be done. ^nd how does the money, the financial
assistance provisions cf this law for local governrient--iruch of
it is pass-through money—the Fural Assistance Program is pass-
through money. ( It passes through the state, based on
-------
126
population problems and so on. If someone asks the questions
about rural communities and resource conservation, within the
provisions of the Rural Assistance Program, the local rural
government must have provided and proved that there is no other
way for them to do what they have to do, but to go to land
disposal,' they have to find a regional assistance program, a
resource conservation program to get into, and if nothing else
is available to them, then they may receive financial
assistance to meet the requirements for the open dumping
sections of the law.
Hov/ does that money flow dcvn to the state? How do
we set those criteria? How dees the government agree on how
this criteria should be set? These are only a few of the
questions that we have in our minds that we had to address
ourselves to.
l.'e have six months to issue the regional guidelines.
trow we have four months. This is the 16th, and the law is two
months old. r:ow we have two months gone by. "e have twelve
months to get out what is a state plan. he have twelve months
are
to get out what .i-e—the criteria for an open dump. lie have
twelve months after that to do an inventory of disposal sites,
whatever that may be. There's everything from municipal sites
all the way down to mining wastes that are covered in the law,
and these are the sort of requests that we're proposing. The
purpose of our public participation programs such as this one
-------
127
is to get feedback, and as we all become smarter about the law,
you and us, you know, we can, you can respond more to these
questions.
But time is running, so I've posed some questions. I
hope you have Answers for some of these so we can sit down
very quickly now and write down some of our guidelines.
I guess we will entertain questions. Yes, sir.
JOE FEr.EAtlCC: Lanny, I've got a question that
relatest to Subtitle D, and it is kind of trying to reconcile
two different sections of Subtitle E. The objectives in
Subtitle C speak to methods of proposed disposal of ^olid
wastes, which are environmentally sound, and which maximize the
utilization of valuable resources, and encourage resource
conservation. And then in the second part to that subtitle,
Section A, it talks about mininum requirements for state plans,
and lists a variety of acceptable measures, including the fact
that all solid wastes shall be (a) utilized tor resource
recovery or (b) disposed of in the sanitary land fill.
IJow the objective tends to suggest that a priority or
certainly emphasis should be given to recovery as well as solid
Waste disposal, and to get in the guidelines section minimum
requirments which tend to ignore this emphasis.
i:P. HICKMAt!: I don't guess I read it the same way.
gi^e-j
I interpret 40C3, v.hich -i«- the minimum requirements for the
state plan, where they make it very clear that waste has to be
-------
123
recovered or-disposed. It's got to be disposed of in
accordance with what is specifically accepted in practice by
definition as- a sanitary land fill. I think the office has
time and time again said that resource recovery and land
are
disposals very dependent upon each other, and though it was
disucssed earlier, as long as a cheap option is out there, the
open burning dump, there is not way that resource conservation
gets a fair shake. And I don't think that the listing of
priorities, a listing of the way those things fall out within
implies
those two subsections necessarily -infers, priority over the
other one.
MR. FERA1JDE: !lo, they don't, but the objectives of
the subtitle do suggest priorities are made.
ME. KICKf-iAI': To you.
R T
MR. FEFjAinzt: In other words —
KP. IIICKMAU: These two things are tied
together--.~other arse; father, sweetheart and lover, that sort of
thing.
Yes, sir?
BILL CRA1JE: My narr.e is Bill Crane, with the
Government Liaison Associates. This whole thing about the
,s_tate plans and the s_tate implementation bothers me, because I
-=& -^
was previously director of state and local relations at the
American Paper Institute, and we got very much involved with
small states like the State of Vermont, for example, to
-------
implement a solid waste plan, and the whole thing floundered on
the basis of what do you do with a small community that has
twelve to fifteen people that is forty miles from anybody, and
can't possibly afford to do anything with the solid waste other
than what they do with it, which is dump it on the ground or
burn it. The state has no money to implement the plan to help
the small areas on a regional basis, and the federal government
apparently has no programs going, so what if the s_tate doesn't
choose to go along, or if any state doesn't choose to go along
with thisA ^hat happens then? What do you do in the middle of
Vermont, down in the land barrens of Hew Jersey, for example?
MR. HICKMAN: If the state chooses not to play, if
the state government chooses not to play, there is no mechanism
in
other than.hazardous wastes that the Feds can assure that any
particular portion of the waste plan would be properly managed.
There's no mechanism except for herzardous waste. Cut the lav
is written in such a way also, that much of the noney that
might be available to local government is dependent upon the
state planning process being underway or completed. now,here
again it may net drive the state or the local government. The
intent of the Congress, as we understand it, as we interpret
it, is to provide guidance and mechanisms to encourage state
involvement and local government involvement in approved solid
waste management practices, but it in no way that the federal
government should mandate an order for state and local
-------
130
government to move into this area.
MR. MEYERS: Before you ask the other question, there
is one other important feature that would sort of press a state
V* f/
who v/as otherwise unwilling to play, as Lanny says, to play.
And that is if that state has a number of open dumps, and we
have published our lists of open dumps and this state happens
to have number on it, if they dcn't have a plan that shows
that, amongst other things, here's our scheme over the next
five-year period to close these open dumps and how we're going
to do it, then they are subject to citizen suit. The farmer
Who
down the block -thra-fe- doesn ' t like the open dump can sue the
state, say close it down today. So the incentive, other than
the monetary one, is buying tire to work out some scheme to
absence CT
close down an open dump. Ce caused akcont that plan, then
they're just out there on a hook. The judge can say, yes, I
don't like it, close it down tomorrow. £nc they rr.sy have no
other option.
So it's not exactly a smart thing to ignore the
planning game. The combination of the financial incentive and
the being open to suit, absent a plan to work over a five-year
period, sort of would push states in the direction of planning.
Eut it may not.
HE. HICKl-'AlI: We're trying to market this in such a
way that the states understand hew important it is for then to
be involved. Cur general counsel interprets trie lav/ that way,
-------
131
and those sites can be taken to court in the federal court
system, and if the plaintiff wins, the cost of the suit is
recoverable, so we feel that will probably also stimulate the
legal fraternity also to get involved.
(L T
MP. FERAll^E: The other question I have is, what do
you envision in state plans? I don't know whether the statute
speaks to this or not, but will the state plans be expected to
be all uniform, or will you Kave havo fifty different ones, or
will a nationwide industry, for example, have to try to deal
with fifty different pl'ans, if they happen tc be active in
manufacturing in fifty different states.
