TRANSCRIPT


                  REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE

          RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT of 1976

              February 23 and 24, 1977, Atlanta, Ga.
          These meetings were sponsored by EPA Region IV,
and the proceedings (SW-15p) are 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 protection publication (SW-15p) in the solid waste management series.

-------
                         THE


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING

                     TRANSCRIPT
                         on
   THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976

                    P.L. 94-580


               SHERATON-BILTMORE HOTEL

                  Atlanta, Georgia

             Wednesday, February 23, 1977

                6:30P.M. - 12:OOA.M.
            James )fC. Scarbrough, Moderator
This is to certify that the attached proceedings were held as
herein appears, and that this is the original transcript there-
of for the file of the Environmental Protection Agency.


                                         '7   /I    L
                                   /sf    Reporter   /      f S
                              WHITENS PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIAL
                                         SERVICE

-------

-------
                        THE PROCEEDING

Moderator:  I would ask you, as our notice stated, when we ask
for public comments to limit your comments to no more than five
minutes.  Please, when you approach the mike, we have a court
recorder here taking this down, please give your name.  If
it's a little bit difficult like mines is, Scarbrough, spell
it for them, it won't take long and then who you are represent-
ing.  If you're just representing yourself, that's fine, but
let them know who it is so we can get it correct on the record.
I will keep the record open for written comments or written
statements until March llth.  First, we will have presentations
from staff people in our EPA Office of Solid Waste.  At the end
of their presentation, we will take public comments, discussions,
questions, whatever you have on that particular item.  At the ap-
pointed time, as shown in the agenda, that discussion will be
terminated and we will go on to the next agenda item.  At the
end... the last item on the agenda is state program development,
at the end of that we'll take comments, questions, whatever you
want to say about any portion of the Act, at that time.  We
have microphones, we have asked that you please move to the
microphone when you get ready to speak.  If there's someone
there, fall in behind them, wait your turn, and I'll try to ask
you to speak on a first come first serve basis.  We are making
copies of the transcript.  Each person that filled out one of
those forms as you came in here or brought with you to fill-out

-------
and turn in as you leave, well, you will get a copy of the



transcript in the mail.  It will probably take us six or eight



weeks or so to get that thing reproduced and mailed back out,



but you will get that.  If you know other people who are



interested in it, and they want a copy, please have them con-



tact our office, our Regional Office here in Atlanta.  We'll



be happy to send them a copy, we'll have plenty of them.  I



think... if you don't know our address, it's 345 Courtland



Street, Atlanta 30308, and a telephone call will do just as



well, it's (404) 881-3016.  You see on your agenda, a welcome



by Mr.  Jack Ravan, Regional Administrator of Region IV, he's



unable to be with us tonight.  We have with us, Mr. Asa Foster,



he's the Director of the Hazardous Material Division, and he'll



welcome you from out of town to Atlanta.







Speaker Asa B. Foster:  Thank you, Jim.  I think you're slipping.



Some of you were at the meeting last week that we had on Toxic



Substances, and I didn't allow any smoking in the room.  So, I



think it's good that we are segregated.  There's a lot of things



happening in EPA and many of you are aware.  We're talking about



one of the exciting things tonight, this new Act that we have.



And we also have the Toxic Substances Act which we  had a public



meeting on last week, and.... President Carter has nominated as



the new Administrator, Douglas Costell; the new Deputy Administrator,



Barbara Blum.  I'd like to tell you a little bit about these people,



so that you... just for your information.  Douglas Costell has been



a member of the transition team under President Carter's leader-

-------
 ship there.  From July of  '75 until 1977, the first of the



 year, he was the Assistant Director for Natural Resources



 and Commerce in the Congressional Budget Office.  From about



 March '73 until July 1975, he was Commissioner of the



 Connecticut Department of Environ(gftntal Protection, and for



 about a year and a half prior to that he was Deputy Commissioner



 for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.  He



 has a lot of experience.  He has a long list of other experience



 that I won't go into, but the point I wanted to make is that he



 has a lot of experience in environmental protection.  I'm not



 sure exactly of the way the Connecticut department is organized,



 I think it's very similar to many of our states here in Region IV



 in that you have your air and water and solid waste all wrapped



 up in onforganization.  Barbara Blum is from here in Atlanta.



 She's a native of Kansas.  She has been a very active individual



 in consumer affairs; been very effective in working with the



 legislature, various legislative bodies.  She's been a very



 active environmentalist.  I saw some of my friends here that



 use to... I use to be acquainted with who was in the water pro-



 gram and I remember that Barbara was very active along the



 Chattahoochee River.  So, we have the new leadership coming



 into EPA, we have the new legislation we're charged with the



 responsibility of administering, and,  I look forward to a lot



 of exciting things happening.  Tonight, we want to give you



 some information about the new Act.   Public Law 94-580 which



you have a copy of.   The Act states  that public participation



 in the development,  revision, implementation and portions of

-------
any regulation, guidelines, information or program under the



Act shall be provided for.  It shall be encouraged and



assisted by the Administrator and the states.  That's what



we're here tonight for is to give you some information and



get your feed-back.  I think that this is becoming more and




more recognized.  I think particularly by the Congress as the



thing that we should do, and that we must do.   I think you




will find that Congress intend^for land disposal to be regu-




lated and a lot of our value resources, re-used.  This new



Act will have far-reaching influence on the social and



economic issues, ranging from the attitudes of the individual



citizen and consumer to how we extract, manufacture and market



products to such complex issues as depletion allowances and



international trade policies.  We at EPA intend to take public



information and public participation that's required for this



Act, seriously.  We want your input.  I realize that tonight



you will be receiving a lot of information^ you may not be



able to provide us with your comments; you may wish to  send



them in later to Mr. Scarbrough and  I would ask that you would



do that.  Many of you are  from out-of-town and  I want to wel-



come you to Atlanta.  I usoJto be very close friends with the




Commissioners of Public Works who has resigned.   I understand



Mr. Scarbrough knows some of the people down there at City Hall,




and I've asked him that if any of you get a parking ticket  or



anything^ to go with you down to City Hall and get his friend



and go over with you to traffic court and hold  your hand while



you pay your  ticket.  So,  we can do  that service  for your....

-------
Question:  (Unidentified SPeaker)  What happens if you get



mugged, Asa?







Speaker Foster:  Pardon?







Question:  (Same Speaker)  What happens if you get mugged?







Speaker Foster:  If you get mugged, I don't know, don't come



to me.... (Laughter)  But it's good to have you here tonight



and if you decide tonight that you want to come back in the



morning, we'll have a sort of a re-run in the morning, and



I'm sure that all the speakers will be a little better imbursed



with their subject and you might get a little better treat in



the morning.  So, if you want to come back tomorrow, you're



certainly welcomed to do that and to participate at that time...







Question:  (Unidentified speaker)  How long will the discussion



last in the morning?







Speaker Foster:  I believe it's scheduled until about noon...







Moderator:.  We'll have to get out of this room at about 1:00P.M.



No later than 1:00P.M.







Speaker Foster:  Thank you.







Moderator:  Thank you, Asa.  Since I didn't introduce myself in



the beginning, my name is Jim Scarbrough and I'm with the Solid

-------
Waste Program in the Regional Office, here.  What I'd like



to do now is that I'll run over briefly a summary of some



of the things that are in the Act.   Then, we'll get into our



presentations, which will be quite  short, because we are not



here to tell you; we're here for you to tell us, and please



keep that in mind.  We want to hear from you.   We did hand



out, out there on the table as you  came in, copies of the



Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA).   If you look



over in front of that, Congress has given us some words of



wisdom there that they had in mind  in drafting this Act and



passing it and offering it up to the President for signature



to make it Law.  Looking there closely you will see that the



objectivesof this Act are the protection of public health;



protect the environment; conserve valuable material resources



and conserve energy resources.  You say, well,  it sounds real



good, you know, if everybody would  be for that.  I don't



think there's anybody here that wouldn't be for that.  But



then you get into the question of how shall we do that. How



will you do it.  How will government; how will state govern-



ment, federal government, local government, industry.  How



will we do that.  And, in their wisdom they did write down



some things for us as to how they think it should be done



and that's our charge to carry out  their purposes and their



intent as they have written in this Law.  They said that what



we should do is give technical and financial assistance to



state and local government, manpower development.  And this

-------
Law will prohibit future open dumping.  It will require us to



convert or close existing open-dumps.  It will require us to



regulate hazardous waste.  It requires EPA as an agency to



publish guidelines for solid waste management.  It requires



us to do certain things in research and development.  It



requires us to do demonstration projects.  Those of you that



are familiar with our program in the past know that we have



been active in this area, but it requires us to go even further,



to demonstrate resource recovery on a larger scale and indeed



on a smaller scale, and on a scale that small communities can



use.  It mandates that the federal, state and local government



and industry partnership in material and energy recovery be



carried out to it's fullest extent.  Those of you that have



gas for your heat in your house in the last month or so have



come to realize that's not something that we can consider



casually.  It may not always be here.  We may have to seek



other sources.  Here is a source that has potential.  This is



what Congress told us even before the gas shortage.  It requires



public participation, and this is very important as expressed



by the Act.  Now, basically, this Act as I read it sitting in



the Regional Office, has two main thrusts in it.  The first



being Sub-Title C which is the hazardous waste regulatory pro-



gram and as I read it, it seems to me that it's intended by



Congress for this regulatory program to be run by the state



government.  Whether or not you agree really doesn't matter.



But, if you would read Section 3006 under Sub-Title C, I think



you'll see where I get that sort of thinking from.  The other

-------
thrust is state and local planning, that's found in Sub-Title



D, along with that goes the prohibition of open dumping and



all disposal, except hazardous waste disposal, being required



at a resource recovery facility, center or land-fill or dis-



posed of in an otherwise environmentally sound manner.  In



addition to that, in supporting that as part of the foundation



is relatively small compared to some of our other grant pro-



grams.   A  relatively small rural assistance grant program



with an authorization there of some twenty-five million dollars



a year, nation-wide.  And, if you read closely there you will



find that this grant assistance is intended for towns of



less than five-thousand population and counties with a popu-



lation of less than ten-thousand or less than twenty people



per square mile.  Now, if you look a little further you will



see a landmark piece of legislation in Sub-Title F.  And, it



has to do with federal facilities, and it basically says that



if you have a land-fill on your federal property, whoever you



may be, U. S. Army or the Marine Corp, or the U. S. Forestry



Service Department, it really doesn't make any difference, but



is says that you have to get a state permit.  And, it doesn't



say that you go over and ask them what is required for a state



permit, you do it without the paperwork, you have to do the



whole thing.  Generally speaking, that basically covers this



Act and I'd like to leave you with that short summary and get



right on into the public participation part.  With us tonight,



we have as I said earlier, staff people from  the Office of



Solid Waste and if you read the Act, you will see that this  is

-------
 the Office that's charged with carrying out this Act by the
 Congress.   We have with us first of all to speak to training^
 public information,  public participation scheduled Mr.  Thomas
 Williams.   Tom is unable to be with us, he has the flu  and
                              %>
 substituting ably for him is Jerri Wyer, on my right.   And,
£>
xfferri will give us the presentation there.  It's going  to be
 five minutes or so and upon conclusion of that,  we want you
 to  please  speak to us about what you think about public
 participation, training, public information.  And then, at the
 appropriate time, we'll ask that you cease the public  discuss-
 ion on that part and we'll go on to the n&xt part, hazardous
         -   -
 waste. ^
         &
 Speaker Jerri Wyer:   Thank you,  Jim.
                The RCRA contains an unusually complete array
 of provisions which could bring  about a high degree of public
 understanding and participation.  Taken together,  these various
 provisions  make it clear that the Congress  understood that it
 is impossible for the public to  participate, meaningfully,
 unless  the  government first produces  valid, scientific, and
 technical data and then produces and publishes the information
 in such a way that everyone may  have  real access to it.  Only
 in this way can the  public really have a reasonable chance of
 influencing the social,  economic and  political changes which
 the Law will bring about.  I have some slides here, I'd like to
 show... can you dim the lights,  Jim?   (Pause)


 Moderator:  Yes.   (Pause)

-------
10
Speaker Wyer:  Now, this is fine.  In Section 8003, the
Administrator of EPA is required to develop, collect, evaluate
and coordinate information on nine key elements which are
crucial to the Act's purposes.  The Administrator is not only
to implement a program for the rapid dissemination of this
information, but he's also to develop and implement educational
programs to promote citizen understanding.  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 Admin-
istrator is asked    to coordinate his actions and to cooperate
to the maximum extent possible, with state and local authorities
and to establish and maintain a central reference library for
virtually all the kinds of information involved in the solid
wastes management for the use of state and local governments,
industry and the public.  Just who is the public?  To ensure
that the public participation process does not become lop-sided,
we felt it was necessary to identify major categories of interest
groups who represent the public at large.  Under RCRA we regard
these to include consumer, environmental and neighborhood
groups; trade, manufacturing and labor representatives; public
health, scientific and professional societies; and, governmental
and university associations.  This spectrum of categories of
representative groups will be altered and supplemented as
necessary, if in the course of implementing  the Act it appears
desirable to do so.  Section 7004A of RCRA states that any per-
son may partition the Administrator for the promulgation, amend-

-------
11
merit or repeal of any regulation under this Act.  Section 7004B



calls for full public participation in the development, revision



and/or enforcement of any regulation, guidelines, information or



program under this Act.  Secondly, it states that the Administra-



tor in cooperation with the states shall develop and publish minimum



guidelines for public participation and such processes.  Section



7002A states that any person may commence civil action on his own



behalf against any other person, including the United States,



who is alleged to be in violation of this Act or against the



Administrator is there is an alleged failure by him to perform



any act or duty under the Act.  What are some of the available



public participation techniques?  The many techniques which can



be used to involve the public in government actions fall into



three major categories.  One, to ensure that appropriate public



meetings, hearings, conferences and workshops and so forth



are held throughout the Country, and that they are planned and



held in accordance with the unfolding of the Act's key provis-



ions.   Two,  the use of advisory committees and review groups



which may meet periodically, but which will also be called upon



to review and comment upon major programs, regulations and plans



no matter when these occur and no matter whether a specific



meeting is convened or not.  The third public participation



technique is the development of educational programs so that



the public has an opportunity to become aware of the signifi-



cance  of the technical data base and the issues which emerge



from it.   Effective public educational programs depends on the

-------
12
use of all appropriate communcation tools and media.   These
include publications, slides,  films, exhibits and other
graphics;  media programs,  including public service television
and radio  announcements and releases to daily and professional
press and  public education projects carried out by service
and civic  organizations with EPA technical and financial assist-
ance.  What does the Law say about manpower development?  Section
7007A and  B authorizes the Administrator of EPA to make grants
and/or contracts with any eligible organization for training
persons for occupations involving the management, supervision,
design, operational or maintenance of the solid waste disposal
and resource recovery equipment and facilities, or to train
instructors.  Eligible organizations means the state, or any
state agency, a municipality or educational institution capable
of effectively carrying out a project.  Section 7007C states
that the Administrator shall make a complete investigation and
study to determine the need for additional trained state and
local personnel to carry out plans assisted under this Act and
to determine means of using existing training programs to
training such personnel and to determine the extent and nature
of obstacles to employment and occupational advancement in the
solid waste disposal and resource recovery field.  The Administ-
rator is required to report the results of such investigation
and study to the President and Congress.  In view of the man-
power limitation, and many time-mandated provisions of the Act,
it is not likely that the training activity or the manpower

-------
13
training will be begun during this fiscal year.  That concludes



my presentation.  I'll try to answer your questions if you have



any on what I have said.






                      ^
Moderator:  Thank you, Jerri.  I'd like to open the floor up



now for comments and questions.  Whatever you have aimed toward



training, public information, and public participation, those



portions of the Act.  If you would like to speak, you will please



move to the microphone.   There's a little switch right here that



I discovered, turns that thing on, makes it work.  So you will



need to turn them on when you get up there.  I think they're



all turned off, now.







Question:  (Unidentified Speaker)  Jack, do you want us to



make individual presentations on each section, or just wait and



make a presentation at the end?....







Moderator:  If you have a general presentation that doesn't



apply itself with the assemblance to a particular portion of



the agenda as we have it laid out, if you'd like to wait until



the end, then we'll take general presentations on anything you



want to give us.  (Pause)  Here's one right here, Moses, or



that one back there.







Question:  In regards to the....  Excuse me, I'm Moses McCall



from the State of Georgia.  In regards to the public participation

-------
14
portions of the Act.  I think the efforts thus far have been



pretty good and I would commend EPA on that part of the imple-



mentation of the Act.  I have to get in my gig, you know.  No



longer are we seeing the faceless or nameless bureaucrats up



on the Potomac.  There was a publication last Thursday in the



Federal Register of individuals who are working on specific



guidelines, regulations, etc. in conjunction with the imple-



mentation of the Act.  I would urge that we have timely dissemin-



ation of any guidelines, regulations, etc. which might come out



of EPA to the various interested parties.  And, I would also



urge that these things be dated so that we can keep up with



what came out when, that's caused us some problems in the past.



We have gotten some un-dated ones which didn't make a lot of



sense.  In terms of training, there's no specific authorization



for training, but I would urge that as we build up state programs



and as EPA builds up the federal program there's going to definitely



be a need for training authorization or training professional per-



sonnel in solid waste management.  I hope this will be considered.







Speaker Wyer:  Notice, we are... as a matter of fact, we're



detailing from the Atlanta Regional Office, here... coming here,



and at* will be coming in next Monday^  To help us try and deter-



mine what the manpower development needs are.  And, jtfe will be



here for a period of two months, and hopefully, during that time



we may come up with some actual efforts.

-------
 15
 Question:  (Same SpeaKer)  Good.  Thank you.





 Moderator: Thank you, Moses.  Do we have anybody else who


 would like to make a statement, ask a question?  (Pause)  I


 ask you not to throw rotten oranges or anything like that.


 Okay, with that, we'll move on.  We have with us fromthe Hazard-


 ous Waste Division, Walt Kovalick.  Walt's the Chief of the


 Guidelines Branch of the Hazardous Waste Division, the Office


 of Solid Waste in Washington.        Walt, you want to use


 that mike over there?





 Speaker Walter W. Kovalick:  Several of us are going to work


 from down here to try and make it a little easier for you to


 confront us with questions, if that's the right word.  Ah-

&>
 /Jerri was telling you about the process of involving all of


 you and those who live in many of the other regions that we're


 carrying on public meetings in.  We're in the process of develop-


 ing guidelines,  regulations and information.  Not only as Asa


 said are we doing a repeat performance in the morning, we're


 simo-casting  because there's a similar meeting going on right


 now in New York  City, in our Region II.  So, I hope it's clear


 that this is  the first Step among many steps to let you all


 know exactly  what we're doing in the process of developing this


 Law.   I'm to  talk to you about Sub-Title C, which is the 3000


 series of the Law,  and it's the regulatory portion.  I'd like to


 make a few philosophical points and then move in quickly to


 summarize the sections, and then still leave enough time to dis-

-------
16
cuss them as we go along.   You may want to stop me when I do
get through with the individual sections.   Anyway, the first
part you should note if you had a chance to look at that
section is that Section 3001 is the keystone for the entire
Sub-Title C, that is where EPA is asked to define what is a
hazardous waste.  And that particular section then creates the
umbrella, or as it's sometimes termed, the net which will be
thrown out over what we call hazardous waste and then either
through state programs and/or if necessary, a federal program.
those wastes will be controlled from crad^le to grave using
the regulations and standards that are contained in the rest
of the 3001 series.  And,  I'll be talking about those, indivi-
dually.  So, the work that we do and the input that we get on
the definitional section are very critical to the way the rest
of the sections operate and the way it is implemented.  The
second broad point I wanted to make is that Sub-Title C con-
tains a set of national standards, a set of national minimum
standards for generators of waste.  National minimum standards
for those people who transport wastes... hazardous waste, we're
talking about, those that are defined earlier on in the Sub-
Title.  And then, national standards for those who operate
storage, treatment and disposal facilities.  Meaning not
just land disposal, but we're talking about generation
facilities for hazardous wastes, chemical treatment facilities,
biological treatment and other kinds of land application
other than just burial.  So, it's a very broad gauge cover-
age of minimum national standards.  The third broad

-------
17
overview point is that it is the intent of Congress, certainly


in the history of the legislation, it is our implementation


intent that the states take over this program and operate it.


And we're making every possible effort, as I will explain in


a moment, in the development of the state guidelines section,


to see that that happens.  So, this is to be after the model

        S/»F*
of the State Drinking Water Act which EPA also administers that,


if the states wish to, they shall take over the program^as


opposed to some of our earlier environmental models where it


wasn't at all clear that EPA was in any hurry to turn over the


programs.  The last point I wanted to make was that the Law,


as we understands it would not allow us to go back at old dis-


posal problems except in the case of there being an imminent

hazard from that situation.  In other words, wastes that are


already disposed of, the standards that I am going to be dis-


cussing would not allow us to go back at them other than for


imminent hazard purposes.  So, we're starting fresh with the

development of the regulations.  Let me now run through the


sections to give you a little more specifics and then I'll,

hopefully, have more than enough time for questions.  A- why


don't we use the slides.  As I just mentioned, the definition

is the critical starting point.  You'll see eighteen months


repeated each time I show you a slide, there are seven or eight


of these.  And so, all of the work that we're doing which


commenced October 21st when the Act passed,through -tfie-April of


'78 are aimed at turning out the best possible product, that is,


in terms of regulations that we can all live with and still pro-

-------
18
vide the kind of environmental protection that this problem
needs.  Section 3001 calls on us to do three things.  One is
to identify criteria which Congress gave usj some suggestions
or criteria that might be used to identify hazardous waste.
Now, the first thing we have to do is chose the criteria.
Things like flammability, corrosivity, explosivity, toxicity,
both chronic and accute, bio-concentration, and a variety of
factors that you might not normally consider in your thinking
about what defines a hazardous waste.  I also call your atten-
tion to the definition of solid waste in the Law, which
includes semi-solids; liquids; sludges; and, slurries.  So
Congress, in its wisdom, has re-defined solids as a semi-
solid; liquid; sludges; and, slurries, slush, ah- whatever.
So, we're talking about those things that have qualities in
terms of criteria that's used to be identified as hazardous.
Then, using those criteria, we then identify hazardous waste,
that's Part B of that section.  To carry my example of flamm-
ability one step further, we would... assuming we chose
flammability, we'd have to pick a standardized test which are...
in that particular case, there are several available which are
generally agreed upon by government and industry as effective
tests for flammability.  And, it would be a matter of choosing
a flash-point to use in that standard test.  So, choosing the
flash-point would be choosing the criteria; and, running the
standardized test would be applying the criteria of flammability
to identifying the waste.  The third thing we have to do in this
section is issue a list and there are a variety of options for
issuing a list.  It could be a list of things- list of wastes,
excuse me, that flunked the list.  In other words, those things that

-------
19
failed these standardized tests that we were just discussing



under identification.  That's been one approach.  Another



approach could be a list of things that we do not have the



technology or where-with-all now to devise a reasonably



priced test and yet we all agree... meaning industry, govern-



ment, labor, environmental groups, that we have a significant



problem.  For example, waste contaminated with PCBs might well



be considered to be in concensus as a hazardous waste and yet



it's not easy to devise a simple, economic test for waste con-



taminated with PCBs, and therefore, they might be listed on the



list just because they are important, but not because they meet



any flammability, corrosivity or other toxicity requirement.



They happen to be a problem because they bio-accumulate, to



which there is no simple test.  Another idea for a list has been



the possibility of a list of industrial outputs, in terms of



waste outputs, that might be a concern.  For example, if



there were a concensus that those who are in the business of



manufacturing asbestos brake linings had waste that because of



the afebestos contents were of concern, then waste from that



industry  category might be on the list.  So, all I'm trying to



explain is that we have not reached any decisions on what the



list should be, but to offer you some of the perspectives on



how diverse the list could be.  Most of you, when you think



of the lists that are familiar with some of our environmental



programs, probably think of the Section 311 Water Pollution



Spill List, and that's a simple list of substances which you



know whether or not you've spilled, and therefore, know whether

-------
20
or not you need to comply with the regulation.  But, we're



talking about... not about substances when we talk about hazard-



ous waste, but mixtures, green slimes, and  *S/q./1/C./gS    (.this



word waa-Jjxdjj>tjjigiiiska-brfce) that are not easily identified.  So,



you can see that this is quite a bit more complex, and as  I



pointed out at the beginning, the definition  is then what



governs the rest of the regulations.  There are three  sets of



national standards that I mentioned, the first, that I'll  run



through quickly.  For generators, there are only three subjects



that we are instructed to write regulations on.  We cannot write



regulations that affect the way you generate  waste.  That  is



the process that you use to generate waste.   We can only write



regulations on... for record-keeping and reporting requirements



regarding the hazardous wastes that we defined earlier; or, on



labelling of containers; or... and/or, I should say, on hazardous



waste manifest systems, which is a  term that  Congress  included.



It, basically, is a paper  system that tracks  those industrial



wastes that leave a facility until  their ultimate point of



disposal, so that hopefully, the state government is knowledge-



able that the waste did indeed arrive at the  disposal  facility



and was properly disposed  at a permitted disposal facility.



So, it's kind of a tie that makes sure that the waste  that was



generated which fall under this category reach their ultimate



destination.  The second national standard  relates to  transporters.



There  is no limitation  there on the... there  are  some  suggestions



for regulation, including  record-keeping, labelling  and compliance

-------
21
with this same manifest system.  That is, the transporter
would maintain copies with him as he delivers the waste to the
disposal facility or wherever he's taking it, that is permitted.
You notice that we are aware, as I'm sure those of you who are
here, that are in the transportation business know that the
Department of Transportation is in the transportation regulat-
ion business.  We have began oujc discussions with the Office
of Hazardous Material Operations and we've expressed our desire
to try to make these regulations as compatible as we possibly
can.  As a matter of fact, identical, hopefully, given they
have a transportation protection mandate and we have an environ-
mental protection mandate.  The last set of national standards
that I mentioned applies to those that own and operate facilities.
Again, I don't mean just land disposal sites, I mean incinerators_,
chemicals fixation-type processes, biological treatment facilities
and others.   These again would be standards affecting record-
keeping; reporting; and the manifest system which I mentioned
earlier; monitoring; the right to inspect maintenance and
operational  and contingency plans in case of accident.  But,
there's a broad group of items that could be covered in the
national standards affecting facility operators.  Now, these
particular facilities, the ones that we call hazardous waste treatment
facilities have one more set of requirements.  That is, they
must obtain  a permit.  None of the other contingencies... not
the transporters and not the generators, they do not have to
get a permit.  But, the hazardous waste facility operators

-------
22
do have to have a permit.   So,  when we discuss the permit pro-


gram under Section 3005,  it only affects those who are in the


business of treating,  storing and disposing of waste.   Now,


if you are a generator of waste and you also operate a storage


treatment or a disposal facility, then you would need  a permit,


also.  The idea of permits... this is not a permit program for


truckers, this is not  a permit  program to generate waste.  This


is a permit program for those who treat, store and dispose of


waste.  Ah- you see there basically that a permit is required


and Congress has wisely included a provision for interim permits

for those of you who were involved with obtaining water pollut-

ion permits are aware  that we had quite a work over-load and

quite a frenzy in trying to issue those permits and this Law


provides for those firms who need a permit... who were in

business on the 21st of October in 1976, which is when the

Law was signed^ and who have notified EPA or the state, which

I will explain in a moment and who have applied for a permit,

who have done those three things, if you're in that category,


you have a permit.  In other words, this is a load-leveling,
                                        cmi
work-leveling opportunity for us at EPA in the regions who will


be  issuing the permits or the states to take the most important

permits, first.  So that you will not be operating without a


permit during this time that EPA is cranking up, or the states,


to issue permits.  Section 3006, I'll just cover momentarily, is


the section where we devise guidelines for what an authorized

state program is and this is the part of the Law where we  are

-------
23
working with state governments to try and design a compatible
program.  The Law does include three requirements which we
will have to design with these guidelines.  One is the state
programs be equivalent to the federal programs ....
Question:   (Unidentified Speaker)-  Substantially.

Sjaeaker Kovalick: Substantially equivalent.  That they be con-
sistent with other state programs.  Some of you may be aware
that Ohio recently published a  study that they shipped waste...
industry in Ohio shipped waste to thirteen other states.  So,
there's quite a commerce in hazardous waste between and among
states.  And finally, that there by adequate enforcement of
the provision that relate to Sub -Title C.  There is also a
provision for interim authorization, so that states can meet
this full-authorization over a period of time and that's also
included in the Section.  One of the sections- skipping to
3010, that is least noticed, but I think has one of the evident
set of ramifications, as we read it in that it affects those
who generate, those who transport, those who store, treat and
dispose of hazardous waste, this is a notification section
where witHh three months after the hazardous waste that I dis-
cuseed earlier are defined.  Each of these entities will have
to notify the state in which they're located, or EPA.  It
says EPA ^there; it should be state or EPA, that they are in
fact in this business, handling hazardous waste.  So, this is
a way...  ah- a registration, if you will, so that there is an

-------
24





awareness of where the generators,  transporters and storers,



treaters and disposals of waste are located.  It also, as you



recall, provides a way for us to do this load-leveling or



work-leveling on how many permits we've processed.  If you've



notified EPA under this section, if you were in business in



October and if you've applied for a permit, then you have a



permit until official action is taken on your permit.  So, this



is the section that provides us with a cushion, and also pro-



vides the operators with a cushion so that they are not outside



the Law.  That last significant section is one related to assist-



ance to states and there are provisions for grant funds to



support state hazardous waste programs, both to develop them



and for their implementation.  There's an allocated formula



that's based on the nature of the problem.  It has a three



factors in it, and this, of course, is a function of the actual



appropriation when we get down to the last analysis.  But,



there is a separate authorization here for state hazardous



waste programs.  That's what I wanted to cover and very briefly,



it's a lot of information to run through very quickly.  And, if



you've had a chance to look at the fact sheets or glance through



the Law, perhaps you have some initial questions or comments.







Moderator:  Thank you, Walt.  If you'd like to speak, just move



to the mike and we'll get to you just right after the other.



Yes sir?                             ,
Question:  John Coins.  The question  I have with  this hazard-



ouX waste, what about heavy metal?, etc.  that might be found  in




domestic sewage, would that be covered?

-------
25
Speaker Kovalick:  It's... it's possible.  We intend to run,


you know, these standardized tests which we're trying to


development over time on a variety of wastes.  And, as you


know... probably better than I, there are a number of


communities where well over ninety percent of waste water


treatment plants are municipally-owned and industrially-


owned, in some cases, well over ninety percent are from


industrial sources.  So, it's not possible that such slu*«...

             dy&f
some such slus*es could be hazardous waste.  But, we're just


starting out.





Question:  Moses McCall from Georgia.  Ah- the question I


have, Walt, is granted I know you'll be listing the wastes


specified under Clean Air and the Federal Water Pollution


Control Act as hazardous, but do you envision a strict list-


ing of the other wastes as hazardous, or a decisiontry


approach to determine which wastes are hazardous?





Speaker Kovalick:  I'm not sure about the first part.  One


of the early drafts to this legislation as you probably know


better than I, did have that requirement, that we count


those things that are called hazardous in the Clean Air Act,


asbestos, berillium mercury and vinyl chloride, and the things


that are identified as hazardous in the Water Act.  But that's


not in there, statutori^ally.  So, we'll see if they meet the-


1tre '—approach, the so-called decisiontry approach, meaning


that you run some of the least expensive and therefore the


easiest tests, first.  Like those for physical properties,


corrosivity, explosivity and so forth, and then, move on to

-------
26
the more difficult tests to see which wastes might, quo to,


flunk the tests.  I think it's fair to point out, I'm talking


as if this is all industrial program^that ideological wastes


may well and might well be called hazardous wastes.  Which


means that we're affecting hospitals, clinics, veterinarian


plants and so forth, as well as some radioactive wastes.	


Those that are not regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory

              £Rof?
Commission or HRTA, the low-level kind, radiant in a watch


and the ah- those kinds of wastes that are a result of that


process.  So, we expect that all of them will be affected


by some kind of decision approach.  And, hopefully, the


least expensive tests will be the ones you do first.  Flash


tests, something like that, and moving on to the more com-


plicated tests, so that the cost is minimized.  We intend


to ask, in the Federal Register, for comments as to who


should bear that cost^, I might add.  Whether it's obvious


to you or not as to whether the generator of wastes should


bear the cost for running the tests on his wastes.  And, we


will be asking that question for comments.




Moderator:  I'd like to ask- we do have some people here


from some of our states programs, Mop, as well as some others


and I'd like to ask you how do you think this standard that


we've developed with your help, do you think that will affect


whether or not the states take over the program?  I'd like


to hear some of you on that.

-------
27
Question:  fUuiUUlllirie J GPeukur)  Jim, I could probably

answer that very briefly. . . .



Moderator:  Would you move  to the mike, please, and give your

name.  We're not asking for a commitment, all we're asking

for is participation.
                                                            O^7^1' '   J
Question:  I understand.  My name is Ben Druse from Florida.   ^~>  -,-j".

I believe that the answer to your question depends entirely

on the nature of the guidelines that you produced as to

whether or not we can live with it and whether or not you are

pre-empting some of the existing programs that we already

have.  So, I believe that we can't answer that particular

question at this point in time.  While I'm up here I might

ask Walter, what kind of rampart are you establishing with

NPDES and the Water Quality boys when you get into industrial

wastes and discharge permit aspects?



Speaker Kovalick:  Well, we've got the suggestions, as a

matter of fact that all of those infamous guidelines and

documents that was developed over the past few years for

controlling waste water discharge.  There is a lot of inform-

ation there about the contents of the sludges that you create.

So, that was brought up as a very good point as a way to get

data about things that might well be considered hazardous,

the heavy metals, to the point that this gentleman brought

up over here. ...

-------
28
Question:   (Unidentified Speaker)   That's a good point.







Speaker Kovalick:   I know you're from a state... and several



states in this Region have a fairly large agricultural pro-



duction, hopefully, if it rains, and there is the question



of whether pesticide-related wastes, specifically pesticide



containers which some argue are never empty.  That is if



you turn a five gallon pail or drum upside-down it is never



really empty unless it is appropriately rinsed.  So, I hope



that as we think about what is a hazardous waste, we not



ignore the farm community and the fact that some of those



kinds of wastes can be even worse than some of the ones



that we might normally throw into the hazardous waste pot



to begin with.







Question:  (Mr. Druse)  Well, we're wrestling with that



particular problem in Dajfe County right at the moment.  Hope



we come up with some answers pretty soon.  Thank you.







Moderator:  Yes sir?







Question:  Tom Tiesler from Tennessee.  I'd like just  to



respond to that.   I'd like to respond a little bit later



to some of the other- I guess, a general overview.   I'd



say yes it's going to make a difference to the  states  whether



they take the program or not.  Depending on the ways,  parti-



cularly if the states don't have an input  in determining



what is a hazardous waste.  If, in  fact, the states  are

-------
29
given a program that they don't feel like they could live



with or implement, that's so strict or so ridiculous guide-



lines, I know in Tennessee that probably they would say well



let's let the Feds have it.  So, I think that it is very



important that the states have an input into formulating



how the hazardous wastes are determined and how the list



is made up.  So, I would say yes for Tennessee, anyway.








