TRANSCRIPT
REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT of 1976
February 25 and 26, 1977, Worcester, Mass, and Concord, N.H.
These meetings were sponsored by EPA Region I,
and the proceedings (SW-16p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections
by the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1977
.lou Agency
i.:v'
oooT :'..:...^Street
Chicle,, Illinois 606£W
-------
An environmental protection publication (SH-16p) in the solid waste management series.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
PUBLIC MEETING
held at the
Sheraton-Lincoln Inn
500 Lincoln Street
Worcester, Massachusetts
on
Friday, February 25, 1977
commencing at
1:00 p.m.
PRESENT
MERRILL HOHMAN, Chairman
DENNIS HUEBNER
JOHN SKINNER
WILLIAM 3ASJOUR
NICHOLAS HUMBER
GEORGE GARLAND
Terl L. Lancaster
Certified Shorthand Reporter
-------
1 MR. HOHMAN: Good afternoon, ladies and
2 gentlemen. We would like to get the meeting started.
3 I would like to welcome all of you to this meeting
4 this afternoon, which is an attempt to get some public
5 input into EPA's responsibility under the new Resource
6 Conservation and Recovery Act. I am Merrill Hohman
7 from Region I, EPA in Boston. With me at the head
8 table, from my left, Dennis Huebner, who is chief of
9 the Solid Waste program in Region I in Boston. George
T'E-OM
10 Garland, tor the SystemSManagement Division, EPAJ £SM/
11 Washington. Nick Huraber, Resource Recovery Division,vli
13 Division, EPA Washington. Down in the front row is
H Bill Sanjowr from the Hazardous Waste Division, EPA
15 in Washington.
jg A few administrative notes before we start the
17 afternoon session. To begin with, we have a designated
18 no smoking area. That's on my right, your left. We
19 would appreciate it if everyone would observe that
20 sign, and those that wish to smoke would sit at your
21 right.
22 At the front of the table, when you came In, we
23 had available an agenda or preliminary agenda for this
meeting, a copy of the Act, a summary of the Act,
-------
a registration sheet, and an Environmental Questionnair
2
sheet. The last two we Would appreciate your filling
3 out sometime during the meeting, and then when you
leave, we'll have a box up at the table up here by the
5 door, and we'd appreciate you Just dropping those two
6 sheets in the box as you go out.
7 Down at the back of the room we have a display of
8 some of the EPA Solid Waste publications, and there are
9 sign up sheets down there. If there are any publica-
10 tions you would like to receive, please indicate so on
11 the sheet and leave it in the box and we'll send it to
12 you.
13 Also down at the back of the room is a display
14 table from the New England Municipal Center, who has
15 been working with us to help make the arrangements for
16 this meeting this afternoon. If you have a chance
17 later on, you might want to browse at some of the in-
18 formation they have available also.
19 This is the first of two briefings in Region I on
20 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. We
2i have a second meeting scheduled for Concord, New
22 Hampshire, tomorrow afternoon at the Ramada Inn. We
23 have sent more than five thousand invitations addressed
24 to specific individuals in industry, government, educa-
-------
1 tional institutions, consumer groups, environmental
2 groups, and the general public. In addition, we have
3 sent notices of this meeting through press releases
4 to all of the newspapers in Region I, and official
5 notices also have been published in the Federal Reglsta
6 The basic purpose of the meeting is to outline for
7 all of you the main provisions of this new Act, to des-
8 Crlbe to you some of our thoughts on how the Act might
9 be implemented and some of the Issues that we see in
10 implementing the Act, and to secure comments on the
11 regulations, requirements, guidelines, and implementa-
12 tion of the Act. The Resource Conservation Act IB
13 very specific in requiring public participation, and
14 we In EPA feel that not only as a legal requirement but
15 also an essential part of the development of a success-
16 ful program is seeking opinions of the general public
17 There Is also a provision I would like to point out In
the act that allows for citizen suit in the event that
you are not happy with the way EPA regulations are
20 developed or carried out once they have been promulgate
I do want to point out that we will say right at
21
the beginning that we cannot answer many or most of the
questions that you people may want to raise today. We
Zo
are now seeking, through meetings such as this, your
-------
1 thoughts on how we should write the regulations and
2 guidelines and a general approach we should take. The
3 reason we can't respond to many questions is the fact
4 that we don't know yet. We want to find out your input
5 before we come up with those answers.
6 General formats for the meeting this afternoon
7 will be short presentations by regional and Washington
8 program people, after which we will have a brief period
9 for general questions and answers. Then we'll have a
10 short break. Following that break we will have an
11 opportunity for those who have requested a chance to
12 present a formal statement, to do so, and conclude with
13 more general questions and answers from the floor. I
14 would point out also that the proceedings of the meetini;
15 are being transcribed. We have a court stenographer
lg down front. If you do ask a question or come up to mak(
17 a. statement, would you please identify yourself, spell
lg your last name and tell us who you are with so it can
19 be entered into the transcript? Copies of the trans-
20 crlpt of thia meeting will be available in our Washlng-
21 ton office and the Region One office in Boston. If
22 anyone wants a transcript for their own personal use,
23 I would suggest you check with the court reporter at
the end of the day to make arrangements. With those
-------
1 brief introductory comments, I would like now to turn
2 to the program itself. What we would like to do is
3 start out by giving you a general overview of the Solid
4 waste problems in New England, and a general comment
5 on the basic concepts of the Resource Conservation and
6 Recovery Act. After that we'll have presentations on
7 more specific parts of the Act, as shown in the agenda.
8 So without further ado, I will Introduce Dennis
9 Huebner, who is chief of our Solid Waste program in the
10 Boston office of EPA.
11 MR. HUEBNERs Thank you, Mel. I too would
12 like to welcome you all here. I certainly appreciate
13 your interest. A good number of us have been working
14 in the Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste Pro-
15 gram for a good number of years now. We finally have
lg a solid waste act that we feel we can do something with
17 What I would like to do is give you a brief overview of
lg the Act, which is going to be followed by more detailed
19 presentations by the people that are here from Washing-
20 ton.
21 But, first, though, what I thought I would do is
22 talk to you a little bit about some of the problems
23 that I perceive that we're having here in New England.
-. I will show you some of the slides that we've taken
-------
1 over the past few years here In New England that relate
2 some of these problems to you, and to talk to you very
3 generally about some of the trends that we're beginning
4 to see here in New England to help solve some of these
5 problems.
6 First of all, I would have to say our most pressin
7 problem in solid waste management, unfortunately, Is
8 institutional and political. It is extremely difficult
9 if not impossible, to locate new sites for facilities,
10 whether they are resource recovery facility sites,
H whether transfer station sites, or disposal sites, even
12 though we can ensure the public that these facilities
13 will be operated in compliance with Federal or State
14 standards, etc.
15 Secondly, it is extremely difficult to regionalize
16 and I think this is a problem that is typical of New
17 England because of the local concerns in government.
18 It is difficult to get a number of communities together
19 to do something together to solve the common problem
20 and reach a common goal.
Hopefully, the Act, by the way, will help us to
21
22 resolve both of these problems that I've mentioned.