MB. HICKF1A1<: Well, we've been in the planning
business for states since 1966, and we have tried to give in
guidelines guidance over the years, of key things that we felt
the plan should include, recognizing the political, social and
economic difference of the Estate governn\ents mandates that the
state plans are going to be differnt in texture and tone, if
not in comprehensiveness. We will try to guide the s_tates to
be comprehensive in their dealings with this law, recognizing
differences of circumstances. The minimum, requirements of the
state plans will be consistent, because 4TCC3 spells that cut.
They've got to divide up responsibilities for planning and
implementation. They've got to put in a plan, in effect, for
the open dumps. They've got to plan so that no new open dumps
occur. They've got to have a schedule for, a mechanism for
-------
133
seeing that the law is enforced. They've got to drive all
waste to their sanitary land^fills. And those are the main
requirements. Now how they approach that would be different.
And we of course, in working with the various interest groups
in developing the urrbrella to guide- the states will have to try
to recognize, I think, the difference in texture and tone in
the different ^tates.
SPEAKER: Hill you also include under states such
areas as the District of Columbia, Puerto Kico?
HP. HICKFAt": Ey this defintion of the law, there are
56 states.
MAFY AlTl" BEAU: Mary Ann Lean, national Solid Waste
Management Association. Lanny, you mentioned that the deadline
for closing open dumps is 198^. It's my understanding that the
deadline would be six months after the inventory is
established, unless they can prove that there's no public or
private owned alternatives available. Are you ssying now that
there's going to be an automatic tiire schedule for compliance
in five years?
MR. HICKMAN: I believe that that's in the law. We
have got to have these issued, and then twelve months after
t
thaX an inventory completed and a list published on both sides
that qualifies open dumps, and the s_tates then—those sites
much be either converted or closed by five years after that.
MS. CEA1J: It says only if there are no public or
-------
133
private alternatives avai/lable, and the maximum time frame is
five years.
MR. MEYEFS: That's possible.
MS. CEAll: I thought it was mandatory, if you could
show other private or public alternatives that are availalbe.
I':E. t-JEYFFS: The problem is how do you define that?
f'!R. HICKKAl*: lie will have to work on that when we
write up our guidelines for the spates. Yes, sir?
liALTEF CCPP: My nare is Walter $orp from the
Environmental Action Coalition. Tho irioro the law, if I'm
correct, provides planning and implementation grants, and
states have additional planning agencies. T.;hat I'd like to
know is, with local governments—one: I'ff thinking specifically
of large local governments like Hew York City, which alirost
could be considered a regional planning agency because of its
size—would they be eligible for funds directly from the
federal government, or would they have to go through the state?
ME. EICKMAK: They are eligible in several ways: 1)
in depending upon how the state and elected local officials
determine responsibilities for the planning and implementional
of the s_tate lav; and the c=_tate plan, within the guidelines of
our definition of what is identifying the regional planning
areas. They would be eligible, perhaps .in that way. row
there's also the implerention under the lav;, which does cover
any city of any size, which provides grant funds to cities for
-------
131
the purpose of implementing solid waste management plans, not
by—well, by market studies, feasibility studies, economic
analysis of options and alternatives open up to the community.
This is within Subtitle D also, and there's a separate
authorization for it in the law for that subsection of the
title also.
Yes, sir.
CHUCK EELOIT: Chuck Eeloit, from Jones Eeloit
Associates. !»e just completed a study in solid waste
management"in the Midwest and some of the problems we have
found there with the state people, when they had taken these
people from what is called the wet side and said, okay, you're
solid waste now, and they were responsible for permitting and
actually enforcing the law currently in existence in the state.
The problems with these people is that they need some kind of
an education, and this education is going to have to come in
part from the EFA.
MF. MEYEBS: That's the last subject on our agenda.
MR. EELOIT: Oh, I'm sorry. But the problem is, as I
see it, what would you classify as an open dump, and who's
going to set the parameters, who's going to set the standards?
ME. HICKKA1J: That's the question we're asking today.
How do we do it? We have no preformed opinions on how we meet
that requirement of the law. T,»"e visualize it as George had
mentioned this morning: the law started to be specific about
-------
135
this sort of criteria that need to be addressed in making a
judgment. On one side there's an open dump, as opposed to a
sanitary ^
-GanLiCy' land_JEill, and then there's something in between.
There are sort of these nuances that would imply you could have
several classes, several classes of land disposal sites, like
some states have now, such as California, which has a Class 1,
3s
2 and 3 site, based on geologic and other conditions in the
s_tate.
And what class they are limits the types of wastes
that can go into that site. It may very well be that the lav;
does recognize this opportunity also. U'e hope to be very
flexible working with various interest groups to develop these
criteria, so that it gives everybody the opportunity to deal
S«.'un<3 e<-'»">ce»»
with their waste in a way that is environmentallyiand/public
health, et cetera.
MR. CELOIT: Are you going to set the minimum area
standards?
HP. HICKrAN: Hazardous Waste Areas, Subtitle C, does
require that the federal government establish standards.
There's no authority in Subtitle D that tells us to do that.
All we can do is write advisory guidelines to the s.tate
government as to how it should set up the state solid waste
management program, end we have in the past encouraged them to
established some sort of a permit program, so that they know
where the sites are and what's going into them. And in most
-------
136
, we have the permit program right now, and I don't think
we would want to erase that effort of the last ten years. But
whether we have the authority within the law to specify that
kind of, you know, get to that kind of specific requirements in
what is a state plan, I air, not sure.
This issue has already been raised in our own
in
discussions, and.other groups that we have talked to already.
It's a good question, though.
Yes, sir?
DANIEL WAKD: Daniel Ward. I work for the
Metropolitan Council of Governments, Uasnington Council of
Governments. This has to do with duplication of the selecton
/I
management planning area. tiith the 2fS planning agencies, a
lot of,them have a specific component in their program/' for
residuals management, and that is including industrial sludges.
rov; what I was going to say is that there's beer another
planning effort, because sludges are included in solid wastes,
are
and I was wondering if there wac any efforts to avoid
duplication in that area.
MR. HICKMAtJ: There are a number of things we've been
doing in the last year related to 202. The 2CC crogram under
the Federal Kater Pollution Control .act includes residuals as
part of its r.anagenent function. The water program came to us
a year ago and said we're really out of focus on this as a
total agency. You've got the smarts on land disposal. v.'e've
-------
137
got the monafey and authority to do the planning. Let's make
sure we've got the right job. So we work with them to
establish the right kind of criteria, which we think would be
desirable. Basically we focus on the issue of land disposal
sites for disposal of waste water sludges. This now puts us
into a different arena as far as, you know, the sharing of
'i
-------
133
disposed of properly.