Speaker Kovalick:  I wanted to- when I said this is the first



step I wanted to maybe elaborate to speak to Tom's point.



We are planning some seventy-five or eighty smaller versions



of this meeting along individual sections of the Law.  Seven



or eight sections on seven or eight meetings around the Country



on 3001 and likewise through the other sections.  And, we



intend to see that the Regions, of course- our regional offices



will be participating and organizing these meetings and one



of the necessary participants in such meetings, of course,



are the states.  So, I- that's one way in which we intend to



be out discussing where we are at the moment in defining



hazardous wastes, as well as, the other regulations.  These



are six  states who are working with us now, primarily on



the states guideline portions of the Law.  But, you should



feel free, if you are representing a state to contact us



direct.  As Moses noted, all the names and addresses and



phone numbers of people working on the regulation was in the




Federal Register last Thursday.  Or, through the regional

-------
30
office right here in Atlanta to find out what's going on.

We've tried an experimental program in the last week to

have a weekly phone call with our regional offices to try

and brief them as best we can on where we are on any given

section.  So, they should be quite knowledgeable on how

we're doing.



Moderator:  Yes sir, go right ahead.             f /_L-0/.r/-/
--                                        '    **
Question:  I'm Jack McMillan^ from Jackson, Mississippi.

In response to Jim's question about the determining whether

the" *§tates will take on the responsibility, two factors

that we -have looked at.  Are these guidelines and regul-

ations going tQ be designed to where it would be econo-

mically feasible fecr us to afford this type of program?

I can look at some of the guidelines and management of the

land-fill operations where it's disposal of by land.  It

would be totally out of the ability of state and local

governments to finance such systems.  And, another thing

that's very important of mine^, is the federal government

going to continue to support the financing of the state

program?  The Law calls for two years of authorizations

here and it would call for a new Act to support our program

from hereon.  Possibly, if the money runs out , we could turn

it back over to EPA to operate.  There's a couple of quest-

ions that I want to ask in regards to the liabilities of

the management of the wastes.  Have you given any thought  in

-------
 31
 this area of the transfer of ownership from the generator to


 the transporter to disposal or treatment facility, and by the


 fact of transfering ownership does this release the liability


 of those individuals that had ownership before hand?






 Speaker Kovalick:  Yes, that's a good question.  Our experience


 to-date in those- there are a couple of states that some of you


 may know, where this program and the basic frame-work that I've


 outlined  is already in operation.  And, the manifest system


 that I've mentioned goes a long way towards so-called trans-


 fering the liability.  However, we also are aware of experiences


 whereas a person is affected by a bad disposal practice, the


 Courts have seen fit to go way back all the way in the chain


 through the transporter back to the generator.  So, I think


 any generator who feels that he's going to be able to write-


 off his liability permanently, forever, he's being perhaps
           •i
          Q*4S
 a little njrCVe.  On the other hand, if the permit system is


well-run for that facility and if that facility has being


doing everything possible,  hopefully under state permit, to


meet the requirements, it would be very difficult, I think,


for a reasonable man, which is what we count on judges to be,


 to go back in the chain at the generator because the facility


was meeting the basic requirements.


Question:   (Same Speaker)   Ah- you're talking about in time


to come in the management of this waste will there be any


special care or guidelines  written for disposal or treatment


facilities?

-------
32
Speaker Kovalick:  Yes, I breezed by that one.on the bottom
                                              •^
lines on that one slide^,which had too many words on them, was

regulations regarding ownership and continuance of operation.

We spent some time studying that in-house.  Some of you may

be aware that Oregon has a requirement that the land on

which such facilities be built be deep into the state and a

fund be set-up during the life of the operation of the site

where contributions are made with each load of waste.  So

that in the end when the operation is closed  in twenty or

thirty years, there is a fund whose interest  can pay for the

monitoringand so-called long-term care of that facility.

So we definitely have an instruction in the Law to figure

out a way to address that problem.  I'm just- I tossed out

the Oregon model because that's one that's working now, and

you could inquire of them about it.  I mean,  if you read one

of the permits for an Oregon facility, it has the require-
                                 £c -ii-is ^-h?rr~
ment that the land be  P/cxT/9££>    (this word waa—indistinguish-

able) and that there be a fee for every load  that comes in

to the facility.



Question:  (Same Speaker)  One other question,  I know  that

some of you must be charged with the writing  of the regulations

or charting on working papers.  Do you have any working papers

that have been developed and would be available to the  states
                                                        
-------
33
ing our regulations.  So not only are we busy writing them,


but we have to figure out how many thousands! signatures we


can get on the bottom.  We are going to have available, in


mid-March, using the Federal Register which is the daily


newspaper of the federal government, a list of questions
                 -?

that we have come up with based on thinking about each of


these seven or so sections that I've discussed this morn-


ing.  So, the notice that Moses McCall mentioned last


Thursday is listed the names and addresses so you'll know


who to get in touch withj  Who the person is who would sign


such a regulation when we get all done.  But the material


that we're trying to get out in March is not a proposal.


We are many, many months, like August and September, from


proposing a set of regulations.  And, I think that's what's


different about implementing this Law from our Air and Water

              0«.t
Acts.  We are *«< gathering information at this point, and


the notice that I'm commenting about, hopefully, we'll make


in the Federal Register in mid-March may contain as many as


five or six dozen questions that we have, such as the one


on what makes sense for long-term care and continuity, that


the gentleman just raised.  So, that's where we are at the


moment, and ah- that should be out very shortly.  And then,


starting after we get the data back from asking those quest-


ions we would start having the kinds of drafts that Moses


McCall referred to that should be circulated.  And, we intend


to use an advisory committee system, which represents a


variety of interest groups.  We intend to use one of the major


interests groups that the Association of State and Territorial

-------
34
Solid Waste Management Officials, which is a long name, but

ah- they circulate drafts between and among the states, too.

So, we hope to use a variety of review groups, as well as

the kind... the eighty meetings or the seventy meetings that

I was discussing earlier to try and get input on what we

might write.



                      fc
Question:  I'm Jerry Parkins from the North Carolina Solid

Waste Program.  I would have to echo pretty much what the

other States have indicated as far as the ah- meeting the

federal requirements. In addition to that, I want to say

that- you know, if the requirements were more than our

legislature would be willing to go along with, or more than

we could afford on a mass basis in terms of a grant, then

we too would probably say okay, you asked for it.  I do

have a specific question for Walt.  No doubt, in terms of

special waste handling and handling of hazardous waste, pri-

vate-enterprise will play a major part.  Besides meeting our

water quality and air quality standards, will there be other

requirements that will qualify the different categories of

treatment and disposers?  In other words, if a facility

claims to be a de-toxifying facility, will it be eligible?

Ah- considerations that will help qualify him so that we

will know the difference between a jack-leg and one that will

be certified by EPA.




Speaker Kovalick:  If you're... I think you're asking me

whether the....  Let me take an example, I will try this.

-------
 35
As some of you may know, the Air Pollution regulations that



exists at the national-level for incinerators only cover



two subjects,  at the  moment, particulate matter and



sulfur-oxides.  Well,  the kinds of incinerators that burn



the kinds of waste we're talking about, exotic, organic



compounds, those two regulations would  not provide suffi-



cient control and so one of the issues we're trying to



wrestle with in EPA, generally, meaning the air programs



and the solid waste offices.  How do we deal with the pro-



blem of burning exotic, organic compounds where public



health is not being protected in this so-called de-toxi-



cation or destruction  facility.  So the answer to your



question is yes, we're going to have to be more wide-



ranging.  Now, I don't know whether there's going to be



admission standards or ambient standards or technology



base standards, or the Law says, performance standards.



So, we're trying to understand better what flexibility that



provides.  When  you're burning some of these very toxic



organic compounds, I know I would, and I'm sure you would



if you lived next door, want to be assured that there



were more requirements being laid on that incinerator than



just particulate matter and sulfur-oxide.







Question:   (Same Speaker)   Thank you.







Moderator:   Do we have anyone from industry that would like



to address  that problem for us?  About whether or not they

-------
36
think that the states should, in fact, take over the hazard-

ous waste regulatory program...  about the consulting community?

Yes sir?




Question:  Elmer Cleveland, EPA here in Atlanta, Georgia.

Walt, I'd like to ask you a question, if you've been into

discussions on when does a hazardous material, or a by-product

through the process of using hazardous material become a

waste?  Lots of this stuff is stored for maybe later use.

What's ah- what's your feelings on that?




Speaker Kovalick:  You're one of us, aren't you Elmer!  And

you're asking all the easy questions!  Well,  I don't know,

is the answer to your  question.  If you think about the

Law and the word storage .permits, which is one of the  require-

ments for storage permits, the question that^when is a waste^-

a waste^becomes very important.  We do not have a position on

that, we're going to be asking for a lot of input because at

                                              7/i 
-------
 37
                           ^
 ating    into  the  air and Affecting the environment, it would


 seem that  this  Law would want us to be regulating it.   And so,


 there's  that  one  extreme where it's difficult to draw a line,

                                                     -•£•
 and then we are aware of a huge mountain of asbestos^^ailings

                        C*—f
 that have  resulted from^manufacturing process in Pennsylvania ,
'~-r-T-'5i
-ikey'-re  sitting on the land,  children are playing in it and


 tumbling in it, or were.  And those kinds of waste's we want to


 be sure  are in  the permitted  program.  So, trying to draw this


 line in  the grey  area between by-product and true waste is

 quite  obviously very hard. We haven't yet, as a matter of fact/

 we've  just started,  but I think it's important for those of you

 who might  not have thought about that to do so, because if you


 are in industry it makes a difference.  I think it's fairly


 simple that flSBe^ms  h.>mre~± (-this woro was iniiistittgtHrS&aklej
-people  are  in  this  a^ew-and it gets harder in radioactive; but

when we move into chemicals,  that ah- it gets a lot more compli-

cated.




Question:   ,p///  v^7/!/('.X^//?// a   ^Speakers name wag n-ot

audiaMre^T.   I'm with  the  North Carolina Solid Waste Management

Program.  Two  comments  I'd like to make and one is this.

First,  I'd  like to  congratulate the writer of the Act for putting

public  health  back  where  is belongs in Solid Waste Management.

For the last ten years  or so  we have gotten totally away from

the public  health aspect  of solid waste management.  And I see

again here  we're coming back,   I  think this is a step in the

right direction.  Another thing that I think is most important,

-------
38
and I think it should be brought out again,  that you're not


going to put out just a list of hazardous material.   Because


we can take most of the heavy metals, or most anything else,


it depends upon the quantity you have and the strength you


have to make it hatch.  And I think this is   ah- very import-


ant.  If you say to industry they may have a platium sludge


that has less heavy metals in it than our sludges coming from


our municipal treatment systems, yet, we look much harder on


industry as they have the platium sludge, than we would look


on the great quantities of waste.  So, I am hoping that


you'll take into consideration the small operator that may


generate a few hundred pounds a month and it may be, ah- not


put him in the same category just because he has a certain


amount of heavy metals in it, as you would the generator


that generates great quantities of it.





Speaker Kovalick:  I'm glad you also brought that point out


for... as a thought piece, for those who are here.  The quest-


ion of whether there should be some exemptions under the


generator, storage... generator, transporter and storage treat-


ment disposal regs has been raised a number of times.  You

                               <£
might be surprised to know that^our December public meeting


in Washington, a representative of the waste oil re-refining


industry offered testimony that he was absolutely certain


that waste used lubricating oils ought to be a hazardous


waste and that was his testimony.  As you may know, that's

-------
39
collective of every gas station in the CjZuntry.  So, obviously,


there has to be some kind of equitable line drawn around what


are facilities that would be affected by this Law and those


that are not, based on the public health criteria that you


pointed out is in the Law.  So, it could be very far-reaching


and that's why we're out here trying to meet these goals.





Moderator:  We have time for one more, if anyone would care


to comment.  If not, the next topic we'll look into is land


disposal.  We have with us to give you a short presentation


on that, Mr. Truftt DeGeare.  Also of the Washington Office


of Solid Waste.  Trust's the Chief of the Land Protection

         ft* Sys*e*5                .           &
Branch in ftnrfgfinrr Management Division.  Tru/ttt.




           
-------
40
requirements for state and local governments will be discussed



later under state and local program development provisions.



RCRA defines open-dump and sanitary land-fill as the only



two types of solid waste disposal facilities.  They will be



distinguished by the criteria to be promulgated under Section



4004.  RCRA adds clarity by defining disposal and solid waste.



These are relatively broad definitions in specifying the



activities which encompass in the terms solid waste disposal.



Disposal is defined to mean the discharge, deposit, injection,



dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any solid waste or



hazardous waste into or on any land or water.  So-tthat such



solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof



may enter the environment or be emmitted into the air or



discharged into waters.  Solid waste means any garbage,



refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply



treatment plant or air pollution control facility and other



discarded material, and that being solid, liquid, semi-solid



or contain gasSbus material resulting from industrial, com-



mercial, mining and agricultural operations and from



community activities.  That does not include solid or desolved



material in domestic sewage or solid and desolved material



in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which



are point sources subject to permits under the Federal Water



Pollution Control Act or particular nuclear materials as



defined by the Atomic Energy Act.  As I said earlier, the



statutory definitions of sanitary land-fills and open-dumps



refer to Section 4004 of the Law.  That section is called

-------
41
Criteria for Sanitary Land-Fills.  Sanitary land-fills required


for all disposals.  This section requires' the Administrator


to promulgate regulations containing criteria for determining


which facility shall be classified as open-dumps and which


shall be classified as sanitary land-fill.  At minimum, the


criteria shall provide for the facility may be classified as

                                     A
a sanitary land-fill and not an open-Jfump only if there is


no reasonable probability of adverse effect on health or the


environment from disposal of waste at the facility.  An import-


ant aspect of the implementation of this Law then is further


interpretation of what constitutes no reasonable probability


and what constitutes adverse effects on health and the
                                        t
environment.  Development of this criter^J* will be particularly


difficult for ground-water protection, because of technological


uncertainties and the general lack of ground-water protection


policies.  The regulation containing these criteria is due by


October 21st of this year, after consultation with the states,


notice, and public hearings.  We've considered that it's


appropriate for the criteria to be performance rather than


operations-oriented.  The intent of promulgation of this cri-


teria is not to provide for a federal regulatory system for


sanitary land-fills, but to establish criteria for use by the


state solid waste management programs.  Section 4004B requires


each state plan to prohibit the establishment of open-dumps,


and to contain a requirement that all solid waste within the


state be disposed of in sanitary land-fills unless it is


utilized for resource recovery.  And finally, Section 4004C


indicates that the state prohibition on open-dumping shall

-------
 42
 take  affect  six months  after  the date of promulgation of



 the criteria or on  the  date of  approval of  the  state plan



 whichever  is later.  Not  later  than one year  after promul-



 gation  of  the criteria  for sanitary land-fills  and open-



Xumps,  the Administrator  shall  publish an inventory of all



 disposal facilities  in  the United  States which  are open-



 dumps.   Section 4005 also prohibits open-dumping when



 useable alternatives are  available.   If such  alternatives



 are not available,  the  state  plan  shall establish a timetable



 or  schedule  for compliance, which  specifies remedial measures



 including  an enforceable  sequence  of  actions  or operations



 leading to compliance with the  prohibition  on open-dumping



 within  a reasonable  timetable not  to  exceed five years from



 the date of  publication of the  inventory.   If the jtate plan



 is not  being undertaken,  the  citizen  suit provision of Sect-



 ion 7002 provides  recourse to a grieved party.  Section 1008,



 Solid Waste  Management  Information and Guidelines, requires



 the Administrator  to publish  in one year, guidelines which



 provides a technical and  economic  description of the level



 of performance that  can be obtained by various  available



 solid waste  management  practices.  Areas to be  addressed by



 the guidelines include  methods  and degrees  of control that



 provide a  minimum  for protection of public  health and welfare,



 protection of the  quality of  ground-water and surface-waters



 from  leakage, protection  of the quality of  surface water from



 run-off through compliance with absolute limitations under



 the Federal  Water  Pollution Control Act, protection of ambient



 air quality  through compliance  with new source  performance

-------
43
standards of  air  quality  implementation  plans  under the Clean


Air Act, disease  infection  control,  safety and esthetics.


Guidelines are viewed  as  being  intended  as descriptive  rather


than prescriptive  and  to  suggest  alternatives  for dealing  with



concerns raised in the  criteria being  promulgated under


Section 4004., Section  1008C  from this guidelines provision



requires minimum  criteria to  be used by  the state to  define
                                             s~

open-dumping  of solid waste as  prohibited  under Sub-Title  D.



The  response to  Section  1008 which  calls  for  guidelines on


a variety of  unspecified  subject  areas,  the Agency intends,



first, to up-date  our  current land-disposal guidelines  and


initiate slush disposal guidelines.  We  will also be  carrying


out a process for  determing which other  guidelines shall be



developed and what priority sequence.  With regards to  imple-


menting that program, we  are  soliciting  your input to guide


us in what you see as  the most  important areas for develop-


ment of these guidelines.





                         9
Moderator:   Thank  you Trmtt.   Do we have  any  comments?
Question:  (Note:  Two people — speaking _ a£_lh.e_-ijjne-. the- -questioner


was g-iv-rn-g fri-s name, thcrof-ojpe^. nama was indisidng-uish-a-bie) .


...from North Carolina, again.  Have you taken  into  considerat-


ion demolition, construction, land disposal or  tree  and  land-


scaping waste?






Speaker DeGeare:  We haven't yet.  We haven't really acted on


either the criteria or the guidelines.  That's  a reasonable

-------
44
concern.   One alternative with regards to the guidelines activity



is to get a separate guidelines dealing with various types of



waste.  For example, one guidelines would deal with land disposal



of municipal waste water treatment plant, sludges, another could



deal with demolition waste or tree and brush clearing waste.








Question:  (Same Speaker)  One of the definitions that I saw



in the pamphlet was that if it was not a sanitary land-fill,




it was a dump.  Do you anticipate different types of guidelines




for a sanitary land-fill that receives the participal waste



from the municipalities from the different places, and a




different set of regulations for a site that was just receiv-



ing tree and landscaping or demolition waste.  Do you antici-



pate the two?








Speaker DeGeare:  With regards to the guidelines, that  is under



consideration, and if you have feelings as to whether that



should be the way we go, them we would like to hear suggestions.



With regards to the criteria, the Law does provide  for various



classification of disposal sites and sanitary land-fills.   That




is an alternative that we could build it.








Question:   (Same Speaker)  One other comment.   I  think  that the




potential for problems lies very much in  these  two  definitions.



I've heard  the definition of  sanitary land-fills  from  some  people



that were supposed to know.   They say that a  cigarette-butt if  it



drops to the  ground  it's a dump.  We've  got  to  look  at  this,



and  I'm  sure  this is going to be most difficult  to  set-up  a set

-------
45
of regulations from California to North Carolina, and I do plead
with you to take the local people into consideration when you
look at this criteria.

Speaker DeGeare:  So you would suggest differing criteria based
on the types of wastes being disposed of?

Question:  (Same Speaker)  I certainly would.  I do not think
that we can possibly....  For instance, you  have a  munici-
pality that goes into the area of reconstruction when you're
tearing down twenty blocks and getting demolition waste, or you
have land-clearance if you are clearing fifty lots.  I see no
reason for daily cover, I see no reason for taking up the type
of land-fill space that we would acquire for p=a*ticipal waste
and filling it up with this type of waste that we could use
marginal land-owned, and not take up our good, planned sanitary
land-fill.  So, I do think there's a place for the two sets
of guidelines.  Not necessarily daily cover on the tree and
landscaping waste, but a cover enough to prevent fire, to...
this type of thing.
sets of regulations.
this type of thing.  I do think it's very much^place for two
Speaker DeGeare: Okay.  Thank you.  This is one of several
areas of concern that we have had already in trying to con-
sider what we should look to in terms of a criteria.  And that
is, what types of wastes would be covered by a criteria and in
what form the criteria would be.  Would they be specific for'
different types of wastes, or should we try a broader, general

-------
46
criteria that would be applicable to all types of wastes.  Just

to, maybe give you a little more food for thought.



Question:  Moses McCall from Georgia.  I strongly reiterate

what Bill just said.  I think there's definitely going to have

to be some sort of classification system, so that we can, you

know- handle these wastes according to the type of waste we're

dealing with.  And, I also think that if EPA approaches the

subject of open-dump AS being something where there's abso-

lutely zero discharge, that's completely unrealistic.  Because

we're going to have to assess the fact that there is going to

be discharge, either into the ground-water, you know, to a

minimal extent or whatever.  But, there is going to have to

be maximum flexibility that we can apply at the sjtate and

local-level, if we're going to be able to live with the Act.



Moderator:  Thank you.  Do we have anyone here from a municipal

or other local government?  We'd like very much to hear their

feelings on that particular question that Mr. Strickland just

addressed.  Yes sir.
               p.
Question:  John -Hailer from the Solid Waste Management, State

of Georgia.  I'm speaking now for local representatives who've

called today and so I'll pass this on to you.  This is from

Don Hackney in Savannah and he expressed somewhat of the same

opinion that's already been expressed, except, I think, he

goes a little further.  And his comments involved making the

-------
47
requirements at least general enough that they could be adopted



to varying areas of, not only the COuntry, but of the state.



For instance, he would prefer that we not set a definite standard



as to the depth of ground-water below the lowest depth of trench



or filling.  In other words, say five feet because solids leak



out of Georgia, over Florida, it's impossible for some of these



areas to meet this.  So, I think his general comment was that



we adopt standards which are general enough, or which could be



varying for different areas of the Country, rather than adopt-



ing one strict standard for the whole Cduntry.  The comment I



wanted to make is, at least in Region IV, I think you're



familiar, in our work plan you've indicated that we're to



address pits, ponds and lagoons.  My question is will these



be defin/ed as a sanitary land-fill or open-dump or another



method of disposal?  I'm not sure exactly where they fit into



the Law.







Moderator:   What we're trying to do here, John, is to seek



your advise on that particular question.  If you have a feeling



on that, we'll certainly be glad to hear it.







Question:   (Same Speaker)   Well, I think our concern, number



one^ is that they've completely been left out of all previous



regulations.  At least in Georgia pits,  ponds and lagoons  fall



into what we call no-man's land.  Water quality claims them



when they want to.  We claim them when we want to.  And when

-------
48
neither one of us want them we just claim that it's the other



one's responsibility.  So, to do an inventory of this would



require a tremendous amount of effort, above, say an inventory



of municipal waste sites which we could give you tomorrow to



go into pits, ponds and lagoons, this is ah- enough to hold



the ball-game which we have absolutely no information on.



Water Quality, I'm sure would have more than we would.  So it



may take a cooperative effort between the water and land pro-



grams.







Moderator:   If I understood you correctly, you are suggesting



that they should, in fact, be included?







Question:   (Same Speaker)  Certainly.   I think they should be



included in  one or the other programs.  Either air or land or



water, because, right now they  sort of wonder around  from one



program to another and really don't have a home.  So, I would



certainly recommend  that they be included.   But I'm not sure



whether the  definition of sanitary land-fill will be  broad



enough to include a  pit, pond or lagoon.







Question:   (Unidentified Speaker)  John brought up a  good point



about pits,  ponds and lagoons.  They  should  be included, but



where is the quest.  Right now  the Safe Drinking Water Act and



the proposed sub-service injection regs are  proposing to cover



them.  And  in the proposed regs they  do require that  an  inventory



be made by  the state within  twelve months of the potential affect

-------
49
on ground-water.  So, if they're going to be covered there, then



they sure as hell ought to be left alone in this Act.   You



know, let's cover them in one place, but let's don't overlap.



But, I think EPA in this respect needs to get its Act together



and decide where they want to cover it and how they want to do



it and not impose on the jtate that you do an inventory under



the guise of the Safe Drinking Water Act and then turn right



around and within twelve months have to include an inventory



under RCRA.







Speaker DeGeare:  The states that are being certified under the



Safe Drinking Water Act and they not all are, are being charged



to do a survey, not an inventory of pits, ponds and lagoons.



It is my understanding that the regulations proposed to-date



under the Safe Drinking Water Act will not apply to pits, ponds



and lagoons.  But, directly to underground injections in a



facility where the depth is greater than the surface diameter



of the injection point.  The emphasis I put at the beginning



of my discussion on the broad new definition of solid waste



and disposal was intentional in that disposal by a statutory



definition in term does include almost any placement of a



waste material on or into the land.  We are striving to avoid



duplication.  But we too recognize that pits, ponds and lagoons



have, for too long a time, fallen into a no-mans land in terms



of control, aa4 aise^ in- terms &f s ite mans- tand if ys« want- to



fe*y *e- tree h1 inking water-"fee-	ffckts wwd was- indis-



tjaguishablej- 4n the v4cinity of such -a faciMty-.  So we have

-------
50
great concern for those.  And ah- as to whether they would be

sanitary land-fills or open-dumps, I feel that pits, ponds

and lagoons could then be operated in a manner which will not

provide an adverse effect on the environment or public health.

And, depending on how we define what an adverse effect is,

they could then be acceptable disposal methods, i.e. a sanitary

land-fill or an unacceptable method, i.e. a dump, and open-

dump, and thereby be prohibited.



Speaker Kovalick:  I just wanted to add to that that we are

proceeding at the moment, that those pits, ponds and lagoons

that receive a hazardous waste will require permit under

Section 3005.  I .Must point out that RCRA has a broader

coverage than the drinking water act in that, we're concerned

about the facility, regardless of whether it is located near

drinking water sources.  So ah- if a hazardous waste in oppose

to a non-hazardous waste is involved, and if it goes to what

we are calling, pits, ponds and lagoons which may either end

up to be a storage or disposal facility, we don't know which,

it will be covered in a regulatory manner under this Sub-Title

C, as opposed to a survey as i/ standard^ now in drinking

water regulations.



Moderator:  Yes sir, go right ahead.
           kf,(_ d ft/? i>
Question:  Steve Simmons from the Resource Recovery Council in

Florida.  I'm also a local government-official.  I would point

out, maybe the Florida experience will help you on this.   I don't

-------
 51
that  it will, but our experience on this  trash problem, we've



adopted strict guidelines that said that all of this would



go into a land-fill.     After a number of hearings in the



	 (this word was indistinguishable) support, and



a number of other support, we have had to amend our guidelines.



Put a separate set of regulations for the building materials



and the waste, the yard waste, because certainly in Florida



we have a great deal of yard waste in tropical Florida.  That's



a bigger problem for us in South Florida than it is in garbage.



And,  I would say to you that I think this will be an area that



I would encourage you to look into and I certainly encourage



the flexibility, because even in Florida we have found that



our state's... in our state, we have great diversity on what
    -#                Z-


are table problems from North to South, and I'm sure as you



go around the Country, you'll find many differences.  And we



would ask that you take those into consideration when develop-



ing your guidelines.







Question:   (Unidentified Speaker)  I have a question for- on



the hazardous waste.  Is there any method that you've set-up



to work with the Food and Drug Administration as far as some



of these waste materials that have been attempted to be used,



like some  which have been banned by Food and Drug, that are



presently  discharged to pits, ponds and lagoons?







Speaker Kovalick:   You're obviously thinking of some specific



example that I'm....

-------
52
Question:   (Same Speaker)   About the paper industry.



Speaker Kovalick:   Oh.  Well, let me just say that we've asked

representatives of Food and Drug and the other federal agencies
                                               *•
to sit with us on our working group, where we are devising the

various regulations on various sections.  So, they'll be
                        Nftrityfli.        j-
represented along with Financxar Institue of Environmental

Health Statistics.  So, we're going to try and get at that

issue.


Question:   (Same Speaker)   Thank you.


Moderator:  Yes sir, go right ahead.  I'd like to say that if

there's someone else that wants to speak, if you'll just move

right on to the microphone, it'll save us time waiting for you

to get there.                                                ^

                                                    t tbtP
                                               (6"*'
Question:  Clark Gregory, Solid Waste Researcher.  I'm having

trouble finding the provision for land application of the waste,

besides open-dump or sanitary land-fill.  Such as land appli-

cation  of process refuse for soil improvement.  Now, does that

exclude in this Act?



Speaker DeGeare:  It's ah.... Another closely related concern

we have is for the land surrounding  the municipal waste-water

treatment plants.  Our concern is this,  you put it on the land

which dispose of waste material for  solid waste disposal.  The

Law provides for sanitary landfills  and open-dumps.   The  latter

-------
S3
are prohibited.  Therefore the criteria must address the land-

spreading process of solid waste or municipal waste-water

treatment plant sludge.  Therefore, an acceptable means of

spreading that on land would have to not pose an adverse

effect on the environment or public health.  So, the criteria

is going to have to deal with that, somehow....




Question:  (Same Speaker)  I hope not....




Speaker DeGeare:  I hope it will be done very appropriately.




Question:  (Same Speaker)  I hope you'll do it in the reason-

able manner, and not be too strict on what you call, hazardous

and ah- discouraging folks from doing this very beneficial

process.



                                      ^,
Question:  (Unidentified Speaker)  Truaftt, I've got one quest-

ion I wanted to ask in relation to monitoring the movement of

leakage into the ground-water tables.  Your regulations are

going to require that all facilities be monitored, or are you

going to leave that criteria up to the local agency that is

controlling solid waste programs within a state?




Speaker DeGeare:   There are appropriately periods of concern

with regards of monitoring.  One is guidelines.  For example,

our guidelines could or could not specify where the river is

suggested monitoring programs.  So, that's one area of concern.

At this point in time, and I don't know where we're going to

-------
54
be going.  We'd like your feelings on that.  We could deal



with that in the guidelines.   With regards to the criteria



which are going to be the basis for the inventory, and



therefore, the basis for determing which sites will be closed



down.  There has to be some means of evaluating the sites.



So, if we have ground-water,  there has to be some means of



determining whether the criteria are being met.  That would



require some kind of monitoring.  We haven't, thus far, dealt



with that, and if you have suggestions on that we would



appreciate it.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  The second intent of this criteria



that would be applicable to different area of the United States.



What would apply to desert area of the mid-west wouldn't apply



to the more humid areas of the southeast, or the northeast,



either one.  There - plenty ways... the geological situations



are much different to different areas.  I've often wondered



how you could apply criteria to the State of Mississippi and



to Arizona that would fit both situations.







Speaker DeGeare:  One means,  and this is just aH- thought



I have had, and it doesn't- doesn't in any way relate to



what we are doing or will be  doing, because we haven't



decided on it, is to ah- suggest criteria that are rather



broadened in regards to ground-water protection.  That is,



the criteria might say the site will not  impair the present



or planned future use of ground-water resources.  Then, that

-------
55
bends the issue of someone having to determine, one, what the

current use of this ground-water resource is, and what the

planned future would be, as opposed to another alternative

which would be to specify a sampling technique and a sampling

point to determine what is, Teally, a way to the disposal site.

If you have suggestions on which type of approach or something

in-between, you would like to see or you think would be more

acceptable, please let us know.




Moderator:  Do we have anyone else who would like to speak to

land disposal before we move on?  (Pause)  The next item we

have on the agenda is resource conservation and recovery and

overall technical assistance.  We have with us from our Office

of Solid Waste Staff in Washington, Tom Canfield.  Tom is the
                   &--
Chief of the Waste i^sduction and Guidelines Branch in the

Resource Recovery Division of our Office of Solid Waste.  Tom.




Speaker Thomas Canfield: I think we are gathered here, tonight,.

I think we are gathered here, tonight, to talk about the  RCRA,

and so far we haven't talked about resource conservation, or

resource recovery, at all.  And, this is the name of the Act

we're talking about,  and I will admit to being very bias.  But

I think, and my perspective is that it was Congress' first

priority in this Act.   The predecessor Act, and this was called

The Resource Recovery Act, and Congress titled this one, The

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  Basically, I feel that

-------
56
resource conservation and resource recovery are a little harder




for people, Congress to set a legislative policy.  It's a lot



easier for Congress and EPA to deal with a regulatory program.




And, Congress did establish a regulatory program for all of land




disposal, with a very specific concern about the sub-set of



waste called hazardous waste.  And, I really think that in  the



long-term, Congress is still looking for a switch in our... a



change in the way we generate and dispose of waste, and will be




looking much harder in the future toward resource recovery and



resource conservation.  The land disposal program, the tougher



standards that we're having for all land disposal are going



to mean that the cheap options are going to be closed, and



that we will be encouraging, just because of that economic




incentive, we will be encouraging resource recovery in the



future.  Before I go into the slides I'd like to talk a little



bit about what EPA does now, or has done in resource recovery



and resource conservation.  And our efforts have been on focus-



ing on reducing waste and re-cycling waste, which result in




less waste to be disposed of.  We think this means in turn, less



pressure to find new, bigger land disposal sites in marginal



areas, marginal means environmental areas, that  tend to create



ground-water hazards.  So resource conservation  and recovery




do have a  charge    to public health and environmental pro-



tection.  But there's three things that we've been doing in EPA




that this Act really, basically emphasizes.  The first one is



that EPA try to get aid to ^states and cities to  help them  imple-



ment resource recovery systems.  We evaluate and promote techno-




logy of resource recovery systems.  We focus on  evaluation of

-------
57
what we call high technology or black-box technology, if you



will, and low technology or almost no technology systems such



as source-separation of waste.  These are separated waste at



the household that are then re-cycled as materials.  And the



third thing that we've been doing is that we focus on waste



reduction and the target that the things we've been doing most



on is beverage container guidelines that we have applied to



federal facilities which requires a deposit on beverage containers



sold at federal facilities.  We've conducted general studies on



waste generation and in trends on waste generation.  So, I'd like



to go through the Act and try to tie-in sections of the Act a



little more specifically to these three general areas that we've



concentrated on.  (Pause)  First of all, the resource conservat-



ion and resource recovery provisions are tied in a number of



sections.   It's not a nice, neat sub-title as we've seen in the



hazardous  waste^that's seen pretty much in the land disposal



area.  It's included in the guideline section.  EPA can write



guidelines.  These guidelines can include resource recovery and



resource conservation.  The area that emphasizes Aid, the first



major area is in Section 2003, which calls for resource recovery



and conservation panels. I'll dwell on that a little bit later.