23 We also have a number of environmental problems that
we're going to have to deal with more effectively in
-------
the future, and what I would like to do Is Just show
2 you a couple of slides.
3 Fortunately, we don't have this operation existing
4 In New England, at least to my knowledge today. Five
5 years ago you may have seen something like this, and
6 this is simply dumping refuse Into rivers or bodies of
7 water. We do have, though, some problems associated
8 with very poor locations of facilities in the past.
9 This slide shows a landfill operation I would have to
10 classify as a dump, which Is located in the bottom in
the bottom right half of the slide. You can see the
12 leachate surface water flowing in a northerly direction
13 in the town's drinking water supply at the upper right-
14 hand corner. This situation could be prevalent in a
15 good number of our old dump sites in New England. It
16 Is something that is a great deal of concern to people.
17 We do have good operations, and Just to show you
that we do, this is the entrance-way of a site down in
Connecticut. Refuse is being delivered in a nice, con-
20 else area, compacted on a slope and covered at the end
21 of the day. This is a good sanitary landfill operation
22 They do exist in New England.
23 We have a very pressing problem that's going to be
confronting us in terms of getting rid of residuals
-------
1 from our air, water pollution control. Here is a poor
2
practice, disposing of municipal sewer treatment sludp-e
3 At this site tires are being mixed with the sludge, for
4 reasons unknown to me. Another technique Is to dig
5 a trench and place the sludge in the trench. Obviously
6 this is not a good way of getting rid of sewerage sludg
7 Some people are £olng it - the rainfall rates, evapor-
* ation, transportation, and obviously we have a problem
9 here with this type of method.
10 We do have some locales who take the initiative
11 to reuse sludge and put it back into some beneficial
12 form to grow crops with. There are a good number of
13 municipalities, particularly in northern New England,
14 utilizing this technique. It is one the EPA encourages
15 Septic is a problem. About thirty-three of the
16 households are on septic tanks, and septic ends up
17 Just about every place, including municipal land dls-
18 posal sites, and It is certainly something we have to
19 address. Another septic.
20 The oil spills that have unfortunately plagued
2i New England over the past months. Wherever these
22 spills occur, there is a good amount of material that
23 i» going to have to be cleaned up and disposed of on
24 land. This is what is looks like. This Is what It
-------
10
1 looks like when it's being disposed of. Unfortunately,
2 as you can probably pretty much appreciate, it is very
3 difficult to get a community that is willing to take
4 these hugh amounts of material and place it in their
5 landfills for disposal. It is something we are working
6 In many of the New England states right now, to try to
7 resolve this problem.
8 Lagoons. This is typical. The new solid waste
9 bill addresses pits, ponds, and lagoons. The Federal
10 Agency, up until the passage of this bill, did not have
the authority in this area. Very few states do.
Fire ash from power plants in New England. In
13 New England we are talking of converting from oil back
... to coal. We are poing to have hugh mountains of fire
15 ash-
, Excess pesticides. This happens to be a slide of
lb
a storage site down in the State of Massachusetts, and
10 fortunately all this material has now been properly
lo
disposed of.
20 Tannery waste, rubber tires, I get many telephone
calls from local municipalities. What do we do with
21
the rubber tire situation? For those of you who cannot
22
see it, it is a mountain of tires.
23
Sludge. Again, this happens to be paper mill
24
-------
11
1 sludge as a result of water pollution control efforts.
2 And believe it or not, those are fifty-five gallon
3 drums full of liquid, some deposited on the banks of
4 a river. What you might classify as a total mess pro-
5 bably would include some hazardous waste, industrial
6 waste. Much of our liquid waste for those that were
7 not controlled by the Water Permit Program people have
8 been carrying them in fifty-five gallon drums and they
g are ending up in a lot of our land disposal sites.
10 Again, a new act will address this type of problem.
11 This is a slide of a tank truck getting ready to
12 discharge into one of our land disposal sites. Another
13 picture of something that's totally environmentally
14 obnoxious.
15 Okay. That is our problem. What has been happen-
jo ing during the past five years, I think we have made
17 good progress in solid waste management in New England,
lg primarily as a result of our State efforts. Strong
lg statewide leadership is beginning to emerge. Three
20 years ago in Connecticut, the Connecticut Resource
Recovery Act was created. They are presently under
22 construction of their first facility in Bridgeport.
23 Two years ago Rhode Island created a solid waste
authority. They are presently in the planning stages
-------
12
1 of constructing a facility in the State of Rhode Island
to service the state. Both of these, the Corporation
3
and the Authority, have the ability to plan, design,
construct, and finance the operation of these resource
5 recovery facilities. Massachusetts has also offered
6 very similar facilities via its Office of Environmental
7 Affairs, and presently is negotiating on three-thousand)-
8 ton-day facility servicing northern Massachusetts.
9 We have also had a State enactment of more stringent
10 regulation. The landfill operations have greatly im-
11 proved over the past few years. We have a much greater
12 interest in sewer separation and sewer reduction,
13 particularly as evidenced by the passage of Bottle Bill
14 Laws both in Vermont and Maine.
15 If I can have the slide projector on again, and
16 the lights, I want to show you some more slides. We've
17 had a great increase in the number of sewer separation
18 programs. People are vitally interested in taking
19 materials out of the waste prior to disposal. This is
20 a slide depicting operation of a paper collection in
Hartford, Connecticut, or East Hartford. Papers are
22 being collected via a trailer. A couple demonstration
23 projects in Marblehead and Somervllle, which this
24 vehicle is parked, picking up sewer separation materialfs
-------
13
l from the curb for recycling purposes. We had a. great
2 interest in involvement in the part of private enter-
3 prise to help us solve some of our problems.
4 We have had a number of incinerators that had to
5 be closed down due to air pollution violation, and a
number of them have been transferred into converters.
7 There are a good number of transfer stations being
8 constructed, as we have to go further and further away
to dispose of our waste, across town boundaries. Trans
10 fer stations make economical sense to transfer our
waste for a longer haul. Private enterprise is becomin
very Involved in the establishment, planning, etc.,
13 of resource recovery facilities, energy recovery
facilities. It is not Important to read the Individual
names, but we have in New England a fair number of re-
source recovery facilities now in the various planning
16
stages of development, and have three operations, one in
Saugus, one in East Bridgewater, and one in Braintree.
10 Rural communities have been particularly frustrate
Iff
20 but they forge ahead. They are vitally interested in
resource recovery and have constructed rural resource
recovery facilities. These facilities primarily are
22
__ geared to homeowners separating their waste at the home
and bringing their waste In separated bags to these
-------
1 facilities. The first one constructed was Nottingham.
2 We have one in Hampton Palls, New Hampshire. We have
3 one in Plymouth, New Hampshire. We have one in Swansea
4 New Hampshire. We have a number that are proposed to
5 be constructed over the next few months as depicted on
6 this map.