Yes, Sam?
MoRcKAS
SAM AffrCAS:-; Sam Ar-eeac- with the Maryland State
Health Department. Lanny, have you developed a strategy yet in
promulgating the first guidelines that are due in six months
and identifying the regions, whether you will need from or ask
help from the spates in a working group type of setting, or how
are you going to go about that?
MF. KICKMAtJ: We don't have a--we have a plan now to
proceed when those guidelines are ready anc the stages when we
are at different points in the development. Csrly on, as soon
as in the agency we have established the work groups that the
agency uses to write these guidelines, we will be reaching out
through our public participation, and we plan to establish jid_
hoc^ advisory groups, crossing the broad spectrum of interests
and have those people sit with us.
We've already Tret with various _state anc! local people
who were concerned in this area, to get sone insights earlier
from them as to how we should proceed, and the answer is yes.
In probably the next sixty days, there will be a lot
of people coining in to talk to us at our invitation, as well as
a series of meetings we will be holding around the country to
invite involvement and try to involve—and determine how to
write this thing, since it's an advisory guideline to the
s_tates, we may be able to move it through the system a little
-------
139
quicker than if it was one of Jack's toughy hazardous wastes
rigs, with its relationship to the judicial system.
So the answer is yes.
Yes?
MF. SULLIVAN: Mark Sullivan, National Kildlife
Federation. Could you clarify something you said in your
statement? I rr.ay have misunderstood when you mentioned the
funds for rural assistance. Did I interpret what you said to
mean that those funds could only be used for upgrading dumps?
They can't be used for resource conservation?
MB. KICKHAN: That money, that authorizaton, as
I—and if I'm wrong, one of you other guys correct ire — it's for
the purposes of aiding rural communities to meet requirements
with the state plan, specifically to open duirp divisions. Now,
built within that section of the law, it says they may receive
funds only if—(Is that correct, George? Am. I reading it
right?)—only if there is net a regional—somebody across the
street, the county line that has s. plant that they can get
involved with—resource and land dispoal site, resource
conservation and land disposal site, or if they cannot form a
regional system to take care of their problem,. In other wcrcs,
the intent of Congress, if I'm. reading this section correctly,
and I haven't rciscuoted it, is to encourge the regionalizing of
sirall communities, end if they cannot do that, because of
whatever forces that might be, then they receive financial
-------
140
assistance to meet the requirements sof the open dump provisions
of the law. Correct?
MR. GARLAND: It calls for a response to Section
4CC5, which calls for closing of the dumps, f-°w that response
might include —
MF. HICKJ'AN: I wasn't saying that they had to go to
another land disposal site.
SPEAKER: Fight.
it
MR. KICKKAi:: As a matter of fact, •*-£- forbids the
purchase of. land, I believe, so the intent is to encourage them
to go regional as much as possible.
The clear intent--we have been grappling with the
issue of regionalize tion of solid waste management, and this is
the
ever sincere-Feds got into the business, and it's been fought
-til-i- the beginning of tirre. Pegionaliza tion
reeuires--regionaliza tion is sticky. For some reason,
everybody wants to embrace their own garbage to their breast
and never let go of it.
SPEAKER: And the other problem of course is that
there will have to be agreement as to who gets it.
HP. HICKMAi;: lhat's true. I'm just dying to see how
they resolve Section 4CC3. It should be more entertaining than
television .
i-T. . CAROL: You mentioned something about the formula
had not yet been arrived at for federal-state dollars for
-------
141
implementing—
MR. HICKHAK: Oh, the matching? The law does not
specify the matching ratio of non-federal dollars. How it does
specify how it's to be distributed—by population.
MR. CAROL: Are you talking about planning?
MR. HICKMAH: I'm talking about planning money.
I'm talking about rural assistance money. I'm not talking
about implementation nor hazardous waste state programs. This
is state and local programs.
MR. CAFOL; I just wonder what you're telling the
cities who are supposed to be involved in these—who's going to
be paying for these, where does the money come from?
ME. HICKMAU: where does the rroney corre from for any
[program?
MR. CAROL: Well, you talk about 2C8.
MP. KEYERS: This bill does not have an equivalent to
2C1, and in the extreme the local community will have to cone
up with the money,
MR. KICKI1A11: There's much debate whether there
should be construction money in there or a loan program. It
did not survive. What the law says is, if you gotta do it,
you're going to have to pay for it yourself. i-.e'll help you as
much as we can in the implementation program, to bridge the gap,
but you're on your own.
AMN£ A>V\£I£ AtJi*'6 M^Pie"
-JVMeJP¥-GIECOt:S: .Amory Gibbons. There's not much in
-------
143
the law that I can find on implementation grants that would be
made directly to cities. Is there a size limitation or soir.e
limitation on the money, as to who would receive it?
MR. KICKMAi;: There's no size limitation as to how-
big the city has to be.
Tape 4a MS. CIEEOTS: So a city could get ir.oney, either
through the state or through the implementation grant, directly
cr not?
I'K. KICKIY": The coney would flow down through the
states and the states would agree how r.uch IE to be spent end
for vvbst purpose. Through the noriral gr&nt program like we new
have —
.''£. CI"EC!-S: Cut you are separating the planning
fron" the implementation, and the iirplerentation sounds like it
could be part of planning feasibility studies, surveys and
studies, capability studies, feasibility studies.
:-T. HICK;:/>r.- It would be the sane.
Yes, cir .
U
r-'ATT CAREY: Katt Carey, /T.ericen Conslting
Engineers. When EPA would receive these plans that have been
worked out be tweer the municipalities anc! the states, does the
office of solid uaste ranageirent have the power, in reviewing
these plans, to co back to a state and say, in your plan you
have encouraged county regionalism as opposed to perhaps a
local governrent itself, finding a way to deal with the solid
-------
143
waste management problems. In other words, what I envision
happening here is a state and county relationship.
a
MR. HICKHAiJ: Section 4CC3 is more specific in tht
state government and local elected officials—and it does not
say county—it says local elected official, which means city
and county, must agree on how the plan will be developed and
implemented, what level of government is responsible for what.
Now what—as I mentioned earlier—constitutes this we don't
know yet, but in the absence of this agreement on agreement,
then the governor v/ill designate it, and so there's a driving
force for everybody to play, and that will be the most
interesting part of Subtitle C, as to how they do that.
MF. KEYEFS: tlo other questions?
The next portion of the discussion will be given by
Tom Williams on training, public information and public
participation.