Sub-Title  D does include the fact that EPA may- must give guid-



ance to s,tates on resource recovery and resource conservation



programs,'  it also allows money to go to local communities for



resource recovery and resource conservation services.  There



are a number of information dissemination and evaluation sections



that allow us to do evaluations of technology and resource

-------
58
systems.  I'd first like to focus on Section 2003, the Resource



Recovery and Conservation Panels.  The important thing here is



that the title says it's resource recovery and resource conser-



vation panels, but the language clearly indicates that it cuts



across all portions of the Act, including hazardous waste and



solid waste... of the solid waste management problems.  Basically,



it's the types of things that we... to give you a sense of the



types of things that we've done before in the resource recovery



area, for instance, we have really worked with cities on fin-



ancial, marketing kinds of problems.  And, I'll go into that a



little bit more.   But, the point here is that this is... the



panels, we do not envision, are meant to compete with normal



city consultants, the normal ways cities contract with consult-



ants.  The panels are to be made up of a number of different



groups that give  to get aid to cities.  This is a little more



detailed.  The team... the Law says the teams are going to



include technical, marketing, financial and institutional kinds



of skills.  These are primarily the way we have in the past



described the aid we've given to cities on resource recovery,



and the Act calls for teams composed of EPA people, private



consultants and paf-e-matching, meaning one-on-one relationships



with a county official, for instance, who has a particular...



he has already faced this problem, with another county official



who is facing a similar problem, now.  And the aid is to go



from EPA or from the panels to s.tate and local governments upon



request.   The Act mandates that twenty percent of the authorization,



of the general authorization of this Act be devoted to resource

-------
 59
 recovery and  conservation panels.   Sub-Title D  I mentioned before



 does mandate  that EPA give guidance to states to have programs



 in resource recovery and resource conservation.  It  also  re-



 quires efforts by states to help develop and implement  local
                  ^


 plans.  Section 4008 allows EPA to  give financial aid to  states
                                                          •?>

 and local agencies for resource recovery and a  broad range of



 services including resource conservation services for imple-



 mentation programs.  Section 6002 is the specific section



 devoted to resource recovery and resource conservation.   This



 section primarily makes mandatory a guideline that EPA  has



 already published.  We've already issued a non-mandatory  guide-



 line for procurement by the federal government  for the  maximum



 amount of re-cycled material.  This section makes that  mandatory



 after input from the National Bureau of Standards, within two


 years.  EPA had already issued another guideline for the  federal



 government to encourage energy recovery systems.  It requires


 that certain  size facilities must consider energy recovery


 or materials  recovery resource recovery systems.  This  section



 of the Law requires that agencies of a certain  size  consider


 waste-to-energy systems.  This also applies to  people who con-


 tract or sell to the government.  The third guideline that we


 have issued that does fall under this section,  also  basically,


 is a guideline that EPA had written to...  for the federal



 government in requiring source-separation of waste for  office



 buildings, separation of high grade office paper and a  few



 cases in military bases where there were residences  on  those



bases, separation of news-print...  newspapers for recovery.

-------
60
The biggest point about this section is that we really feel



that it's... the federal government procurement is really



a lever for state action, for municipal cities, to follow



up on this if it's really going to have an impact on resource



recovery.   The next big section or portion of the Law that



focuses on resource recovery is a group of studies in Section



8002.  This section requires eleven special studies.  Eight



are listed here, and these studies... the ones that we kind



of think are probably the most important, right now, maybe



I'd better give a better explanation of them.  The priority



study is a study to determine priorities for research and



development on resource recovery.  The small-scale, low tech-



nology study is to give more emphasis on the kind of techno-



logy of resource recovery that could be applicable to small



communities.  The words, front-end separation means a study



of the source-separation by the house-holder of waste and the



relationship of source-separation of waste to large-scale



energy and materials recovery.  We have conducted studies that



conclude that basically source-separations are compatible with



large-scale rescovery systems.  But this is another study of



that same topic.  The resource recovery facility study really



is to estimate economic impediments to large-scale  recovery



systems.  The major...  a major study that we're going to  focus



on in that  section is a study calls  for a resource  conservat-



ion  committee.  This is a cabinet-level committee,  consisting



of EPA and  six other- heads of six other agencies,  chaired by



EPA, and it lists a wide-range of  incentives that we  are  to

-------
61
make, compose a study and report to Congress in two years.  We're



supposed to issue six-month reports every six months.  Congress



has considered incentives for resource conservation and re-cycling



in the past.  And they're asking here for a major study to examine



all the ones that they have considered, and others they have not



really looked into, I guess, and to make recommendations to them.



Our plans now are to focus really on post-consumer municipal



solid waste, but we have not finalized those plans.  And we will



probably focus on the kinds of incentives that Congress has con-



sidered in most recent past.  Such as, a dollar per ton, cash



or tax subsidy for each ton of material re-cycled, and investment



tax credit or acceleration of depreciation for middle equipment



used for re-cycling, a product charge which is specifically men-



tioned in the Act for detail evaluation.  We will probably use



the depletion allowance allowed for certain virgin  materials



and secondary materials do not have the same sort of benefits.



Certain virgin  materials have special capital gains treatments



that secondary materials do not have.  We'll probably again



review things like freight-retreatment for virgin and secondary



materials.  So, in summary, those are the major topics in this



Law that address resource recovery and resource conservation



and technical assistance, fairly broadly.  So, I'd like to take



questions from you and like to ask you some questions to get



your input as to what we should be doing in this area.







Moderator:  I'm going to ask you to give us your views now on



what you think we should do as far as resource conservation,



resource recovery, resource recovery and conservation panels.

-------
62
Question:   My name is A.  S.  Chipijy, from Alabama Solid Waste.



I don't stand here having any answers.  But specifically, I




wanted to talk to Canfield.   I think he remarked that the



resource recovery  was of primary importance.  I don't



think it is, not because I don't think resource recovery is




important, in fact, I think resource recovery is inevitable.



But, I think it will be brought about by economics, by



economic squeezes from two directions.  As natural resources



become more scarce their price will go up.  Therefore, it



will be more attractive.   As land disposals becomes more



expensive, the costs will go up and there will be a squeeze



from that direction which will take the resource recovery to



a greater extent.  I think there will always be a generation



of waste and there will always be a need for land disposal.



And, as these two price squeezes come about, our resource



recovery will come about, automatically.  And, this is a




system that can be fitted in, anywhere along the line as it



becomes economically feasible, without interfering with...



it will reduce the waste-stream and that will be its effort.



I think we need to consider, first, the basics of which



wastes are being generated that are hazardous.  We have to



consider what we do, finally, with them.  While I'm here, I



think EPA is caught in a squeeze, itself, in the definition




of solid waste, which includes liquids and sluries.  This



forces them in the position of making broad definitions.  The



definition that a dump is anything that's not a sanitary land-



fill is too broad.  But, you can't narrow it down too much



without getting into the areas of that Mississippi was talk-

-------
63
 ing about and others.  Because, the geographic location  is going

 to make a whole lot of difference in what is an acceptable

 sanitary land-fill and which is not.




 Moderator:  Thank you very much.  Just step right, if you will.
                            l_.     I1'  v~
Question:  Mr. Canfield, Dan Marks, I represent a company that's

in the business of operating bailing plants, we own paper mills

and box plants.  Our primary concern is, we feel that our

industry, in general, has reached a point where we see some

stability in secondary material prices developing.  We feel

we're in a position to offer cities certain assurances that

have precluded the re-cycling of material.  Mainly guarantees

to take certain quantities of materials; guarantees on minimum

pricing and so forth.  And, it's been our experience that it's

very confusing to cities when we come and approach them to the

availability of the central source-separation method for

recovering,  whether it's newspaper, or corrugated or high-grade

office paper.  They seem to have difficulty in understanding

what laws apply, and who has jurisdiction and so forth.  So,

my point being, how can you make it simple for our industry

to go to a city.  How do they know if they're in compliance

with the county and how does the county know if they are in

compliance with the state,  and the ^tate in compliance with

the EPA?  That's question number one, and the second part is,

we're concerned that source-separation- you said something that

alleviated some of our concerTland that is that source-separation

-------
64
is compatible with this resoufce recovery.  We've heard that,



but we also see instances where the materials that we depend



on for our finished products or industry, have been included



in the solid waste stream and defined out of use by ourselves



to be used for energy recovery.  So, those are my two points.







Speaker Canfield:   I don't know if I can respond to your



second point, but your first point.  We'll... I guess I can



try to respond to both.  Your first point is if a city is



having problems trying to understand the legal problems of



dealing with you,  our kinds of panels and the kind of aid



we try to give is to try to overcome those kinds of problems.



I don't specifically know, I'm trying to follow....







Question:  (Same Speaker) Let's say we want a city to engage



in newspaper source-separation of newspaper.  The cities express



concern that they... that in the long run they may be in vio-



lation with the county's desire for some sort of resource



recovery where they would depend on that newspaper for a



fuel supplement.  There's that kind of ambiguity.  Are you



following what I'm saying?







Speaker Canfield:  Yes.  I'm not familiar with any county



laws or saying that one cannot re-cycle waste because the



county or state wants to re-cycle  in a different manner.

-------
65
Question:   (Same Speaker)  There are those instances, but this


may not be  the forum to discuss that.  But, secondly, the


concept I'd like you to address you-self to expand on the


source-separation not being in conflict with the resource


recovery, I mean the Act.






Speaker Canfield:  Well basically, I think we've conducted a


number of studies, a number of people, independent people that

                    
-------
66
But, I don't really see how you're going to run into a. conflict



there with newsprint and those things that you want to point out.



Source-separation, a lot of people that I've dealt with are



certainly in favor of it's use in the waste stream.







Speaker Canfield:   There is at least one facility that I'm aware



of in Massachusetts that is not run by a municipality, but



never-the-less receives waste from somewhere between twelve and



sixteen municipalities in which the contract for that waste



includes any material normally found in the waste stream.  Which



means that those communities that choose to have a newspaper



collection program, separate from the delivery of materials



to this plant, that that material recovered by the municipalities



is the property of the contractor with the plant.  So, regardless



of the value of the materials over the years, the municipality



cannot get the benefit of the revenues coming out of that waste



stream.







Question:  My name is John P. Lynch, I'm Vice President of



Garden State Paper Company.  And, as the world's largest



recycler of used news into fresh newsprint, my purpose in



speaking here today is to talk on conservation and recovery



is to underline the value of paper as an important resource.



I'd like to preface the comments that I'm making by saying



that Garden State Paper, a subsidiary of Media General in



Richmond, Virginia, has recycling mills in Garfield, New Jersey

-------
 67
Pomona, California and a joint-venture mill with Field Enter-



prises in Alsip,  Illinois.  These three mills consumed more



than a half-million tons of used newspaper in 1976.  We



recently completed construction of a joint venture mill with



the Mexican government.  The mill, located two-hundred and



fifty miles north of Mexico City, has an initial capacity of



sixty-one thousand metric tons which is expected to be doubled



in the near future.  Much of the paper stock raw material for



this mill comes from the southwestern United States.  We have



selected this public meeting of the EPA to make our statement



because we are considering construction of a paper recycle



mill in the State of Georgia.  Our company has given continuous



support to recovery and recycling of all resources in the solid



waste stream, but today I would like to focus specifically on



paper.  In the months ahead, the municipalities, the counties,



and the states that comprise Region IV will be facing decisions



on how to manage the paper in the solid waste stream.  An option



they will be faced with is burning refuse for energy.  An argu-



ment has been made that burning paper fraction of the waste



stream for energy constitutes an efficient and beneficial



utilization of that portion of the waste stream.  We would



like to emphasize that where a visable market exists for used



paper, burning is not the best use of that waste in terms of



energy or in terms of most productive utilization.  When paper



is recycled there is an offsetting energy consideration.



According to an article in the Harvard Business Review that



quotes the National Association of Recycling Industries, "the



use of recycled fibres rather than virgin pulp in paper manu-

-------
68
facturing results in energy savings ranging from sixty to seventy



percent."  In effect, burning old newspapers for energy is a



gross waste of energy.  To say it in a slightly different way,



it takes the BTU value of two-tons of paper to make one-ton



of virgin paper.  Pre-sorting can make available considerable



quantities of used newspapers and corrugated boxes for recycl-



ing, there will still remain in the solid waste stream a high



percentage of paper that is contaminated and not commercially



recoverable.  The paper and boxes that have been separated at



the household, office and business levels and not get into the



waste stream will be available to the paper industries in the



area.  According to your own estimated figures, the elimination



of this portion from the waste would affect the BTU value of the



garbage by five percent or less.  And, I don't really think the



tolerance of these systems even accounts that.  In addition,



these recovered fibres can be used several times in the recycl-



ing process.  And they will still be available for burning in



the end as they eventually find their way into the contaminated,



unrecoverable portion of solid waste.  Therefore, we urge that



in considering how to handle used news and corrugated, that the



following steps be taken to develop guidelines for thepost



efficient use of this portion of the waste stream:  First,



that on municipal, county or state levels, surveys be made
                             *?


to determine what markets exist or could exist for used newspaper



and corrugated  as well as other recyclables.   Second, that



industries wishing to purchase these recyclable materials be



given priority  to do  so.  And thirdly, that in order to assure

-------
69
the continuous and expected flow described above, that these



industries be asked guarantee that they will purchase the




recyclable materials specified for a reasonable number of years,



at prices which will be to the advantage of cities or other



sources to provide them for recycling.  Finally, municipalities



should reserve the right to exclude from contracts for the




operation of Refuse Derived Fuel Systems (RDF) recyclable



materials, such as newspapers and corrugated, recoverable




through household and commercial source separation programs.



We urge that proposed guidelines for identifying regions and



for state solid waste management planning emphasize that



materials recycling is a national objective which must be



reflected to the maximum practical extent in State and local



government plans.  To accomplish national objectives for mater-



ials recovery for recycling into useful products demands that



government at all levels must join with industry in a common



effort to remove existing impediments to the achievement of



these objectives.  And we at Garden State certainly stand



ready to help in anyway we can.








Moderator:  Thank you.  Next, go right ahead.








Question:  I'm Jack McMillan with the Board of Health in



Mississippi.  I wanted to know if these funds  are now




available for technical assistance to local governments?

-------
70
Speaker Canfield:  We have not formally established the panels.



We do give aid on resource recovery, we give aid on all aspects



of solid waste management.  We, specifically, have focused in



resource recovery.  We do have direct aid that we can give.



We have contractors available to work with cities on a number



of these problems, now.






Question:  (Same Speaker)  Are these panels from the national



level or local level?






Speaker Canfield:  These are not panels, that ah- we do not



have panels.   We established these before the Act.  We're in



the process of establishing before the Act.  We have finalized



contracts with three consultants, consortions to give aid to



local cities and to states.  We have really not formalized the



panel concept, yet.  The panel is to include not just consultants,



not just federal employees, but federal, state, local people
         ^                      ^        -?


giving aid to others.






Question:  (Same Speaker)  Those consultants you have under



contract, can they turn-around and solicit the business of



the municipality....






Speaker Canfield:  No....






           (Same Speaker)  ...that they are advising?

-------
 71
 Speaker Canfield:  No.







 Moderator:   If you have additional comments on resource recovery



 and conservation panel, after the gentlemen stepping to the mike



 now, I would ask you to hold that until the end, so we can move



 along.  Yes sir, go right ahead.
Question:  My name is John Cower and I'm from the City of Athens,



Alabama.  We're a city of about sixteen thousand.  We collect



our own garbage and trash.  We also have a county system where



it's collected by private contractor.  We're interested in the



Resource Recovery Act, we which we could implement it in the



City of Athens in our accounting.  But, we see a lot of diffi-



culty in the collection of these items, the separation and



collection of these items.  The City probably can do this, but



the county or private contractor, I don't see how  we can do



it unless they can meet the economic cost.  Do you have any



plans along this line?







Speaker Canfield:   Your question deals with separating waste,



separate collection of waste is that what you're...







Question:   (Same Speaker)   That's true.  I know that if you



go out on one shot, and you collect everything from the same



household, if they haven't separated, how are you going to



separate it when you get to your land-fill?  Unless you have

-------
72
a separate collection for your paper; separate collection for


your glass; a separate collection for your cans and so on?





Speaker Canfield:  Well, I think we do have information and


guidance that does help make economic decisions as to how you


should operate your collection system to separate those


materials.  I do know some of the people in the audience, for


instance, I'm sure Garden State does give aid to places trying


to figure out the best, most economical way to separate out


newsprint for example.  So, I think there is a lot of inform-


ation that we do have that I can make available to you that


may help you.




Question:  (Same Speaker)  Thank you, sir.




Moderator:  The next  item on this agenda is state jprogram


development and again we have Mr. TruZtt DeGeare.



           e-
Speaker Tru^tt DeGeare:  Back by popular demand.   If you


care to stand up for  just a second, then sit back  down.   I've


been getting to stand up.  I really appreciate it, what you


might feel.  (Pause)  Okay, let's not enjoy ourselves too


much.  We'd better get  on with this program.  We'll have  more


enjoyment,  later.   (Pause)  Okay.  Let's try to  get on with ah-


another part of of Sub-Title D of RCRA  is that it  talks about


state and local program development.  The RCRA recognizes  that

-------
 73
the dominate role in solid waste management lies with state

and local governments.  The state may play a key role in elimin-

ating open-dumps and also the regulating of the hazardous waste

program.   The governor, in consultation with local-elected
               ^
officials can structure a mechanism for preparing and imple-

menting solid waste management plans that build on an existing

efforts at the jjtate and local levels.  At the federal level,

the Administrator shall publish guidelines for identification

of regions, state plans and jstate hazardous waste programs.

Section 4002A of RCRA gives the Administrator six months to

publish guidelines for the identification of those areas which

have common solid waste problems and who are appropriate

municipal planning regional solid waste service.  This activity

is a kick-off of a three-step process involving eighteen

months according to the schedule contained within the Law.

Within six months after the publication of guidelines, the

governor of each state, after consultation with local elected-

officials shall promulgate regulations identifying the

boundaries of each area within the state which as a result of

urban concentration, geographic conditions, markets and other

factors is appropriate for carrying out regional solid waste

management.  The state then has another six months to jointly

with appropriate elected-officials of general purpose units

of local government, identify an agency to develop the s^tate

plan and identify one or more agencies to implement the plan

and identify which solid waste functions will, under the plan,

be planned for and carried out by state, by regional or local

authority or a combination of regional or local or state

-------
74
authorities.  Existing,  multi-functional agencies have an


authority for solid waste planning and management shall be


designated to plan and implement.   Where feasible^, agencies


designated under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution


Control Act shall be considered for designation.  So,  in


summary, there are three-steps, the first is EPA promulgation


of guidelines for identification of planning areas and regions.


Secondly, governors with local governments, identify the


planning areas and thirdly, governors and local governments


identify the roles of the various agencies.  Section 4002B


requires the Administrator, after consultation with appro-


priate Jederal, state and local authorities to promulgate


regulations containing guidelines to assist in the development


and implementation of state solid waste plans.  This is by


April of 1978.  Minimum requirements for approval of statea
                                                     $-

plans include identification of the responsibilities and


implementing the state plan, distribution of federal funds


to the authorities responsible for development and imple-


mentation of the plan, and the means for coordinating regional


planning and implementation under the plan,  the prohibition


of the establishment of new open-dumps within the s,tate, and


the requirement that all solid wastes, including solid waste


originating in other states, but not including hazardous wastes,


shall be utilized for resource recovery or disposed of at


sanitary land-fills; provisions for the closing or up-grading


of all existing open-dumps within the state, and provisions


for the establishment  of such state regulatory powers as may

-------
 75
be necessary to implement the plan; provisions that no local



government within the s,tate shall be prohibited under state



or local law from entering into long-term contracts for the



supply of solid wastes to resource recovery facilities;



provisions for such resource conservation or recovery of



the disposal of solid wastes in sanitary land-fill or any



combination of practices that may be necessary for use or



disposal of solid wastes in a manner that is environmentally



sound.  RCRA authorizes assistance to jtate and local govern-



ments in a number of places... both Sub-Title C and Sub-Title



D.  Within Sub-Title D, Section 4008A(1) authorizes thirty



million dollars for 1978; forty million for 1979.  For grants



to spates to be distributed to state, local, regional and



interstate authorities carrying out planning and implementation



of the jjtate plan, as discussed earlier.  This money is distri-



buted on a population basis among the states, except that each



state receives at least one-half of one-percent of the total



appropriated.  Section 4008A(2)  authorizes fifteen million



dollars each for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 for states, counties,



municipalities and inter-municipal agencies, and state and local



public solid waste management authorities for implementation of



the programs to provide solid waste management, resource



recovery and resouce conservation services and hazardous waste



management.   This assistance shall include assistance for



facility planning and feasibility studies, expert consultation,



survey and analysis  of market needs,  marketing of recovered



resources,  technology assessments, legal expense, construction

-------
76
feasibility study, source-separation projects, and physical
or economic investigations or studies.   But, such assistance
shall not include any other elements of construction or land
acquisitions or interest in land or any subsidies for the
price of recovered resources.  Agencies assisted under this
sub-section shall consider existing solid waste management and
hazardous waste management services and facilities, as well
as facilities proposed for construction.  There is a provision
for assistance to special communities,  for  '78 and '79, two
and a half million dollars for specific communities to identify.
One community is allowed per state and one project per state,
and the project must be consistent with the approved state plan.
There's special concern in RCRA for rural communities, so
financial assistance has been authorized, twenty-five million
dollars per year for FY  '78 and '79.  These are grants to
states for subsequent distribution within the jttates in order
to help rural communities meet the Section  4005 dump closing
requirements.  Construction is allowed, but land  acquisition
is not allowed with these funds.  They are  tight  criteria
and relatively complex allotment formula.   And the community
must be fairly well isolated and unable to  avail  themselves to
other systems on  a regional basis.  The assistance and funds
that I've talked  about they were all discussed in terms of
what was authorized in the Act, and at  this point, that has
no relationship  to available funds  and  the  amount to be made
available in  the  future,  we're unable  to  see  at  this time.
So,  I wish to stop now with  the comment that  I don't think

-------
77
you should be stopping any on-going efforts that you have under-


way, or contemplating simply to await some federal funds to help


you.





Moderator:  We welcome comments now.  We welcome comments now,


go right ahead.
Question:  I'm Mike McGonallcy with the Central Midland Planning


Council in Columbia, South Carolina.  With respect to the Central


Midland region, the resource recovery and conservation recovery


act do provide opportunities for one continued progress in the


development and use of both collection and disposal practices


within the region.  And second, for achieving a greater role


for resource recovery in the region.  Almost four years ago,


in June of 1973, a solid waste management pla'ee for the central

                                       li^
Midland Region was completed.  And, I'd^to parenthetically


comment that this was using flood- funding which was available


at the time, and the plan was adopted by twenty-one local govern-


ments working, jointly, through the regional planning council.


The plan includes an analysis of the projected solid waste


generation through 1995 for solid waste districts within each


of the four counties within the region.  It ^includes an evalu-

                                                d
ation of current solid waste practices, laws, ordinances, and


a profile of solid waste management goals and objectives,


feasible alternatives for collection, and disposal equipment


processes and services were examined, and plans and recommend-


ations were developed for each of the four counties and for the


region, as a whole.  It's noticeable that this plan does not

-------
78
address the potential for resource recovery recycling at any



depth.  But, rather deferred this to a later time when it



would be more economically and technically feasible.   Since



the completion and adoption of the regional solid waste manage-



ment plan major steps have been taken by local governments to



implement it.  Much improvement  has resulted in the  collect-



ion and disposal elements of solid waste management within the



region.  There are many problems that remain, but a pattern



of local action and inner-governmental coordination has been



established.  An organizational frame-work exist for  effective



regional planning, and coordinated local implementation of



solid waste collection and disposal efforts.  In developing



the regulations and guidelines for the Resource Conservation



and Recovery Act, these previous investments and actions of



many local governments should be recognized and substantial



flexibility retaining to allow s_tate and regional planning



and implementation to build upon the past efforts.  The new



planning regulations and guidelines should also provide



opportunities for areas which are fairly advanced in the



disposal practices to place major emphasis on the collection



and the resource recovery elements of a regional and local



program.  I might add just a couple of other comments based



on what's already transpired tonight and I guess they relate



back more to public participation presented earlier.   It's



been stated that there are many more meetings of this nature



planned to secure input, and I would recommend that if at



all possible, these meetings  be held on a state-basis.   If



you are serious about trying to get input from the people at

-------
79
the working level, it's very difficult for them to get to a



meeting of this nature. And second, that I think the issue




papers that was available at the door is very valuable and



provides a lot of useful information.  But, it needs to be



distributed in advance, so that people have time to react to



that.  I thank you for the opportunity to comment.








Moderator:  Thank you very much.  You'll have to step right up.




We'll move right along.








Question:   My name is Richard Simmons.  I am City Manager of



West Palm Beach, Florida.  But, today I am speaking on behalf



of the State of Florida Resource Recovery Council.  In 1974 I



was appointed by Governor Rubin Askew to serve as Chairman of



the Council.  Many of the things the previous speaker said, I



think would apply jtate-wide to the state.  So, I'm going to



skip through some of this and give you ray written report.  I



would say that it's an entirely comprehensive plan, the



adopted guidelines, the designated area plan for resource



recovery.   I think we're ahead on a lot of this stuff that



it's been done.  But I would like to commend specifically on



portions of the Law.  Public Law 94-580 authorizes a preventa-



tive medicine, not volmiminous prescriptions for everything




that ails us.   So let your guidelines be simple guidelines,



not detailed specifications.  Specifically the guidelines



for identification of planning regions mandated in Section



4002A,  and due almost immediately, should not be written



so narrowly, originally, that Florida and many other states

-------
80
would have to redo something that has already been done.

Several states now have four or five years of solid waste
        $
planning experience.  During the past two years, Florida

has accomplished the objectives of this Section and used the

same guiding        criteria contained therein to do so.

Similarly, in the guidelines for s^tate plans, Section 402
                                 '^
all eleven of the guiding criteria in sub-sections have

been considered in Florida.  Likewise, we believe the

Florida program also meets the minimum requirements in Section

4003 for approval of s_tate plans.  Although the judgement will
                     ^
be yours to make, of course.  Likewise,  we believe Chapter

17-7, Part II of Florida Administrative Code adopted by the

Florida Environmental Regulation commission in  '76 accomplishes

the objectives of 4006.  You can appreciate the time consumed

by public hearings and meetings, members of the staff and

council have already participated in close to seventy-five

public meetings and numerous hearings.  The Department of

Environmental Regulations invested eighteen months of extens-

ive staff time to carry out it's responsibilities under

Florida law.  You will find this  eager to cooperative process.

In connection with points two and three above,  Section 401

makes it absolutely clear that the objectives are of Sub-Title

D States Solid Waste Plans are to assist, and this is under-

lined.  And  I emphasize assist.  Section 4001 states further

that these objectives  are to be accomplished through ^federal

technical and financial assistance to a state.  Assistance, not

-------
 81
 regulation.   And,  Section  4001  concludes by  stating  that  the




 federal  guidelines  are to foster cooperation  among  federal,



 state  and  local  governments  and  private  industry.   Cooperation,




 not  regulation.  We  in Florida accept  the regulatory  provisions



 of the Act where the  Congressional  intent is  clearly  regulatory,



 such as  Sub-Title C Hazardous Waste Management.  But, we oppose



 any  attempt  to encumber the  several guidelines  in Sub-Title D



 with regulatory  intent or language when  such  is not authorized.




 We have  similar  concerns about the various  solid wast inform-




 ation  guidelines required in Section 1008.  Clearly these  guide-



 lines  are  supposed  to provide positive,  helpful guidance,  not




 regulations.  We suggest that this information be presented in




 a format that is brief, readable and practical.  I  have no



 comment  on Sub-Title  C, since hazardous  waste management is



 appropriately under the jurisdiction of  the Department of



 Environmental Regulation.  We see a potential problem in



 Section  4004 when later this year EPA must define sanitary land-



 fills versus open-dumps.  We believe the intent of  this Section



 is to close, up-grade and ban open-dumps through state regu-



 lation and enforcement, not federal regulation of local sanitry



 land-fills.  True, one man's sanitary land-fill has often been



 someone  else's open-dump, so we endorse  the need for  standard-



 ization.   But we also stress the vast differences in geological



 and hydrological conditions from place to place and the danger




 of undermining state regulatory programs that are already  in



place.   The special studies for glass recovery and  for small



scale technology authorized in Section 8002 are urgently




needed and I encourage you to schedule and complete them as

-------
82
soon as possible.  The model codes as authorized in Section


8003D are also badly needed, much more so than some of the


other items.  For example, our staff ran a search through


EPA's Solid Waste Information Retrieval System on the title

to ownership of solid waste, and legal precedents for its use

in local ordinances and contracts.  The search did not yield


anything we could use.  In fact, we have found research on


legal and institutional issues in resource recovery is lagging


behind the word on economic and technical evaluations.  EPA


has new and broader authority for technical assistance under


Public Law 94-580.  We believe that any private firm retained


by EPA to render assistance to ^state and local governments should
                               *Z~

be ineligible for follow on contractural work with the reci-

pients of the federal assistance.  Appropriate state agencies
              $                                "£
and officials should receive proper and advance notice of EPA


assistance activities within the state.  The resource recovery

teams authorized in Section 2003 should be assembled and

assigned in a manner that will avoid both actual and potential


conflicts of interest.  Federal financial assistance is also

authorized in this Act.  In good government fashion all the


monies authorized under the Act are tied to planning require-


ments.  However, it appears that for many s_tates and local


governments... it appears that for many states and local


government completion of the various requirements will come


well before the federal funds.  If the earliest availability


of  funds is Fiscal of 1978, widespread distribution of those


funds appears to be unlikely before 1979.  As I mentioned

-------
 83
 earlier,  if our proposed amendments are passed, Florida local



 governments will be required to submit their plans in 1979.



 In short, a concentrated effort must be made to obtain ample



 appropriations and rapid distribution of funds or else reim-



 bursement should be allowed for planning expenditures already



 made.  And I would underline this because many of the jitates ,  as



 the man who just spoke pointed out they have done a lot and  I



 think you ought to take this into consideration, giving them



 those funds back.  In conclusion, we wholeheartedly- we con-



 cur wholeheartedly with the view of Sheldon Meyers, Director



 of EPA's Office of Solid Waste, that the Law does not provide



 all the answers to complex issues, but instead, establishes a



 pattern for interaction and assumption of roles by all the key



 parties involved in solid waste management and resource



 recovery.  You have a difficult job to do.  But your tasks are



 no more difficult than those placed upon the ^s.tate and local



 governments.   We must work together.  And you may be assured



 of our interest and cooperation.







Moderator:  Thank you very much.  Ah- step right up.







Question:  Tom Tiesler with the State of Tennessee.  I saw



the inside of something that the last speaker just said in



talking about the spates  role, and I think that it's clearly



the intent of the Act that the ^tates have input into the Act



and that they be responsible for implementing parts of the Act.



I think every speaker here tonight has said that that's the



intent of the Law.   Yet,  when I go back and talk to my people

-------
84
that are involved in the Safe Drinking Water Act or Water

Quality Control Act, federal Act,  I tell them, I say,  I've

been talking to the EPA's Solid Waste people and they're

listening and they're going to take the states  input,  they

sort of just look at each other and smile and say that  guy's

going to learn before it's all over with.  (Laughter)   But,

you know, I'm just a babe in the woods, I guess.  But,  I

think if you are sincere about the states taking the program

and the states implementing it, the only way that we can do

that is that the states are on the front-end of drafting the

guidelines and the regulations.  And I think it's good  that

after they've been drafted, the states can comment on them,
                                -^
but I have a feeling in human nature that sometimes if  some-

one has drafted a regulation, and I'm the same way, and I've

written it down and back and forth with my own people,  you've

sort of got your mind made up.  I think it would be better

if at all possible to let the states get involved on the front-

end in putting the regs together.   If they've been sitting

there during the discussions, because, afterall  	

(this word was indistinguishable)  say during the last thiry

years or so, I think most states have been in regulatory solid

waste business, has the experience, and they know what  the

local problems are, they know a lot of the regulatory problems

are, they know a lot of the regulatory problems.  Some  of  the

s,tates have been involved with grants programs, some of them

are very much into resource recovery, some have on-going

-------
85
hazardous waste programs.  I think the EPA ought to take


the benefit of the jitates.  I sincerely believe after talk-


ing with my boss back in Tennessee that the guidelines

written that the states cannot live with, that they don't

feel like they can handle, that they'll turn around and


say, here in EPA, you all handle it.  I don't think that's

what we want.  I think it can be prevented if the states

can sincerely have an input in directing the regs.




Moderator:  Thank you, Tom.  Anybody else, step right up.


In the meantime ah- go right ahead.




Question:    I'm Bob Lloyd with the Appalachian Council Govern-


ments in Greenville, SOUth Carolina.  The gentleman who just

spoke mentioned something about existing agencies, multi-


functional regional agencies that are authorized by sta.te


law to undertake solid wast planning , and I think that he

left out a phrase there that's related to appointment by the


governor.   One of the problems that we see in South Carolina
^
in terms of the states involved in establishing which agency

will do the planning and which areas will be involved.  It

seems to us that there is a very heavy emphasis on decision-

making by the sjtate, and I think the point that the gentleman


from Tennessee just made with regards to ^tate input into


EPA can be very well taken as far as local input into the


states.  I'd like to see, if at all possible, for the EPA


guidelines to emphasize the fact that once areas are design-

-------
86
ated as solid waste areas for planning that the input from




local officials be done within those areas, and that the



agencies that might be designated for planning purposes



would be much more acceptable to the local officials



within a given area, than might otherwise be the case.  I



think the point has been made several times here that there



are substantial variation among areas within states.  This



is something that would be of great concern to us, as I'm



sure it would be to the gentleman from Columbia, South



Carolina, because we are two different regions and our



responsibilities and problems are somewhat different.  Also,



the level of activity is somewhat different.  I think this



would be useful for EPA to consider.








Moderator:  Thank you very much.  Go right ahead.








Question:  I'm Ben Druse from Florida.  I propose what that



gentleman from South Carolina just mentioned.  This problem



of designating areas to do regional planning presents a



lot of problems, not only in Florida, bntin other states,
                                                  ^


because the degree of expertise that's available in various



areas of the state goes from zero to a hundred-percent.  And



ah- what's our governor going to do, he'll look to us for



advise, of course.  But, when you have perhaps a dozen




planning areas and only about a half or two-thirds of them



have the expertise to even start a solid waste management



plant, where do we go with those other districts?  You got

-------
 87
 an  answer  on  that,  Trujltt?







 Speaker DeGeare:  No.







 Question:   (Same  Speaker) Well,  I'll phrase  it  another way.



 What options  does a governor have  in the  light  of  that kind



 of  a circumstance?







 Speaker DeGeare:  Just off  the top of my  head,  and that's



 where  I'm  coming  from right now  is... one option would be



 to  designate  the  s,tate agency to plan that particular area,



 or  to  restructure the area  so that some of the  skills



 available  and expertise in  adjoining areas could be used



 in  the area that  doesn't have that capability.  In other



 words, we  identify  the boundaries so that you do have a



 planning instrument that will stand on its own  feet.







 Question:    (Same Speaker)  Then you get into a problem of



 staffing,   again, this gets to be the nitty-gritty  part of



 it, whose  going to  do it?  But, I know that's not  something



 that you can answer at the moment, but I wish you'd give it



 serious thought, because it's going to be a problem for not



 only our governor, but the governor of Louisiana and all the



 rest of them.   Another thing, it's a little confusing in the



Law as to  what the actual base for a j>tate to put  in to sub-



mit their   state plan.  It says a hundred  and eighty days



after the  date of the enactment of this section.  Now, where



does that  one-hundred and eighty days start from?  October 21

-------
of '76?  But, then that's the publishing of the guidelines, then

how long does the s,tate have after the guidelines have been

published to submit their plan?  That isn't clear to me in the

Law.   I haven't been able to verify it.  (Laughter)  While

you're looking that up, let's address a question to the young

lady in information.  Do you happen to plan a reader's

digest of the Law that could be used for desssiminating inform-

ation to local communities so that they get a little feel of

it before we start talking to them?