7 We certainly have had a much greater interest on
8 the part of the citizens, as evidenced by numerous
9 recycling operations at local landfill incinerators,
10 transfer stations, just to show you a few. This is
11 milk cartons, believe it or not, that are ready for
12 the recycling stage and stored in Wellesley, Massachu-
13 setts. Another slide showing the Wellesley, Massachu-
14 setts operation.
15 Okay. This is kind of background. The Resource
16 Conservation and Recovery Act was signed by the Presl-
17 dent only a few months ago, on October the 2/nd, 1976.
18 The goals of the Act are very clearly stated: to
19 protect health, protect the environment, conserve
20 valuable material resources, conserve valuable energy
21 resources, and this is to be achieved through technical
22 and financial assistance to j.tate and local governments
23 manpower development; prohibition of future open
_. dumping; conversion and closing of existing open dumps;
-------
15
* the regulation of hazardous waste; guidelines for
2 solid waste management will be developed by the program
3 research and development demonstrations; Federal,
4 State, local, Industrial cooperative efforts to solve
5 our problem, and a public education program.
6 And now we will hear some more details from the
7 program people in Washington to specifically discuss
8 some of these things I have mentioned. Thank you.
9 MR. HOHMAN: On the agenda, the next item of
10 discussion is shown as manpower development, public
11 participation, and in the interests of time we are
12 going to skip over that. I think we will be talking
13 about that perhaps during the question and answer
14 period. So I would like now to move ahead and to lntro<
15 duce Bill Sanjosir from our Washington office, who is
16 going to discuss a portion of the Act covering hazardou
17 waste.
18 MR. SANJOITR: I am going to be talking about
19 the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation Recovery
20 Act. This deals with hazardous waste.
21 When we talk about hazardous waste, we're talking
22 principally about industrial waste. These are residues
23 from industrial manufacturing, either process residues
24 or residues from air pollution or water treatment
-------
16
1 facilities in industrial plants. There are some
2 other vestas included in that definition, but they would
3 be relatively minor.
4 These wastes are, for the most part, disposed of,
5 about half of it is disposed right now in ponds and
8 lagoons on a plant site, and the other half is usually
7 disposed of off the site of these manufacturing plants,
8 either in municipal landfills or other places, a great
g deal of which there is no accounting for.
10 Let me pun through the provisions of the Act, sub-
11 title C. The part dealing with hazardous waste is the
12 only part of the new Act that is regulatory. In this
13 section of the Act the Federal Government is required
U to write regulations and is the only area In which
15 Federal Government is required to write federal regula-
lg fclons.
17 Let me Just go through the provisions of the Act.
!g First of all, this Is Section 3001, which requires EPA
19 to define hazardous waste. This is the key provision
20 of the Act which will determine who will be or won't be
21 covered by these regulations. The administration has
22 given eighteen months to make this definition. There
23 are two ways in which the definition can be based,
either on criteria of the waste or on listing actual
-------
17
1 waste, and the administrator is given the option of
2 doing it one or the other, or some combination of both.
3 The key language in the Act in this definition
4 calls for the definition to take into account toxlclty,
5 persistence and degradabillty in nature, potential for
6 accumulation in tissue, and other related factors such
1 as flamability, corrosiveness, and other hazardous
8 characteristics. That's a broad area of definition.
9 The second provision, Section 3002, are standards
10 for hazardous waste generators. A hazardous waste
11 generator Is one that generates a waste that fits under
12 the definition of Section 3001 and under the Act, such
13 generators are required to keep records which are
!4 standards for generators. They are required to keep
15 records, label containers, and the major feature of thi
16 Act for managing hazardous waste Is the manifest sys-
17 tern. This is a record-keeping system required in the
lg Act which would mean that all hazardous waste, all
!9 shipments of hazardous waste had to be recorded, have
20 to be accounted for, and a system essentially the way
21 new products, when you buy something new, you have
22 shipping papers with it and records are kept where it
23 comes from and where it goes to. Well, basically, the
law requires that the same thing be done with hazardous
-------
18
1 waste: that records be kept of where it comes from,
2 where it's going to, and the places where it's going to
3 have to be approved places. That is the manifest
4 system. As you see, this is also required to be done
5 in eighteen months.
6 The next provision is Section 3003, which are
7 standards for transporters of hazardous waste. These
8 standards are very similar to those of generators:
g basically record keeping, labels, and compliance with
10 the manifest system. In addition, these regulations
have to be tied in with the Department of Transporta-
12 tion regulations for transporters, and in fact where
13 possible, the record keeping should be done with the
existing Department of Transportation paperwork rather
15 than creating new ones. This is a specific provision
, in the Act.
lb
The next provision is Section 3004, which are
10 standards for facilities that treat, store, or dispose
lo
of hazardous waste. The law specifically requires
2Q these standards to include record keeping, monitoring,
inspection, maintenance operation contingency plans,
21
ownership sense of responsibility: that is posting
bonds to assure reliable management. In addition, the
23
Act also gives authority, and I'll read the words to
-------
19
1 you, "To define these standards as may be necessary to
2 protect human health and the environment." Which
3 means that they could include standards for water
4 pollution, ground water pollution, air pollution, etc.
5 The authority exists to do that, although it is not
6 specifically included in the Act.
7 Now, unlike generators and transporters, facilit-
8 ies that treat, store, or dispose are required to have
9 a permit. That is covered on Section 3005, and the
10 conditions for the permit are, first of all, that the
11 facility meets the standards aa defined in Section
12 3004. These permits will be issued by the State govern
13 ment if the State government takes over the hazardous
14 waste program, and we will get into that in a moment.
15 Otherwise, the permits will be issued by the Federal
lg government. There are provisions within the Act to
17 issue interim permits for facilities which are in
lg existence at the time the Act is passed. All they need
19 to do to have interim permits issued is that they send
20 a notification to EPA of their existence at a certain
21 time, I think eighteen months after the Act is passed,
22 and they will be given interim permits until EPA gets
23 around to getting it into the full scale permitting
business. So businesses that are in business will
-------
20
continue to stay In business without any interim or
without having to meet the 3004 permit, which is more
to the point.
4 Section 3006 is the next section. You notice,
5 incidentally, every one of these begins with a horrible
6 eighteen month phrase at the top. Every one of these
7 has to be promulgated in eighteen months from last
8 October.
9 Section 3006 authorizes State hazardous waste
10 programs, and there are three conditions that have to
be met by the State. That is that the State program
12 has to be equivalent to the Federal program, whatever
13 that means; consistent with other state programs,
whatever that means. I will Just read the third one:
15 adequate enforcement provisions have to be also present
16 in the State program.
17 We got through the major parts, anyway
18 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, Bill. I made these
lg people from Headquarters promise to take ten minutes,
but I don't trust them. The next speaker is John
Skinner from our Washington office who is going to talk
about land disposal requirements of the law.
23 MR. SKINNER: I am going to talk about the
land disposal provisions of the Act, and what Bill
-------
21
1 Sanjour mentioned to you about the hazardous waste
2 provision will apply to a very narrow class of waste
3 which will be defined as hazardous. The land disposal
4 provisions of the Act will apply to all other waste.