Id". WILLIAMS: The act that has been under discussion
all day is unicue in yet another v/ay. It contains an unusually
complete array of provisions, which could bring about a very
high degree of public understanding and participation in the
various complex issues it addresses.
Taken together, these provisions make it pretty clear
that the Congress understood it is impossible for the public to
participate meaningfully, unless the government first produces
valid scientific end technical data, and then goes the further
-------
144
step of processing and publishing this data in such a way that
the public may have real access to it.
Now there are all kinds of ways of keeping the public
out of the game, and our society, though it's an open society,
has figured out some of them as well as have some of the closed
societies. One of those ways is not to provide information
that the public can understand. The public--much of the
public—does not have access to the technology required to take
computer printouts and derive from those social-economic
decisionrnaking tools. This law, evidently, is put together in
awareness of that. In Section &CC3, the administrator of EPA
is required to develop, collect and evaluate ana coordinate
information on nine key elements which are crucial to the act's
purposes. It is not only required that the administrator
implement a program for the rapid dissemination of this
information, but also, that he shall develop and implement
educational programs to promote citizen understanding of t.ie
need for environmentally sound solid waste management
practices.
This makes it quite clear that the information called
for is not to be developed for the exclusive use of those who
for one reason or another may be considered experts in the
field. Moreover, the administrator is asked to coordinate his
actions, to cooperate to the maximum extent with s_tate and
local authorities, to establish and maintain a simple reference
-------
145
library for virtually all kinds of information involved in
solid waste management.
Then in Section 7CC4, isolated in the act from the
other^but very much united in purpose, the act calls for full
public participation in the development, revision
implementation and enforcement of any regulations, guidelines,
information or program under this act.
Now this is very important. £no to sorre of us it may
seer: like a very novel prevision. In point of fact, however,
in the last five, six, certainly in the last ten years, the
Congress has put a strong provision for public participation in
literally dozens of federal acts involving housing, welfare,
environment, all kinds of things. You probably have not heard
very much about then, because not very much has been done about
them, or under them.
Just Ir.st week, or the week before--! forget
which--there were a gathering of people at ? f'Prnott motel
nearby--2
-------
146
who were at the meeting were in any way involved in programs.
They're not associated with good, healthy, respectable
bureaucrats, such as I am, who took these kinds of things
seriously. And we do take it seriously. It may be taken
seriously over my dead body, but it will be taken seriously.
(Laughter)
I think there's some evidence, despite my wry
comments, that the solid waste management prograrr has taken its
published information and public education provisions in the
act seriously. Ue are one of those few places, I believe, in
the federal government, where you can actually go and find a
publication written in English more or less that will tell you
everything we know. ',"e don't know everything we haven't told
everybody else about. We've indexed it, cataloged it, and so
on, but we must go further than that under this new law.
!icw we feel that without the proper implementation of
the information dissemination and public education provisions
cf the act, proper implementation of the public participation
provisions could not actually transpire. It is only through
the boiling down, editing and comprehensive interpretation of
masses of technical data that the public can be given a full
opportunity to participate. And I don't mean only the unwashed
public. I don't mean only that poor public v;horo the government
pretty well and everybody else pretty well neglects much of the
time. I'm talking about those rather literate representatives
-------
147
of trade associations, industries of all kinds, and rather
elite environmental organizations, who themselves have no way
of understanding what all of this raa'ss of data means, since we
don't understand it in the first place, though we try very
hard—unless it is really put together, synthesized and edited
and put out so that we can all understand what it is that
Congress has asked us to do.
Even if we do that, it's an uphill fight to have
public participation and public understanding. ',\~e have a
representative government. Even at best, the best a .federal
agency can do is get involved with representatives of tne
people that are perhaps down the line in this act, particularly
at the state and local levels, so there will be some occasions
calling for public participation, when a less informed segment
of the public will have to appear, when this act begins to
actually impinge, as it will dramatically on the costs of
disposal, when it becomes absolutely necessary to create
landfills in places where the public is not allov
-------
148
bottle of Coca-Cola and be happy. Ky apologies to Pepsi-Cola.
Okay, we're very ir.uch--you' ve heard a lot of ccmrrents
today, a lot of requests for questions. I would rather have
comments and rather have answers. \:e plan to hold meetings
such as this, as I believe :ir. Hickrran and ;:r. ieyers have
mentioned, in the regions. We're going to hold public hearings
under--! guess in most instances, when we've put out
regulations or guidelines. i.e're going to try to establish
mechanisms whereby you and others interested in the act will be
able to receive information in advance. ^.e'll have to publish
Federal register notices. We'll do everything that's there
that we know about to do, that will help ensure that all of us
know what we're doing and we're all more or less in the court
with at least the intent of what EPA has tc do.
Cut there must be better ways. There must be ways
that have not been properly explored, and certainly these 25C
people I've mentioned were looking for ways. If any of you
have any ways, know of any ways--just simple thincjs--how to
make more effective the dynamics of meetings, so that people
really do participate, and so on, we would be very glad to
consider seriously any notion that you'd give us.
Section 7Cf7, on a slightly different topic, calls
for grants or contracts for training projects, authorized the
administrator to m?ke such grants, and with any eligible
organization for training persons for occupations involving the
-------
management, supervision, design, et cetera, maintenance of
solid waste management facilities or equipment. And it
calls—although it doesn't say precisely when it needs it--for
a complete investigation and study of training needs and
opportunities in this field, the result to be submitted
evenually to the President and the Congress.
Some of the kinds of questions--!'11 give a few
because I know only ? few, and I know fewer answers—are: What
kinds of meetings do you think we ought to have? (."here should
we have them? under what conditions? Row can we ensure that
all of the people really affected by this are heard from? How
can we expand, in short, involvetrent in this act, beyond those
who either scan the Federal Register or have the luxury of
somebody's calling it to their attention that something is in
there? To whom should our training efforts, when we have their,,
be directed? For example, whom should we attempt some day to
train? r-t what level should we train? Should we concentrate
on state and local employees, so that we can train people in the
private sector, and so on?
Yes, Sherri?
,MS. KOEOLEr: Sherri Koehler, Cnvir/njpjr.er.tal Action
Coalition, new York City. This section, of course, is of great
interest to us, because the business of transmitting solid
waste information to the general public is a larger part of
what the Environmental Action Coalition does. *;hat I am most
-------
150
concerned about is not EPA's ability to communicate with
leaders, like the people in this rootr, but the leaders' ability
to communicate with the people on the street and in the homes
and in the communities, where facilities are going to have to
be filled.