                                                   0,5**
Speaker Wyer:  I've been told that the information is pro-

duced by our three divisions and given into our Information

Office, we will get it published and send it out.




Question:  (Same Speaker)  Well, I wouldn't think in terms of

the guidelines that you're going to be publishing.  I'm think-

ing of a boiled-down of the  significant factors that the

local communities are going  to be faced with when they try to

implement the provisions of  the Law.




Moderator:   Excuse me Ben, do you think that's what we should

do?  That's  why we're here,  to find out....




Question:  (Same Speaker)  I, ah- well, that's a  suggestion,


at this point.




Moderator:   You recommend that we do that?

-------
89
Question:   (Same Speaker)  I certainly do, because you can

hold meetings all over this sjtate, and you're lucky to get...
                            -^
oh- suppose we held meeting in Florida we'd get a hundred

at each meeting, we're lucky.  That way we're talking about


six-hundred people, and we've got eight and a half million


down there.  That's the problem.  If we could have a mass-


mailing through the proper people, city and county officials,


planning councils, and so on.
             Mose
Question:  •(UiiiduiLiriid Opiiaku-)  Ben, the National League


of Cities, is right now, planning to do mass-mailing on any-

thing that is made available.  I was meeting with them this


morning and of course that would come out of Washington,


and I assume would come to people like the Georgia Municipal

Association or perhaps, directly to the cities.  Jim, how


would they normally work that?




Moderator:  They usually send it to us, then we would send

it out to each of the cities.




Question:  (Ben Druse)  There's got to be something, MoJ^

that's going to be easily understood.  Not the detail that

you or I ....




Question: (Unidentified Speaker)   Hell, if it comes out of


Washington,  nobody's going to understand.  You know that.


(Laughter)

-------
90
Speaker DeGeare:  Ben, I couldn't find a date.  I don't think



I understand that thing numerous times I've....







Question:  (Ben Druse)  I've read it three or four times,  I



can't find it.  Does anybody in the audience have a feel for



when the states are suppose to submit a plan?   (Pause)  It's



not in the Act, you can't find it there.







Speaker DeGeare:  I'd like to mention that ah-  in January's



edition of  \A/a,S'TE Pfjf   Magazine? (name of magn-ino w«u



                   there was a... what I though was a pretty
de/cent synopsis of the Law.







Question:   (Same Speaker)  You mean the boil-down?







Speaker DeGeare:  Yeah, the boil-down, it was written by



Eric  -Kiujlui and to me it made sense, it was reasonable.



So you might want to get a copy of that if you want.







Question:   (Same Speaker)  Maybe we can plagiarize  it..







Moderator:  Walt, perhaps you can influence ah- derrjf here



to have our information people to get a reprint of  that,  if



it will serve a purpose and there's no point  in doing it



again.  Go right ahead, Ron.







Question:   I'm Ron Cooper from the State of Tennessee.   I'd



like  to comment and ask a question concerning the training

-------
91
and man-power development.A few years ago we had an Institute


of Solid Waste Management Training and EPA, in it's  wisdom


shut this down, to the detriment, I guess of state and local


people.  Tonight I want to mention that an individual with


the air program is going to be selected to determine the


training needs of solid waste management programs.  I'd like


to know why the person in the air program is selected and


what his qualifications are?




Moderator:  I can speak to that, Ron.  That is not the only


thing this gentleman has got to do, as I understand it.  To


clarify that a little bit for you.  Number two, the need is


for staff people to look into this question and that leads


you, immediately, to where are these staff people going to


come from.  And, they asked for volunteers, and this particular


gentleman happened to volunteer.  He just happened to be from


the air program.  He happened to be from Atlanta, from our


Office.  I do know, personally, that other people were asked


to do that and didn't feel that they could leave their parti-


cular office at that particular time.  When they want it done


for that particular length of time and so forth.  It's not that


being from the air program had any significance at all, as far


as I know.  Mog£ you've been standing up here a long time.




Question:   Moses McCall,  again.  This time I'm not going to be


speaking for the state, I'll be speaking for the National
                 ^

Governors  Conference, also the Association of State and Terri-


torial Solid Waste Management officials.   And I would just like

-------
92
to re-emphasize,  I guess,  four points.   One,  Tru^tt talked



awhile  ago about  the authorization,  and I think that the




authorizations in the Act  are sufficient to allow reason-



able implementation.  The  appropriations, however,  are not



there.   I think it's important that  EPA and the current



Carter  Administration recognize the  fact that we are going



to have to have realistic  appropriations, if we are going




to get  about the  business  of adequate implementation of the



Act.  Number two, ah- nobody has mentioned 208 tonight.  So,



I thought I'd have to bring that up...  you did.  Okay.  We



definitely, in this Act, don't want  to  get into again the



bloody  battle that we went through in implementation of Section



208 of  92-500.  The Act says that 208 agencies shall be con-



sidered where feasible in  designation of local, regional



planning agencies.  In some cases I  think that the 208 agency



is the  logical choice and  others probably it's not.  Therefore,



any guidelines coming out  of EPA should definitely not make



the state designate the 208 agencies as the solid waste



planning agency,  the option should be open.  Number three.



In terms of designation of local regional planning agencies,



I think the latitude the governors held in this respect in



consultation, of course, with the local elected-officials



has got to be very broad and very flexible.  You can't bind



them into a small, tidy box and expect that the job is going



to be a wide latitude, a lot of flexibility for the governors



for the various states.  And then, number four.  Dont' re-invent

-------
93
the wheel.  The point has already been made where we have

adequate planning agencies established by state law, in

California, for instance, where counties are designated by

state statute as the local planning agencies for solid

waste management.  Those agencies must be allowed to stand.

The guidelines that come out should not eliminate what has

already been done.




Moderator:  There's a book that was left out here at the

registration desk,  it has a Mr. Williams, if he'd like to

claim it, I have it here.



                           3
Question:  My name  is Jeff ^lood, and I represent the South

Alabama Regional Planning Commission, based in Mobile.

And talking about bloody battles, we're pretty familiar with

it.  We're faced under a HUD 701 Program to come up with a

regional land-use and housing program.  We have a very

active 208 program.  We're in the coastal zone management

program.  We had the Tennessee Tom Victory Water-Way Project

that's going to end up in Mobile.  We've got a

(this word was indistinguishable) facility, and we've got

the United States Army Corp of Engineers 404 Permit System.

This has come on us over about the last three years.  So

we don't want to bother you with the battles.  I have three

questions.  One of  them is the funds going to be coming down

at the air filter down to a southern agency on 208 or regional

-------
94
planning commission?  Is there a matching requirement on these


funds, or will they be a hundred percent grant?




Answer:  (Unidentified Speaker)  Yes.  (Laughter)




Speaker DeGeare:  I don't think the Law provides for that.


We've had a ninety-five percent maximum policy.  But, we're


open to your suggestions.  I assume you might suggest a


one-hundred percent grant.




Question:  (Same Speaker)  More, if we could get it. (Laughter)


But, I'm sure, based on the experiences we've had in some of


these bloody battles, if the match was higher than that, I


think EPA is going to be running the program instead of the


states and the sub-districts.  Second item, is there any funds
^/

in the program for capital  equipment?  Especially in small


communities, you're talking about building, planning and


implementating in all these communities that our agencies


represent, I imagine, a lot of these other regional planning


agencies are very small communities, with budgets of fifty-


thousand dollars and less.   If you are going to put these


requirements on them, is there going to be any kind of


capital money there  for capital equipment, or tie-ins with


another program?




Speaker DeGeare:  There's a statutory definition for the term


implementation and that is  pretty restricted.  The exception

-------
95
provided for  in that definition is for the real communities'
assistance program.  I think it's twenty-five million a year
for two years that was authorized, and that money could be
available for capital equipment in that position.

Moderator:  The money is authorized, I might hasten to add,
that if you take the number of cities of that size and the
number of counties with that sort of population nation-wide,
you're going to find that even if the total amount authorized
is appropriated, it's going to be spread quite thin.  Which,
I think, leads the states, in particular, and us along with
them, into a problem of deciding who's going to get what is
appropriated and who is not going to get it.

Question:  (Same Speaker)   Well, that's no different than the
HUD Community Development distributing their grant program, or
EPA or any other.  I mean, I'm glad I'm not going to have to
make the decision,  but hopefully, you'll consider the smaller
communities that ah- and you won't be placing these require-
ments on them.  That you are going to come up with some kind
of funding source so they can meet the requirements.  The
next question I had is,  if the money does come down from
these smaller agencies,  is it right to assume that part of
that money can be used for citizen participation programs in
the planning process?"  Even if there is an on-going 208 pro-
gram,  is that correct?

-------
96
Speaker DeGearg^  I don't know of anything that would pre-




clude that.








Moderator:  It seems reasonable to me that you're going to



have a program that is accepted by the public here, you



must do that on the front-end and carry it forth.  Other-



wise they won't care to implement it.








Question:  My name is George Elder with the Georgia Solid



Waste Management Program, and I'd like to address two




aspects of resource recovery economics.  In the first of



these, I think we need to be realistic when we talk about



economics and resource recovery and solid waste management.




Garbage is a liability, and we would hope that EPA would



address the extent of liability that should be born and



by whom.  When a community has a consultant come to them



and say, we can get you a six dollar profit per ton on



your solid waste, how do you deal with that?  I think we



have to identify some of these parameters in terms of the



liability and who should absorb it.  The main economic



issue in resource recovery seems to be the fact that there




are artificial benefits for use of virgin materials.  When



a timber company can buy an acre of land, hold it  for six




months, sell the timber and gets, not only the profit, but




can also claim capital losses for tax purposes, are they



going to use secondary fibres?  Well, no they're not.  The

-------
97
scrap-metal industry probably has in present capacity to pro-


vide probably twice the amount of raw material in form of


scrap without adding to this additional equipment.  There's


no market there, because of artificial incentives to use


the virgin ore.  I think this has to be dealt with, if we


are to get into the resource... the economic aspects of


resource recovery.  So, let's not promote resource recovery


based on environmental considerations, and judge it by


another standard, that of economics.  Because I feel that


it's really not acquired.  Basically, I would like to ask


two additional questions.  Will bond guarantors back funds


based on RCRA.  Specifically, in states or communities
                                 ^

where there are limitations on contracting and on bonding?




Speaker Canfield:  Based on RCRA...  Would you explain that


question to me a little... if you have a banker or someone


to guarantee....




Question:   (Same Speaker)  I would think that there is a


statement in there that would allow communities to enter


into long-term contracting, ah- for resource recovery


purposes.




Speaker DeGeare:  There is a requirement in one of the


sections that says the states, ah-  as part of their plan


or part of one of the things they have to have in an


acceptable plan the ability for cities to enter into long-

-------
98
term contracts that certainly is a barrier that does make



resource recovery more attractice to someone wanting to



finance a system.  So, yes, it does add to the ability



of someone to finance a system.  But, it's not going to



guarantee it, of course.   There are a whole number of



factors, one we're going  to look at before one would



guarantee the financing of the system.







Question:  (Same Speaker)   Thank you.







Question:  Bob Lloyd again, with the Appalachian Council in



Greenville, South Carolina.  I just want to make one



response to what Mr. DeGeare said, in response to the



gentleman from Florida with regards to sub-state dis-



tricts that have, or do not have capability.  If I can be



presumptious, I'd like to speak for some of the local



officials that I work with who are very much concerned about



federal mandating of certain types of multi-functional or



multi-jurisdictional, I should say, regional agencies.  Many



of them are saying in our state and in other states, don't



make us deal with any other different bodies at the regional



level.  And, I think this is something that ah- if at all



feasible, existing sub-state districts should be honored.



I think this is one thing... that where they can be honored,



they should be.  If they have to be the 208 agency, that's



just another factor.  But, there is a fairly extensive sub-

-------
 99
 state district planning capability  in about forty-five  states.

 And, I don't think EPA should  sell  that  thing down  the

 river without looking very hard at  it.



 Question:  Donny Alberts from  Land-to—Sky Regional  Council

 in Nashville, and, by-the-way, we are 208.  I didn't come

 down here to make any statement, I  just  come here to find

 out what you're talking about  in solid waste because that's

 one of your priorities for 208.  So, I've just got  some

 observations that I want to share.  And  that is, let's  don't

 jumb in head-first, especially when we can't determine  the

 depth of a sludge and the pits and ponds and lagoons.   I'd

 like to compliment EPA on how  it had this meeting,  tonight

 and get some replies.  It shows, I  think, a true understand-

 ing of the process involved in something like 208,  because

 now EPA is being told that the spates will say, you can
                               /
 keep your money, we don't want the program.  And, you've got

 real strict guidelines and things that are changed  over and

 over again.  This costs time and money.   So, I think what

we ought to do is maybe do something probably is do some-

 thing that's probably impossible in terms of the Law.  And

 let's take it a step at a time.  Let's have EPA look at the

various spates in the various regions of the Country, in
        *^
terms of solid waste and get the information together.   As

 far as  the states are concerned,  look at the various regions
           -x^
within  your states,  and don't jump into  the thing head-first.

-------
100
Go ahead one step at a time, because if we look at the things

we're talking about tonight, a lot of them are going to be

technically impossible, right now.  And so, I think we need

to look at it very slowly and take it... and learn from the

past mistakes and some of the other programs.



Moderator:   Thank you.  Go right ahead, J)evon.


               £
Question:  I'm^fevon  XEoQqg.    (.faaat namo wao—indiatinguioh-
      , representing the Fulton County Health Department.  If

you don't know how to spell my name, I'll talk with you,

later.  I'm glad to respond to Jim's early invitation to talk

because I was afraid that the locals haven't been invited.  I

looked at the Act and I really couldn't see a role defined

for local agencies who are concerned and who have a possible

role  in the program, and have the resources and capability.

I think in many respects local health departments, particu-

larly those with strong environmental programs in the sense

of public health appreciate Jack's  comment about the public

healt coming back into the solid waste picture.  But, they

need  to be involved, because, I think we're root of the pro-

blem, and to coin a phrase, we're searching for an identity.

We think that the local governments, at least  I do, may have

specific roles, already.  Roles that could be  defined with-

in the parameters of this Act.  I'm a little distressed to

words used in your literature or your presentations such  as

-------
101
that concerning the state being handed the dominate role.  I
                    <£
would prefer that you say the leading role or leadership role.

And contend that RCRA not retract whatever it is, needs to

define the role for local government intities in planning, in

resource recovery and in hazardous waste management.  Some of

us do have programs and interest that... to which these

resources could be addressed.  Right now, for instance, we

are mounting an air pollution control program.  We're dealing

with industry from day-to-day basis, and I contend that we

could be a great assistance to EPA or to a state agency, or

even in a singular role, could make a lot of progress in

these areas.  Another area that's ah- close to my concern, and

being an old solid waster that knowing that solid waste quite

often is not hazardous in itself, it may be hazardous because

of where it is.  We deal, on a day-to-day basis, with problems

in communities and urban areas where solid waste has become

a hazard.  Such things as abandoned automobiles in low-income

neighborhoods.  It's almost a resource, but it's a hazard.

It requires many of the public health officials to be concern-

ed about that waste, where it is.  And we spend tax-payers'

money to account for the problems that they create.  Yet this

Act doesn't seem to be addressed to things of this nature.

If money can be provided to help buy tire-shreaders, why not

help buy automobile shreaders, or help remove that  car from

where it is to where it can be recovered.  These are the kinds of

things that we face from day-to-day, as local responsible people.

-------
102
And I feel that we chould have a role and some mechanism esta-

blished where we could participate.



Moderator:  Thank you very much.  We will hear comments on any

portions of the Act, or anything we've said here tonight that

you'd like to say.



Question:  Jerry Perkins of North Carolina.  I can tell the

word about the new Act is getting around in our s,tate, because

of the questions I get in my office.  Ah- our rural communities

are interested in the rural assistance, that is  authorized in

the Act.  Regional governments are interested in any planning

monies that might be available.  Our urban municipal population

are interested in solidifying any innovative ideas that they

have developed concerning the resource recovery and recycling

that haven't had adequate resources to complete this solidifi-

cation.  Along with this interest comes ah- two questions.  One

is what role will the s^tate play whenever their package or
                      ^
request for assistance is provided?  And the other one is, how

soon will the money be available?  So, Mr. DeGeare, if you would,

provide some clarification as to what is meant by dominant s.tate

role.



Speaker DeGeare:  To me in reading the Law it's obvious that

Congress placed the state to- that is, identified the state
                    ?,                                Z
as the primary action point for implementation of the Act.

-------
 103
With  regards  to  Sub-Title  C,  the  states  can  pick-up  on  the
                                  ^>
action under  that part of  the Law, with  regards  to Sub-Title

D,  it's obvious  throughout  that the  state  has  the primary

role.  The state is, to  identify,  the governor and state are
           "''                         £•            •*•
mentioned so  many times  that  it's  obvious  that the primary

action role is with the  state.  They are to  identify the
                         •^
regions for planning; they  are to  work with  the  local agencies

in  determining what the  relative  roles are going to  be  in the

planning and  implementation process.  That's all discussed  in

Section 4006. I  don't think it's  a matter  of the federal
                                                 ^
government coming in and dictating what's  to be  done.   It's

a matter of the Law saying  that the  states will  get  together
                                     
-------
104
other words, somebody has to decide who is going to get what.




Speaker DeGeare:  I don't know how that decision is going to be

made.  As to whether funds will be made available for that

particular portion of the Act  as opposed to another part, I'm-

ah- I'm concerned with.  Once we get funds into a particular

section of the Act, for example, rural communities, we can

deal with the formulas for disbursement among the state.  I
                                                   /
don't think I can answer your question.




Moderator:  Well, let me suggest that there was fifteen million

authorized for implementation grants.  I think Jerry's question

is, how and who decides, assuming all that's appropriated, how

would we decide, or who decides whose going to get the fifteen

million dollars.  That's his question, as I understand it.




Question:   (Same Speaker)  We're all familiar with some priority

systems in the water program, and the facts that based on.   If

you come from a rural area or small town, you know, where does

that put you?  It puts you on the bottom of the totem pole,  and

you don't feel too good about that.  Do you get what I'm  saying?




Speaker DeGeare:  Okay that's something we haven't dealt  with,

yet.  Primarily because we don't see any dollars yet to deal with

and we've got other things under the Law that we ah-...

-------
105
Moderator:  Perhaps we may need to develop some sort of

guidance for you as a state solid waste agency, presum-
                      ^
ing the governor designates you to take care of this
         '/
particular thing here.  But, we'll be most interested

to hear from you about how you think we should do that,

or how do you think you ought to go about doing that.

Would you want us to tell you exactly how to do it, or

would you want us to tell you just to do it and give

you the money?  How do you feel about that?



Question:  (Same Speaker)  Well basically, I was search-

ing for the intent of Congress when they passed this Act,

and we'd like to take it from there.  No, we wouldn't

want you to dictate to us.



Speaker DeGeare:  I can't recall anything in the Act that

would dictate a prioritization of Congressional intent.



Moderator:   Is there another comment or question or obser-

vation that anyone else would like to make?



Question:  (Unidentified Speaker)   One question I failed to

ask, does this Act cover septic tank pumpings.  Is that a

hazardous waste?



Moderator:  You want to speak to that, Walt?... it has to do

with whether or not it meets the criteria is the answer....

-------
106
Speaker Kovalick:   That's the answer.



Moderator:  Sorry about that.  If there's not any more comments,

as you know, we're going to have an identical session tomorrow.

We'd be more than happy to have you come back and join us.  Per-

haps you would think of questions over the time between now

and then, that you would like to bring up, tomorrow.  If you

don't care to join us tomorrow, we're most appreciative of you

being here.  I would ask you to clear the room, if you want to

visit and talk, please do it out in the hall.  I need to get

this room straightened up and the equipment secured, and so

forth.  So, the ones of us that do  have to be back here in

the morning can be on our merry way.  Thank you very much.
     The Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Transcript on
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Wednesday,
February 23, 1977 closed Friday, March 11, 1977.  Total pages
106.

-------
                            THE

          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING

                         TRANSCRIPT
     THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
                        P.IT. 94-5W

                 SHERATON-BILTMORE HOTEL

                    Atlanta, Georgia

              Thursday, February  24, 1977

                  8:30A.M.  - 12:OOP.M.
              James )(. Scarbrough, Moderator
This is to certify that the attached proceedings were held as
herein appears, and that this is the original transcript there-
of for the file of the Environmental Protection Agency.
                                   ~/      Reporter  /~^?~
                               WHITE/S PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIAL
                                           SERVICE

-------

-------
                         THE PROCEEDING

Moderator:  Good morning.  If I could have your attention please,
we would like to get started.  My name is Jim Scarbrough.  I'm
with the Solid Wastes Program, the Region IV.  Our office is
here in town, as you know.  I'd like to ask you that if you
smoke, to sit on the right-hand side of the... my right, side
of the room.  If you don't smoke, you sit over here if you
don't want to breathe someone else's smoke.  We'd appreciate
your cooperation.  To give you a feel for how we're going to
run the meeting, we'd ask you to please not make read or
written statements that are over five minutes.  If you have
a written statement and you would like to have it entered
into the record, we'd be happy to take it.  We will keep the
record open for written comments until March llth, at that
time, if it has not been received in my office, it will not
be accepted.  The transcript of this meeting and the meeting
last night... last night we had an identical session, will
be published.  It will probably take us six to eight weeks.
If you've left your name with us you will receive a copy in
the mail.  If you have friends or know people you think would
like to get a copy, if they would contact us at the Regional
Office here, our address is 345 Courtlan^ Street, Atlanta
30308 or, if you prefer, you may call and the telephone number
is (404) 881-3016.  We'd be more than happy to send you a copy.
We'll have presentations from staff people from the Office of

-------
Solid Wastes in Washington.  These will vary from five minutes



to fifteen minutes long, and at the end of each presentation,



we will accept questions, comments, anything other than throw-



ing rotten fruit at us until the appointed time for the next



agenda item to start.  Then, at the end of the last agenda



item, you may make comments on anything that you feel like,



any of the topics that we've covered or other things that was



covered in the Law.  If you wish to speak, please move to one



of the microphones, give your name.  If it's hard to spell,



please spell it for the court recorder so that we get it



correct in the record.  Please use the mike and feel free to



step right up and don't feel like you have to wait until the



guy that's speaking gets through.  Just move right up there



behind him so that we can  save everybody's time and get as



much done as possible in the time that we have.  We also ask



you to give the name of the organization that you're represent-



ing, or if you don't represent anyone other than yourself, to



please let us know that.   And I would ask you to speak on a



first-come-first-serve basis.  There are two mikes over there



in the center isle and there's one up here that we can use.



So, we'd ask you just to step right up and let us get it moving.



We have with us this morning Mr. Alec Little to welcome you



here.  He's our Deputy Regional Administrator for Region IV.







Speaker - Alec Little:  Thank you.  Morning.  It's always good...



I was here at 8:30.   I  thought that was when it  started, so  it's



much more encouraging to see the meeting  actually starting  at

-------
9:00 o'clock.  If you want to throw the fruit it's okay, I'll



be leaving shortly and anytime after that will be alright.



Let me say that there is one group that I know is repre-



sented here and that is... and everyone of you are members of



it, and I think they call it tax-payers.  And it's always



encouraging to see people come out to see how their tax monies



are going to be spent.  Perhaps you're going to be receiving



some of them in salary.  I.think there's got to be a lot of



government officials here, there were last night, I'm sure.



But I know there's a lot of citizens, as well.  I'm hoping



that there are a lot of people from industry because this



particular Act certainly affects the industrial sector in our



Country.  We're glad also to see that all of the southern



Baptist didn't go to Washington.  I can tell that from the



empty front rows up here.  There are some seats all the way



in the back, if any of you really want to go all that way.



But, I'm hoping that you will participate fully in this program



as Jim has suggested.  Please ask you questions, because we



need to hear those.  That's exactly what this process is all



about.  In the past few years we've tried to have, in all of



government, I think, a lot more public participation.  And



that means that you've got to come and ask your questions.



You've got to write them down.  You've got to do it in any way



you can to let us know if we're doing what you want us to in



the programs that have been adopted in Congress, and that we



in the federal and state and other sectors administer.  The



program of resource recovery, which I'm glad to say, does have

-------
that name right at the moment, and this wasn't the Solid Wastes



Act of 1976, that we've progressed quite a bit just in that



name, itself.  I believe that if I was starting over again in



this area of environmental protection that this is probably



the program that I would like to go into,   that has perhaps



more prominence in terms of pay-off, conservation, perhaps



energy creation or many other things that  can be done with



what we call now, a problem.  I think that those of you that



are here that represents programs that will be administering



this should be very proud of the fact that you're in it.  As



I was talking to some of the people here a little bit earlier



this particular program has not been one of those in the



federal or state sector or local either one for that matter



that's received vast amounts of resources.  Yet, I think those



of us that observe the environment around  us and what's  been



happening to us, probably can observe more in terms of problems



with out solid wastes than we can with either air, water or



pollution, even though those two have received most of the



support.  And I'm not belittling those particular areas.  I'm



just saying that we're perhaps a little bit slow in getting this



one underway.  I'm personally proud that we've got these people



up here this morning from Washington to hear what you have to



say out here and down here in the southern country.  And I hope,



again, you will speak forward, ask any questions you want to.



Let's fill-up that record for this particular meeting.  Thank



you for coming.  Good to see all of you here.

-------
Moderator:  Thank you, Mr. Little.  I will give you a short



overview of the Act, and we will move right into the first



presentation.  After which we want to hear from you.  Please




understand that we're not here to tell you how we're going



to do this or how we're going to do that with this Act, we're



here to solicit your ideas of how you think we should do it.




And that's what we're interested in, we want to hear from you.



If you look at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act




(RCRA), Public Law 94-580 signed by President Ford in October,



you'll see that Congress has outlined some objectives that




they mandate us to carry out, being the Agency responsible



for most of this Act.  If you read in there you will see




that they said the objectives are to protect health and to



protect the environment and to conserve valuable material




resources and to conserve energy resources.  I think if you



think back over the last month or six weeks you can under-



stand how important energy resources are.  The General Motors



Assembly Plant here was shut-down for a week and other places



of business were shut-down for a lack of the energy that they



happened to be hooked-up to.  So, if you think about those



objectives, the Congress, in its wisdom said, well, how are



we going to achieve these objectives, and they also again



laid down some things for us to do to achieve these objectives.




And if you look right in there you'll see that they told us




to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local




governments.  They told us to work on manpower development.  The



Law stipulates that open-dumping is prohibited.  It also stipu-

-------
 lates  that existing  open-dumps  are  to  be  converted  or  closed.


 It provides for a regulation of hazardous wastes.   This  is  an


 area that's been lacking  for sometime.   It provides for  us  to


 publish guidelines for solid wastes management.   It provides


 for research and development.   It provides for demonstration


 projects,  as we've done in the  past.   But, I  point  out to you


 that it provides for some work  in low-cost demonstration pro-


 jects  for  resource recovery that can be  done  in rural  areas


 and small  communities.  It provides for federal,  s_tate and


 local  governments and industry  partnership in material and


 energy recovery and particularly it provides  for public


 participation which is why we're all here today.  Now, the


 first  item on the agenda, the first presentation is concerned


 with training, public information and  public  participation,


 and if you look at the program  you  will  see Tom Williams'


 name on there.  Tom's not here, he  has the flu and  was unable


 to come.   And representing him, quite  ably, from the Technical


 Information and Community Branch is one  of his staff-members,

&,           fe-
//erri  Wyer.  Jerri.



           &•
 Speaker -  ,/erri Wyer:  Thank you, Jim.   I was pleased to hear


 our Deputy Regional Administrator  say  such nice things about


 the Solid  Wastes Program, and the  EPA  does intend to take the


 public participation mandates of this  new legislation very


 seriously.  The RCRA contains an unusually high, complete


 array of provisions that could  bring about a  high degree of

-------
public understanding and participation.  Taken together these



various provisions make it clear that the Congress understood



that it's impossible for the public to participate, meaningfully



unless the government produces valid scientific and technical



data and produces and publishes the information in such a way



that everyone may have real access to it.  Only in this way can



the public really have a reasonable chance of influencing the



social, economic and political changes which the Law will bring



about.  Would you turn the lights off, we have chosen a few



slides that we have for you.  (Pause)  in Section 8003, the



Administrator of EPA is required to develop, collect, evaluate



and coordinate information on nine key elements which are crucial



to the Act's purposes.  The Administrator is not only to imple-



ment a program for the rapid dissemination of this information,



but he's also to develop and implement educational programs to



promote citizen understanding.  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 and to cooperate to the



maximum extent possible, with state and local authorities and



to establish and maintain a central reference library for



virtually all the kinds of information involved in the solid



wastes management for the use of state and local governments,



industry and the public.  Just who is the public?  To ensure



that the public participation process does not become lop-sided,



we felt it was necessary to identify major categories of interest



groups who represent the public at large.  Under RCRA we regard

-------
these to include consumer, environmental and neighborhood



groups... thank you, Walt... trade, manufacturing and labor



representatives; public health, scientific and professional



societies; and, governmental and university associations.



This spectrum of categories of representative groups will be



altered and supplemented as necessary, if in the course of



implementing  the Act it appears desirable to do so.  Section



7004A of RCRA states that any person may partition the Admin-



istrator for the promulgation, amendment or repeal of any



regulation under this Act.  Section 7004B calls for full


public participation in the development, revision and/or



enforcement of any regulation, guideline, information or



program under this Act.  Secondly, it states that the



Administrator in cooperation with the states shall publish

                                      "^      iH
minimum guidelines for public participation aiwl such processes.


Section 7002A states that any person may commence civil action


on his own behalf against any other person, including the



United States, who is alleged to be in violation of this Act



or against the Administrator if there is an alleged failure


by him to perform any act or duty under the Act.  What are



some of the available public participation techniques?  The



many techniques which can be used to involve the public in



government actions fall into three major categories.  One, to



ensure that appropriate public meetings, hearings, conferences



and workshops and so forth are held throughout the Country, and



that they are planned and held in accordance to the unfolding



of the Act's key provisions.  Two, the use of advisory committees

-------
and review groups which may meet periodically, but which will




also be called upon to review and comment upon major programs,



regulations and plans no matter when these occur and no matter



whether a specific meeting is convened or not.  The third



public participation technique is the development of educational



programs so that the public has an opportunity to become aware



of the significance of the technical data base and the issues



which emerge from it.  Effective public educational programs



depends on the use of all appropriate communication tools and



media.  These include publications, slides, films, exhibits



and other graphics; media programs, including public service



television and radio announcements and releases to daily and



professional press and public education programs carried out



by service and civic organizations with EPA technical and



financial assistance.  The last provision...  (Pause)  I'm




ahead of myself?  Okay.  The last provision I'll speak about



here is on the man-power development, Section 7007A and B



authorizes the Administrator of EPA to make grants and/or



contracts with any eligible organization for training persons



for occupations involving the management, supervision, design,



operation or maintenance of solid wastes disposal and resource



recovery equipment and facilities, or to train instructors.



Eligible organizations means the states or any state agency,



or municipality or educational institution capable of effect-




ively carrying out the project.  Section 7007C states that the



Administrator  shall  make  a  complete  investigation  and  study  to

-------
10
determine the need for additional trained state and local

personnel to carry out plans existing  under this Act, and

to determine means of using existing techniques... I'm sorry,

existing training programs to train such personnel, and to

determine the extent and nature of obstacles to employment

and occupational advancements in the ^olid Wastes Disposal and

Resource .Recovery Field.  The Administrator is required to

report  the results of such investigations and studies to the

President and the Congress.  In view of the man-power limitat-

ions and many time-mandated provisions of this new  legislation,

however, it's not likely that the training activity or the man-

power development study will be begun during this fiscal year.

However, we are planning on the- within the next couple of

months working on the study to determine what needs are needed

out in the jtates in this effort.  Thank you.



                                 &
Moderator:   Thank you very much,/
-------
11
solid wastes and ah- they did very fine work.  They were



djfeolved, and it would appear now with the increase in



emphasis coming along, more technical material, technical



content of  hazardous    wastes program, resource recovery,



that it would help people in the ^tate program a great deal



if EPA was to reconstitute a training group that would...



a group of professionals that would be in training for pro-



fessional people in the fields of sanitary land-fills,



hazardous wastes, -and resource recovery technology.







Moderator:  Thank you very much, anybody else.  Yes sir?



Just go right ahead, you don't have to wait until he gets



through to get up there...







Question:  My name is Larry Hirrd with the EPA Regional Office



and in support of what the gentleman just said, the last year



that the Cincinnati Training Institute was in Cincinnati we



had workshops in Region IV in which was over six-hundred



people attended in the different states and there was a need



then, and I think most of the people that would speak for



the states would say that there is a need for that sort of
    -^


an organization now.







Moderator:  Yes sir, go right ahead.
Question:  My name is Jerry Boyd, I'm with Sonoco Products



Company.  Our company uses re-cycled paper to make new paper

-------
12
products.  We're very interested in setting-up programs with


local land-fills for separating the corrugated wastes, and


also with municipalities in separating newspapers.  And, we


feel that there is a great need for training in areas with local


governments and communities to separate these wastes from the


disposals in these land-fills and we feel that the awareness


of this could really contribute to preventing all this disposal


in the land-fill.






Moderator:  Thank you.  Tru?tt, go right ahead.






Speaker - Tru7tt DeGeare:  TruZtt DeGeare, I'm with EPA.  A


couple of the specific  issues   that we're concerned with are-


I gathered from a couple of the comments made that you think


it's most appropriate for such training to be the logical fed-


eral role, is that pretty much in concensus?  Is that the way


we should organize that the training activities should be done


at the Jederal level?  Should it be done primarily by the


states?  Secondly, to who should the training be primarily
^.

directed?  Should it be operational-type, should it be public


education-type of training, or a diversified sort of training


program?  If you'd care to address those issues, we'd be happy


to hear your comments.






Question:  (Same Speaker)  You're talking to me?
Speaker - Tru^tt DeGeare:  Anyone.

-------
13
Question:  I think a professional group of training people in



EPA at the national level would do several things.  They would-



they would conduct certain courses that people could go to,



state-level people.  And they could- say community people.



Another function would be to develop training



material that could be used by the states when they're doing



training for local people.  Ah- better manuals, better film



stripes, audio/visual materials of various types, and that



would- well- so- be somebody will help us in communicating



with the public- materials for communicating with the public



in the technology.  Like the man was saying, a good method



of separating the corrugated out from the rest of the refuge.



It would be kind of a broad spectrum program.  I would en-



vision that a lot of states would do their own training, but



they could do a better job with aid and support from a national



training group.







Moderator:  Excuse me, but may I please remind you to give your



name.  Now, the court recorder may not know you as well as I do.







Question:  My name is Paul Wagner.  I work for a consulting firm,



Mayes,  Sudderth and Etheredge here in Atlanta.   Jim,  I was going



to ask you, first of all, does EPA currently have any short courses



which would be useful to more-or-less bring those of us who have



oeen eight or twelve years out of school the opportunity to get



caught  up on the technology of the field.   The concept of resource



recovery, I guess, hasn't been around forever and a lot of the



equipment,  the  processes,  the  philosophies  and  the techniques

-------
14
in resource recovery may not be as broadly known or, especially



in areas of research, that those of us out of the field that's



going to be in a position of implementing this program really



needs to know.  So, first of all, I wondered are there those



kinds of courses or short courses available now tnrougn tPA,



and if they're not, if this is an area we could conceivably



move into?