5 Now, the important thing to note about the land
6 disposal provisions of the Act is that they are very,
7 very different from the Federal regulatory program that
8 called for for hazardous waste. There are no Federal
9 regulations for land disposal. There are some Federal
10 standards, but there is no Federal enforcement. The
11 entire enforcement takes place through State and local
12 programs and through possibly the citizen suit provislo
13 of the Act, that was mentioned previously.
14 EPA1s role relative to all other waste are pro-
15 vlding guidelines, providing Information, and providing
16 funding to the State and local government so that the
17 program can be carried out.
18 Now, the Act has some very important definitions
19 that I would like to bring to your attention. The
20 first definition is the definition of disposal itself.
Let me read some words out of the Act to you. "Disposa
22 means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,
23 spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste onto
. the land or onto the water." That's a very broad term
-------
22
for disposal. It does not just mean solid waste.
There is also a very broad definition for solid
3 waste. Let me read it to you. It means, "any garbage,
4 refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water
5 supply treatment plants, or air pollution control
6 facility." Solid waste means liquid waste; it means
7 semi-solid waste; it means contained gaseous materials;
it means waste from industrial operations; from com-
mericial operations; from mining operations; from
10 agricultural operations; and from community activities.
11 There are few classes of waste that are excluded expli-
12 citly in the definition, but in general, it means most
13 waste materials of a solid form, liquid form, from
14 most sources.
15 And the point that I would like to make here is
16 that the Agency is required to come up with a definitio
17 for open dumping and sanitary landfill of waste under
18 this Act. And with the broad definition of disposal
19 the Act has and the broad definition of solid waste
20 that the Act has, we are talking about disposal opera-
tlons that are very different from our traditional
22 sanitary landfilling of municipal waste only. The Act
23 provides for a very broad authority. It includes, for
24 example, things such as industrial impoundment lagoons.
-------
23
1 It could include sludge application on an agricultural
2 land which might be defined as an open-dump or sanitary
3 landfill, depending on the criteria.
4 Now, as I indicated, the Administrator of EPA is
5 required to come up with criteria which can be used to
6 Identify which facilities will be designated as open
? dumps and which facilities will be designated as sanl-
8 tary landfills. The Act indicates that these criterion!
9 which are due in one year from last October, due this
10 coming October, shall provide that a facility may only
11 be classified as a sanitary landfill if there is no
12 reasonable probability of adverse effect on the health
13 or environment at such a facility. All other facilitie i
14 shall be classified as open dumps.
15 The important features here that I would like to
16 bring to your attention is that this requires some
17 interpretation as to what constitutes reasonable pro-
18 bability, and it also requires some interpretations
19 as to what constitutes adverse effects on health and
20 the environment. Also, since these criterions are
21 going to be applicable nationwide, they are going to
22 have to be very flexible. One of the points that's not
23 really clear when you read the Act, because of the way
_, it's worded, the wording is confusing in several sections,
-------
Is that open dumping is prohibited upon the date of
publication of the criteria. There is no Federal
3 enforcement of that prohibition. The enforcement comes
4 through citizen suits, but it is prohibited this coming
" October unless the sites are covered under a compliance
6 schedule under approved State plan. Then the sites
7 have up to a maximum of five years for reaching compli-
8 ance with the dumping sanitary landfill criteria.
9 So I think that there is a very strong incentive
10 for the development of State plans to lead to the
11 closure of open dumps within a reasonable schedule so
12 that such a State plan would be approved by the
13 Agencies, and those sites would be covered for a period
14 of time while alternative sites could be found or
15 other means of alternative disposals could be institute
16 Twelve months after publication of the criteria,
17 this would then be October 1978, the Agency is required
18 to publish an inventory of all facilities which are
19 classified as open dumps. And as I indicated previousl
20 if we included all the sites that could possibly be
2i included, if we included all municipal solid waste
22 disposals, all industrial impoundments, we could talk
23 about an inventory of fifty to seventy-five thousand
24 sites on the inventory. So this is a mammoth under-
-------
25
1 taking that the Agency has to undertake, and it is our
2 intent that w« gain State cooperation in carrying out
3 this inventory, because it is going to be up to the
4 State to then develop the plans to phase out these
5 facilities in a five year period of time.
6 In addition to publishing the criteria for open
7 dumping and sanitary landfills, the Act also requires
8 that the Agency publish guidelines. The criteria will
9 be generally environmentally oriented. They will des-
10 crlbe the environmental contaminants you want to pro-
11 tect against. The guidelines will be operational.
12 They will provide a technical and economic condition
13 of practices to meet the criteria. Our first set of
14 guidelines will be published along with the criteria,
15 and they will probably be oriented toward primary
. disposal of municipal solid waste and sanitary land-
17 fills. At a later time we will publish guidelines,
18 approximately a year after that, for dealing with
lg sewage sludge, both in disposal and utilization of
2o sewage sludge. And then in future years there would
probably be guidelines on other1 type waste disposal
22 practices. The guidelines are not mandatory; they are
23 advlsary. They are of a technical nature, and they
should provide information and advice on how to comply
-------
26
1 with the criteria.
2 Okay. That concludes everything I have on the
3 land disposal provision.v George Garland will be talkin
4 about State planning provisions, which will explain
5 how the State plans should be structured in order to
6 meet the land disposal provision for open dumping and
7 sanitary landfill.
8 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, John. For those of
9 you who came in late, we ran out of copies of the Act,
!0 and if you did not get a copy of the Act and if you
11 would like a copy, please note that on your registratio i
12 slip when you leave it with us and we will mail you a
13 copy of the Act as soon as we can get some more.
14 Our next speaker is Nick Humber from the Resource
15 Recovery Division, EPA in Washington, and he will speak
poe-Tien
16 on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Atrtr of the
17 new law.
18 MR. HUMBER: Thank you. Resource recovery
19 and resource conservation are included throughout many
20 sections of the Act. There are some sections that deal
2i only with resource recovery and resource conservation.
22 But what is significant is that these requirements are
23 placed pretty much throughout the entire Act; in other
24 words, guidelines for State programs and development of
-------
27
1 State program resource conservation and resource
2 recovery must be considered In these plans. This was
3 not a requirement In the past.
4 Now, the major sections of the Act that deal with
5 these two Issues, but first the guidelines; second is
6 th« resource recovery and conservation panel. I am
7 not sure why that title was selected,^panel, but it is
8 a solid waste technical assistance program, is what
9 it means. It is not confined Just to resource conser-
10 vation and resource recovery. It also includes in-
11 dustrial waste, hazardous waste, landfill and collectio i
12 The next section is a development of State and
13 local programs. Another area is dissemination of
14 information, and lastly, demonstrations of new techno-
15 logy and resource recovery. These include resource
lg separation systems. In the last two years we have had
17 an Increase in this area, where there has not been an
18 increase in the larger resource recovery demonstration
19 The guidelines contain the following provisions:
20 first, in Federal procurements that exceed ten thousand
21 dollars the products have to contain the maximum
22 amount of recycled material that is possible, both
23 technologically and economically. And this has to
. occur within two years' passage of the law. Another
-------
28
1 provision is that the requirement that waste disposal
2 from Federal facilities includes waste energy or
3 materials recovery. When possible, these provisions
4 also provided are applicable to the major vendors who
5 deal with the Federal government.