This is what we're grappling with in New York City.
We've got what we think is going to be a pretty good master
plan for the City of Hew York, which is going to involve the
citing of several solid waste resource recovery facilities. "j'e
know it has to be done. We understand why it has to be done.
Now how do you get the people in the corrnunities tc accept one
of these resource recovery facilities, or whatever the case nay
be—land^fills — in their communities. ",/hat I guess I'ir, trying
to say--or, even in the case of sewer separation progrars--we
think it's a great idea--how do you get the people, in Cueens,
in Brooklyn, in Staten Island, to bundle up their caper and put
it out there on the street?
It's up to us, right cut there in the localities, tc
get this information out to the people, at that level where it
simply has to get. So I guess what I'm suggesting is that EPA,
_federal EFA, convince local governments that they have to
educate the people to see where it's at. I mean, I'm net
saying that CPA is going tc get out there to community planning
meetings in Brooklyn, but perhaps an educational effort should
be made by your office, to meet with local leaders tc convince
-------
151
them of the importance of local education. And I think that
would be a worthwhile effort. And then also, of course, to
give us as ir.uch help--who have an interest--as much help as we
can possible get in getting the word out^too.
HP. ivILLIA.y.E : Yes, thank you. :;e'll do that.
Yes, sir.
A1IDY KEELEF: P.y nar.e is Andy Keeler. I'rn from
Technical Inforrration Project. t.e've been carrrying out for
the last.year and a half a series of educational seminars for
the EPA Office of Colid Kaste ::ar.agement Programs. A let of
the education is effective, but a lot of the citizen leaders
who are educated are very frustrated, because their input isn't
considered on the local level. And I would suggest that when a
community is ready to make a decision, a local government is
ready to make a decision under this bill, that there be some
kind of a requirement that a public meeting be held anJ citizen
input be considered, because, when you educate people, they
expect their views to be listened to, and often they're not.
KF. i;iLLIAt:S: lhank you.
If you don't have any comment or question, IV going
to tell you a joke.
(Pause)
All right, you're going to hear a joke.
Yes, sir?
"K. CAF.CL: Tom Carol. '.;ill this training money be
-------
152
available to communities to train their present employees who
are operating lancf^fills?
MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know.
MR. CAROL: That's what I told them when they asked
me.
KF. WILLIAMS: That is the answer. I'm sure you've
heard several tiir.es today, we have no indication of any level
of resources or manpower yet. The first consideration is being
given to those provisions of the act that have definite time
franes on their., and this one doesn't. And so we will have lots
of time to get help frci? you on who ought to be trained when we
can train people.
HE. CAF.CL: Dot you would gather that it would be
used for employees of new regional systems? I mean, I assume
that you would go to implement a new solid waste system—there
would be some training money for the employees.
:"P. IvILLIAF.E: Possibly. I think that what we would
do when we would get around to doing something about this would
be to have an advisory group or some kind of ad hoc group
representing all the interests. When you knov; more or less
what the resource need is and what the training need seems to
be to help us decide what resources there are, how it could
be>
-------
153
Yes, sir?
STEVE HALLER: Steve Keller. Does EPA have any
specific responsibilities under these provisions to provide
tools for education? By that I mean things like slide
presentations, bases for speeches, and this sort of thing?
ME. WILLIAKS: Not as specific as some of us would
like that to be, perhaps, but the act calls for the development
of public education programs, as it does. It calls to develop
these things in cooperation with state and local governments.
It wouldn't be very difficult to justify the development of
training materials, aids, and so on. Once you've put the
investment in that, you know, it's like building a boat and not
sending it to water, not to make it available to spates and
local governments and others.
Yes, sir?
BILL CF.EEC: Bill Creed. I spoke before. I assume
you are going to talk now about something other than the 'r.or~al
press release sort of thing. I hope also you will be working
with business and trade association presses. You work through
environmental presses. So I hope you can get a list of these
people somewhere and publish this monthly or quarterly, so~e
type of a nev/sletter. Ke sometimes have environmental
committees that will be working on subjects such as this. Flus
the Chambers of Commerce would like to hear. I'm sure that
would be a standard type thing.
-------
15 i
ME. WILLIAMS: That's a good suggestion,.and one that
we normally attempted to take advantage of. Chambers of
Commerce. Eut there are other ways. There are a lot of
information communications tools that are widely used by
industry, that are widely used by advertisers. They are widely
used in all the vario.us aspects of our society that are not
very properly or widely used in government^,at any level, in
part because of a very, probably healthy scepticism about
letting the government communicate too well and toe much, tut
also because there's been a failure to understand en the part
of government, I think, the iir.portar.ee of communication. i'cu
know. Kow long ago was it that Congress decided to use enough
technology to record votes without somebody posting their, by
hand, and sc on?
And I think someone made a comment earlier that—frcrr
PIP--that even when action takes place on the lov.er levels of
governnent, that there's no way that it necessarily gets to the
people. I think there is a sort of a cultural lag, so to
speak, insofar as government communicating what it has to say.
It's asked, on the one hand—certainly government is asked to
develop information on every subject in the worlc. I mean,
most of the, much of the information that we have for our
wondrous technological system cores out of research either cone
directly by the federal government or financed by the federal
government through universities and so on, and yet very little
-------
155
attention has been paid so far, I think,ito how to convey this
information and have it be put to use, and I'm suggesting that
under this act—this act could be interpreted in such a way—or
I interpret it in such a way as to infer from it that we should
go to a bit more trouble than soire of cur brethren in the EPA
perhaps have done to get information out that provokes an
editorial comment.
Earlier there was some discussion about whether or
not we ought to regulate and whether or not we ought to give
assistance. I feel that we, that you.can't separate the two.
I think you can look at federal prograns, regulatory programs,
and draw a very clear conclusion that where they failed to
educate and failed to give technical assistance or went beyond
their data base, their regulatory program failed also. So you
can't separate.
"ve have had some fairly childish considerations of
flow, when TFA was first formed, because it was a childish
agency. And one of those notions was, we are going to
regulate--now you don't have to educate anybody anymore or
assist them. And I think that is disappearing.
This doesn't answer Seldon's cuestion, which I think
is a harder one. You have limited resources and limited time
constraints, limited money—to what extent can you maintain any
technical assistance, education, and so on--is that the way you
put it, Sheldon, more or less?
-------
156
WALTER POPIU: Halter Popin, Environmental Action
Coalition. Whenever we hear about information programs, we
think, really, just usually in terms cf educating the public.