Moderator:  Yes, please do.  We'll hear from the national level,



then I'll tell you from Region IV.
Unidentif iod Ipenlter:  We don't have the type of courses that



some of you are familiar with.  Max Wilcom|> that use to be with



our office in Cincinnati use to run the training program that's



been alluded to earlier.  And several of us participated in



that.  We really enjoyed it because it was fun and it also



gave us an opportunity to meet with people, directly, as



trainers, you might say, and get a feel for what the real pro-



blems are ( and then to go back and try to address our research



and demonstration activities to those particular areas and to



provide more information to better develop future training



efforts.  We don't have that type of activity now.  It's



possible depending on what kind of funding levels we end up with and



man-power resources in the future. that might be one alternative



we go to in the future.  We have training material available.



A lot of reports, documents and some audio/visual material that



are available through out Office in Washington and through the

-------
15
regional offices, as well.  In particular I'd like to mention


a series of symposiums or seminars that our Research Office


has been conducting.  There was one a year ago in Rutkers,


and later last year in Tucson, and then next month, around


the 15th of March there will be a  third in St. Louis.  They


aren't short courses, but they are an up-date on on-going


research activities in the field of 3olid .Wastes Management,


in particular with regards to land disposal of solid wastes.


So, you might be interested in looking for the announcements


on those types of symposiums.




Moderator:  In addition to that, there's a couple of techno-


logy seminars in resource recovery coming up this Spring or


Summer.  They'll be put on by the Washington Office.  I would


suggest that if you're particularly interested in that, you


speak to the gentleman on my right, sometime during the meet-


ing or when it's over.  Whenever he can fill you in on that,


or you can call us at the Regional Office and we'll be glad


to enlighten you on that.  First- now, they have told you


from the national picture, now I'm going to tell you some


of the things we have done in Region IV.  We have, in Region


IV, a Southeastern Solid Wastes Management Training Committee.


It consists primarily of the state directors of Solid Wastes
                             ^
Management in the eight s,tates in Region IV. with my Office
                        ^>                  ^

and staff in an advisory function.  The state directors pri-


marily run it, or some designated member of their staff.


We have conducted one training course and it was held here in

-------
16
Atlanta, I forget the month.  It was within the last three


or four months.  It was in the Fall.  It was primarily for


training new jtate employees.  We have discussed broadening


this to other people, but we have not come to any decision


as yet.  And, if and when we do come to a decision to


reach out and take in municipal officials, local government


officials, consulting community, Paul, well we'll certainly


let you know.  You have to realize that we're quite limited


by funding and staff time because in order to do this, it


takes staff time from the state people that they would nor-


mally do on their regular day-to-day job.  Yes sir, Mr. Chiply,


go right ahead.




                          (2x
Question:  I'm A. S. Chiply, Solid Wastes in Alabama.  I


merely wanted to say that in the first place that I think


there's a need for some centralized training set-ups as has


been done in the past.  And one answer to Tru^tt's question


as to whether this should be j.tate or federal, I think there


will always be state training or a need for state training,


but I think that in the light of the need for uniformity,


we need a training center that is either national or at least


regional in area.  And, the thing that I'd like to comment is


that it's going to be awfully difficult to set-up a training


session as was what was available in the past because you're


going to have a time replacing Max WilcomD. Thank you.

-------
17
Moderator:  Yes sir, go right ahead.






Question:  My name is Benjamin Brown with the Wayne Colony Consult-


ing Engineers,Tallahassee, Florida.  I just want to make a



comment with regards to the public education aspect.  We've


been involved recently with several land-fills in the north-



ern Florida area and we've found that the biggest problem



that we've come up against is the public attitudes towards


the... they just don't seem to understand what sanitary land-



fill is.  And, consequently, several of them are in Court



right now, probably won't be out of Court for another two or



three months before it gets settled.  And ah- a lady set-up



and shot her senator, taking a partition and they're all



afraid their property-value is going down.  If there was



just some way that the public could be made aware of exactly



the concept.  It's not a great big open, burning dump.  I


think the majority of the problems would be over as far as


the overall design of the site.






Moderator:  Your suggestion is so noted and very appropriate.



Thank you.  Anyone else?  Yes, go right ahead.






Speaker DeGeare: It's certainly a nation-wide problem that particu-


lar issue about public education on sanitary land-fills, and



my suggestion won't solve that problem, completely.  But, I'd



just like for you to be aware that we have a training package

                t^£~          A/W////
called Training and Sanitary  -wa**fes hmployees.  It consists of

-------
18
a film, series of slides-  about two-hundred slides,  and an

instructors' manual and a students'  manual.  The film can

be taken by itself and very readily used for public  education

or information on the concept of sanitary land-fill  and how

it operates.  And, you can contact the Regional Office for

access to those materials.  You might, as a consultant or a

state or local government representative, you might  just
^
want to look at that with the potential for using that film

by itself.




Question:  My name is Henry Hudson, I'm with the EPA Regional

Office in Atlanta and I'd like to point out the fact that in

the era  that we had the Solid Wastes Training Institute,

EPA at that time also supported graduate-level training,

principally in the engineering department  in several univer-

sities around the Country.  This scholarship support produced

a lot of people who did go into^Sblid /Wastes^anagement.  As

a result of having gone through the program, I feel that

there will be a large demand for professionals in the field

as we look around to implement the various provisions of  the

Act.  I've heard a lot of people asking the question where are
these people going to come from, and would like to support

the idea of ,&nkindllng the universal

that normally was supported by EPA.
the idea of ,&nkindllng the university training grant program
Moderator:  Thank you very much.  Anyone next?  Anyone else?

 (Pause)  Okay.  You'll note on the agenda the next  item  for

-------
19
a short presentation and discussion from you is hazardous
wastes.  If you're familiar at all with the Act you know
that hazardous wastes is contained in Sub-Title C.  We
have with us this morning, Walt Kovalick.  Walt is from
the Hazardous Waste Management Division,Office of Solid Waste
in Washington.  He's the Chief of the Guidelines Branch of
the Hazardous Waste Division.  Walt.

Speaker Walter W. Kovalick:  Thank you, Jim.  Chuck ah-
Alec Little, with the introduction this morning for us was
a little different from the ah- the one we did in Kansas
City last week.  We're not only having double-bills of
these public meetings, as last night and this morning here,
we're simo-casting in the sense that we had an identical
meeting in New York, yesterday.  And last week in Kansas
City the regional- Deputy Regional Administrator said that
there are three things that you need to be concerned about,
if some one tells you that your check is in the mail, or your
car will be ready at 4:30, or I'm from the _federal government
and I'm here to help you.  Well, my role this morning is to
discuss the regulatory portion of the new RCRA and so I can't
fall into that last category arguing that I want to help.  I
guess I want to help us, and we are in the portion of the Act
when we talk about Sub-Title C that involves environmental
protection and public health protection from what is to be
defined as hazardous waste.  And, I'd like to start by making

-------
20
a few overview points, one of which is that that definition



which is in the first section, 3001 of Sub-Title C is the




key section to the rest of the regulatory program that I'm



going to run through this morning.  That is that Section



does request the Administrator of EPA, meaning the Office



of Solid Waste, define what is it that should be a hazard-




ous waste.  And so, as we move on in the slide and discuss



in a minute that section, I want you to realize how broad




or how narrow that definition is.  It governs the scope and



breath and depth of the program that will be controlling those



wastes.   The second thing you should note when reading through



that Sub-Title if you- when you have a chance if you have not



already, is the fact that it has a set of national minimum




standards for three different kinds of parties.  One is a



national set of standards for generators of hazardous wastes



once those are defined.  Which is in Section 3002.  One is a



set of national standards for transporters of hazardous



wastes which is rather a unique section for EPA.  It puts us



in the transportation regulation business, along with the



Department of Transportation.  And, the third section has to



do with national standards for those who own and operate



storage treatment and disposal facilities.  And by that I




mean not just land-fills or chemical wastes land-fills, but



incineration facilities and chemical fixation facilities and




other kinds of facilities used to treat and dispose of hazard-



ous wastes.  So, on one hand there are the traditional national



standards that come along with environmental regulatory laws

-------
21
that we may be familiar with in air and water, on the other




hand there is a permit program in Sub-Title C, in 3005 that



affects only those facilities that store, treat or dispose



of the wastes.  We prefer to do that as a positive side of



the Act because it isn't a permit to discharge into the



environment, in a since, but it's a permit to ensure the



community by the fact that the standards apply to that



facility are appropriate.  That this so-called hazardous




waste or chemical treatment plant is capable of performing




a function for which it is designed.  So, we like to view



that as kind of an insurance for the public and those of



us who might be living near it that it is possible to



operate it in accordance with the national standards which



are the more traditional regulatory approach.  The third



major thing that should cone through to you in reading the




section is that it is the intent of Congress, it is the



intent of our Office and the Regions to have as many j_tates



as possible pick-up this program.  The Act is written in



such a way that as soon as some of these broad definitions



are put into effect, which is about eighteen months from



last October, hopefully, as many _states as possible will



apply to be authorized to run the hazardous waste program.



The final point I wanted- well, two more points, one is




that waste that's already disposed of, that's already in




the ground would not be regulated by the regulations




that we are writing except in the case if there was an



emminent hazard to health.  In other words, we're talking

-------
22
about wastes that about eighteen months from now would be



generated and they would fall into this regulatory scheme,



but if they're already land disposed,  unless there was



some critical public health or environmental problem result-



ing they would not be regulated by the Law.   The last thing



you should know « that ye-t, should be  aware  of is that this



is the first of many public sessions we're going to have.



Obviously with this one we've spent a little more time ex-



plaining the way we understand the Law, but  in the future we



plan to discuss the implications of the Law.  Especially this



part, from my point of view, that affects those to be regu-



lated.  We're planning some- on the order of seventy-five or



eighty meetings, not of this size, more like twenty or thirty



people.  We're to discuss, in-depth, certain sections of the



Law and how it will affect those who generate, those who store,



transport these wastes.  Now, I'd like to take a moment and



run through about seven slides that I have,  one on each of



the sections.  To repeat again, 3001 requires the Administrator



of EPA, in eighteen months, to define hazardous waste criteria



and list hazardous wastes.  And, if you look carefully at that



section there are three parts.  One is that we must chose the



criteria that might definle hazardous wastes.  The Congress



gives us some suggestions of kinds of factors that we should



consider, like flammability, explosivity, corrosiveness,



toxicity, bio-degradability and so forth.  So, the first job



we have is to chose those parameters as criteria that we think



are important, and then using those criteria, to identify

-------
23
hazardous wastes.  And, finally, after we have identified



them, prepare a list^,  Which may sound simpler than we think



it is,  ,To take an example, if we chose a criteria like



flammability, then our view is that we'll probably need a-



some kind of standardized test so that we kn^w how to apply...



we, meaning the generator of the waste, know how to apply



that criteria to the waste.  So, it so happens for physical



parameters like flammability, corrosivity, there are some



fairly widely accepted industry and government standards



for testing for flammability and corrosiveness, explosivity



and some other kinds of physical parameters.  So we would



chose, say flammability of a flash-point of say a hundred



degrees or a hundred and five degrees or ninety degrees and



run that test on the waste and if it failed that test, then



it would be defined into this management control system



that we're creating through the rest of the sections of the



Act.  These tests then would have to be designed in such a



way that if a waste passed the test or the several tests



that are designed^then that waste would logically not have to



go into the control systems that's defined in the rest of the



Sub-Title.  And, therefore, would logically be going to the



sanitary land-fills as you'll hear later in our discussion



of the overall Law.  So,  the way we're working at the moment



is to try and consider criteria that might make sense for



defining hazardous waste,  knowing that if it does not- that



is, it passes these tests,  then it would be going to a normal

-------
24
sanitary land-fill.  The last thing it says it issue a



listing.  Those of you who are familiar with the water



pollution acts- act in EPA are probably familiar with



Section 311 which has a spill regulation, has a listing



of some three or four hundred individual substances.



That is not necessarily the kind of listing that is called



for here.  As a matter of fact, one of the reasons we are



having meetings like this and others is to consider what



the listing might be.  Let me give you some examples of



what the list could be.  It could be a list of wastes, for



example, a waste containing substances.  For example, if a



waste containing some heavy metal that was of concern might



be considered on that list.  That would be one way to devise



the list.  So, the list might be made up of things that



would flunk the test I was discussing earlier.  Another



approach might be to have a list of things that are of con-



cern to us, but for which we are not technically able to



devise inexpensive, reasonable tests.  For example, I think



it's logical to assume that some ideological biological



active waste could be considered hazardous wastes.  There-



fore, it might be more appropriate as HEW has done previously,



to just list kinds of ideological wastes or their sources,



like those coming from veterinarian clinics or hospitals



or other locations.  So, the list may be things for which we



are not technically able to devise tests, but which we are



able to reach concensus on hazardous wastes.  Another option

-------
25
for a list is that it could be a list of categories of waste

generators.  It's possible... if you're familiar with the

water pollution experience they had listed industry categories

and we might be concerned and be able to reach concensus that

waste from the asbestos brake manufacturing process would be

of concern to us because of the asbestos content they have,

and if we do not have a reasonable test for asbestos or an

inhalation test, then it might be logical to put things on

the list that represent industry categories.  So, I'm only

trying to explain that the language in this third part of

this s_ection is fairly wide-open.  It does require us to

issue a list, but the content of that list is what we're

trying to understand, the variety of options that we havej and

I've tried to describe three of them to you and there's

probably variations on those.  But, I wanted you to be think-

ing as broadly as possible.  By now you probably realize that

I've walked in here with a different definition of solid

waste than you have or some of you have, and if you read that
                               &,
definition in the Law which Tru^ftt will repeat later, it in-

cludes solids, liquids, semi-solids, slurrys, sludges and so

forth.  So, Congress has re-defined, for those of you who are

physical scientists, has re-defined solids to include liquids

and sludges and contain gases.  So you have to be fairly

Catholic in your view that solid waste and hazardous waste  or

a sub-set of them include things in other physical states

than solids.  Now, that's a lot on that one section.  I will

not spend that much time on each of the others, but I wanted

-------
26
you to get a since of the breath and depth that this defini-

tion could take.  The next three sections are these national

standards that I mentioned earlier.  The Section 3002 requires^

in eighteen months that we have national standards and regu-

lations affecting generators of wastes.  And, if you read the

j>,ection carefully, there are only three subjects about which
-?
we can have national standards.  These are the only three

things about which we can write regulations.  We can not write

regulations that affect the process of manufacturing or the

way the waste is generated.  We can only write regulations

about record-keeping and reporting practices regarding the

hazardous waste, about the labeling of the containers those

wastes are shipped in, and, about compliance with the so-

called manifest system.  The manifest  system is a system that

tracks waste from their point of generation... that is, the

hazardous waste, through their transportation, to their

ultimate disposal.  The reason for this section, as we

understand it and based on evidence that we have, is that

there are many, many fine hazardous- well, a number of fine

hazardous wastes disposal facilities around the Country who

are constantly wondering why they're not getting any waste

when we know that some of the responsible manufacturers are

shipping waste  to those facilities.  And, the reason they're

not is that it's much cheaper to pay the higher fee to the

transportor, who, in this case, who is  irresponsible and he

carries off the waste to the side  of the road and opens up

the valve on the back of his vacuum truck and the waste dis-

-------
27
appears, or, down storm sewers and so forth.  So, the purpose



of the manifest system is to permit... as we've said, the



state government, hopefully, to be able to track the fact



that a waste that is defined as hazardous at the beginning



of the cycle, does indeed reach the disposal facility for



which it was intended.  So, this manifest system will recur



on the other slides, but I wanted you to have a general idea



of what is meant by it.  The second set of national standards




relates to transporters.  This is much broader.  It does not



just limit us to these subjects, but these are the ones list-



ed in the Act, are record-keeping, labeling and again, com-



pliance with the manifest system.  We recognize, as I mentioned



earlier, that the Department of Transportation is in the busi-



ness of regulating the packaging, marketing and shipping papers




that relates to the transportation of hazardous materials.



And, we're meeting with them regularly and I expect it will



be more frequently to try and see how we can mesh the require-



ments in our Act with the existing work that they already have



underway and also the work they already have on the books.



They have a number of regulations already on the books, but,



unfortunately the Department of Transportation's mission is



to provide for safety and public health of the transporter



and his vehicle.  Our mission is to prevent damage to public



health and the environment.  And so they,  at the moment, do




not recognize environmental damage.  That's one of the reasons



for writing regulations by the Department of Transportation.

-------
28
They have put out, and you should know, a Federal Register
notice on December 9th which is asking for your comments,
and we are putting in our comments as to whether or not
they should start considering environmental matters in the
writing of Transportation regulations, assuming that we,
meaning you and us, are able to make a case for that.  And
hopefully, we will have on^set of regulations written
jointly by us and theDOT as it relates to this section.
The third section has to do with those who own and operate
treatment storage^and disposal facilities.  Again, this is
national standards.  There's a whole list of things, moni-
toring, record-keeping, location design, maintenance and
operation, ownership you see on them.  We are familiar with
cases where individuals opened so-called hazardous wastes
disposal facilities, they accepted many, many drums of wastes,
all different kinds on their property, and for a variety of
reasons, they walked away.  So  this is going to be a portion
of the regulation devoted to making sure that there is the
where-with-all in the firm to carry-out to completion the
operations that they have begun when they began in their
business.  That's the kind of thing covered in the ownership
which is rather a new concept in environmental statutes as
opposed to the others.  I mentioned that there is a permit
program.  The permit program does not affect generators, it
does not affect transporters.  The permit program is for
those who store, treat and dispose of hazardous wastes.  That
includes people who are in the business, commercially.  That
is those to whom you can go and hire out and use their incin-

-------
29
erators.   And it applies to those industries who have disposal



facilities or treatment facilities on their own property.  So



both sets of storage, treatment and disposal facilities are




covered.   Not only off-site, but those on-site.  The interest-




ing thing I want to mention here which was Congress have pro-



visions for interim permits.  That is, while we are analyzing




or hopefully, while the j5.tate is analyzing permit programs,



if a business-that is, the storage, treatment^or disposal




facility that was in business on the 21st of October last



year, which was when the Law was signed^and if that same



facility has notified the s_tate or EPA via a procedure I



will discuss in a moment, and if they have applied for a



permit, then, they have a permit until such time as we have



a chance or the state has a chance to act on their application.




This provides a way for industry or- who will have facilities



to continue to operate them while either the state or jiederal



government is able to, with the limited resources that we



have, to analyze the permit application and process them.



This gets us around the problem that we've had in past acts,



for example, the Waiter Pollution Act^whereas an industry



would apply for a permit and since they got no word back



from EPA due to the fact that we were trying to process



something like forty-five thousand of them, nationally,




they were in violation of the Law.  This provides a way for



the facility to be in compliance with the Law.  That is, to




have an interim permit while their true permit is being




analyzed.  Briefly, this is the Section 3006 that relates to

-------
30
state^ programs and if    possible and we are hopeful  that



as many gtates as possible will chose to take over this pro-



gram rather than have EPA operate it out of its Regional



Offices.  There are three criteria listed in the section
                                                 -£_


relating to state authorized programs.  One is equivalent



to the federal program which is a word that we're going to



be trying to define what that means.  The second is that



it would have to be consistent with other jtate programs and



this is a very important concept when we're talking about



hazardous industrial waste.  You may be aware that the State



of Ohio recently completed a survey of their manufacturing



industry which indicates that Ohio industry ships waste to



thirteen other states.  So, there is definitely a trade or
               =55.


a market interstate in these kinds of wastes for not only



disposal reasons but also recovery reasons.  Therefore, the



consistency between and among the state programs is a very



important factor.  And finally, as you might expect in a



regulatory program, there would have to be adequate enforce-



ment in the state program in order for the state to take it



over.  There is a section in there which you might want to



look at, particularly interesting to the jtates, where they



can obtain, interim authorization.  That is, if they're on



their way to having a fully  authorized program there is an



opportunity for them to take over.  Another chance for states



who want to play, to use the expression, to be able to take



over the program early, as early as possible.  The last section



I want to cover is a very unusual one, and it was somewhat of

-------
31
a surprise to us when it was in the Law as we were tracking



it, but it is a very helpful one to us.  This is the section



on notification and it affects generators, transporters,



treaters, storers and disposirls of hazardous wastes* The



reason for this section, as we understand it, is that it



provides us with a way, as I mentioned earlier, for those



of you who need a permit to have an interim permit.  That



is, it is a load-level devise.  If you'd remember, a business



facility that was in business in October that has applied for



a permit and has notified EPA or the ^tate under this section



would then have a permit.  So, this notification is a kind of



registration for storage treatment and disposal facilities.



And it's a way for us to be aware of people who generate and



transport wastes so that we know where the manifest should be



coming from.  The manifest that I mentioned earlier.  Obviously



if someone has not notified, then we would not expect them to



be generating manifest as time goes along.  And this require-



ment... this notification, by-the-way, could be as simple as



a name arrtT address and location and phone number.and the fact



of which business you are in and the general character of the



waste.  So that the coverage of this particular _section is a



very interesting question which we hope to get comments on as ive



go along.   Ah- you might be interested to know that the waste



oil re-refining industry testified at our public meeting in



December,  or£like this, in Washington that they felt that used



motor oil, meaning waste oil ought to be  a hazardous waste.



And, if you carry that to it's logical conclusion, the impli-

-------
32
cation  is that gas stations, those that- who generate used


motor oil would have to notify the area EPA.  So, I think


that's a little extreme example and we don't think that's


necessarily         the way it should go.  And yet they're


advocating the fact that used waste oil might, in fact, be-


come... that it's failed some of the tests that was mention-


ed earlier.  So this section is very important in the sense
                     $-

that the coverage of people who might be required to notify.


If you do not notify^you are not allowed to transport, store


or treat or dispose of waste.  So, it is... there's a penalty


associated with this section and it's very important that it


be constructed sensibly, in a way that we can all read it,


sensibly.  So let me stop there.  I probably over-loaded you


with information, and ask for questions.





Moderator:  Do we have questions or comments?... pertaining


to Sub-Title C or hazardous waste?  Please feel  free  to step


right up, we'll move right along.
                           3".
Question:  My name is Peter Dawson.  I'm with Hennxx., Durham


and Richardson, a consulting firm in Charlotte.  You mentioned


that you cannot write regulations on the process.  Are you


referring to the manufacturing of wastes that could be termed


hazardous?

-------
33

Speaker Kovalick:  Yes.

Question:  (Same Speaker)  Okay.  Thank you.  (Pause)

Speaker Kovalick:  That  was too easy.  (Laughter)

Moderator:  Mr. Chipiy will make it harder.

Question:  No.  I won't  make it harder.  I'm Qi ipff from
Alabama.  I don't know quite where to start, you asked whether
or not the s_tates are willing to or want to take over this
type of program.  Personally I feel that the jstates should
assume the responsibility for these types of programs.  They
are in their states and the wastes are generated in their state
and this is where it should be taken care of.  You have a Law
that's quite broad and you're talking about writing some three
sets of rules and regulations to cover these laws, and here we
get into a point of possible danger.  I'll give an example, in
our state we've been trying to get a central amendment to our
solid waste act and everybody-agrees it should be there, but
people stet around and decide and start shooting in things that
they want from their special effort and the law becomes... the
writing of rules and regulations, and a law should not be rules
and regulations.  I think federal rules and regulations that
are written are often accepted as law and perhaps of necessity
so.  And, if this is true, then they must be broad, because
the rules and regulations to apply these things have to apply

-------
34
to the local areas where the Acts that are set-up will funct-


ion.  A facility, for example, that will work in Alabama may


well not work in Florida.  And, to go further, a facility


that may work in parts of Alabama, may not work in other


parts of Alabama.  So, there has to be a local effort.  Now,


we speak of grants and frankly grants scare the hell out of


me.  I think there is a place for grants and a need for them.


But, in some cases, I think, personally, if our _s_tate should


become eligible for a ^federal grant on hazardous waste, we
                      "Z*

would, in the first place, need a greater staff to manage and


handle that grant than we would need to manage hazardous waste.


(Laughter)  This does bother me to a considerable degree.  Now,


last night, you didn't bring it up this time, but you were


mentioning a specific problem of the analysis of hazardous

                                                o
                                                 '
waste.  Where it should be done and who should J&&' the analysis.


I think the question that was posed was should it be a community


payment, or by the generator of the waste.  I think here again


we all know who is going to pay for this, whether it be a grant


or whether it be an analysis.  It's going to be the people whose


going to pay for it, in the long run- it's going  to be the con-


sumer, one way or another.  If that is a true premise, then I


think the analysis of the hazardous waste should  rest with the


generator of that waste, because then he could pass that cost


on to the primary and secondary buyers of his product.  Thank


you.





Moderator:  Yes sir.

-------
35
Question:  My name is Bob -Skerrp and I'm with Mineral Research
and Development Corporation in Harrisburg, North Carolina.  One
of the biggest problems in dealing with hazardous waste is that
the options of disposing the material is getting smaller and
smaller.  There are fewer and fewer places that we can put
these residuals for ultimate disposal.  I would like to suggest
that in setting up programs that waste exchange or things of
this nature be considered.  For some people could use the
waste of others.  And also, a program for technical ssistance
to assist generators to determine what they can do with their
product.  Whether they could treat it themselves or find other
sources of disposals... other people who might accept it.

Speaker Kovalick:  Thank you.  I'm glad you brought that up
because on my limited time with these programs I have to dis-
cuss the regulatory part of the Law... you should know that
we've published a policy statement, that is an EPA policy
statement on the handling of hazardous waste, last August.
That is long before this Law was passed, in the... August 14th,
I believe, Federal Register and we'd be happy to get you some
of.those if you have not seen it.  But it does have at the top
of the list, priorities,.not generating the waste or isolating
it,  so that it could be used for exchange.  And I appreciate
you bringing up the concept of waste exchange.  That is, that
one man's waste could be another man's feedstock.  Especially
in the industrial sector.   We've spent quite a bit of time and

-------
36
have completed a contractual study of not only the waste



exchanges that are in existence in this Country of which



there are less than a half-dozen, right now.  One... some are



more successful than others, and there are over thirteen of



them in Western Europe, right now, run not only by trade



associations, industrial trade association, but also quasi-



government institutes.  So, we've been doing our best to



popularize the concept of wastg-exchange and if any of you



think there is a possibility, that is, in terms of quantities



or an institution that might be used to operate that, you



might want to get in touch with Jim and he with us to get a



copy of that recent study on waste exchanges.  It is a pre-



script of one, it tells you where it makes sense.  That is,



the kinds of government, quasi-government or industry institut-



ions that make sense, like trade associations, to run these



exchanges.  Your point about facilities also I want to cover



or mention as a very important part, we think, of the jjtate



program as it develops.  That is, it's all very fine to have



these regulations defining hazardous waste and tracking L ."m,



but if there isn't any place to track them to_,it becomes very



difficult.  So, we're very conscious of the fact that there's



decreasing numbers of options.  That is, ocean disposal is



becoming very restrictive.  They're increasing incineration



restrictions and so we think that some energy has to be put



into trying to think of ways to provide for these kinds of



facilities.  As the gentleman said, it's hard to site a sani-



tary land-fill, should try to site a hazardous waste incincerator,

-------
37
sometimes.  It's a very difficult process according to the

industry that's tried to do it.  We're aware of one firm

that tried sixteen different times to obtain a site upon

which they could build what might be considered a quite

adequate hazardous waste incinerator.  So, it's no small

problem.




Question:  My name is Tom Lesl-»y, I'm with the Atlanta

Regional Commission.  I wonder if you anticipate the definit-

ion and the regulatory program would extend to radioactive

waste on a military facility?




Speaker Kovalick:  Again when I read the definition of solid

waste which I didn't g6 justice to, it does exclude only one

kind of radioactive waste.  Those that are... the high-level

radioactive waste controlled by the Nuclear Regulatory Com-

mission and UftTS".  So that means that there are a number of other

low-level radioactive waste.  The kinds that are used to make

radiant watch dials; the kinds that are used in low-level

isotopes in medical practices and so forth that could con-

ceivably be included in this definition of hazardous waste.

So, we have not... we're only restricted from covering those
                                     £l?DA
things that are already regulated by URTA and NRC.  So, I think

it's quite likely that some radioactive waste will be included.




Moderator:  Yes sir, go right ahead.

-------
38
Question:  I'm Howard Jolley with the Regional Enforcement



Program.  I had two questions.  One on radioactive waste



which is just been answered.  My second question is^did I



understand you correctly in saying that industrial sludge if



it would be determined hazardous... stored on an industrial



site, would require a permit?







Speaker Kovalick:  That's possible.  Yes.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Thank you.







Speaker Kovalick:  I might add that what it is that can define



storage is becoming one of the more knotty problems.  That is,



if you're storing two or three drums for three or four days in



order to fill-up and get an amount or quantity to ship to dis-



posal, is that storage or is a lagoon with several million



gallons of contaminated solids a storage.  And so, trying to



draw a line between the two kinds of storage will be a problem



for us over the next few months.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  I agree.







Moderator:  We still have ample time if anyone would care to



comment on the subject of hazardous waste or the regulation of



hazardous waste.  I might ask you for... we're seeking your



opinion and perhaps the state people represented here would

-------
39
be interested  in your opinion as to whether or not you  think


the jjtate should,  in fact, regulate hazardous waste.  Go


right ahead.
Question:   I'm Andrew CaramacrR.   I work  for the Environmental


Quality Commission in the  State of Kentucky.   I 'm  a little


bit confused about this radioactive low-level  waste.  You

                                                      ££DK
said that they could be included  in the  definition if -UftWi


or NRC wasn't responsibile for them.  Well, at the present


time I... the specific example I  have in mind  is a. low- level


waste disposal site in Kentucky which is... it's regulated


by the Health Department in Kentucky, or the Human Resources,


but NRC has the final say  in that situation.   It's low-level


waste, but NRC is the regulator.  And I  just wondered if you


anticipate any interaction with NRC on those sites?





Speaker Kovalick:  I'm not an expert in  radioactive materials,


I... we are just beginning in the program to look  at radio-


active-type waste.  So we obviously have to go to  such as

£KDA.       v€
yfiTS.  We ha€T a radiation program in EPA that's related to


setting the standards that affects the sites that  NRC is


licensing, but all I'm trying to  say is  that there are some


radioactive wastes that are not controlled that will probably


fall under the umbrella of this Act, but which ones, I'm not sure.





Moderator:  If you read the Act there is a specific exclus-


ion for those that are covered under the 1954 Atomic Energy

-------
40
Act and if it's not covered under that Act then I think



what Walt is saying is that it's a good possibility it may be



covered under this Act.  For those of you from Florida, you



might know that there is a great deal of phosphate mining in



Florida.  And phosphate ore, in it's natural state contains



radium and some of the mining concentrates that's radium, as



well as some of the ground-water has radium in it, and when



you treat the ground-water for drinking purposes, perhaps you



may concentrate the radium.  And some of these type wastes



will be some of the things we'll be looking at as to whether



or not they should be regulated under this Law.  Yes sir, go



right ahead.
Question:  Just have a comment, Peter Dawson, again.  Con-



cerning your question about storage or not storage, you may



have already been made aware of this, but I'm referring to



one installation where they had an ore material that they stored



in rail-cars that they shipped later.  And they were really in



a conflict as to whether or not that was storage of whether or



not that was transportation.  And if it was storage, they had



to put a dike around it.  Put a dike around it, then they



couldn't haul the rail-car.  (Laughter)  I thought I'd throw



that out to you to give you something to think about tonight.







Speaker Kovalick:  I'll try to be conscious of the fact that



 C//Ag,s __ (fehi-s— troid Indistinguishable) around railroad



tracks makes it hard to move the car.

-------
41
Question:  (Same Speaker)  Some of the consulting firms may



want to take that into consideration for designing a portable



dike.  (Laughter)







Question:  My name is Henry Hudson, I'm with the EPA Regional



Office in Atlanta and I would like to get a clarification if



I could regarding the disposal.  Also, in regards to the quest-



ion earlier or the statement earlier, about possibility of a



lagoon or pond or pit containing an industrial solvent.  For



example, from the definition of disposal as I read it in the



Act, it would appear that if such a lagoon leaked some of its



content into the ground or into the ground-water, that facility



would by definition be a disposal facility as opposed to a



storage facility.  Is that correct?







Speaker Kovalick:  I would say if it's an unlined lagoon that's



probably the way it would go, but the point is the lagoon



would be covered either as a storage facility or as a disposal



facility.  One way or the other.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Yes, but my point is that .that nor-



mally one would be quite surprized to think of a pond or a



lagoon as a disposal option rather than a storage option.  It



is a rather strange definition as storage and disposal normally



been regarded.

-------
42
Speaker Kovalick:   Yes, along with re-defining solids to include
liquids, the definition of disposal deserves some study, too.

Question:   Good morning.   My name is Jerry Cousins of Piedmont
Engineers, of Greenville, South Carolina.  I've been associated
with the development of regional hazardous waste treatment
plants.  The EPA has suggested three possible definitions for
hazardous  waste, all could be complicated.  I want to suggest
a fourth that could not go anywhere else.  And I'm
concerned about the definition of hazardous waste, that what
you might  do... it could become  very complicated and I suggest
another alternative.  In practical terms, if you're going to
build a plant you do a market survey.  You decide which materials
are presenting problems that you could handle.  And those are
the hazardous materials.   And since I'm looking for prototypes
I suggest  that as an alternative for compliance.  The things
that can't go in the land-fill.  The things that can't go in the
sewers, can't go in the water.  It would be very broad and it
would be the most realistic kind of definition you have.  I'm
pleased to see that you know about these facilities, I hope
those people have an input into it.  I think they've had a lot
of experience.  I think that's the major point.  I'd like to
talk to you afterwards about analysis and how these things
could be done because I've gone through  it.

Speaker Kovalick:  To elaborate on your  simplier definition, I
guess  I'm....

-------
43
Question:   (Same Speaker)   A definition... a backwards definit-


ion on things that are hazardous waste or  things that can not

go to the sewer, can not go to the land-fill, that cannot be


disposed of at large.  And ah- when you know... you know what


those things are.  I can tell by your talk that you have a


good feel for what these materials are. I  know what these


materials are.  In practical terms, you don't have any trouble.


You know, you go into a given area, you look around, you know


what's there.  And, the definition really  is the things that

cannot go somewhere else.  And, that kind  of an approach, i


think, will be the most successful and. tne least cumbersome...

most realistic.


Speaker Kovalick:  That's a good point.  The only... there is


quite a bit of research, as a matter of fact this St. Louis
                   3s
Conference that Trui'tt was mentioning is going to discuss land


disposal waste and I would say that it's certainly not con-


census about those things that cannot be land-filled.  That is,

the soil is quite a continuator in many people's view and it


can be used as a treatment mechanism, if you will.  So.,..




Question:  (Same Speaker)  Well....




Speaker Kovalick:  It would be easier if there was concensus


that certain things cannot be land-filler but some waste-

there is a great area of waste where that concensus doesn't


seem to exist.  That's why... it's a though solution....