6 Now, there are several spec-tal studies that have
7 to be done under the Act, and they are included here.
Glass and plastics are identified because there is not
9 much recycling, at least through mechanical means, of
10 glass or plastic. The primary ways of recycling are
- « ra-
il through ocwer separattergsystems.
12 The second says priorities. That means priorities
13 of research in the future. Small scale, low technology
14 refers to doing additional work in sewer separation,
15 which is predominantly newspaper, glass, and metal.
lg You can see the rest of the studies include mining
17 waste, sludge, tires, resource facilities.
18 And lastly, the Resource Conservation Committee,
19 which I would like to talk a little bit more about.
20 The Resource Conservation Committee is a cabinet level
committee. The administrator of EPA is the chairman,
22 but other participants are the Secretary of Interior,
23 Secretary of Labor, Commerce, Secretary of the Treasurj
along with the Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality and a representative of the Office of Manageme:
-------
29
and Budget. I think this is a unique committee in that
it is located in a line agency. It is not a blue
ribbon committee operating out of the day--today work
of the Federal government, but it Is part of a Federal
agency. The purpose is to review existing Incentive
and disincentives to resource conservation and recovery
a look at public practices, for example, Federal policy
and depletion allowances that encourage the consumption
9 of virgin resources rather than the conversion of
10 recycled resources; look at any other restrictions
11 that are restricting the manufacture and use of
12 secondary materials. It Is specifically requested that
13 the Committee examine the product charge concept,
14 which is an economic concept to bring about greater
15 use of recycled materials. It is also requested that
16 It look at resource and develop and report to the
17 Congress and President every six months
18 I would like to talk a little bit more about the
19 technical assistance panel, as they are called. That's
20 one area that I would like some comment from you today
on: exactly how you feel, what your suggestions are
22 for management. The Idea is for EPA to be a manager
23 of an effort to provide assistance to cities, and the
24 participants, in providing this assistance, would in-
-------
30
1 elude managers from other cities who have bt
2 in -sewer separation and resource recovery and
3 or collection kinds of improvements so that they c
4 transfer their knowledge to other cities. It also
5 includes representatives of the private sector and
6 representatives of any other organization that might
7 be helpful. An important part of this is to note that
8 of the general appropriation for EPA in solid waste,
9 that it's manadated by law that twenty percent of that
10 be used for technical assistance. Now, the basic
11 question is how much of this is to be used for resource
12 recovery; how much for industrial waste; and how much
13 for traditional collection and disposal practices?
14 This gives you a run down of the kinds of expertise
15 that we have been utilizing in technical assistance.
16 We have not focused Just on technology, but have brough
17 in investment bankers with financing expertise, mar-
18 keting consultants and representatives of utilities
19 or purchasers of secondary materials. We try to bring
20 people with all expertise together. As I was saying,
we're trying to have the Federal government not provide
all of the expertise, but to basically manage the
23 expertise in providing this guidance to the State and
local government. This is one of the major provisions
-------
31
1 in resource recovery conservation and landfill and
2 collection? providing information to cities and states
3 I believe this ends my part of the presentation.
4 The next part will be on State and local programs.
5 MR, HOHMAN: George Garland from Systems
6 Management Division, EPA in Washington, will talk on
7 State program development.
8 MR. GARLAND: Thank you, Mel. The Resource
9 Conservation Recovery Act recognizes that the majority
10 of the activities in solid waste management are carried
n out at the State and local level. The Act provides
12 for the State to assume the dominant role in assuring
13 proper solid waste management through a State level
14 regulatory program, mandated by the Federal government
15 and spelled out in some detail in the case of hazardous
,g waste, and spelled more generally through the criteria
17 that John mentioned, ami -&re guidelines in the case of
lg general land disposal.
19 Local government is involved through a planning
20 mechanism, which is kicked off by the guidelines for
regional planning areas that are due in April of 1977.
. A draft of these guidelines was mailed out to a number
23 of interested parties yesterday, and people will have
a couple of weeks to comment on those. Before the
-------
32
1 guidelines come out as an interim regulation, there
2 will be a public hearing in Washington, for the record.
3 That will be announced in the Federal
4 Probably the hearing will come about early May.
5 These guidelines for identifying j*M9
-------
33
1 in order to have an acceptable jsfcate plan, the
^-"
2 nrnrt first carry out appropriately that third step that
3 I just mentioned. They must show how state and local
4 governments will share the planning and implementation
5 for solid waste management. An acceptable state plan
6 will also provide for the elimination of open dumps,
7 and it will ensure the necessary sf ate programs to see
8 that no new open dumps are put into place, and in fact,
9 that solid waste goes either to sanitary landfills or
10 to resource recovery facilities. This means that the
11 state plan must give the state the necessary regulatory
12 authority to assure that this happens. In addition,
13 the state plan must do away with barriers to long term
14 resource recovery projects. In many cases, a locality
15 can't plan beyond the term of local elected officials,
16 and on the other hand, the large capital investment
17 required in resource recovery might span twenty years.
18 So if there are arbitrary barriers to this kind of
19 contracting, the state plan must show how these will be
20 eliminated.
. In summary, then, the plan must show how all solid
£i\.
22 waste will go, either to sanitary landfills or be used
23 in resource recovery or resource conservation projects.
In order to carry out the provisions I have just talked
-------
1 about, the Act authorizes expenditures of thirty
2 million dollars in fiscal '78 and forty million dollars
3 in fiscal '79 for state planning. This money will be
4 allocated on a jjtate population formula to those states
5 that are eligible, with provisos that no states shall
receive less than one half of one percent of the money.
In addition, the Act authorizes fifteen million
dollars in each of fiscal '77 and '79 for assistance
9 in plans and feasibility studies for resource recovery
10 and environmentally sound disposal facilities, for
11 consultations, for surveys, for market studies,
12 economic investigations, and technology assessments.
13 In particular, these implementation grants will be
14 given in cases where they will help meet the land dis-
15 posal requirements of the guidelines, and of course,
16 the best way to meet the land disposal requirements
17 and not have solid waste contaminating the environment
lg or affecting public health is to not have the solid
19 waste get to the land through resource recovery. There
20 is no formula for these grants, so that they will be
21 given out on a basis of a criteria system, to be set
22 up when these grants are announced.
23 In addition, the Act authorizes twenty-five millio|n
24 dollars in each of fiscal '78 and fiscal '79. These
-------
35
grants will go to the jstates on a formula basis. The
2 formula will depend on how many localities there are
3 in the state with populations of five thousand or less;
4 how many counties in the state with populations ten
5 thousand or less; or with less than twenty percent per
square mile; and how many counties in the state are
within twenty-five percent of the poverty level for
their average Income. These grants can go for up to
seventy-five percent of construction for projects to
10 meet the open dump regulation. They cannot pay for
land, however, and indeed we are not trying to encour-
age every town to have its own bulldozer and sanitary
13 landfill, but rather these grants are for isolated
14 | communities where regional approaches are not possible.