But I think there is another whole group which I think we have
entirely neglected, and that is the local ana state
politicians. \le find in New York City that it's often the
local politicans v/ho are the rabblerousers, that get the
communities opposed to recycling or resource recovery, arc
sure, sometiires they're doing it just for political reasons,
but more often than not it's just plain ignorance. Ignorance
of the problem, ignorance of what resource recovery is, and
they really don't nave any kind cf understanding of what's
involved here.
And if I may make a suggestion, I think some type of
a workshop or a seminar for local politicians and state
politicians on solid wastes by you people would be very
helpful.
SPEAKER: I want to second that.
MR. KILLIAHS: I want to comment on that a little
bit, in two ways. One is this: being on the inside of a
bureaucracy is a novel experience, and I don't want to sound a:
if you can't understand it unless you've been there, but let's
say you can't feel it unless you've been there. The local
governments are bureaucracies, and the s_tate governments are
bureaucracies, and we're a bureaucracy, and you know, it's
-------
157
very, very tough to do some of these things that it looks as if
you can do on the outside. If you're a solid waste management
public works director and you've barely been holJing together
to get enough landfill sites, to get these trr.";i = going, to
keep the v;orkers hopping on the trucks, and somebody cor.es up
from left field ard says, why don't you recycle everything,
your natural reaction is, why don't you drop dead—I can hardly
make it as it is.
I mean, we must have a little sympathy for them. And
I think we have, in this prcgrar. Me have dene a lot of things
to try to do this. l.'e have a decisicnraker' s guide, \.hich is
rather unique. Cur resource recovery division has been putting
cut implementation guidelines. ;;e have held seminars. ',.e have
held them individually and as a unit. !,,e have really tried
very hard. re have worked with r.C P . ",*e have worked with
state governments. I'm not saying that we could not do it
better, but--
VCICE: I didn't mean to indicate that you people
weren't doing a lot in that area, and I wasn't even thinking so
much in terms of saying that all politicians are bureaucrats,
'but you really don't have a problem--! mean the city EFT*
officials and people that deal with the sanitation department,
they're net what I'm talking about. I'm talking about city
councilrren, state assemblymen, state senator s--people that are"
not dealing with the garbage problem directly. Ana the only
-------
158
time when they are really interested is when they hear that
there is going to be a plant in their community, and then all
of a sudden the local assemblyman will say, we don't want the
garbage here. Send it to Manhattan or sent it to Staten
Island .
a
ME. KEYERS: Staten IslarJf—they've got a big
facility in Staten Island.
i-'F. IvILLI.A"S: Yes, sir.
SPCAKCK: So that's the group I was talking about.
XP. UILLIAi'lS: Yes, well, we will make efforts to get
out information to them.
Yes, sir?
1C."' ECLCEF: Tom Colder, National Association of
Counties. It's very difficult to get that point across because
politicians change roughly every four years, and it has to—and
so do staffs--anc, you kncv, , you have to have them continually
or not have them at all, essentially. It's as easy as that.
And with the teaching technology and the new lav;, I would hope
that we would probably have a number of workshops that would
reach a point where they have to make the decsion and not
nebulous type things. We have sometning now to really take to
the local officials, because they will have to r.;ake decisions
such c,s you have just described, sir.
i'.F. MLLIA,-'E: Yes, sir.
FT. EELDE!:: "eil Selden, Institute for Local Self-
-------
159
Reliance. My experience is different from what folks have been
mentioning the last few minutes. I have been in contact with
solid waste officials who are simply yearning for information
and technical assistance on what type of alternatives there are
to traditional collection and disposal as well as the capital-
intensive resource recovery plants, for the obvious reason that
a good deal of investment is involved. Cr. the other hand, I've
been in touch with local people, and local officials, who are
not complaining about, necessarily about garbage facilities in
their communities, but are actually looking at low technology
av
source separation systems a-tr the basis for economic development
in jobs in the community, plus the raw materials to use in
further reprocessing and manufacturing in their communities.
I would say that it is not clear-cut that the people
are afraid of garbage, that people don't see the economic
potential and, I should also say, social potential, because
it's been found that, as you probably all know, there's a good
deal of information and interest in the preservation of the
neighborhoods, and revitalization, and there is organization
around the garbage issue. And it's certainly one of the
sociological implications of economic development around this
issue^. So I would say there's a lot of encouraging sices,
that there are progressive people in these areas as well as
those who want a hands-off policy.
t-'F. WILLIA.rE: We agree.
-------
160
MS. KOEHLER: Kay I say that I think that the
information, the public information, that comes out of the
Office of Solid Waste Management is far and away the best
information, and I thank whoever is responsible for that,
because it's important to us. I think that what I would
suggest, and I don't know how it's covered in the act itself,
is that the important thing thet EPA can do is to provide a
climate in which people will have a general understanding and
acceptance of the needs, end then what has tc be done is thet
the money has tc somehow filter clown to the states and in the
localities, to get at the real hardcore, gut issues that we
have to face on the streets to get the facilities built, to get
the source separation programs accorpl isned .
So I think what I ar. asking LPA to do, if it can be
done under this legislation, is to keep providing the necessary
overall tratenals, and then to identify the local sources that
can't really get the nitty-gr itties cut to the people.
"F. '.;ILLI/V:£ : Yes. Thank you for the coruer.ts on
information. Everybody in the pr car air of solid wastes is
involved in developing information. Feally, all of the staff
there 3 re
people are developing information. I hope that that — fcis-e — hero
-i-s— a- strong regulatory provisions and tnat the necessity for
meeting them quickly under this new act doesn't destroy th£t
tradition .
I'.T . I'.EYFES: ?r\v other ruesticns on what Ten1 has to
-------
161
say, or what anybody else has said for that matter?
HP. HALLEP: Steve Haller. I have one more question.
Are there any more plans to keep more current updates on source
separation activities within the nation? I don't mean to imply
that nationwide surveys, which have been done by the division
don't serve that fucntion, but in my various travels around the
country, I have come across a lot of people who are involved
with these programs on local bases that have no idea of what's
going on around the rest of the country, and I realize this is
particularly hard ir, fields such as sourece separation. Out it
is my own personal feeling that there is a real need for
something like this for a lot of these local people, and also
to get a lot of these people to give us -a-recognition, and I
would like to ask people if they feel that something like this
would be feasible. And, you know, viable.
Mr. AlLLIAfT : "ick I'umber, I'm you want to answer
that question, please?
?T. KUi.Ctrr: re don't have any plans currently
underway. I agree with you that this is a very valuable area
and we plan to have one of these by the end of the year.