-------
44
Question:  (Same Speaker)  Let me come back on that one there.
There are a great many ways to use land-fill treatment systems
besides the practice that is used for land-filling, garbage
and solid waste, and the land system and the land disposal
system would probably be part of most hazardous waste plans.
Now, I... there's another comment, you're talking about being
more positive and people are talking about the options that can be
removed.  Anotner way of approaching tnis wnoie problem now that
I think has to be done is to take a look at this whole process
again from backwards, and find out what material residues you
would like to have... what can you produce.  You're going to
have salt, you're going to have things like organic materials,
you're going to have ash and a limited number of things and
you have to decide where these are going.  Is the salt going
to the ocean.  How is it going to get there.  And work back-
wards and in your regulations, I think, the one thing you
should not do is prohibit things from going to the right places.
Just make it so complicated- you know....  There's a law out-
side the radioactive business, the law of conservation of
matter.  If you work at it you can account for everything.
If you burn it, you know, there's the gases, pounds of gas
out there.  Nobody can make anything disappear.  So you really
have to decide where you want it to end-up, and you have to
decide that early, to plan intelligently so that you get there
in the best possible way.  And so, your objectives... there
ought to be some positive objectives in these regulations about
where you do want things to go.

-------
45
Speaker Kovalick:  I guess at the same time you would agree



that we would want to leave the options open to the generator



so that we don't... these regulations do not say that you must



take waste X to the incinerator.  They may say that if you



take them to the incinerator they have to be burned at certain



temperatures and have certain kinds of monitoring.  But you



still have the option of taking that waste to the land-fill.



These regulations are not, ah....







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Well, the guys who are operating



that central treatment facility, he's got to have an outlet.



He can't make it disappear....







Speaker Kovalick:  No. No, he's got a... from his point of view,



he may move on to the land.  But I'm saying as an industrialist,



if I had a waste the Law provides me with the option to chose



incineration or land disposal or chemical treatment or physical



treatment or whatever....







Question:  (Same Speaker)   Oh yeah, but still those end pro-



ducts are there.







Speaker Kovalick:  Oh yes...







Question:  (Same Speaker)   And please don't write the regu-



lations in such a way that they're supposegto disappear.  Don't



tighten-up on us, the guy that's got no option.  Otherwise the

-------
46
the whole program breaks down.
Speaker Kovalick:  Thank you very much.  Yes sir, go right ahead.
Question:   William -Wlieldii, -Bon Shamrock Chemical Company.  We


have at the present time an on-site lagoon which is in com-


pliance with the S-tate of North Carolina and the Jederal regu-


lations.  Do we need any additional permits under this new Act


to operate that facility?





Speaker Kovalick:  I dorft d know, becOause we haven't written


the regulations, yet.  This... I think it's fine to say that


this set of regulations will affect storage or disposal


facilities that are lagoons and since this Act does get the


federal government involved in ground-water protection, I
^

know there are no federal laws right now except in the under -
       <           ^

ground -abjection area that affects the operation of that


lagoon.  So, depending on the North Carolina statutes, with


which I'm not familiar, there may be some additional require-


ments regarding ground-water protection.  Not surface-water


which is probably well-protected in your regulations.





Question:    (Same Speaker)  Just a comment that any regulations


that be written, especially in our case of lagoon overflow,  that


they not be written any tighter than drinking water regulations.

-------
47




Speaker Kovalick:  W®-l%"i you're on the subject of surface-

water  there, I think it will have to mesh with the existing

water pollution regulations on surface-water, certainly.




Moderator:  Alright.  Thank you.  Thank you, Walt.  The next

item on our agenda is land disposal.  We have with us this

morning, Tru,ftt DeGeare.  Trui^tt is the Chief of the Land

Protection Branch in our Systems Management Division, Office

of Solid Waste, EPA Washington.  TrujFtt.




Speaker Trui'tt DeGeare:  Good morning.  The Act contains

important new definitions.  Some which have been alluded

to earlier this morning.  Also a requirement for the Admin-

istrator of EPA to promulgate regulations containing criteria

for determining which facilities shall be classified as sani-

tary land-fills and which shall be classified as open-dumps.

A requirement that the Administrator publish an inventory

of all disposal facilities in the United States which are

open-dumps and a requirement that the Administrator publish

suggested guidelines for  various solid waste management

practices, including disposal.  The implications and require-

ments for state and local governments will be discussed later
      'j-ffrte,
under stawd and local program development provisions.  Part of

the Act that addresses land disposal of non-hazardous waste

is Sub-Title D and you may in the future want to refer to

various sections of that.  First though, we should look at a

-------
48
couple of these key definitions which appear in the first


part of the Law as opposed to Sub-Title D.  The definition


that's of special importance are those for open-dump and


sanitary land-fill.  The Law defines those two practices as


the only two types of disposal facilities.  The two pract-


ices will be distinguished by the criteria to be promul-


gated under Section 4004.  RCRA adds clarity  by defining


disposal and solid waste.  I think these definitions are of


such significance it's worthwhile for me to just take a


minute to read them for you.  Then you can look at them,


later, in your copy of the Act.  Disposal is a pretty


broad definition.  It means the discharge, deposit, injection,


dumping, spilling, leaking or placing any solid waste or


hazardous waste into or on any land or water.  So, that solid


waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter


the environment or be eirfmitted into the air, or discharged


into any water, including ground-water.  So, any practice


of placement of waste on land is virtually defined as dis-


posal.  The term solid waste, as Walt mentioned, is very


broad.  And it means any garbage, refuge, sludge from a waste


treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution


control facility, and other discarded materials, including

                                            AuS
solids, liquids, semi-solids or contain gases materials ah-


resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural


operations and from community activities, but does not include


solid or d/rsolved material in the irrigation return flows or


industrial discharges which are point sources subject to per-

-------
49
mits of Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control


Act, or source special nuclear or by-product materials as


defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.  As I said earlier,


the statutory definitions of sanitary land-fills and open


dumpi refer to Section' 4004 of the Act which is entitled,


Criteria for Sanitary Land-fill, sanitary land-fill is re-


quired for all disposal.  This Section requires the


Administrator to promulgate regulations containing criteria


for determining which facilities shall be classified as


open-dump and which shall be classified as sanitary land-


fills.  At a minimum, the criteria shall provide that a


facility shall be classified as a sanitary land-fill and not


an open-dump only if there is no reasonable probability of


adverse effects either on health or the environment from


the disposal of solid waste at the facility.  An important


aspect of the implementation of the Law then is for the


interpretation of what constitutes no reasonable probability


and what constitutes adverse effects on health or the environ-


ment.   The task of developing this criteria will be particularly


difficult for ground-water protection because of technological


uncertainties and the general lack of ground-water protection


policies.  It seems appropriate that the criteria would be


performance rather than operational and the intent, as we


read it in the Act, is not for federal regulation of sanitary
                               ^

land-fills or the establishment of a federal regulatory pro-


gram,  but for jtate control.  This regulation containing  the


criteria is due by Octob?t 21 of this year, after consultation

-------
so
with state agencies, notice and public hearings.  Section


4004B requires each jstate plan to prohibit the establish-


ment of open-dumps and to contain a requirement that all


solid waste within the s_tate be disposed of in sanitary


land-fills unless it is utilized for resource recovery.


Finally, Section 4004C indicates that the gtates prohibition


on open-dumping shall take affect  six months after the date


of promulgation of the criteria which is due October 21 of


this year, or on the date of approval of the state plan^


•Whichever is later.  Not later than one year after the pro-


mulgation of the criteriajthe Administrator must publish an


inventory of all disposal facilities in the United States


which are open-dumps. Section 4005 also prohibits, open-dumping


when usable alternatives are available.  If such alternatives


are not available, the state plan shall establish a timetable


or schedule for compliance, which specifies remedial measures


including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations


leading to compliance with the prohibition on open-dumping


within a reasonable  time.  And, that time is not to exceed


five years from the  date of publication of the  inventory.


If the state plan is not being undertaken, the  citizens  suit
       •^

provision of Section 7002 provides recourse to  a grieved


party.  Section 1008, Solid Waste Management  Information and


Guidelines requires  the Administrator to publish, in one


year, guidelines which provides a technical and economic


description of the level of performance that  can be obtained


by various available solid waste management practices.   Areas

-------
51
to be addressed by guidelines include appropriate methods


and degrees of control that provide at a minimum for pro-


tection of the public health and welfare; protection of


the quality of ground-water and surface-water from leakage;


protection of the quality of surface-waters from run-off


through compliance with applicable limitations under the


Federal Water Pollution Control Act; protection of /JM b,<->.n~(:


-fthis word indistinguishable) airtl air quality through com-

             Va<.,(iV
disease Anfcction control, safety and esthetics.  It is our


interpretation of Congressional intent that these guidelines


would be descriptive and not prescriptive.  And, that they


could suggest alternatives for dealing with the concerned


raised in the criteria.  Section 1008C requires minimum


criteria to be used by the states in defining open-dumping


of solid waste as prohibited in Sub-Title D.  The Congress


did not specify which practices and guidelines are to be


developed to address—our initial reaction to the charges


of Section 1008 is to address the predominent practice


which is land disposal, and the first attempt in this area


would then be to up-date and revise on current land dis-


posal guidelines.  We will also be initiating slu^ff disposal


guidelines.  In order to provide for future activity under


this Section, we're going to be carrying out a process to


determine a logical and reasonable sequence for promulgation


of future guidelines on various practices.  We obviously

-------
52
can't dump all our resources at one time into trying to

cover every solid waste management practice.  So, we would

appreciate any suggestions you might have or any input to

determining a prioritization of the various practices which

should be covered, ultimately.  (Pause)



                          <2-
Moderator:  Thank you, Trui'tt.  We'll ask you to step forward

now and comment on the land disposal, definition of a sani-

tary land-fill... criteria for an open-dump.  (Pause)
Question:  I 'm Bill Proportcet"  £ia-sJ" "amp -may t>e apetted- in-
          7t?/v/y,
      tlf9 — **• Eastman Company*  I think my question may pertain
more to the previous speaker, but it's raised somewhat by  the

definitions that were just discussed, and it pertains to the

regulations under RCRA, ah- a lagoon.  Well, suppose a lagoon

is part of a waste-water treatment system which  is subject

to permitting under the NPDES system, would there be any

regulation of such a lagoon?  Which would be part of a point

source discharge under RCRA?




Speaker DeGeare:  I think it's very possible from the view-

point of any leakage to the bottom of that lagoon as opposed

to any kind of permitting or regulatory action on the upper-

surface water.




Speaker Kovalick:  Just to add on to that point, I... we've

thought some about that, the waste in that lagoon are but

-------
S3
prior treatment then they might well be considered to fall


into the category of domestic sewage in the sense that they


are not yet a sewage sludge.  That is post treatment.  So


we are... there may be a possible gap in the coverage for


that one kind of lagoon prior to the time that the domestic


sewage is treated.  Even though domestic sewage could


include industrial input, of course, from the hazardous


waste point of view.  And I'm purely saying that there is


a possibility we might be able to put out the guidelines


that mighty would reflect management might be able to cover


them under the non-hazardous portion.
               Sc/v/V?/^
Question:  Bob Sharp with Mineral Research, again.  Your


definition on open-dump, I'm considering a facility which is


a settling of a lagoon for inorganic materials, would this


also be defined as an open-dump and how would it be fitterf*


of these classifications?



               g,
Moderator:   Tru.i'tt, you want to speak to that?
Speaker DeGeare :   Okay.  We can't, at this point, say that it

would be an open-dump or sanitary land-fill.  What we can


address, I think, is whether it's a disposal practice as


covered by this Law.  I can give you my opinion from my


reading of the Law and at the same time I'd like to solicit


your opinion on whether it's appropriate for us to address

-------
S4
that practice.  My reading is that it is... it would be dis-


posal, placing of waste on land.  And the criteria would


therefore have to address that.  Now, as far as to whether


it would be classified as an open-dump would depend on


whether there was probability of adverse effects on environ-


ment and public health.
Question:  Peter Dawson with Hennut, Durham and Richardson.


We've been talking about open-dumps and sanitary land-fills,


but does an inert land-fill such as receives this construction


waste, is that part of the sanitary land-fill area?





Speaker DeGeare:  Yes.  It's prohibited.





Question:  (Same Speaker)   And the other question I had when

                                                 d^/c.
would Appeal 945A affect land disposal sewage slusfr, just


when it would have hazardous waste and heavy metal?





Speaker DeGeare:  Ah- no.   If it... based on the tests and


criteria that Walt discussed, the sludge would fall into the


category of hazardous waste, then it would be regulated under


Sub-Title C.  Otherwise the criteria called for in Sub-Title D


would apply.





Question:  (Same Speaker)   Which ah... Sub-Title D refers


to what?

-------
55
Speaker DeGeare:  The open-dump and sanitary land-fill criteria.
Question:  I'm Marvin Dlmll from the State of Kentucky and I



might say that we're quite interested in seeing here guide-



lines for the management of sludges as soon as possible in



your priorities.  And I'm somewhat interested in the fact



that the water pollution people have a great interest in thisj



and personally I am inclined to come up with management guide-



lines of their own in this regard.  As I interpret the present



Law, this really lies within the province of the solid waste



act and that's probably where it should be done.  I'd like to



have your comment on that, and I'd also like to have some com-



ment relative to what time-frame you see management guidelines



for sludges.







Speaker DeGeare:  The Act doesn't addresses sludges, specifically.



There is a definition for sludge, and sludge is included in the



definition for solid waste.  Therefore, we are addressing that.



And, as I indicated, our guidelines on sewage sludge or... I



guess you would classify it now as a second priority.  Our



first will be dealing in land disposal guidelines.  Or, within



our own Agency the development of suggested practices or guide-



lines on sludge is going to be a very painstaking process, be-



cause we are going to be coordinating very closely with the



Water Program Operations Office.   They have dealt with waste-



water treatment more extensively than we have and are pretty

-------
 56
 familiar with  the  sludges  or  components  of sludges  produced.


 We  then are  going  to  take  the attitude that we  will be  follow-


 ing up after the sludges is produced  and dealing with  it from


 that point.  So, we're  going  to  be  coordinating very closely


 with that Office in the development of these guidelines.





 Question:   (Same Speaker)  Thank you.




                                          c,
 Moderator:   I'd like  to add to that,  Mr,  Shell.   Waste-water


 treatment plant sludge  and water treatment plant sludge are


 specifically included in the  definition  of solid waste  in


 this Act.  However, I do feel like  the governor and designated


 agencies should utilize any agency  you see fit  as long  as the


 appropriate  measures  are carried out  under this Act.   But


 I also point out that by these sludges being included  in the


 definition of  solid waste, they  will  have to be covered in


 the required state solid waste management plan  and  appropriately
             ^:

 provided for in that  plan.  Yes  sir,  go  right ahead.
Question:  Carl Comhard-, Jan  Uber  Corporation  (Last ^tame -and


-camp_ajiY. name- may 4>e-  spelled incoxxectly)- .   I'm concerned  about


the settling ponds and  in  the operation we  mine cacodyl clay


and we've got some heavy metal  settling out of this pond  which


is covered by NPDES  permit.   Are you  saying if this stuff is


leaking into the ground where it applies, you  can  force us to


make it into a sanitary land- fill  in  five years, or what?

-------
57
Speaker DeGeare:   Surely not a sanitary land-fill in the since


that we've traditionally known what a sanitary land-fill is....





Question:  (Same Speaker)  Well, can you force us to light it


at sometime?  This is a hundred and eighty acre  impound, now.


What are we going to do?





Moderator:  We understand....





Speaker DeGeare:   We really don't know what we're going to do.


The issue that we're trying to deal with now is whether and


how we should deal with those types of impoundments.  We know


that there can be and has been damage from surface impound-


ments and it's apparent that the Act was intended to provide


control to prevent damage.  But, I understand your concern


for a hundred and eighty....





Moderator:  There's also a call for appropriate coordination

              e-l
with the  '72 Fair Water Pollution Control Act which requires


you, if that has a discharge, to get what we call an NPDES


discharge permit, as well as the Safe Drinking Water Act.


We'd be most happy to hear from you how you think this should


be handled in the instance of a storage lagoon, let's say,


that does, in fact, have a discharge permit under the water


act but is in fact not lined and leaking to the ground-water.


Now, what do you think we should do with that?

-------
58
Question:  (Same Speaker)  I don't know.  Ah- how are you



going to determine whether it's leaking or not.  Cacodyl



clay is so fine, we all assume that this seals itself after



a period of two months, it settles itself.  Now, how are you



going to determine whether we're leaking into the ground-



water supply?







Moderator:  Well, I didn't mean to imply that we would say



you were leaking.  I said perhaps one is leaking.  Now, the



question is what to do about one that does have a discharge



permit and is leaking.  You know, we're asking for your help



here or anybody else's who is here for that matter.  You know,



this is something we've got to face up to.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Well, will there be meetings or



something like that in the future or when the criteria is



published?







Speaker DeGeare:  There will be hearings on the criteria.  They



will be published as proposed in the Federal Register  to pro-



vide opportunity for comment.  Then there would be hearings



specifically on the criteria.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  One other question, what about over-



burden, the dirt which covers the clay?  Can that be termed  as



solid waste?

-------
59
Moderator	:  Mining waste as... are mentioned in the



definition of solid waste.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  It's only a waste for a certain



amount of years, then we have to reclaim the land and we can



use it again.







Speaker DeGeare:  Sure....







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Up 'til then will that be included



as a solid waste?







Moderator:  It depends on how the criteria is developed.  Here



again we're seeking your advise on how to develop the criteria.



We don't know what the criteria is going to be, yet.  We're at



the ground-zero... we're at the start-point.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Okay.  Thank you.







Speaker DeGeare:   One issue that was discussed some last night



was what types of disposal practices, that is the combinations



of the various waste types and ways of dealing with those on



land should be addressed by the criteria and then how the



criteria could address.that.   If, that is, by means of a general



rather broad criteria or specific criteria for various types



of practices.  One particular practice that was commented on



by three or four individuals  last night was that of land dis-

-------
60
posal and demolition waste and land clearing waste and it

seems like the concensus of those who commented was that it

would be most appropriate to have a separate criteria for

that type of practice.  So you may want to discuss that a

little bit this morning.
Question:  I'm Bob Sk*rp, again, I'm from. Research Corporation.

The last speaker has mentioned in effect his company's practice


for preventing seepage is to line the pond with cacodyl , and


he didn't know whether this was done deliberately or in the

process of building the pond.  My own company's process is to

take the waste materials out so that the mineral component will
                      IAS
not be soluable and thaws' will not seep down to the ground.  I'm


sure this is not the proper forum to discuss the application of

these techniques, and I} too^ would be interested in participating

in such discussions and formulations.




Speaker DeGeare:  There will be public notices- hearings on


these regulatory actions.  If you have specific concerns, you

can indicate that.  Leave your name and address or card with us.
Question:  William -Whatsit, I'm with .Shamrock,, again.  On the

definition of an open-dump, a quarry that's filled with water...

an abandoned quarry, material... waste material going into that

from beneath the surface.  Is that considered an open- dump?



Speaker DeGeare :  Waste material going into it beneath the surface?


Question:  (Same Speaker)  Beneath the surface discharge to

build up the solids in the bottom of this abandoned quarry?

-------
61
Speaker DeGeare:  Yes.  It's possible.  But ah- I don't know



if it would be an open-dump, that would depend on...  again



on what the criteria would say.  But, it sounds like  a



practice that should be addressed by criteria.







Question:   (Same Speaker)   It's an interesting situation,



anyway.  Thank you.







Question:   Tom Tiesler with the State of Tennessee.   TalKing about the



ponds and lagoons, what you are saying is then it is  possible



that a lagoon that is currently permitted under the  NPDES



system, it may have to come back and be re-permitted under



this new Act?  Would you have two agencies, possibly, regu-



lating a permit of the same facility?







Moderator:  I think what Tru^tt said Tom is that that may



be possible.   My own personal evaluation of that situation is



that I don't see that happening, myself.  Now, the guys from



Washington may well see that differently.  Having grown-up



in the water program, myself, it doesn't seem right  to me.



However, you know, when he says it's possible, that's anywhere



from zero to a hundred percent.  So keep that in mind.  Ah-



we would be most interested to hear how you feel about that, as



a matter of fact.







Question:   (Same Speaker)   Okay.  Well, we're in the process



of putting together a hazardous waste bill in the State of



Tennessee, a state law, and we've been talking to the sanitary

-------
62
industry there and that's one of their primary concerns, not

to have duplication of enforcement activities.  And I tend

to agree with them.  There is confusion enough, I think, pro-

bably in dealing with one agency, but if you've got two

different agencies regulating the same facility you  can

really confuse things more.  So I would think there ought

to be a real effort, I guess, at the federal level to make

sure that we don't have more than one regulatory agency

regulating it... the same facility.  Get that ironed out

before it gets downs to the point of implementing the Act.



Speaker Kovalick:  I think that's a very good point which we'll

be asking about in our public notices relating to the Sub-

Title C, as well.  I think the challenge lies more in the

states.  You can usually do quite a bit of one-stop shopping
•^
at an EPA Regional Office in terms of talking about air,

water, solid waste, radiation and noise, but a lot of strain,

at least in the industrial hazardous waste area, is that at

least in two states, I know of, you have to go to three

different places to get answers on waste management, alone.

That is, the water board control liquid waste that are  not

municipal; the Health Department controls the solid wastes

that are municipal; and, there's an overall state .solid waste
                                            •£     =-     ^
board that  controls resource recovery.  So, I think the
?
challenge lies with the spates and I think there are ways to

do it.  I'm familiar... in my experience in air pollution

-------
63
with ah- when air pollution permits used to be granted in one

large major city and you went to the building department to

get your permit just to begin construction? that permit was auto-

matically routed through the Air Pollution Control Department

of Environmental Quality for a check on air pollution control

devises.  So, I think the opportunity for creativity is both

in our office where we are at least, in many cases, in one

building talking to each other in terms of air and water and

solid waste; and, at the ^.tate-level it's even more of a

challenge to assure industry...  if you take on the program,

that you are going to coordinate and pass... have some kind

of opportunity for them to have one-stop shopping or one kind

of contact point.                         _    -~)

                              teer. °* *">'  'K^^no*
                     ^o^^

Moderator:  Mr.  Druse/J  go right ahead.




Question:  Thank you, Jim.   So far we haven't heard a great

deal about the economic impact  of a lot of this activity down

at the local level.  If you look at certain portions of this

particular section, under 4002  it says  you should consider
           ^
the volume of solid waste that  should be included.  So that

might be interpreted to say that you might partially exempt

sites that handle very small numbers of people.  And yet, on

the other hand,  you go  into 4004B and there it says that every-

thing's got to be sanitary land-fill, and there's also another

section, 4003 in a section there.   So you have a dichotomy

-------
64
there where in one case you might think you could see a way..



you take a small community.  The reason this is quite import-



ant to us at the moment, we're getting a lot of flack from



some of our senators and representatives whose constituents



are in small communities that even our daily cover'  requirement



is creating an economic difficulty for small communities who



just can't afford to do it.  And we're being impartuned to



relax our rules which we are very loathed to do.   And ah-



this is not only true in the sanitary land-fill portion that



we're discussing at the moment, but when you get over into



the hazardous waste aspect, the economic impact is going to



be terrific.  And I'm wondering if anybody in EPA has done



anything on a national-scale as to what the true economic



impact of      this Law is going to be?  It would seem like



it's 'going to be into the trillions, rather than into the



billions.  Have you any thoughts on that?







Speaker DeGeare:  An economic impact analysis has not been



done on the Act.  Somehow Congress is able to avoid that



responsibility.  Regretfully not everyone can.  We will be



doing an economic impact analysis on regulatory actions.  We



have not done it for the criteria.  I'd like to back-up and



comment on a couple of your comments.  Section 4002 deals



with guidelines for identification of planning regions and



we'll be talking about that a little later.  But it doesn't



really relate directly to the criteria for classification of



disposal facility and I have not found any place in the Act

-------
65
which contain...  call for an exemption or any implication




that there should be an exemption for disposal facilities



of a particular size or smallness.  Or, for a community of



a particular size.








Question:   [Same  Speaker)  Well there's the old story, you



can't get blood out of a turnip and these small counties are



poorly financed low capital income and low tax base.  Some-




times it's almost impossible to come up with the right kinds




of dollars.








Moderator:  The rural systems portion of the Act, I think,



directs itself to that very issue.  However, you'll notfithat



the funding level is tagged at authorization of twenty-five



million dollars a year.  Which, if you think about the number



of cities that meet those criteria for size and counties that's



quite thin nation .-wide.  If you would permit me... if you



would allow me to use that term, permit, I will allow one




more speaker, the gentleman standing in back.  And then we



will move on to the next item.  If you have more discussion



about this particular topic, please hold it until the end



and then we'll have ample time until I have to clear this



facility....  Yes.  One response to your question, Mr. Druse



before the next speaker.








Speaker Kovalick:  I think you asked that similar question



last night and I  didn't get around to responding.  The

-------
66
economic impact.   For all the regulations we're writing we



have to prepare an environmental impact assessment to show



what kinds of improvements that's going to be resulting.  And,



also do an economic impact analysis.   So, almost...  on the



order of about twenty percent of our contract and grant funds,



such as they are, that we have available are being spent on



that very subject, and one bit of data that may be some com-



fort to you in not so much for the local sector, but we



have studied industry categories about thirteen of them that



we think might be a particular hazardous wastes generators



and we published these reports.  And our tentative conclusion



is that the cost of complying properly with the kinds of regu-



lations that we'll be coming out with we're talking about



less than a half of one percent of sales would be involved



in terms of economic impact on that firm.  Now, admittedly



that's very rough data on a national basis, but it does indi-



cate that we're not talking about massive infusions of... a



massive infusion of money to get at the problem.







Moderator:  Jack, go right ahead.







Question:  I'm Jack McMillan with the Solid Waste Program in



Mississippi.  There's one point that I want to go back  to,



briefly, in regards to interfacing with NPDES permits.  I



have about sixty-two of our plants that have been submitted



for assistance... I believe forty-two facilities have been



designed that have such holes  in the rooms that are tied  in

-------
67
with the system inverter and they do not have any discharge.



Ah- this becomes a disposal facility and get full considerat-



ion under the present system air and water program of site-



selection of these facilities?  And, I think this is an issue



that we should address at an early stage and make a decision



on whether or not the other agencies, other programs....







Moderator:  You want to address that, Truilt?







Speaker DeGeare:  There is one option for dealing with those



types of facilities, it is to just let the entity responsible



for the NPDES permits expand  their analysis and address that



in the permitting of the facility.







Moderator:  If you would like to stand up and stretch, we're



not going to have a break.  But, if you want to stand up and



stretch and turn around, we will permit that, and then we're



going to go right ahead because we don't have all day to use



this room.  (Pause)   If I could have your attention, Mr. John



Shanbo, I have a message here for you.  (Pause)  If anyone



knows this gentleman and he's not in the room, would you please



tell him when he comes back, we have a message for him.  It



says it's very important.  Okay, we'd like to get started back



again,  please.  The next item on the agenda is resource conser-



vation and recovery and overall technical assistance.  We have



with us to give you a brief discussion of that, Mr. Tom Canfield.



Tom is  with our Resource Recovery Division in the Office in



Washington.

-------
68
Speaker Thomas Canfield:   We're here today to talk about the
RCRA, and we really haven't talked about resource conservation
and recovery.   Clearly Congress recognized three major objectives
in this Act, public health and environmental protection, but
also recognized for the first time in an Act administered in
the Office of Solid Waste, an explicit objective for materials
and energy conservation.   A couple of points I want to make
before I go to the slides.  Resource recovery in the United
States is increasing.   Economic scarcity of materials, coupled
with hard-to-find land is resulting in cities turning to serious
looks at resource recovery.  RCRA will help speed this process.
The major way it does  it  is to shut-off the cheap option of
inappropriate disposal.  Resource recovery and resource conser-
vation can reduce the  wastes to be disposed of in land disposal
sites.  I think we all  clearly recognize there will always be
a need for land disposal.  On a national basis, our estimates
are that the waste to  be  disposed of in land disposal sites will
increase over the next decade, even assuming highly optimistic
rates of increase in resource recovery.  But, on a local basis,
resource recovery can  significantly reduce the pressure for new
land disposal sites and result in environmental improvement.
We find that resource  recovery is not solely limited by economic
factors.  The technology  in resource recovery is developing and
fairly new.  When the  technology seems to be better established
for the resource recovery systems, such as floor separation at
the local-level, seems to be well in hand, those technologies
and those systems are  not well understood.  Resource recovery

-------
69
technology and the resource recovery system usually require



new kinds of arrangements between cities, companies  operat-




ing system, and companies buying material or energy from those



system; new financing arrangements; new marketing arrangements,



and it's just not been the normal way cities have conducted




business.  Our efforts in resource recovery focuses on three



area.   The first, aid, we focus our aid to try to resolve a



non-economic problem to resource recovery.  Secondly, we are




involved in systems evaluations to better understand the



technology, such as refuge to derive fuel; water wall incin-




erations and to better understand resource recovery systems



and explain them to people, such as source separation of



materials at the local-level.  Third, we conduct studies on



the ways to reduce waste.  Our studies have, to-date, emphasized



re-use of products.  An example of this is that we have written



guidelines for beverage containers which require deposits on



beer and bottles... cans sold at federal facilities.  So,



with that I would like to go into the slides to give you a




feel for what this Act does in terms of resource recovery and



resource conservation.  The first major point I want to make



is that there is not a neat, clear, distinct sub-title in this



Act for resource recovery and resource conservation.  The



resource recovery and resource conservation aspects of this



Act are spread throughout a number of  sections.  Some of them



are listed here.  I'll go  into further detail on resource



recovery and conservation panels, development of state and




local  programs, later.  One thing that I do want to point out

-------
70
that I don't go over later is the bottom line of this chart



which describes... mentions demonstrations.  The Act in



Sections 8004, 8005 and 8006 gives added emphasis to evaluations



of technology and systems.  I think you may know that our pre-



vious laws allowed EPA demonstrations with public agencies



with resource recovery systems.  This Law expands that to allow



demonstrations with public and private agencies for resource



recovery.  Section 2003 is a major section in this Act on



resource recovery and resource conservation, focusing on a...



the point of this slide... major point of this slide is to say



that the aid that we will provide, even though the title of it


is Resource Recovery and Resource Conservation Panels, the



aid that we will provide will be broader than that.  We'll



cover all aspects of solid waste management.  Again, in resource


recovery and resource conservation, this section really emphasizes



that kinds of things we have been doing.  The panels that are


called for in this section will comprise of teams of people.


It calls for federal, state and local people, local public



officials, as well as consultants to make-up the team of the


group of people that will provide aid to state and local agencies

                                      ce.^
upon request.  The item there called p»re-matching really means



that we should be trying to match county officials who have



solved the problem with county officials who are facing similar



problems.  Or, mayors who have solved a similar problem with



mayors who are facing a similar problem.  This section of this


Law requires that twenty percent of the appropriations under


the Act, under the general- the general appropriations under

-------
71
the Act should be devoted to this kind of aid.  The Act in


Sub-Title D also provides- allows EPA to give financial aid


to spates and local agencies to plan and implement programs.


It names some specific things for implementation in the Act;


resource recovery; resource conservation services; hazardous


wastes management services and also points out that it's broader


than that, it can include all the solid waste management.  Fifteen

million dollars is authorized for this section, each of two


years.  And, the implementation- the funds that we can provide


for implementation covers all of the activities leading up to


construction, but do not include construction of the facility.


Section 6002 addresses federal procurement.  And, the key

points of this section are that within two years EPA must


issue a guideline  on how to implement this section.  But,
                                            "^-
within two years in the federal government, agencies that


procure products or materials will have to use the highest

percent of re-cycable material as possible.  Those agencies-..


those federal agencies that use fossil fuels will now have
      £    <*
to use refu.g« as a supplementary or primary fuel to the

maximum extent possible.  And then there's- to the ^federal

government will have to certify in their products the amounts

of re-cycled material in those products.  This is applicable


to procurements over ten-thousand dollars.  In Section 8002


Congress aste f or a number of studies.  Actually, they ask for


eleven studies, most of which are due in two years, some of


which are due in three years.  Some of the key studies I want


to point out here, or explain a little bit better.  The priority

-------
72
study is the priority in research and resource recovery.  The
small-scale, low technology study emphasizes- is to emphasize
resource recovery for small communities.  The study on front-
end separation is meant to be a study of source-separation of
materials by the householder for separate collection and re-
sale materials to be re-cycled; and, the compatibility of
that system with large-scale, centralized, resource recovery
systems.  We've already done a number of studies on this that
indicate that source-separation is totally compatible with
large-scale, centralized plants.  The Congress wants a more
detailed examination of this issue.   One of the major studies
in this section which is not listed on this slide is a study
to be conducted by a resource conservation committee.   This
is the highest priority study in our mind of this study section.
It has a separate, two-million dollar authorization.  It is a
two—year study headed by EPA^with six other heads of agencies
and it's going to focus on those kinds- those concepts for
incentives or new taxes or regulations to increase resource
conservations and to increase re-use of secondary materials.
We'll probably focus on those concepts which have been most
widely debated over the past several years.  Such as further
examining existing policies that encourage virgin materials
use at the expense of use of secondary materials, such as
depletion allowances for certain materials and capital gains
treatments for certain virgin materials.  We'll examine new
kinds of incentives, taxes or bounties, such as money for

-------
73
each ton of new material that is re-cycled; money for each



new dollar of investment for re-cycling equipment; and,



specifically mentioned in the Act, a tax or a product charge



to reflect solid waste management cost in products that are



sold.  The Act also requires us to examine product regulations



to increase resource conservation and resource recovery.



Those are the major portions of this Act that address resource



conservation and resource recovery.  I'd be glad to answer any



questions that you may have.







Question:  Goodmorning, Shell Luddon, Solid Wastes Task Force,



DeKalb County....







Speaker Canfield:   Well....        Can I just wait 'til I



switch this... the lights on....







Moderator:  Now... hold it.  We've got a dimmer over here.  You



all have got to get coordinated.  One of you're doing one thing



and the other is doing- counteracting it.  There you go I







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Thank you very much, although I'm



not that great to look at.  (Laughter)  We just went through



an exercise in refuse-derived fuel in which Georgia Power... I



don't know whether they're  represented here this morning or



not.  Is anybody here from Georgia Power?  (Answered affirmative



by unidentified speaker(s) ).  Okay.  These gentlemen are...

-------
74
fortunately their company decided that refuge derived fuel



was detrimental to their boilers, and therefore, they were



not interested in using refuge derived fuel from DeKalb



County to burn in their boilers.  Now, do I understand you



to say that you are going to force private industry to burn



refuje derived fuel at the detri... and incur degradation of



their facilities?
Speaker Canfield:  No.  The Act... that jection on federal
procurement says that the federal government will use refu



derived fuel or other recovery materials as a supplementary



or primary fuel if they are already using fossil fuel.  It



only applies to the federal government to the maximum extent



possible.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  That's federally-owned boilers?







Speaker Canfield:  Federally-owned boilers, it would not be



a private power company.  I should add that other... other



public utilities or private utilities do not feel that refugfe



derived fuel is necessarily a detriment to their boilers.