15
17
Now, so far we know what the Ford budget has
, recommended for appropriation under this Act. The
lb
authorization for grants to state and local government
lg total about a hundred million dollars. The Ford budget
lg called for seven million dollars under the Resource
20 Conservation and Recovery Act towards these purposes,
and five million dollars under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, Section 208, for these purposes.
In addition, it called for an appropriation of fourteen
million dollars for the operating portion of the budget
24
-------
36
1 The Act authorizes a hundred and thirty million dollars
2 So far the Carter Administration has recommended some-
3 what more money to be appropriated to EPA, but it is
4 not clear which part of EPA will get this money, so it
5 is not clear whether there will be more available for
the Resource Conservation Recovery Act or not.
MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, George. We can have
the lights now, please. We would like now to take a
few minutes and respond to any questions you may have
10 on the act. If you want to make a formal statement
11 with recommendations on how the Act should be imple-
12 mented, I would ask you to hold back and we will get
13 to that in a few minutes in the program. If you have
14 any questions now, we would be happy to try to answer
15 them. If you want t/o address it to any particular
16 individual, do so; if not, merely address it up here
17 and we will try to get somebody from the panel to
18 answer it.
19 When you do ask a question, we have two micro-
20 phones alive, one down back and one front in the center
Please use those microphones, and also please identify
22 yourself for our court reporter,
23 Do you have any questions?
MR. KLEISOWITZ: Paul Klelsowitz. I am an
-------
37
l engineer with North East Utilities, located in Hartford
2 Connecticut. We have been interested in using solid
3 waste as an energy resource for the past four years or
4 so. One of the problems that we've found are some
5 significant Institution problems with utility holding
6 companies that are in force not by PPG, Federal Power
7 Commission, or by EPA, but primarily by the Securities
8 Exchange Commission, which limits a holding company to
9 specific types of application or specific types of
10 involvement that do not relate primarily to the electri
H utility industry. We don't have a problem relating,
12 let's say, getting involved in buying an energy pur-
13 chaser or a purchaser of fuel.
j4 If you take a look, as we have, in applications
15 of solid waste as an energy resource in other than
16 electric generation, such as steam, district steam
17 heating systems, we find our hands are somewhat tied
lg by institutional constraints more than technology or
lg financial constraints. The Act doesn't address, at
20 least I haven't seen it, briefly scanning it, it does
not address these barriers - these institutional
22 barriers.
I would like one of you gentlemen maybe to comment
£lO
on whether the Act will address that or does address it
24
-------
38
1 or if you have some other aspect of handling these
2 problems.
3 MR. HUMBER: Paul, which particular problem
4 are you talking about? First of all, I don't think
5 that the Act addresses any problems that exist with
6 PPC, but I would like to know about them.
Gr £) (LC>i f> *
7 MR. KLEISOWITZ: I guess «or±an (phonetic)
8 did a study for EPA addressing some of the instltutiona
9 problems, but primarily, the Securities Exchange
10 Commission under the utility holding act of 1939 limits
11 holding companies, such as North East Utilities, and
12 not Boston Edison, which isn't a holding company, but
13 AEP, which is a holding company, from becoming involved
j^ in any other aspects of the business which is not
15 directly related to the production of electric energy
16 or any by-product that is used as a by-product of
17 making electricity.
18 To clarify that a little bit, the application of
19 district steam, when you provide district steam as a
20 by-product of your electric power generation, you don't
have a problem. But if you reverse it, if you make
electricity as a by-product of district heating, which
we are prohibited from doing: that, and building that
/O
market, by the PEC because we had to divest ourselves
-------
39
1 of gas properties under that Act. There are, you know,
2 limitations to what management will try to develop
3 with its own resources if in some future date it can
4 be expected to be told you must divest yourself of
5 that business because the Security Utility Holding Act
6 does not allow you to get involved in something that
7 is not related directly to power production.
8 MR. HUMBER: I am not familiar with your
9 problem you're encountering, and the best way to handle
10 it is give me a call. We don't have any authority to
11 change that, but it?s something we can talk about.
12 MR. SHEARER: I am Russell Shearer, Director
13 of Erving Paper Mills. My question isn't nearly as
14 ! complex as Paul's. We are a major recycler of paper
15 to manufacture sanitary tissues for napkins and towel
!6 use. Now, one of the things that I just see superfi-
17 cally here is you don't talk about rules for the
18 Federal government. Now, one of the problems that we
19 and other recyclers have with the Federal government
20 is that they are continuing to use things that cause
21 difficulty with recycling. For example, Just this
22 morning I was monkeying with my income taxes, but there
23 is a strip of bold label on the thing, and it says,
"Put the label here." Regularly in the mail I get
-------
1 little round circular things which are stuck on the
2 labels. Now, these very things put on by agencies of
3 the Federal government cause tremendous difficulty in
4 the recycling of paper, especially to make high prade
5 material such as napkins and towels.
6 Is something going to be done about that through
7 thi» Act?
8 MR. HOHMAN: Does that Include computer
9 address labels?
10 MR. SHEARER: Anything that has pressure
11 sensitive type of material on it.
12 MR. HOHMAN: We sent out five thousand.
13 MR. SHEARER: I think it is a total failure
14 of people to recognize the problem you're creating in
15 this recycling industry.
16 MR. HUMBER: First of all, I don't know what
17 the economics are, but I assume it is a lot less ex-
18 pensive than to type out each individual as an alter-
19 native. I don't know. I'm just assuming. So if the
20 costs were up to twenty or thirty percent to do it
. another way so you could recycle them, I guess it real
22 isn't economically feasible to recycle them. We are
23 not trying to force recycling where it doesn't make
_. sense economically.
-------
Secondly, more broadly, we have to be realistic
2 I think the Federal government is as difficult as
3 anybody to follow its own directives, and we Juet have
4 to admit that. That's not my doing. I would like to
5 do more about this. Under the Act I doubt EPA is going
6 to provide much funding to pursue the Federal procure-
7 ment, at least my proposals on that have not been met
very enthusiastically.
9 So I doubt EPA will do a considerable amount to
10 provide that in the Act.
u MR. ESNICK: My name is Irving Esnick, and I
am Chairman of the Board of Esnick Manufacturing Compan
13 another paper manufacturer. I am wondering in the
. permit requirement whether your definition of storage
15 of hazardous materials would include small quantities
that would be used in the manufacture and laboratories,
16
and so forth and so on in an industrial situation such
as oura, which is not using large quantities of
18
hazardous materials.
MR. SANJdW: I am not quite sure what you're
20
referring to. You said hazardous materials. This Act
does not cover hazardous materials; only waste are we
22
talking about.
Zo
MR. ESNICK: I guess you have answered my
24
-------
question right there.
2 MR. HOHMAN: Bill, is there any definition
3 yet developed where a firm might be storing a material
4 for possible future use if they develop some means of
5 recycling it or reusing it for a new product? Is that
6 waste after a certain period of time?