.-1E. WILLIAi'.S : All right, thank you.
iVK. :XYFKS: All right, thank you. ?ny other
questions en any other subject ratter that we have covered
today? If not, v\e will then adjourn the meeting, and thsnk you
all for coir ing.
-------
162
thereupon the public discussion in the above matter
was adjourned, at 3:5C p.m., as described above.)
THE FCLLCwIlTC PF.CFAFEC STATErEIilS 1C "E INCLUDED II'. THE FECCFI
OF THIS PPOCEEDIUC:
Statement of Thomas J. Caye
Assistant Executive Cirectcr
Ferroalloys Association
1612 X Street, r.',:., Tashingtcn, E.G.
FERROALLOYS T ECCCIATICf VIEWS Cli ILL F.CSCUFCES CCrSEKVAl ICi; &
PECCVEKY ACT CF 1976
The Ferroalloys Association is alarr.ec at the
pointless exercise in solid waste disposal advanced by some
under the authority of the Resources Conservation & Pecovery
Act of 1976. The Ferroalloys Association represents 1G of the
2C domestic producers of ferroalloys, rete.ls and related
products containing chroiriuir', manganese and silicon—all the
non-captive producers. These three product groups represent SC
pe-cent of the total dorrestic production of ferroalloys or
-------
163
approximately 2 million tons of ferralloy in 1975.
The only solid wastes of any consequence produced by
our ferroalloy plants are:
Lbs. Fer Ton of Al
Custs, Sludges and Pollution
Control Cartes 350
Other (Slag and Rubble) 4C
Section 1CC4(27) cf the act contains a fairly broad
definition of "solid waste", and that definition is bread
enough to include these v;astes. T,hile the
-------
164
garbage under applicable State laws. Khile this type of
odorous, rat-producing solid waste properly calls for a layer
of covered material, solid waste, as more broadly defined in
the act to include waste from feeralloy operations does not
call for such treatment on any raional basis. In fact, 9C
percent of our non-recyclable solid waste is anorphous silica,
a major constituent in the dirt used to cover municipal waste
now,
He stress the necessity of implementing the last
sentence of Section 4CC4(a) of the act categorizing different
types of sanitary land fill at the state level appropriate to
the solid waste discharged therein. To treat slag, rubble and
pollution wastes the same way as household and other types of
municipal waste is a ludicrous waste of time and money. Our
solid waste need not be covered, but current state laws in
conjunction with the act would require just that. For EFA to
require the States to differentiate between types of lancPfills
in their plans would be a wise exercise of your discretion and
would blunt past criticism of EFA's lack of sophis/tication
and/or expertise.
— September 16, 1516
Statement of Cuane II. Ekecahl
Executive Eirector
Association of Petroleum Re-Refiners
-------
16,3
The purpose of this statement is to assure that used
oil, that is, lubricating and similar oils derived frorr,
automotive crankcase drainings and industrial use, are clearly
recognized as hazardous wastes in the implementation of the
Resource Conservation and recovery Act of 1S7G.
It would seem to us that any interpretation of the
definition of "hazardous waste" as described in the act would
include used oil. Used oil is clearly a substance which
"because of its quantity—and character isitics--may pose a
substantial hazard to human health or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or
otherwise managed."
Furthermore, considering the stated objectives of the
act to "promote the protection of health and the environment,
and conserve valuable m a t e r\a/i)l and energy resources,"—there-
can hardly be a material that better fits this objective thr.n
used oil.
Approximately one billion gallons of used oil a year
are disposed of in this country in ways that are harmful to our
environment. It is either simply dumped into the environment
in one place or another or burned.
Humping of used oil needlessly pollutes valuable land
resources, fouls our waterways, and causes problems with cur
-------
166
sewage treatment systems. Half a billion gallons of used oil
is roughly the amount which each year is applied to dirt roads,
poured into sewers, flushed down toilets, splashed into
waterways or siwply spilled onto the ground. An. Arthur C.
Little study some years back showed that 42 percent of the used
oil collected in i'.assachusetts was ultimately dumped. ?. study
by the American Petroleum Institute indicated that 43 percent
of the service stations polled did not know the ulitir.ate
disposition of used oil removed from, their premises. Cf the
oils polluting ci'r harbors and strears, half is from non-marine
operations and the largest single such source is automotive
crankcase drainings.
Indiscriminate burning of used oil introduces a wide
range of contaminants into tne atrrospehre. Typical used oil
contains quantities of heavy metals and aroiretic hydrocarbons.
The attached charts chows the metallic combustion, products cf
burnt crar.case drainings. Cn the average, each lf',rCC gallonc
of draining^ gives off on combustion 1, C','. L pounds of metallic
oxides. lead comprises over half the total, with zinc, barium,
magnesium and others making up the balance. Moreover, the
presence of carcinogenic ployneuclear aroratics is known to
increase in lubricating oils after use in rotor vehicles.
People are widely exposed to these contaminants as used oil
tends to be burned most frequently in the more densely
copulated areas where the used oil is mere readily availscle.
-------
16
Several states have taken steps to stop .the
uncontrolled burning of used oil. The Fairfax County Schools
(Virginia) found that burning used oil, even with lower than
normal amounts of lead present and at low blend rations with
fuel, caused a hazard to the health of children due to lead
m
emmissions, and banned bur ning--fe-he—the school systen.
It is not a complicated natter for used oils to be
recycled, that is, to be processed and cleaned up before
burning or to be re-refined and used again as high quality
lubes and industrial oils. Therefore, in addition to damaging
our environment end presenting a hazard to hurran health, the
disposal of used oil is a needless waste of a valuable
resource. Kest Germany, for example, recycles 1/2 its
available used oil to its original use. Ac corn pi ishing the sane
thing in this country \\ould be the equivalent of saving
approximately 1.5 million gallons of these high quality lub oil
fractions per day, reduct'ing our dependence on foreign sources
of crude and conserving a diminishing natural resource. The
Federal Energy Administration estimates that reuse of used oil
would reduce oil imports by 7C,Of'C barrels per day, or about 7
percent of its overall conservation goals.
Subjecting used oil to the controls provider" in the
ret, would not only serve to eliminate e hazard to our
environment ane to public healtn, but will lead directly to its
being recycled for reuse. This is an excellenc opportunity for
-------
163
the Environmental Protection Agency to implment a program which
is clearly within the intent of the Congress as spell out in
the Resource Conservation and recovery Act of 1976.