Union Electric in St. Louis is a prime example.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Thank you, sir.







Moderator:  Before the next speaker,  I'd say again  that Mr. John



Shanbo has a message here if he's in  the audience.   It says it's



important- very important.  Go ahead.

-------
75
Question:  My name is Chuck Wiggl-y, SeairPy County, Florida.
Ah- I too have the same problem with private power companies.
We are experiencing the same difficulty with Gulf Power in
Pensacola.  They say this resource recovery, as far as using
solid waste, would be detrimental to their boilers.  Now,
I've also talked to some people who are having the same pro-
blem, it seems, in this part of the Country.

Speaker Canfield:  What do you feel that we should be doing
to resolve that problem?

Question:  (Same Speaker)  Well, I'm not real sure it's a...
so much of a technical problem, one of the big things that
Gulf Power has brought up would be not only detrimental to their
boilers, but would also degrade their air quality, and this
would have an impact on permit under the Air Quality Act.  There
may be more information generated by EPA to the industries indi-
cating that it might not be such a detriment to their operation,
or some sort of discussion panel set-up with industry, both
government and federal officials to go over these problems?

Speaker Canfield:  Good thinking.

Question:  Tom Tiesler, the State of Tennessee, again.  You
just said that it would be a requirement that federal facili-
ties, you used refuse-derived fuel, in their boilers.  From
the national point, that's practical?  Would this apply to TVA.
Tennessee Valley Authority?

-------
76
Speaker Canfield:  Yes.  (Pause)  We already have guidelines


for federal facilities on the use of refuge derived fuel or


solid wastes as an energy source that is already applicable to


federal facilities.  The requirement in this Law is really
'£•
^-

not a new...is not a new addition.  It really just reinforces


the existing guidelines we do have that are applicable to


fjsderal facilities.





Question:   Paul Wagner, MayesjSudderth and Etheredge.  Pertaining


to Section 4008 and the portion of that section which deals with


assistance to communities for resource recovery studies.  I


wonder, first of all, what's the status, if ah- you might be


able to give us to-date might be in initiating that grant program


and can you give us any information on how you see it being


administered.  That is, for example, would it be a partial


grant, total grant, what would be the qualifications and the


priorities for obtaining those funds, who would administer it


and at what level and basically what you see as the application


procedure being?





Speaker Canfield:  I can only reflect on what we've done in a


similar nature in the past.  If you have any kind of ideas as


to how it should be administered and the kind of criteria, we'd


like to hear from you.  We have, in the past several years,


issued, at the federal level through the Congress Business Daily


a set of criteria and solicited grants on a cost-shared basis


with local communities for resource recovery.  We call them

-------
77
implementation grants.  That- the funds were limited each year.



The number of grants to be funded is relatively few.  We don't



have funding.  Authorization for this section is fifteen



million dollars, we don't have appropriations for this section,



yet.  I think much of your answer... much of the answer on how



it will be administered, who will administer it and what the



criteria will be when the flow of money will start is going



to be tied to the magnitude of the appropriations for that



section.  But, I think if you want to get a general feel for



it you could refer back to the kinds of criteria that we've



published for those grants in the past which are available.







Moderator:  We have time for about one more speaker and we



have a gentleman here, ready.







Question:  My name is John Lynch, and I'm Vice-President of



Garden State Paper Company.  And, incidentally, I made similar



remarks last night.  So, for those of you who were here, my



associate is quite skilled as a member of a one-man-band.



He'll be performing up at the top of the escalator, if you'd



like to step out for a couple of minutes.  Garden State Paper



Company is the world's largest recycler of used news into fresh



newsprint.  My purpose in speaking here today on conservation



and recovery is to underline the value of paper as an import-



ant resource.  I want to preface this statement by saying that



Garden State Paper, a subsidiary of Media General of Richmond,

-------
78
Virginia, has recycling mills in Garfield, New Jersey, Pomona,



California and a joint-venture mill with Field Enterprises in



Alsip, Illinois.  These three mills consumed more than a half-



million tons of used newspaper in 1976.  We recently completed



construction of a joint venture mill with the Mexican govern-



ment.  The mill, located two-hundred and fifty miles north of



Mexico City, has an initial capacity of sixty-one thousand



metric tons which is expected to be doubled in the near future.



Much of the paperstock raw material for this mill comes from



the southwestern United States.  We have selected this public



meeting of the EPA to make our statement because we are consider-



ing construction of a paper recycle mill in the State of Georgia.



Our company has given continuous support to recovery and re-



cycling of all resources in the solid waste stream, but today



I would like to focus specifically on paper.  In the months



ahead, the municipalities, the counties, and the states that



comprise Region IV will be facing decisions on how to manage



the paper in the solid waste stream.  An option they will be



faced with is burning refuse for energy.  An argument has been



made that burning paper fraction of the waste stream for energy



constitutes an efficient and beneficial utilization of that



portion of the waste stream.   We would like to emphasize that



where a viable  market exists for used paper, burning is not



the best use of that waste in terms of energy or in terms of



most productive utilization.  When paper is recycled there is



an offsetting energy consideration.  According to an article

-------
79
in the Harvard Business Review that quotes the National Associat-
ion of Recycling Industries, "the use of recycled fibres rather
than virgin pulp in paper manufacturing results in energy savings
ranging from sixty to seventy percent."  In effect, burning old
newspapers for energy is a gross waste of energy.  To say it in
a slightly different way, it takes the BTU value of two-tons of
paper to make one-ton of virgin paper.  Pre-sorting can make
available considerable quantities of used newspapers and corru-
gated boxes for recycling, there will still remain in the solid
waste stream a high percentage of paper that is contaminated
and not commercially recoverable.  The paper and boxes that
have been separated at the household, office and business
levels and not get into the waste stream will be available to
the paper industries in the area.  According to your own estimated
figures, the elimination of this portion from the waste would
affect the BTU value of the garbage by five percent or less.  And,
I don't really think the tolerance of these systems even accounts
that.  In addition, these recovered fibres can be used several
times in the recycling process.  And they will still be available
for burning in the end as they eventually find their way into
the contaminated, unrecoverable portion of solid waste.  Therefore,
we urge that in considering how to handle used news and corrugated
that the following steps be taken to develop guidelines for the
most efficient use of this portion of the waste stream:  First,
that on municipal, county or state levels surveys be made to
determine what markets exist or could exist for used newspaper
and corrugated as well as other recyclables.  Second, that

-------
80
industries wishing to purchase these recyclable materials be

given priority to do so.  And thirdly, that in order to assure

the continuous and expected flow described above, that these

industries be asked to guarantee that they will purchase the

recyclable materials specified for a reasonable number of years,

at prices which will be to the advantage of cities or other

sources to provide them for recycling.  Finally, municipalities

should reserve the right to exclude from contracts for the op

operation of Refuse Derived Fuel Systems (RDF) recyclable

materials, such as newspapers and corrugated, recoverable

through household and commercial source separation programs.

We urge that proposed guidelines for identifying regions and

for State solid waste management planning emphasize that

materials recycling is a national objective which must be

reflected to the maximum practical extent in State and local

government plans.  To accomplish national objectives for mater-

ials recovery for recycling into useful products demands that

government at all levels must join with industry in a common

effort to remove existing impediments to the achievement of

these objectives.  And we at Garden State certainly stand

ready to help in anyway we can.




Moderator:  Thank you very much.  If we have additional comments

on resource conservation and recovery and the federal assistance,
                                              ^
please hold them until the end of the next presentation when


the floor will be open to comments on any topic.   The next item

-------
81
on the agenda is state program development, and again, we

            Q                ^
have Mr. Tru/tt DeGeare.  Tru/tt.  (Pause)
           t?
Speaker Truarlt DeGeare:  The RCRA recognizes that the major


role in solid waste management lies with state and local


governments.  This is especially evident in Sub-Title D.  The


states may play a key role in eliminating open-dumps and also


the regulating of the hazardous waste program.  The governor


in consultation with local-elected officials can structure a


mechanism for preparing and implementing solid waste management


plans that's built... that is build one existing at the state


and local level.  At the ^federal level, the Administrator


shall publish guidelines for identification of regions, state


plans and state hazardous waste programs.  Section 4002A of


the Act gives the Administrator six months to publish guide-


lines for the identification of those areas which have common


solid waste problems and who are appropriate municipal planning


regional solid waste service.  This activity is a kick-off of


a three-step process that is suppose to entail eighteen months


according to the calendar set forth in the Act.  Within six


months after the publication of guidelines, the governor in


each s^tate after consultation with local elected-officials


shall promulgate regulations identifying the boundaries of


each area within the state, which, as a result of urban con-


centration, geographic conditions, markets and other factors


is appropriate for carrying out regional solid waste manage-


ment.  The state then has another six months to jointly with ap-
           "&-

propriate elected-officials of general purpose units of local

-------
82
government,  identify an agency to develop the jjtate plan and

identify one or more agencies to implement the plan and identi-

fy which solid waste functions will,  under the plan, be planned

for an carried out by state, by regional or local authorities

or by an agent      of regional, local and state authorities.

Where feasible,agencies designated under Section 208 of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall be considered for

designation.  In summary, the three-steps are during this

eighteen months, EPA will first, publish guidelines on the

identification of planning areas.  Second, governors and local

officials will identify planning areas.  Thirdly, the planning roles

of the various entities involved. Sec. 4002B requires the Administ-

rator, after consultation with appropriate federal, state and local
                                           ^        »

authorities to promulgate regulations containing guidelines

to assist in the development and the implementation of state

solid waste plans.  This is due April of 1978.  The Act dis-

cusses the minimum requirements for approval of stated plans.

And, these requirements includes the identification of the

responsibilities in implementing the state plan, the distri-

bution of federal funds to the authorities responsible for the

development and implementation of the   plans, and  the means

for coordinating regional planning and implementation under

the plan; prohibition of the establishment of new open-dumps

within the jstate; and, the requirement that  all solid wastes,

including solid waste originating in other states but not

including hazardous wastes,  shall be utilized for resource

-------
 83
 recovery or disposal of in sanitary land-fills;  provisions for



 the closing or up-grading of all existing open-dumps within



 the state, and this is related to the requirements of Section



 4005;  provisions for the establishment of such state regulatory



 powers as may be necessary to implement the plan;  provisions



 that no local government within the g_tate shall  be prohibited



 under stand or local law from entering into long-term contract



 for the supply of solid wastes to resource recovery facilities?




-JJK for provisions for such resource conservation or recovery



 and for the disposal of solid wastes in sanitary land-fill or



 any combination of practices that may be necessary for use or



 disposal of solid wastes in a manner that is environmentally




 sound.  RCRA authorizes assistance to state and  local govern-



 ments in a number of places.  Section 4008A(1) was discussed




 a little bit by Tom Canfield, it authorizes thirty million




 dollars for 1978; forty million dollars for 1979.   These funds



 will be for grants to jstates to be distributed to  state, local,



 regional and interstate authorities carrying out planning and




 implementation of state plans as discussed earlier.  This dis-



 tribution of funds will be laid out earlier through the plann-



 ing exercise conducted by the states in conjunction with the



 local  officials.  The money is to be distributed among the



 states on a population basis, except that each state receives




 at least one-half of one-percent of the total funds available.



 Section 4008A(2) authorizes fifteen million dollars for each



 fiscal year, 1978 and 1979 for states, counties, municipalities

-------
84
and municipal agencies, and state and local public solid



waste management authorities for implementation of the



program to provide solid waste management, resource recovery



and resource conservation services and hazardous waste manage-



ment.  This assistance shall include assistance for facility



planning and feasibility studies, expert consultation, survey



and analysis and market needs, marketing of recovered resources,



technology assessment, legal expense, construction feasibility



study, source-separation projects, and physical or economic



investigations or studies.  But, this assistance will not



include any other element of construction or any acquisition



of land or interest in land, or any subsidies for the price



of recovered resource.  Agencies assisted under this sub-



section shall consider existing solid waste management and



hazardous waste management services and facilities, as well



as facilities proposed for construction.  The Law also pro-



vides for assistance to what are described as special communities.



Two and a half million dollars is authorized for each of the next



two fiscal years.  One such community would be allowed per state



and one project would be allowed per state; the project as such



should be included in the state plans.  Section 4009 recognizes



the special needs of rural communities, especially with regard



to meeting the Section 4005 dump closing requirements and this



discussion in the Act leads me to... my interpretation is that



there is no exemption called for as regards to rural or small



communities as related to the dump closing requirement.  These

-------
85
are- this Section authorizes twenty-five million dollars for


each fiscal year, '78 and '79 for grants to the ^tates.  In


the case of these grants, the implementation is allowed to


include construction, but not land acquisition.  There are


various criteria which are pretty stringent for allocation


of these funds and there is an allotment for them.  I want


to emphasize that the planning levels that I've talked about


are all simply authorizations contained within the Act. And


they're based on past history, they do not necessarily relate


in any form to actual funds which say eventually may become


available.  So, a key word of advise which I think is appro-


priate if you have on-going efforts and implementations, don't


stop in anticipation of federal funds becoming available in


the near future.  I'd like to hear any views you might have


on this part of the Act.





Moderator:  Any comments on the state program_developjnent?





Question:  A. S. Chiply, State of Alabama.  I never know what


I'm going to talk about when I get up here.  The business of


state assumption.  The federal Act is divided into two major


portions, I think.  You've got the hazardous waste section which


is mandated either by the state on the state, or the  federal
                          "            •£.              "^

government.  And, you've got the normal solid waste management


which is left up to partly to the grace of the j^tate to imple-


ment.  But these are not separate twins, they are Siamese.


There is a bridge between them in the mandate to close open-

-------
86
dumps.  Whether or not these dumps contains hazardous materials,



whether or not they are lagoons or what-not.  This is a bucket



of worms and one we've got to live with.  I don't know whether



or not we would accept the program as far as hazardous wastes



are concerned.  I don't think anybody else does, because we



have to define what this bullit is that we have to bite.  We



don't know how big it is or what it's made out of.  And, we



don't know whether they're going to bite it or not.  Grants



are fine.  But the question has been raised about the hardship



that the dump closures and all the rest of this makes on small



rural communities.  It is a hardship.  I don't altogether



agree with Mr. Druse that it's impossible for these small



communities to do this, because I think we've done a pretty



good job of it, and it can be done in the since of a mandate.



The public health of people in small communities is just as



important as the public health of people in large communities.



If these mis-managements of solid waste is a question of public



health, then it should concern all of them.  And, if it is



mandated more-or-less that all wastes should be handled in such



and such a manner, then it is an incentive to the smaller



communities to band together to get some economic escape, which



can be done.  As far as the grants are concerned, this provision



in the Act that ah- implementation and construction grants are



available to small communities is somewhat of a farce.  It's



not available.  There's not enough federal money to do this



job for everybody, so there is little dribbles of money avail-



able.  I think there's a portion in this Act on this special

-------
87
communities bit which is to be determined by the Administrator



of the Act in cooperation with the states to determine what is



a special community.  That such grant funds as are- is available



is only available to one such community in each state.  This



is not an incentive, it's a drag, because it means competition



and moneys spent in competition to see which of these small



communities are going to receive this grant.  And normally, the



one that receives it will be the one that is most expertise in



grantsmanship which almost parenthetically means the community



that can best afford to do it on it's own, anyway.  The poor



community   that cannot afford the expertise is the ones most



in need of the money.  So, I'll leave this, we've got a bucket



of worms .







Moderator:  Thank you very much for those remarks, Mr. Chipfy'.



The floor is open for comments, questions or remarks on any



subject of the Law.
Question:  My name is John Connors-, I 'm from the small city



of Athens, Alabama, about sixteen-thousand people.  We operate



a joint county and city land-fill which is successful.  We



bury- everything except the hazardous waste and liquids.  They



are referred to the County Health Department and if they are



permitted to bury in the land-fill, then we bury them on permit



of the County Health Department.  What happens to them if they



are not okayed by the ah- County Health Department, I don't

-------
88
know.  Now, we are concerned with the collection of resource


recovery materials.  We would like to collect as many of these


items as we can properly collect so that it would extend the


life of our land-fills.  We're concerned about this because they


are rapidly filling up with the amounts of garbage and trash


that we have.  Now, one of the items that concerns us is the


throw-away items, such as bottles and cans.  I understand that


the federal government has instituted a program at some of


their installations where they charge a fee, no matter whether


the can is returnable or not.  Is this true?





Moderator:  Tom, would you like to address that for us, please?
Speaker Canfield:  Our guidelines, ah- require  that a federal


agency that S*res beer or soft drinks that those cans... cans


or bottles must carry  a deposit and those cans or bottles


can be returned, can be recycled °r  re-used and re-filled, again.
Question:  (Same Speaker)  How successful has this been?  Can


you tell me?




                                                      eJ-e-
Speaker Canfield:  The guidelines were finalized in la-st


September.  The date that the agencies have to decide how


they're going to implement them is December 1977.  We've begun

                                              &lls
a test, the Department of Defense, we think, satFS ninety or


ninety- five percent of all beverages within the United States


and they are starting a test of ten facilities.  All of those

-------
89
tests are to start in June.  The only federal agency that I

can think of right now that has implemented it on their own

has been Yosemite National Parkjwhich implemented it last

summer, voluntarily, and without the requirement of the guide-

line, plans on carrying it out forever.  They achieved a

seventy-percent return rate on all their containers.  It

increased their gross profits, increased the amount of material

that they recycled.and they felt it was a success and they do

plan to continue it.



Question:  (Same Speaker)   Thank you, sir.  (Pause)



Question:  Durham Shelton, Kentucky.  I have a question here

regarding what flexibility or options do you see relative to

the mechanics- mechanisms which may be available to governors.

And, the definition of planning areas.  I'm considering that

some states have special districts and special planning areas

already set-up under law and the law is rather specific

relative to involving local officials.  And, I'm wondering

what- how broad that definition is going to be and what might

be possible?


                                <3-
Moderator:   Ah- I think that Tru/tt can speak to that.  I

might ask you to first of all give us how you think it ought

to be.

-------
90
Question:   (Same Speaker)   Well, I don't think I'm in a position



at the moment to say specifically how I think it ought to be.



I know what the objective is that you have in mind and I'm



wondering whether or not what happens should be based upon



the ability to meet the objective upon the specific mechanisms



involved as stipulated.







Moderator:  Will you speak to that, Tru^tt?







Speaker DeGeare:  I'll only speak to it in a general manner,



because I'm not coming to you with any preconceived notions.



The prime concern is to see that the objectives are met.  That



is that workable planning areas are identified for the develop^



ment and implementation of the state plan.  And ah- I would



think that there should be considerable latitude to accommodate



the various, previous, collective agencies that have been



established within the state if those are indeed acceptable



in terms of a workable plan.







Moderator:  I've discuss this, Mr. Shelton, with people from



several different j^tates.  As you know, we have eight vtates



in Region IV, and I've probably heard a preference given for



the complete spectrum of how to do that.  Some prefer that  it



not get any larger than at the county-level, and others prefer



that it be a much broader scope than that.  Some prefer that



the discretion be left to the governor and the affected bodies

-------
91
and the public at-large to determine how they want to do it


in their particular area.  Personally, I would hope that our


guidelines are broad enough to- the agencies, the governor


and the local people can pretty much decide exactly how they


want to put it together in their area and who they want to


implement the plan once it's done.




Question:  (Same Speaker)  Thank you.



                T-                irff" ^
Question:  Peter Dawson with Henn«r-a«tt Durham and Richardson.


I have an amazing article that sort of summarizes the Law, may


even take it a little bit out of context.  I'd like to read


one phrase of it, I'm not even sure what they mean.  It says:


Guidelines will be published for developing performance stand-


ards for solid waste management practices, including deciding


the location, design and construction of facilities, and guide-


lines for spates in planning open-dumping.  Now, the open-


dumping, I think, has been covered pretty well, but could you


tell me what's referred to as far as performance standards


concerning location and design of solid waste facilities?




Moderator:   I think he's referring to 1008, and if you want


to speak to that?




Speaker DeGeare:  That is the general guideline section.  Con-


gress said for us to develop guidelines, and these are not

-------
92
mandatory regulations, they are simply guidelines, in our
opinion, describing various alternatives and how well they
perform... and how well they perform.  This is not just in
terms of hardware, it's also site selection with regards to
disposal sites, especially.

Question:  (Same Speaker)  Okay...

Moderator:  May I offer to you that I don't know if you've
travelled in other parts of the Country, but perhaps other
parts of the Country the stated programs may not be as well
developed as they are in the southeast and perhaps they could
use some guidelines in developing j^tate programs and develop-
ing local programs in solid waste.  I think this is one area
where these guidelines could be useful and helpful and will
be.  In addition to that, they may in fact be helpful to
amplify or support the standards and criteria that are already
under effect in state laws as the state programs attempt to
explain the reasons for approving a site and a particular
location or not approving at site.

Question:   (Same Speaker)  Okay, that helped me.  My concern
was, it seemed like a duplication of effort, if I was inter-
preting this article correctly.  But, I understand what they
were driving at now, with your comment.  I had two comments I
wanted to make concerning revisions to... I'm getting a little
ahead of the game since you haven't written the criteria yet,

-------
you obviously don't want to talk about revisions, yet.  But,



based on other programs, I'm sure there's going to be some



revisions coming along which will be necessary when different



problems come up.  But, one thing I'd like to suggest or



ask is that there's been a problem with P.L. 92-500 in that



the regulations- the ah- special conditions for grants are



set-up so that if revisions are and what time they've made



and whatever revisions that are required will be- will need to



be met as far as an on-going program.  As a specific example,



like the 201, like if a revision is made anywhere along the



time-frame which you're under-going, the 201 process... the



201 has to be brought up-to-date with those revisions.  Which,



legally, it may be required, but it wrecks havort with plann-



ing processes, say if you're ninety percent complete with a



program and a revision comes along and change it, then you've



got to drop back maybe three or four months of work and start



over again.  Some time-frame for these revisions could be



implemented as far as this Act saying that this revision will



become active in four months or six months or twelve months.



I think it will make the whole planning process much more



beneficial in the long run.  There may be some legal ramifi-



cations of that that I'm not aware of.  The other comment that



I'd like to make is that in one of your slides you had a



phrase in there about reducing public risks in implementing



resource recovery facilities which is an important point.  The



comment that I would like to make is that the implementing the

-------
94
program needs to be made aware of this as they reduce their

risks they usually reduce the amount of potential revenue they

could get.  And, I'm not sure some really realize that until

after it's too late, until after negotiations are already final-

ized, and it's legally binding that they've got to go through

with the reduced risks.  And then they realize then at that

point that they're not going to get near as much of the revenues.

And if they do have a trade-off  there then they  need to be

aware of it before they go through with it.



Moderator:  That's a good point about the revisions.  I

appreciate the havoc that perhaps has been caused in changed

requirements with the water program 201 planning program,

I'm familiar with that and I hope these gentlemen will indeed

take that fact with them to Washington as they prepare our

regulations and perhaps even in the future, decide they might

need some revisions.  Yes, go right ahead.



Speaker DeGeare:  I'd like to follow-up a little bit more on

the guidelines question you raised.  That's the area that I

especially wanted to solicit any viewpoints you might have on

which practices should be addressed in the priority sequence.



Question:  My name is Walter Trish, Coast Regional Planning

Council.  I have a concern, being a planner, and in a regional

planning council.  Again you see the federal government going
                              «,/Y     ^
into what I would call a pragnwftation.  It began to take a more

-------
95
of a block approach, instead of categorical during the sixties,



and I'm beginning to see, like with the health planning agencies,



kind of going off and doing their own planning and doing it by



themselves.  And again, I'm beginning to see... it looks like



some of EPA's programs may be doing the same thing.  I have a



concern for the... like I said, coordination.  I look at EPA



and say who is the land use agency on the federal level, and



you begin the question and you say maybe EPA is because of the



programs.  When you talk about air, when you talk about water



quality, you talk about solid waste management, you're really



getting into crucial areas in terms of land use development



and it's impact.  And, I have my own bias in terms of the



regional planning council, which should be a coordinating



element within the total staffing because we try to deal with



a number of issues.  I mean, we get to transportation, we get



to resource recovery how do we get it to and from and collected.



So, we're dealing with a... I think a gentleman mentioned, I



think a can of worms, and also a can of worms from my perspective



plain.   There is many aspects that can be taken into concern.



I think maybe in 895, I noticed in one of the handouts the 895



is the type of thing that should be used so that everyone



can make their input.







Moderator:   Good point, thank you very much.  Next speaker, go



right ahead.








Question:   Tiesler of Tennessee,  again.   I'd like to ask a



question about the grants to the  states  to carry-out the program.

-------
96
One is a funding period mentioned in the Act and is a matching



ratio  of monies in the Act?  In other words, fifty-fifty



grants; seventy-five - twenty-five; and, the period of time



that these grants will be continued.  Is this specified or is



there any guidelines along that line, or is that going to be



left up to EPA?







Moderator:  Somebody want to catch that one?







Speaker DeGeare:  There is no funding ratio... no matching ratio.



And the authorization is provided for two fiscal years....







Question:  (Same Speaker)  Okay, I....







Speaker DeGeare:  That's not to say that they won't ever become



available or that it won't become available, and that's not to



say that there's no potential for anything beyond those two



fiscal years.  All we know is what the Law says and it states



authorizations for two fiscal years.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  What we're use to getting is grants



one year at a time and not knowing the next year whether we're



going to have federal money the next year to carry on the pro-



gram, and is this going to continue with this new Act?  The



problem that we face is trying to hire personnel which is a



problem getting positions set-up and then having to tell these



people that we can only guarantee you a job for one year.  It's

-------
97
hard to work with... it's hard to hire people on that basis,



and there needs to be something, say, in the term of at least



two or three years so we can get scaled-up and guarantee



these people that they have a job and hire competent people



to do the work.  I don't know if anything can be done or if



the Act mandate something different from that.  But, if



there's anyway the guidelines can be written along that line,



it sure will be helpful to the states.







Speaker DeGeare:   I think the ah- I don't see the Act preclud-



ing that.  To my knowledge, it's very possible that the grant



regulations could be developed so to allow a funding program-



say a three year program.







Question:  (Same Speaker)  I'd like to recommend that, for



what it's worth,  because it's important to the states.







Moderator:  I'd like to point out to you Tom, perhaps you've



read this the same as I have, but under the definitions, it says



for the purposes of federal financial assistance, other than



the rural communities assistance, the term implementation does



not include the acquisition, leasing, construction or modifi-



cation of facilities or equipment or the acquisition, leasing



or improvement of land.  And, it has an 'and' there and that



'and' is not underlined, but my opinion is it should be.  It



said 'and' after December 31, 1979 such terms does not include

-------
98
salaries of employees due pursuant to Sub-Title D of this Act.
Now, I'd be most happy to hear what the people from the
Washington staff has to say about that, but it says to me that
Congress intends for us to get our planning done prior to that
date and after that date, they want it carried out.  (Pause)
That is, with federal money.

Speaker DeGeare:  Also, the provision for federal assistance in
Section 4008 says that funds can be used for the development and
implementation.  They jumb from talking about the restrictions
on implementation.  So, if you're in a planning development pro-
cess or if you're using people for planning development as
opposed to implementation, I don't think there's any exclusion
with regards to salaries on that.  But, there is limitation.

Speaker Kovalick:  Jim, I just wanted to make a comment that
we have to take this Law in the context of other factors going
on in Congress.  And, I think, given the sunset, if you will,
provisions of better interest these days that is programs de-
serve to have a regular re-evaluation whether they are environ-
mental, social or military or whatever, I think, it is less
and less likely to expect Congress to have long dates between
initial passage and the next time they review legislation.  And
the way they ensure that they get around to it  is  that they
turn-off the water in terms of their look at the legislation
every year or two years.  So, I think  it would  be  remiss of
us to think that.  First of all, we're not being singled out

-------
99
in the solid waste field of this Act for individual attention,
but this is an overall trend.  And yet, on the other hand, I
think you realize that it's not likely that we in EPA and you
in the states and local governments would want to start a
relationship to vigorously implement a Law and then not be able
to in some way, keep it up, partially.  So, we get a lot of
questions about the fact that this has '78 and '79 and no more
in it, and I think you can only be comforted a. little in that
we are not being singled out in environmental programs, 'This
is the way things are going.  They deserve to be looked at
every couple of years and the new legis^ure that you'll see
in other areas will probably have the same kind of condition.
Moderator:  Any further comments?  I don't know if you can
hear my stomach grawling over this microphone, but it's about
that time for me.  So, if there's no further comments, I'll
close this public meeting.  Remind you that the record will
be open until our office closes on March llth, that's on a
Friday.  If you have additional comment, or know of someone
that was unable to be here that you think they would like to
have something to say about this Act or any portion of it,
either send yours in or ask them to send theirs in.  I thank
you all for coming here.  We appreciate your help and we hope
to have more of this sort of thing in the future as we pro-
ceed down the road to developing our regulations, guidelines,
criteria and so forth.  Thank you very much.

-------
100
Statement by Richard G. Simmons, Chairman, State of Florida
Resource Recovery Council before the EPA Region IV Public
Meeting on P. L. 94-580, February 23-24, 1977, Atlanta,
Georgia.  My name is Richard G. Simmons.  I am City Manager
of West Palm Beach, Florida; but I am speaking today on
behalf of the State of Florida Resource Recovery Council.
In 1974 I was appointed by Governor Reubin Askew to serve
as Chairman of the Council.  On behalf of the State of Florida
and its localities, I want to express my appreciation to the
U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency and to its Office of
Solid Waste for this opportunity to present our views on the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  The Florida
Resource Recovery COuncil supported P. L. 94-580.  Our favor-
able analysis of the Bill was given to Governor Askew and to
all members of the Florida Congressional delegation.  We were
pleased to see the Bill received their unanimous support.  But
my personal interest in this legislation goes back to 1972
when I was asked by the National League of Cities and U. S.
Conference of Mayors to serve on the National Municipal Solid
Waste Task Force.  That Task Force looked at the needs of
cities in solid waste management and made several legislative
proposal to EPA and to the Congress.  Through the National
League of Cities Task Force and as a member of the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee for the National Commission on Productivity,
I also learned more about EPA's mission and the difficult job
they have.  I gained respect for EPA staff and what they can

-------
101
accomplish when given a chance.  I have been pleased, therefore,



to see new federal solid waste legislation that includes many



of the provisions we first proposed years ago.  (Who knows, maybe



I can even convince my city commissioners that all those trips



to Washington were worth it,) consequently, I believe P. L. 94-



580 is a good piece of legislation.  On behalf of the entire



Council, I applaud its goals and objectives; and my comments



are intended to improve its administration and not in any way to



find fault with its intent.  My remarks today are divided into



two parts.  First, I want to summarize what we've already done



under state legislation in Florida.  Then secondly, I think it



will be obvious why certain potential problems in the new Federal



Act concern us.  One.  Florida, like several other states, did



not wait for Congressional action to establish state policy on



solid waste and resource recovery.  Through the leadership of



Senator Guy Spicola of Tampa and others, the Florida Legislature



in 1974 passed the Resource Recovery and Management Act.  This



Act did three things:  It made adequate solid waste management



and resource recovery goals of the state.  It set forth the



steps that would be taken to achieve these objectives.  And it



assigned responsibility for each of the tasks necessary to



achieve the legislative goals.  For example, the Law required



the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to develop



a statewide resource recovery and management program.  The



Florida Law further required the statewide program to include



guidelines for local governments to provide for proper handling

-------
102
and control of solid wastes from storage to collection, transfer,



disposal and recycling.  The Department was given authority to



permit all solid waste handling facilities and has made a dili-



gent effort to bring all disposal sites into compliance with



state requirements.  The Law also required local governments to



prepare comprehensive solid waste plans for approval by the



state environmental agency.  In addition to the responsibilities



defined for the Department of Environmental Regulation and for



local governments, a separate but complimentary mission was



assigned to the Resource Recovery Council, a thirteen-member



body established to advise the Governor and the Legislature.



The Council was told to:  One.  Study the laws and programs of



other states; two.  Consult with local governments, regional



planning councils, business, industry and environmental groups;



three.  Designate the areas where resource recovery is econo-



mically practical and which should be required to plan for



resource recovery; and four.  Make recommendations for and



approve the state program before its adoption.  In effect, the



Council was given the charge of assessing the feasibility for



resource recovery in Florida and identifying the logical plann-



ing regions.  At the same time, the COuncil was made the vehicle



for broad public participation in the program.  This is evidenced



by the make-up of the Council and its appointive nature.  The



nine council members appointed by Governor Askew represent cities,



counties, business and industry, agriculture, environmental groups,



professional engineering and the universities.  There  are also



two members each from the House and the Senate.  So, what have

-------
103
we done?  The Department of Environmental Regulation in 1976
adopted a statewide waste management and resource recovery
program.  Under the Florida program, all cities and counties
are required to develop coordinated solid waste management plans.
Amendments proposed to this session of the Legislature will
make those plans countywide, if passed.  The Resource Recovery
COuncil has designated nineteen county area which, on the basis
of population, waste volumes, and available markets, are required
to plan for resource recovery.  Local plans are due by July 1,
1978.  But the Council has proposed an amendment to change that
date to July 1, 1979, to make this requirement consistent with
the planning deadlines in the Florida Local Government Compre-
hensive Planning Act of 1975.  The Florida program is comprehen-
sive.  For instance, it includes hazardous wastes, although its
provisions do not go as far as 94-580.  Furthermore, the State
program is designed for end results not endless planning.  Every
local or regional plan must include an implementation schedule
which will be monitored by the Department of Environmental
Regulation.  Two.  Now let me turn to what concerns us about
the forthcoming guidelines and regulations under the new Law.
As you can see from my summary of the Florida program, the
Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act appears very
compatible with the new Federal Law.  Based upon the language
of P. L. 94-580, we expect only minor revisions or additions
to our State program.  1.   P. L. 94-580 authorizes preventive
medicine, not voluminous prescriptions for everything that ails

-------
104
us.  So let your guidelines be simple guidelines,  not detailed



specifications.  2.  Specifically, the guidelines  for identi-



fication of planning regions mandated in Section 4002A, and



due almost immediately, should not be written so narrowly and



rigidly that Florida, or any other state, would have to redo



something that has already been done.  Several states now have



four or five years of solid waste planning experience, during



the past two years, Florida has accomplished the objectives of



Section 4002A and used the same guiding criteria contained



therein to do so.  3.  Similarly, in the guidelines for state



plans, Section 4002B, all eleven of the guiding criteria in



sub-section C have been considered in Flroida.  Likewise,



we believe the Flroida program also meets the minimum require-



ments in Section 4003 for approval of state plans, although



the judgement will be yours to make, of course.  Likewise, we



believe Chapter 17-7, Part II of the Florida Administrative



Code, adopted by the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission



in 1976, accomplishes the objectives of Section 4006.  You



can appreciate the time consumed by public hearings and meetings.



Members and staff of the Council have already participated in



close to seventy-five public meetings and numerous hearings.