17 MR. SANJOUR: Well, if we're talking about
something that could be considered a waste, but on the
9 other hand could be considered a by-product that is
10 saleable, what we are dealing with now is the boundary
11 line of a waste, and all I can say is that these
12 boundary line things that may go one way or the another
13 are the kind of things that we are going to have to
14 develop over the next eighteen months. In general, we
15 have a philosophy that we don't want to discourage the
16 legitimate recycling of waste. We want to encourage it
17 Therefore, we would hesitate to regulate waste, which
18 in fact is a commodity or can be a commodity. On the
19 other hand, we do not want to let people use that
20 provision as a loophole to evade responsibility of
handling hazardous waste
22 So there are two sides to that issue, and it is
23 going to be a very complex one and it's just e:oing to
24 have to be evolved over the next several months. I
-------
would like a lot of help from all of you in helping
2 us resolve these kinds of borderline issues, and if you
3 know of any specific ones, I wish you would send me a
4 note or a letter. The larger collection we have of
5 borderline cases to look at and consider, the better
6 decision we would have to make on one. So if you know
7 of anything, I would appreciate you sending me informa-
8 tion.
9 MR. CONNORS: Harry Connors. The fact that
10 bothers me, and I read a lot about it, it seems to me
11 that ICC is dicating to the Supreme Court of the United
12 States in reference to rail freight, as far as freight
13 charges are concerned, by two and a half to three times
14 more than virgin ore, and I don't think the Federal
15 government is contributing anything as far as resource
recovery is concerned. I think it is your Job to get
17 moving on this thing. We weren't burying a lot of
18 BTU's in the ground. As far as BTU recovery on re-
19 sources is thirty-five to ninety percent we are putting
20 it in the ground. We are exporting it for foreign
countries. We are doing a lot of speech making, but
22 we are not doing too much about it.
23 MR. HUMBER: On the freight rate issue, we
_. have looked at that. We have been involved with the
-------
l\l\
ICC. First, you have to understand that Interstate
2 Commerce Commission, which controls freight rates, is
3 an independent -
4 MR, CONNORS: They are a bunch of dictators.
5 MR. HUMBER: That's possibly true. I certainly
6 have no power. The President doesn't and the Supreme
Court doesn't.
MR. CONNORS: Who the hell are they? Jesus
Christ?
10 MR. HUMBER: I'm certainly not up here to
11 answer why they exist, but if you would like to know
12 more about it, the point is there is a lot more air
13 than substance in the whole idea of freight rates.
14 There aren't as many as inequities as some parties say.
15 In other words, recycling is not affected tremendously
16 by disparities in freight rates. We have looked at
17 it closely, and we have looked at half a dozen materials.
18 There are three discrepancies or discriminations
19 against secondary materials. On two there was discrimiia-
20 tion against virgin materials.
21 The fact is the rates are made so hocus pocus
22 that nobody can figure out how they are made. I know
23 a former operator of New York Central Railroad couldn't
figure it out. If there is discrimination, it is
-------
random.
2 There are other barriers to resource recycling
3 that are much more significant. We have written to
4 the Interstate Commerce Commlssionor over the last
5 several years asking that they seriously consider it,
6 and in fact they have held back in Increases in re-
7 cycled materials, yet I still hear about them.
8 MR. CONNORS: It looks like they are dictatin
to the President of the United States. They are doing
10 as they damn well please, and nobody is doing; anything
about it. You say one thing and I read editorials in
the papers and magazines to the fact that we are - the
13 lobbyists are running the United States. It's going
14 to come to the time when we are not going to have
15 virgin ores anymore, and we are going to start digging
,,, urban ore in our landfill sites - to dig up what we
ID
17 already threw away.
lg MS. DUXBURY: Dana Duxbury, League of Women
lg Voters. Mr. Humber, have you people in the Region I
2Q | office assessed where each s_tate is in regards to the
new law, the status of the various laws, and the status
of regulations regarding these provisions in this new
laws And if you haven't, do you intend to do so?
It seems that the public could be a great source of
-------
1 support and understanding If they knew exactly where
2 we were In regards to this Act, in terms of helping
3 for funding or greater enforcement,
4 MR. HUMBER: We haven't and we will.
5 MS. DUXBURY: Thank you very much, Mr.
6 Humber. Remember what he said, people.
7 JOHN FRYER: My name is John Fryer. I am
8 chairman of the Water and Sewer Commission in the City
9 of Fall River, Massachusetts.
10 Under the discussion of State program development,
11 reference was made to regional planning areas, and
12 particularly tying it into the 208 process. I have
13 been working with the 208 process for a couple of
14 years, and there are a couple of issues we are picking
15 up with them that I think we ought to be aware of here.
16 The first is, to my knowledge, there is only one
17 program in the Commonwealth that is essentially on
18 time. The second is it has been criticized at this
19 point for too literally translating the law. What this
20 is a result of is a lack of guidelines at the outset in
21 the development in the 208 programs, and then when the
22 law was used in its literal sense for the development
23 of this particular area's program, we are now being
criticized for following the law too closely. So what
-------
1 this is going to do is unknown, but it does point up a
2 substantial deficiency in promulgation of guidelines
3 for the areas, or even perhaps the State to follow,
4 and I would like to point this out as a pitfall to the
5 process of the law that we are discussing today.
6 So I would ask if the 208 process is going to be
7 closely tied to this or if there are going to be more
8 direct substantial or exact guidelines for the states
9 and the municipalities to follow on, other than has,
10 forward so far under the 208 process?
11 MR. GARLAND: We have two sets of guidelines.
12 One set of guidelines sets up the rule for the structuri
13 of the planning agency and the management agency. We
14 have a draft now of our guidelines on these, on the
15 ground rules for the framework. And if you want a copy
lg you could ask Dennis Huebner for it, or I guess send a
17 request to me. However, wait a couple of days and see
18 if it shows up in your mailbox, because we did mail out
19 a whole bunch of copies.
20 Now, with respect to whether we're going to make
sense with these guidelines and whether you're going to
22 get a chance to tell us if they make sense and are
23 sufficiently comprehensive, we are giving you two weeks
-. to comment on these. There will be another draft out
-------
1 around the eighth of April. You'll have another two
2 weeks to comment on that draft, so that you'll have a
3 couple of opportunities to tell us what you think about
4 our approach to the guidelines on how to set up your
5 process for planning and implementation.
The other guidelines that are due in eighteen
7 months have to do with the substance of the state and
8 local plans. The major thrust in this Act is for the
plans to come up with compliance schedules for all of
10 the open dumps that have been Inventoried. So in this
case, we don't have a general goal. We have very
specific goals. We want these environmentally harmful
13 practices to be ended. So I think we have a leg up in
specificity. That's not to say that that's the only
15 thing that would be done, but it's kind of a minimum
16 thing that must be done.
MR. FRYER: I think that the second part of
my question would be: do you anticipate these dates
18
10 as being realistic in light of the possibility of delay
iy
20 for example, in the establishment of the 208 programs?
MR. GARLAND: Okay, Let me get to the issue
of the relationship with the 208 programs. I have been
with the Solid Waste Program for eleven years, and I feu
23
t-bere are specific things about the solid waste busine
24
-------
1 that are different than the water planning business.