-------
169
Statement of Association of Petroleum Re-Refiners—Table
O
»
I I
1? g
•1 O
O 0)
3 •&
o
s
8 M
a
c.
to
CC
to
CO |0
* i
CO Cl
en
co en
•
o
en
en
en
en to
to
toto
g11-"
y
"
w
c
3
C •
Is
8
»j
to
en
te en p
oo en
o I
~3 ICO
O (O
to en
O =
o a
c 7!
c
O
,j
JS i, x
\K p ~
co a>
eo I
en
en
enoco
to co
to co en to
1
o"
rr- ^.
s
to
er.
on JM ~J
O J4!» OS Ci
-1 *-" CO
es
Cn M -k.
I* §
I r*
-------
170
Prepared Statement of Alan K. Forsythe
Manager—Market research
2624 Harket Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
STATEKEiJT OH KESOUFCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION ACT CY IU
CONVERSION SYSTEMS, IKC., PHILADELPHIA, PEfinSYLVAUIA—DECEMBER
16, 1976
The principal reason for the controlling the disposal
of solid waste is to prevent the pollution of surface and
ground water. The only vehicle for transporting pollutants
frcir waste deposits to the water system is water itself. And
effective control system roust consider the mechanises that
result in the transport of pollutants. The importance of each
such rrechanisn will vary with the characteristics of the waste.
For example, the principal transport mechanism for a highly
permeable material is percolation, for ar impermeable material
it is surface runoff. The means for controlling these
polluting mechanisms differ and problems must be addressed
separately.
There is no way to treat water while it is in the
ground and it is highly impracticable, if not impossible, to
install treatment facilities at the millions of wells
throughout the country. The prevention of ground water
-------
171
pollution must, therefore, be given top priority.
There are a number of methods currently being
employed to prevent ground water pollution. Some of these are:
1. Chemical change to render the waste
insoluble or innocuous
2. Micro and macro encapsulation
3. Use of impermeable liners
4. Peduction of the permeability of the waste
5. Reduction of the permeability plus reduction of
solubility.
All methods have a place in the overall effort tc
prevent pollution of ground water but v
-------
172
the saturation limit and transport the maximum weight of
pollutants to the ground water.
The most effective way to prevent pollution froir.
massive deposits of solid waste is by reducing the permeablity
of the waste to the point where water cannot pass through it
and reach the ground water. An additional control is to
simultaneously reduce the solubility of the waste. The ID
Conversion Systems' Poz-C-Tec process is such a system. The
Poz-C-Tec process combiner industrial sludge such as SC2
scrubber sludge with fly ach, lime and other addititves to form
cerentiticus material with exceptional physical properties and
low permeability. It is highly suited for land fill, read
embankments, mine reclamation, impermeable liners and other
similar uses. Presently, IU Conversion Systems hes contracts
covering the production of ever 2 ir.illion tons of Poz-C-Tec a
year, including a lead contaminated sludge from a scrubber on a
seccdary lead smelter. Pos-C-Tec material nas been used for
the base parking areas and roads bcth in Arizona and
Pennsylvania.
IU Conversion Systems exerts IfC percent of its
efforts in the developing and marketing of sludge
stabilization. A tremendous impedence to such efforts is the
lack of ground v.ator standards. In sf.ite of the fact that the
volume of ground water is 25 tires greater than that in all of
the ponds, lakes, stream and rivers, there are no federal
-------
173
ground water standards nor, to our knowledge, any such
standards in 49 of the 50 states.
The new solid waste control program mandated by the
Resource recovery and Conservation Act is an excellent step in
the right directon but no solid waste program can be successful
without proper ground water standards. i,'e believe that such
standards are required now and should be established by EFA.
Vie recognize that currently EPA does not have the authority to
establish such standards but we feel that work should begin now
so that when Congress does grant the authority, the standards
will have been determined and can be promulgated irrrrediately.
The problem is com.plex and any tendency to settle for
drinking water standards because it is fast and easy should be
avoided. The enforcement of suclx standards could immediately
bring to a halt many industrial and mining operations which are
net serious threats tc the ground water. Standards must be
based on the cuar.ity as well cs tne concentration of a
pollutant. The total ir.acs transport cf the pollutant should be
the major criterion on which a standard is based. Since
standards must be stringent, a procedure that permits the
concentration cf vary inversely with the quantity is
imperative.
Another requirement in the protection of ground water
quality is the standardization of leachate testing procedures.
recause of their importance, II" Conversion Systems has
-------
174
initiated a program within ASTM to develop the required
standard procedures. We believe this program should be
supported by EPA.
The permanency of any control method is of the utmost
importance. We can no longer abandon and forget our waste
deposits. There are thousands of abandoned dump sites
throughout the country that are now or will someday result in
the pollution of nearby wells. An example of this problem,
which could be duplicated many places, is the Llangollen land
fill near Wilmington, Celaware, that was abandonee] years ago.
The pollution from the land fill has new reached the wells of a
residential area. The interim solution is to withdraw the
polluted water before it reaches the wells and discharge it
into the river. It is an expensive expedient which must
continue until the source of the pollution is either removed or
controlled. ? possible solution is to cap the land fill area
with an impermeable material, therecy preventing water frcr.
percolating down through the waste. ?os-C-Tcc is such a
material.
We cannot continue tc create environmental time bombs
that will explode in the future. Twenty or thirty years is a
short time when related to ground water but as far as we know
the guaranteed life of any synthetic liner docs net exceec
twenty years. Whatever controls we utilize must be as
permanent as we can make them.
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977- 720-11v ''2')
-------
Poz-C-Tec, which is based on a chemical reaction
inn liar to those in portland cement continues to harden and
am strength almost indefinitely. The pozzolanic reaction was
iscovered by the Forrans over 2,CCf years ago ana was used by
he.7 to produce cerrer.t. Corre cf the raterial is still in
xistence. ",.hile we do not have 2,CCT years cf experience with
oz-C-Tec, a liner of Foz-C-Pac, a similar material, has been
olding water in a reservoir fcr twenty years and \,G expect it
o last indefinitely.
In su;r.rra ry , we believo t na t:
1. ihe pri.rjry purpose cf ar.y solio waste ccr.trcl
prcgrar. is to protect ground water and ;. uzt
induce -round water standards.
on quantity as well as ccr.cencr a t icn a no that
t n e rrir.ciral criterion z h. c u 1 d L e- total r, a s c
t r o n s r c r t.
1 K t ^ r o " t c,. ~ u:; t induce G t; r c a r.. 1 c a c I i, •_ _
test procedures ti'.c.t ar; La sec on actual fid,
conditions and trie rechar.isrrs cf water -.ove-
rrent applicable tc those cor... i t icr.s .
-------
U.S. Env ronmental Protection Agency
------- |