The Department of Environmental Regulation has invested eighteen



months of intensive staff time to carry out its responsibilities



under Florida Law.  You will not find us eager to  repeat the



process.  4.  In connection with points two and three above,



Section 4001 makes it absolutely clear that the objectives of

-------
105
Sub-Title D (State Solid Waste Plans) are "to assist", and I
emphasize assist.  Section 4001 states further that these
"objectives are to be accomplished through federal technical
and financial assistance to states."  Assistance, not regulation,
and Section 4001 concludes by stating that the federal guidelines
are to "foster cooperation among federal, state and local govern-
ments and private industry."  Cooperation, not regulation.  We
in Florida accept the regulatory provisions of the Act where
the Congressional intent is clearly regulatory, such as in
Sub-Title C (Hazardous Waste Management); but we oppose any
attempts to encumber the several guidelines in Sub-Title D
with regulatory intent or language when such is not authorized.
5.  We have similar concerns about the various solid waste
information guidelines required in Section 1008.  Clearly, these
guidelines are supposed to provide positive, helpful guidance,
not regulations.  We also suggest that this information be pre-
sented in a format that is brief, readable, and practical.
6.  I have no comment on Sub-Title C, since hazardous waste
management is appropriately under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Environmental Regulation.  7.  We see a potential
problem in Section 4004 when later this year EPA must define
sanitary land-fills versus open dumps.  We believe the intent
of this Section is to close, up-grade and ban open-dumps through
state regulation and enforcement, not federal regulation of local
sanitary land-fills.  True, one man's "sanitary land-fill" has
often been someone else's "open-dump," so we endorse the need

-------
106
for standardization;  but we also stress the vast differences
in geological and hydrological conditions from place to place
and the danger of undermining state regulatory programs already
in place.   8.  The special studies for glass recovery and for
small scale technology,  authorized in Section 8002,  are urgently
needed and I encourage you to schedule and complete them as
soon as possible.  9.  The model codes authorized in Section
8003D, are also badly needed, much more so than some of the
other items.  For example, our staff ran a search (through EPA's
Solid Waste Information Retrieval System) on the title to or
ownership of solid waste, and legal precedents for its use in
local ordinances and contracts.  The search did not yield any-
thing we could use.  In fact, we have found research on legal
and institutional issues in resource recovery is lagging behind
the work on economic and technical evaluations.  10.  EPA has
new and broarder authority for technical assistance under P. L.
94-580.  We believe that any private firm retained by EPA to
render assistance to state and local governments should be
ineligible for follow on contractural work with the recipient
of the federal assistance.  Appropriate state agencies and
officials should receive proper and advance notice of EPA assist-
ance activities  in Section 2003 should be assembled and assigned
in a manner that will avoid both  actual and potential conflicts
of interest.  11.  Federal financial assistance is also author-
ized under P. L. 94-580.   In  good government fashion, all of the
monies authorized under the Act are tied to planning requirements.
However, it appears that  for  many Sntaaa and local governments,

-------
107
completion of the various planning requirements will come well

before the federal funds.  If the earliest availability of

funds is fiscal 1978, widespread distribution of those funds

appears unlikely before 1979.  As I mentioned earlier, if our

proposed amendments are passed, Florida local governments will

be required to submit their plans in 1979.  In short, a concen-

trated effort must be made to obtain ample appropriations and

rapid distribution of funds or else reimbursement should be

allowed for planning expenditures already made.  In conclusion,

we concur wholeheartedly with the view of Sheldon Meyers,

Director of EPA's Office of Solid Waste, that this Law does

not provide all the answers to complex issues but instead

establishes "a pattern for interaction" and an "assumption of

roles by all the key parties" involved in solid waste manage-

ment and resource recovery.  You have a difficult job to do.

But your tasks are no more difficult than those placed upon

state and local governments.  We must work together.  You may

be assured of our interest and cooperation.
     The Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Transcript on
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Thursday,
February 24, 1977 closed Friday, March 11, 1977.   Total pages
107.

-------
Additional statements for the record submitted from:
Mr. Moses N. McCall, III, Chief
Land Protection Branch
Department of Human Resources
Environmental Protection Division
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia  30334

Mr. Moses N. McCall, III, Chief
Land Protection Branch
Department of Human Resources
Environmental Protection Division
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia  30334

Donald I. Hackney
Director of Sanitation
Department of Public Services
P.O. Box 1027
Savannah, Georgia  31402

Mr. J. C. Edwards
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport, Tennessee  37662

Mr. Clark Gregory, Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Accounting
Morris Brown College
Atlanta, Georgia  30314

Jerry C. Perkins, Head
Solid Waste & Vector Control Branch
Sanitary Engineering Section
Department of Human Resources
P. O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina  27602
Letter dated: 3/11/77
Letter dated: 3/3/77
Letter dated: 2/22/77
Letter dated: 3/10/77
Letter dated: 3/9/77
Letter dated: 3/9/77

-------
                                                of ^Natural
JOE D. TANNER
 Commissioner
                                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

                                               270 WASHINGTON STREET S W
                                                 ATLANTA GEORGIA 30334
J LEONARD LEDBETTER
   Division Director
                                               ,.   ,  , ,  ,„_-
                                               March 11, 1977
Mr. James H.  Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Hazardous Materials Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta,  Georgia  30308

Dear Jim:

Although I made several comments at the recent public meetings regarding
RCRA, the following written comments are being submitted to be included as
a part of the record.

1.  Federal RCRA implementation policy should establish, in consultation
    with the states, national goals and broad guidelines for the achievement
    of these goals.  The states, however, must be permitted to develop their
    solid waste management programs in concert with  these guidelines while
    at the same time maintaining maximum flexibility.  The Federal regulatory
    role should be designed to support state and local regulatory responsi-
    bilities rather than to over-ride, pre-empt  or duplicate them.

2.  The criteria for determining what wastes are hazardous will have a direct
    bearing on the states' abilities and desires to  implement hazardous
    waste programs.  The criteria should establish a realistic decision tree
    approach for determination and should not be too broad so as to list
    virtually all wastes as hazardous.

3.  If pits, ponds, and lagoons are to be covered under regulations developed
    pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, they should not be covered under
    RCRA.

4.  Disposal sites which have been closed should not be addressed during the
    disposal site inventory.
                                                            kl  MAR 1 1  ;977  | ] |
                                                             ik^aiiJlj
                                                           SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BRANCH
             AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

-------
Mr. James H. Scarbrough
March 11, 1977
Page 2
5.  Planning guidelines must be broad to allow maximum flexibility to the
    states.  In addition, the guidelines should not require the enactment
    of state legislation, should not disrupt what has already occurred in
    planning, and should not mandate that 208 water planning agencies also
    do solid waste planning.


Please advise if you have questions.

                                       Sincerely,
                                       Moses N. McCall, III, Chief
                                       Land Protection Branch
MNM:bbk

cc:  Mr. James W. Dunbar
     Mr. John D. Taylor, Jr.

-------
                                      bparlmoti  of ^atural
   JOED. TANNER
    Commissioner
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

      270 WASHINGTON STREET S W
        ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334
J. LEONARD LEDBETTER

   Division Director
         March  3, 1977
   Mr. James H. Scarbrough, Chief
   Residuals Management Branch
   Hazardous Materials Division
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Region IV
   345 Courtland Street, N.E.
   Atlanta, Georgia  30308

   Dear Jim:

   At the recent public discussion of PL 94-580 you indicated that the record
   would remain open for the receipt of additional comments until March 11, 1977.
   Please accept the attached letter from Mr. Donald I. Hackney of Savannah as
   supplemental to the comments presented in his behalf by Mr. John Taylor of
   this office.  We would appreciate inclusion of this letter in the final
   hearing transcript.
                                          Sincerely,
                                           ases N. McCall, III, Chief
                                          Land Protection Branch
   MNM:bbk

   Attachment

   cc:  Mr.  Donald I. Hackney

-------
                                      aframtalf,
                              DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES

                                       p o BOX IO27

                                   SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31403
February 22, 1977
Mr. Moses N. McCall, III
Land Protection Branch, EPD
270 Washington Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia  3033*1

Dear Mr. McCall:

Thank you for your letter announcing public discussion sessions  on the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL94-580)  to be  held
on February 23 and 24.  We will not be able to send anyone to  the  meet-
ings but do have comments we would like entered into the record.

It is our understanding that under the new Act, one of EPA's first ob-
jectives is to draft a definition of a sanitary landfill.   We  agree with
some of the views of Mr. Wayne D. Trewhitt, Chairman of the National Solid
Wastes Management Association's Institute of Waste Technology, which are
paraphrased below:

          Sweeping, specific criteria from the federal level could
          seriously hamper landfill disposal efforts in many states.
          A broad federal definition of a sanitary landfill must be
          results-oriented, not operationally oriented,  and its  In-
          tent should be that a landfill not harm its surrounding
          environment relative to the environment's current condition.
          If the water table at the proposed landfill site is  alretJy
          contaminated, then the landfill can be engineered so any dis-
          charge is below current acceptable levels of contaninsfcion.
          It would not make much sense to me to Increase disposal  costs
          for the sake of discharging pure water into an already con-
          taminated source.

This type criteria would be especially helpfull in Coastal areas where the
water table is usually high.  Arbitrary distances required between the bot-
tom of a trench and the water table may be unnecessary and could rule out
many landfill sites.

We appreciate receiving notification of the meetings and the opportunity to
participate.

Sincerely,
DONALD I. HACKNEY
DIRECTOR OP SANITATION

DIH/jar

-------
                     ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL
                       SOLID fcRSIE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS
                     Boon 824, 270 Washington Street,  S.W.

                                                        Moses N.  McCall,  III
                                                              President
March 3, 1977
Mr. Nicholas Humber, Director
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Nick:

We appreciate receiving the Technical Assistance Program Strategy Paper and
the invitation to the March 9, 1977, meeting.  Although I will be unable
to attend, other State representatives will be there.  As a whole, I find
the overall strategy paper to be well done; however, I offer the following
comments for your consideration:

     1.  Page 2--I disagree with the statement that "regulatory approach
     will not be implemented by State and local government —" without
     TA from EPA.  This may indeed occur in some instances, but it
     certainly is not an absolute fact.

     2.  Page 4--EPA is not "the only source of objective information dealing
     with solid waste management in a comprehensive manner."  Certainly your
     agency is the major source, but other organizations such as APWA are
     also sources.

     3.  Page 6--What is the supporting data behind the flat statement that
     "no new State initiatives would be undertaken and only ten more plants
     would successfully be built by communities by 1985." without technical
     assistance?

     4.  Plage 6--I disagree with the statement in item 3 that "States would
     not provide adequately for the monitoring, enforcement, etc."  See
     statement 1 above.

     5.  Page 7--There appears to be a word or phrase missing after line 9
     of the Discussion.

     6.  Page 7, Issue No. 1--EPA should exercise Option A, and give
     technical assistance a higher priority than regulation.  EPA regulatory
     authority under RCRA is limited to hazardous wastes.

-------
Mr. Nicholas Humber
March 3, 1977
Page 3
     7.  Page 8, Issue No. 2--EPA should exercise Option C and develop a
     comprehensive technical assistance role.

     8.  Page 10, Issue No. 3--EPA should exercise Option B.  I do not
     agree, however, that transfer of responsibility to the regions should
     be contingent on the regions having 9 full time employees who have
     completed a headquarters training and qualification program.  The size and
     complexity of the regions and their ability to carry out technical assis-
     tance should determine when the transfer of responsibility occurs.

     9.  Page 12, Issue No. 4--EPA should exercise Option A.  Technical
     Assistance has been the major thrust of OSW for years.  TA efforts
     have contributed greatly to improved programs and certainly should be
     continued.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.  Please contact us if you have
questions.
                                       Moses N. McCall, III
                                       President
MW:bbk

cc:  ASTSWMO Board of Directors
     Ms. Beatrice Tylutki
    ^Mr. James H. Scarbrough
     Mr. William B. DeVille
     Mr. David W. Johnson

-------
                        TENNESSEE  EASTMAN  COMPANY
                               A Division o! Eastman Kodak Company
                           KINGSPORT, TENNESSEE 37662 • 615 246-2111
March 10, 1977
James H. Scarbrough, P. E.
Region IV, U. S. Environmental
   Protection Agency
345 Courtland Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia   30308

Dear Mr. Scarbrough:

A representative of Tennessee Eastman Company, Mr. W. M. Crawford, attended
the public discussion session on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA) in Atlanta on February 24.  We appreciate this opportunity
for public participation in the formulation of the Environmental Protection
Agency's policies and programs for implementing the RCRA.  We also appreciate
your invitation to submit written responses and we ask  that you consider the
following comments which relate to Subtitle C, "Hazardous Waste Management."

The act provides for standards to include extensive record-keeping and
reporting with respect to generation, transporting, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous wastes.  Furthermore, treatment, storage, and
disposal will also be subject to standards for construction and operation
of facilities.  In those instances where hazardous wastes are transported
from one premises to another and/or custody of the wastes changes hands,
the need for regulating such operations at the various  steps is apparent.
However, in cases where two or more phases of the generation-through-disposal
cycle are performed on the same premises and without change in custody,
regulations should apply only to the transfer of hazardous waste from such
premises or to another responsible person.  In many cases, the treatment
process will result in a relatively small quantity, if  any, of residual
hazardous waste and the emissions or discharges from the treatment process
will be subject to regulation under federal and/or state air and water
regulatory authority.

The purposes of the RCRA will not be served by imposing duplicate regulation
on such operations.  The regulations to be promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency and/or the states should provide exemptions for such
operations and any others for which any harmful emissions or discharges
are subject to regulation under other acts.  Such an approach is necessary
in order that the provisions of Section 1006 of the RCRA, quoted in part
below, will be implemented.

         (b) INTEGRATION WITH OTHER ACTS - The Administrator shall
     integrate all provisions of this act for purposes  of administration
     and enforcement and shall avoid duplication, to the maximum extent
     practicable, with the appropriate provisions of the Clean Air Act
     (42 U.S.C. 1857 and following), the Federal Water Pollution Control
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1151 and following), the Federal Insecticide,

-------
Mr. James H. Scarbrough
Page 2
March 10, 1977
     Fungicide, and Eodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135 and f ollowing) , the
     Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f and following), the Marine
     Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401
     and following) and such other Acts of Congress as grant regulatory
     authority to the Administrator.

As criteria are developed for identifying and listing hazardous wastes
under Section 3001, attention should be given to the words "significantly
contribute" and "substantial .  . . hazard" (underlining added) as used in
the Act's definition of hazardous waste.  This will assure that priority is
given to the more serious problems without the unnecessary delay and
confusion which would be inherent in a system designed to cover all possible
risks.  Definitions of hazardous waste in some of the earlier bills; for
example, a definition including any quantity of a material designated as a
toxic pollutant, hazardous substance, or hazardo-us air contaminant under
other acts, were rejected as Congress finalized the RCRA.  Thus it is
apparent that our suggestion on this matter is consistent with Congressional
intent.  Subtitle D provides for the regulation of other solid wastes under
state and regional solid waste plans.  Implementation of that Subtitle will
enable the states and regions to establish appropriate priorities for such
regulation.
J. C. Edwards

csf

-------
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION                        ,,   ,  ..  ,„,-,
                                           March 9,  1977
      Mr.  James  H.  Scarbrough,  Chief
      Residuals  Management  Branch
      U.S.  EPA
      345  Courtland Street,  N.E.
      Atlanta, Georgia   30308

      Dear Mr. Scarbrough:

            Thank you for the opportunity to  comment  on RCRA.   I would  appreciate your
      attaching  the enclosed article and schematic to  your  list of comments.   I  do
      not  want to see artificial  barriers placed  in  the way of any future "land
      application of wastes" systems that are  designed for  the benefit of the soil.
           Thank you.
                                           Sincerely,
                                          Clark  Gregor
                                          Assistant
                                                               f Accounting
CJ=
                                         Since 1881

-------
       Compost  May Be  The Most Misunderstood
                                 Product  in  America
                                        CLARK GREGORY, Ph  D
                                         Georgia Institute oj TethnoJogv
\ REVIEW ot the current <>///< tal lit-
erature  in  composting could easily
lead to the conclusion that composting
is not a viahk  alternative  to  solid
waste treatment either in  the I  S or
burope ' 4  Having just returned  from
an extensive trip through L-urope, I
can assure >->u that  such  a picture of
composting  is misleading  Compost
plants ute  operating  smi < \\fully in
all parts ot  i urope—east  and west—
in spite  ot meager support troni cen-
tral governments Latest figures  show
that the Swiss and Dutch each  com-
post the domestic refuse  (along with
sludge in most cases) ot I 5 percent of
their  respective populations, Czechs.
English,  and Germans—  two to five
percent   I here are about  50  compost
plants operating in I  ranee alone
   I hese [  uropean   compost plants
are producing high-grade  fine-sieved
composts  lor  a large   variety  ot
uses- as  a  soil   amendment  for
ciosion control on vineyard slopes, a
tood  supplement providing  essential
trace  minerals in the diet of piglets,
pi even ting  anemia  and   diarrhea;  a
growing medium tor evergreen  trees
set out on harsh Alpine slopes tor av-
alanche  control, a topsoil substitute
in landscaping, a soil builder tor rec-
lamation and  recultivation  ot  lands
devastated b) strip mining, a fill ma-
terial for depressions in cultivated
fields, a soil structure improver and
soil-enricher  in  basic agriculture,  a
permanent  litter tor  chicken  houses,
tor  soil  improvement on   highway
shoulders and embankments  allowing
higher forms of plant life to  thrive, a
substitute tor heating manure in hot-
house horticulture. ;i  lawn and garden
soil enncher, and so on ad infinitum
The earl\  literature  was encourag-
ing '  ' However, the American expe-
rience with municipal composting in
the 1960's was dismal indeed v
   Municipal composting  as a general
pn'position  has  not  worked in the
I S  1 he most common and recurrent
reason cited tor  this  failure in report
after  report has Iven  '  Iheie's just
no  market   tor  compost  "   I his has
never m ide am sense to  me  I he tact
is that  no  real  market  HH  compost
has been demonsiuted or developed
This  does  not mean  that no  such
market  exists  Compost may be the
inoM   nit sitnder Mood   product  in
A merit a
  The  statement  that  the  lack of
markets  for  compost  is.  the  mu|ur
drawback to its production led me to
undertake a study to determine where
compost is most needed in America.
On   reading   through   Sam   Hart's
booklet  on composting,!  I  became
aware that  compost could help salve
the  wounds inflicted on the American
landscape by thoughtless strip-mining
practices.  An  extensive   literature
search yielded the nature,  extent and
effects   ot    strip    mining   in
America *'  IJ A glance through the
New  York  fnne\  Index indicated the
problems ot  strip-mine reclamation
have  not been  solved, and  in  1972
some 90 I S  Congressmen co-spon-
sored  Ken Hechler's  (D -\V   Va  )
bill  (HR 4556) to ban strip-mining
entirely in the b S
  Scientists,  such as  Mr   Carroll
Duggan  ot Tennessee, and Dr  Her-
mann kick and Dr Eberhard  Spohn
ot Germany, have had some experi-
ence  in reclaiming  stnp mines by
rebuilding  soils Other European sci-
entists have been  studying the effects
ot compost made  from urban  refuse
and  sludge  on  soils,  plants,  and
animals  I he  Europeans"  special in-
terest  in  compost production  and
utih/ation  is erosion control
  Alter writing about 20 letters to
  Mr    Grcf>oi \  traveled  < xti'n\n < /v
throughout  icntnil  Europe  dnitnt>  the
summer  ami hill  ot  1972 ti> Mnd\  the
ittM'iin h  p> oil tu tion, and utilization oft oni-
po*,r He  tra\,'li't! more than 10,000 nitlt'\ in
I'ifjfii conntui">  He but k packed, hitchhiked
and genetiillv w rounded around on t-oi -,
e'\e(itu\ei. llut-ioltur workfis. hou^fHne\
tind t hildrcn  \\ iu> provided ttii'ttl\. beds or
/1oor\  rides, totnersatton inanotteii stKinm'
lout;tic. ti'ul ttitourtiffi'nit'nt, tire  •.tuttt'ml
m io\\  mtin\ Ituuls He i isiied 33 < otn posting
Jtn tin ic\  of  i in IOH\  and  $nnt.!>\  tit \mn\,
Chapes and w.o dist u^sed various '(i< in loner*,,  immufix I in a  \ ami
the European  experts with whom I
wanted to discuss composting,-  ' "' 1
set off on my four-month European
composting odyssey with a round-trip
ticket to  London, $500, a 44-pound
loaded backpack, and  lots ol ques-
tions  The voluminous information 1
gamed in Europe boils down  to this
Europeans   have  been   composting
urban retuse for as many as 40 years
in some places. They  have recognized
that  some soils  need more than  ar-
tificial fertilizers to gam and/or retain
their fertility They have  recognized
that waste disposal is a many-faceted
problem, they  have  found ways to
make their urban  refuse and sludge
beneficial  to  the  land  even when
confronted  with shortsighted,  short-
term and  incomplete economic  and
social considerations  Composting in
Europe is on the upswing in spite of
meager support from centra! govern-
ments.
  Compost  marketers  have   found
new, higher-valued uses  of the life-
giving  material  that provides  soil
humus, e g., the Dutch annually sell
140,000  tons  of high-quality com-
post, 80  percent of which goes  into
what they call recreational uses, gen-
erally landscaping,  at $7 per ton
German  vmeyardists  continue  to
form  cooperatives to supply  them-
selves with an ever-growing supply ot
compost  for  erosion  control   and
moisture  retention on  their  steep!)
sloping vineyards
  The Czech Ministry of Agriculture
has recognized that Czech soils need
more  organic  matter, and has em
barked on a massive compost plant-
building program which will someday
provide virtually every Czech agricul-
tural acre with  12 tons  of compost
every  third  year  The   Europeans
know  that  piglets  raised  on  the
concrete pads, typical of modern hog
husbandry and  thus deprived of soil
to  "root"   in,   are  susceptible  to
anemia  and diarrhea They  discov-
eied that finely-ground compost mix-
lures tec!  to the young pigs effectively
and   economically   remedy   this
problem   1 he>   found  that compost
torms  an  effective base  for  "deep
litter"    chicken-house    practices,
                     Compo\t St ic'it e

-------
greatly reducing the drudgery and ex-
pense  of  chicken-house  cleaning
Ifwv ha\c learned to hang on to ne\\
cottipoMing  operations  in the  early
_WtfM, realizing thut  it take\  time Jot
lot ai mark et \ for t ompo st to develop
   It is eas> to say that  the European
culture   is  based  on  a  'waste-not-
wjnt-not"  ' philosophy,   relatively
and  sadly  lacking in the  L' S   Al-
though this philosophy may  have en-
couraged the search  tor and  develop-
ment of  ways  to  recycle   organic-
wastes,  there is more to it than  that
[ uropeans live  in the same \vorld, the
same western civilisation, that we live
in,  and  our paths seem  to  be  con-
verging  For composting  to  be  prac-
ticed in  Europe or  in  the LI S , the
compost  must  be  produced  cheaply
and  efficiently, and it  must  be ot
\aiue to someone  and available at a
reasonable  price. This takes  the un-
derstanding and cooperation of  a lot
of   people   with   many   different
backgrounds.
   If composting  is so  great,  why
aren't  we  doing  if  "There's  no
market   for   compost,"   they   tell
you  What is compost'*  The kind of
rough compost we are  talking  about
for erosion control in strip-mine rec-
lamation and  highway embankment
stabilization is little more than  pul-
verized  refuse that has been cleaned
up  by   running  it  through  a  self-
cleaning, long, slowly rotating  drum
screen with approximately  two-inch
holes and mixed with digested and/or
devvatered   sewage   sludge  and/or
animal manure at  a  3 1 volume  ratio
(refuse sludge/manure)  It can then be
taken straight to the slope tt is des-
ijncd to enrich,  and quickly mixed
inot plowed) into  the soil 'the  addi-
tion  of  sludge/manure  speeds  up
decomposition  and increases the nu-
ti lent content of the mixture
   \fler  a brief respite, the land  could
be sown to legumes  and ultimately to
' rres or grasses.  This  has  already
been done at Penn State,  where  Prof
Uiiliam  Sopper has grown trees, or-
n.imcntal shrubs, grasses  and vegeta-
! tes on strip-mine land that  has  been
ue.ited   with sewage sludge  effluent
 Ih's is  first-year strip-mine  soil  that
':as  not  been  enriched in any  other

   vV ith  many  American cities al-
'i:.id\ questioning  the merits  ot incin-
 r.ttion   and going  to  garbage   pul-
vL'ii/tition tor  ultimate  baling and/or
land! 11 ling,   ami   with  many  cities
sinousiy contemplating  rail  haul ot
r^ 1 use tor  i<. mote  disposaI in  so
called    strip-mi ne   reclamation
schemes, we are actually moving \er\
close tt> the procedure just described
V\ hy not go all the \va\ ' It would cost
onl\ about $6 per  ton  $3 to grind.
screen and mix, $2  to rail  haul 100
miles, and  $1 to deliver locull) and
incorporate into the soil  About one-
third of th/s cost could reasonably be
borne  by  the user, leaving the city  a
net cost ol $4 per ton By compari-
son,  incineration costs  between $8
and $10 per  ton, sanitary landfillmg
between $2 and $5 per ton
   Many  studies  have  shown that in-
corporation  or mulching of  organic
matter on steep  slopes  and/or  poor
soils is decisive and essential if perma-
nent vegetation and thus erosion con-
trol are desired.17  '* With more than
four billion  tons of  sediment  being
produced by  erosion  in  the U S an-
nually.'*' clearly  we as a  nation  have
recogm/ed  neither  the value  ot  or-
ganic matter  for erosion control  not
its widespread availability   This is an
especiall\  glaring  error considering
that  it costs us about SI  per  ton to
remove sediment from rivers, roads
and reservoirs j"
   My European composting odyssey
and  subsequent stud}  and  reflection
have  allowed  the   ideas   expressed
herein to jell  We will be putting  our
ideas into  practice in the spring with
the   cooperation  of   the  DeKalb
C oumy ((icorgia) Sanitation Depart-
ment,  the  Southern  Railway System,
and  the J  M   Huber Mining Com-
pany, and under the auspices  ol  the
Georgia   Department   of  Natural
Resources'  Land  Reclamation Sec-
tion   and  Solid  Waste Management
Office  and Georgia  State  Universi-
ty's    Environmental    Research,
Group
            REFERENC ES

  1  McGauhey.P. H  Amenttin CumpoMinv
    Concepts   Environmcnt.il   Protection
    Agency. Solid Waste Management  Of-
    fice Publication No SW-2r  Washington
    L1 S  Government Printing Office, 1971
  2  Jensen. VI E Ohwrvuttom oj(.ontnn n-
    ttil Luiopvan Solul Wa\ie Muntn>t'tni'iit
    Pratt tie*. Public Health Service Publica-
    tion  No  1880  Washington  US Gov-
    ernment Printing Office, 1969
  3  Hart,  S A   Solid   Wa\te  Manage-
    incntlComposting  European At tivnv
    and  Atnentan Potential Public  Health
    Service Publication No  1826 Washing-
    ton  U S Government Printing  Office
    1968
  4  Breidenbach, A  W  (<>n\porting  of Mti-
    nii ipul .W/J WaMe\ in the United Sm/<".
    Environmental Protection Agency, Solid
    Waste  Management  Series  Publication
    No  SW-47r Washington L- S Govern
  ,  ment Printing Office, 1971
  5  Reclamation of  Mitn'uipal Refuse f
    Composting Technical  Bulletin  No >
    Series  37  Sanitary  F.ngi nee ring  *
  *  search  Project  Berkeley Umversn   it
    California 1953
  6  Ciotaas, H. B Composing,  \nnn   >f \mpaml \ur-
    /(  ^urfmc  Mining
    i'n /"/s/f  t,m   i ilJn/i'  in  Appalttt hia
    BMK-.UI i-* S. -.it i ishciics and Wildhte
   Resource Public it ion  6^  Washington
   L S Government Printing Office. 1968
11 \mldtt' Mining and (Mn Environment
   U S Dep.ntineni of the Interior Wash-
   ington  I s  Government Printing Of-
   fice. 196"7
12 Spauldirik. WilldidM  Jr and Ronald D
   Ogden  /, KiiuJ  \urftin-Mintnxon the
   /-M/rm./ Hilillttf  Re\ot,ne\ot the Unit-
   ed S/«'t's  Bureau  ot Sport I-ishenes and
   WilitI k  Resouice;.   Publication  68
   W.isi./ngton  U S  Government Punting
   OHW  1968
13 Rt fni'ff  Surfan-Mined tumh  I  S
   Hi r u i ment  of Agi iculture  MisceM.i-
   n.«is  Publication No  1082  Washmg-
    .•II I1  S  Government  Printing Office

I  - Di   I'hil  Cireeai  biologist  Shorter
   ( nllege, Rome. Georgia Personal com-
   munication, Novembei  12 1972
  •> Magnuson. Malcolm O and R. L Kim-
   ball Re\egt'tati»n \tudte\al i hree \tnp
   Mine Sttc\  in \orth Central  f'cn/r.vl-
   \tintti  I S Department of the Intenoi
   Washington  US  Governmcni Pi intmg
   Office  1968
16 John S  Wiley, retired Sanitary Higi-
   neering  Directoi  U  S Public  Health
   Seivicc Personal visit  eail> June 1972
17 Dickens,  Ray et  al   (t>n\t'i\ti!u>n  ot
   Rt^onne\ tn Mtinmpal WaMt bnvnon-
   mental  Protection Agency  Solid Waste
   Management Series (SW- Mi g on 1971
18 Cosack, J  "The Reforestation Fxpen
   ment at /onser Heath   Rcpiinttd m In
   ternatiotidl Research  Croup on. Refine

   \o 3 (October 1957) bv Public Health
   Service Washington  LS  Govemment
   Printing Office, 1969
19 VM/ Crt>\tt>n. the Work of  Umonirolleti
   Wattr Soil C onservaiion Service. Agri-
   culture  Intoimation Bulletin 260 Wash
   ington  U S  Goveinment Printing Of-
   fice 1971

   mill Roaiiitiif Dili ht-\  SoiK onservation
   Service.  Agricultuie  Information Bul-
   k-tin No ^25 Washington  L  S Govein-
   mcnt Printing Office.  19<>7

-------
      2

      Z

     i/l
     O
     a.

     O
     o
    o
    1C
   a.
   u.
  O
 Q
 o
I
U
1/1

-------
               STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

            DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES      JACOB KOOMEN, M D.. M.P.H.
                                                               DIRECTOR
                    Division of Health Services

                P. 0. Box 2091           Raleigh 27602

                        March  9,  1977
James H. Scarbrough, P.E.
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Dear Mr. Scarbrough:

     Please find enclosed a statement from the North Carolina
Solid Waste Management Program concerning Public  Law 94-580.
This statement is being provided  to  complement the  comments
and questions provided at the public meeting on February 23
and 24, 1977, in Atlanta, Georgia.

     Should you have questions concerning our statement,
do not hesitate to call for clarification.
                           ' Jerry C. Perkins,  Head
                            Solid Waste &  Vector  Control Branch
                            Sanitary Engineering  Section
JCP;bm
Enclosure
                                                              BRANCH

-------
STATEMENT FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONCERNING PUBLIC
                                    LAW 94-580


     Personnel from the State of North Carolina's solid waste  management program

appreciate the opportunity to have participated in the  public  meeting  concerning

PL 94-580 in Atlanta,  Georgia  on February 23 and 24,  1977.

     In addition to the verbal input provided at that meeting,  it was  felt that

a brief summary statement would be in order.   This statement provides  input con-

cerning the program's current status in North Carolina  as well as some of the

implications of a projected program.  The statement is  brief but attempts to

emphasize some of the major issues to be addressed with the implementation of

PL 94-580, "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of  1976".

     The expanded definition for solid waste  includes  liquids  and semi-solids

which are not part of the present definition  of solid  waste as used in the North

Carolina General Statutes.  The addition of liquids and semi-solids in the

definition has implications of much additional responsibility.  In the past,

disposal of waste liquids and semi-solids have been the responsibility of the

North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources especially when

(1) those wastes resulted from liquid industrial treatment processes or from

commercial activities which generated a liquid waste and (2) where stream quality

could have been affected as a result of evaporation ponds and  lagoons  construction.

     Responsibility for sanitary landfill approval, resource recovery  facilities

and recycling certification, and overall solid waste management is vested in  the

Solid Waste and Vector Control Branch of the  North Carolina Department of Human

Resources.  Assistance in surveillance of solid waste  collection and storage

facilities is provided by local health departments in  the State.  With primary

responsibility for solid waste management and authority being  vested in the

Department of Human Resources, there are existing permit procedures which will

-------
                                      -  2  -
have to be considered in an expanded solid waste  management role for  the  State




of North Carolina.




     This Branch also has in existence  rules  for  issuing permits to impoundments




which exceed one-fourth of an acre in size.   This program  is carried  out  as  a




preventive measure against the re-occurance of malaria  outbreaks in this  State.




     The sanitary landfill definition currently used  in North Carolina  has dealt




with solid waste from individual  homes, commercial establishments, institutions,




and industrial sources.  Solid waste resulting from the demolition of old building




sites, urban renewal projects, and landscaping activities  have been found to be




non-compatible with solid waste from the conventional sources.  In developing




criteria for the various requirements for sanitary landfills, the criteria for




demolition waste sites needs to be considered separately.  Also, in determining




requirements for a secure landfill;  that is,  one  which  is  projected to  receive




hard-to-manage or hazardous wastes,  design criteria needs  to consider future




monitoring requirements for land, air,  and water  at the site regardless of whether




the site is strictly for disposal or a  part of a  hazardous waste treatment and




disposal facility.




     The proposed manifest system for tracking hazardous industrial waste will




have to take interstate transportation  into consideration.  The State of  North




Carolina does not propose to become  a dumping ground  for toxic and hazardous




waste from other states.




     It has been found that the basic and most versatile planning unit for solid




waste management in North Carolina is the county  unit of government.  This concept




allows planning within its jurisdiction as well as without.  Solid waste  management




systems are financed with county  ad  valorem taxes and special tax assessments.




     Where federal financial assistance has been  specified as in the  areas of




resource recovery and recycling facility planning, rural operational  assistance,




and state planning assistance, it is highly desirable that the funds  designated

-------
                                      -  3 -
for these purposes be  specified  by  the  above categories and by amount as the




State of North Carolina  and  its  local units of government become eligible for




these funds.  It is not  desirable  to have  these  funds sent to the State as part




of a block grant to compete  with other  environmental programs.  The State of




North Carolina has developed an  incentive  program  through special tax treatment




for resource recovery  and recycling activities.    It would be desirable through




implementation of the  Resource Recovery Act of 1976 to provide expanded markets




for the recovered and  recycled materials.




     The State of North  Carolina is currently  involved in a survey of industrial




facilities to determine  the  magnitude of its industrial waste problem especially




problems associated with hard-to-manage wastes and those considered hazardous




because of their composition. It  is anticipated that a formal program for




control and management of these  wastes  will not  be complete until mid 1979




due to legislative and budgetary changes that  would be required for implementation.
                                                                     Shelf No. 592

-------
u
z
w
o
<

z
o

H
U

£  £
f—  o


1°
CL _

J  c

1 1
Z  o
UJ ^
z
o
C/3
                   3§R:
C UL_ C C

2 c 5'
 <0

.11!
> - u?
                               '5- $?P !
                                j™ ir^i:" rr^DS
                                                111
                                               x o
      fili

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------