2 It is my impression, unless someone else has experience
3 in solid waste management, they are not going to do a
very good job in planning. We have some very specific
5 things we have to do. We have to pick the garbage up
6 and put it somewhere. We can't afford to mess around
7 a lot in the interim. People complain a lot when their
8 garbage cans stay full. So we insist that solid waste
management agencies, the people actually doing the
10 operations, get involved in the planning process.
11 Now, the 208 agencies have the broad picture on
12 the effect on water quality of these residual manage-
13 ment practices, so they should be in the group. They
14 should be notified of the kinds of things that the
15 solid waste planning agencies are doing. If it turns
16 out that they have talent in the solid waste area, and
17 they do have solid links to the solid waste management
18 agency, that would mean particularly that they designat
19 residual management as a high priority area. The
20 government has said that they or somebody linked to
them is going to be a management agency. Then they
22 should receive consideration for primacy. But that's
the kind of linkage we're talking about with 208 agencies.
MR. HOHMAN: Gentleman down at the back.
-------
50
1 MR. CORROSIO: There Is a question that I
2 have in mind.
3 MR. HOHMAN: Would you identify who you are?
4 I MR. CORROSIO: John Corrosio, Corrosio
5 Brothers, Inc., Rocky Hill, Connecticut.
6 I think that we're all here because we're all
concerned with ecology, and everything else. But
8 there are a couple of things that bothe.r me. When I
9 come to these meetings, whether it be with the Federal
10 government, or on a local level or state level, is that
11 you people sit there and the government writes the
12 rules. And yet how many people have gone out and
13 handled this material? You're telling us how we're
14 going to do it. That's number one. Can anybody answer
15 that?
16 MR. GARLAND: Well, we have people in our
17 offices that have spent the better part of their young
18 lives following garbage trucks with stop watches and
19 going to demonstrations where new techniques for buryin
20 the stuff are being employed, or going to hearings
21 where citizen groups are complaining about locations.
22 So in fact we have people on board who have been pretty
23 close to the garbage business. But that's not enough.
, We don't claim to have all the answers. That's why
-------
51
1 we're holding this meeting. That's why we're planning
2 to have a number of exposures of the drafts of our
3 guidelines and our regulations. That's why we plan to
4 hold public hearings on all of our regulations. We are
5 counting on the people who actually do the operations
6 to tell us whether our guidelines and regulations make
7 any sense and whether they are workable. So we are
8 counting on using you to keep us honest.
9 MR. CORROSIO: There is one other question.
10 How can somebody be guilty of something before they
11 commit a crime? This is what the DEP tells every town:
12 you are going to cause or cause to pollute. Now, I
13 could say I'm going to kill you but that doesn't count
14 until I make an attempt. But in the State of Connectici
15 the DEP, they say you're going to cause the pollution
16 and there's no way you're going to prove otherwise.
17 You've got to prove you're innocent before you do it,
lg and I would like to know how you're going to come up
19 with a law like that, that's against the Constitution
20 of the United States?
21 MR. GARLAND: I am not a lawyer.
22 MR. CORROSIO: Neither am I, but I have been
23 court enough to learn a little bit.
MR. GARLAND: I just want to tell you that
-------
52
1 the law says to protect, and let me give you an
2 example. In Miami, Florida, Dade County, they have a
3 one square mile dump that's been there for twenty years
4 Three miles away there is a well field for all of Dade
5 County. They pump a hundred million gallons. The
dump is three miles away. The leachafce has moved two
miles. Now, If you get closer, the leachate is going
to move a lot faster. That's twenty years. It is
9 still pretty strong.
10 We are concerned, if you do dump things, in
locating landfill sites that you will cause problems
in the long run. But that doesn't mean that we Intend
to be unreasonable about it and ask you to prove things
,. you can't prove.
14
,, Now, the states have primacy in determining this
criteria and telling you what's reasonable, and hope-
16
fully the citizens of the state recognize that they
get what they pay for, and if they hire good people to
18
figure out what's reasonable, they will get sensible
20 rules.
MR. CORROSIO: Thank you very much.
21
MR. HOHMAN: Another question down back.
22
MR. COUSIM: My name is Edward Cousim,
President of the New England Water Pollution Control
24
-------
53
1 Association.
2 Last fall, about a week after your Act was passed
3 your law was enacted - we had our meeting at Harwlch-
4 port. Some four hundred attended out of our seventeen
5 hundred membership. I guess one of our biggest probleirs
6 In the water pollution control business right now in
7 New England mainly Is disposal of our sludge, and I
8 think everyone recognizes that. Could you tell me if
9 the disposal of sludge is going to come under your
10 jurisdiction or under water commissions or whatever
11 that might be?
12 MR. SKINNER: The Solid Waste Act includes
13 sludges as solid waste, but there are also, obviously,
14 other agencies within other groups within EPA, such as
15 water pollution groups, which are giving construction
16 ' grants for construction of waste water facilities
17 which also have a very, very strong role in determining
18 how sludges are going to be handled. We try and work
19 closely within the agency on those problems, but we see
20 our responsibility under the Solid Waste Act is for the
21 disposal of all waste, Including sludges.
22 MR. COUSIMs How do you think it will be
23 turned out? Will it be clearly defined?
MR. SKINNER: We intend to issue guidelines
-------
for the disposal of sludges as part of the Resource
Recovery Act.
3 MR. MARIS: My name IB Juan Marls, from the
4 Rhode Island statewide program, which is developing
5 the 208 program for Rhode Island.
6 Earlier there was a statement by a gentleman up
7 on the panel that you have to realize that all the
8 states have some sort of solid waste management plans
9 on the books now, whether they meet the requirement or
10 not; and that since they do have this type of plan on
11 the books, that 208 shouldn't be involved with it. I
12 would have to disagree, because what this gentleman
13 just said, or this gentleman, I'm sorry, was saying
14 about sludges coming under the confines of this parti-
15 cular Act. The 208 program is trying to get a handle
16 on the sludge problem. Now, if the 208 is trying to
17 get a handle on the sludge problem, whether they come
18 out with something good, bad or completely terrible,
19 I think what they've done has to be taken into consid-
20 eration, and a close cooperative venture has to be
21 developed between the solid waste management division
22 and the water quality divisions in EPA and at the
23 State level. I think we are supposedly in this all
24 together.
-------
55
1 I had a citizen say, "Don't you people work for
2 the same governor?" And I said, "Well, it's not as
3 simple as all that." I said, "We hopefully have the
4 same type of objectives, but there is no coordination
5 between the divisions." And I think this is something
6 that has to be developed at the Federal level and put
7 down on the state level.
^^
8 MR. GARLAND: As I said, the important thing
9 is to establish the linkage. Now, if I said earlier
!0 that the governor will decide who will plan for what,
~^
11 one of the whats, of course, is sludge. If the 208
12 agency is not only planning for sludge, but has a
13 management aspect to it so that they don't Just plan,
14 but what they say will be carried out by somebody at
15 some point, then fine.
16 MR. MARIS: I think that's probably one of
17 the major problems with the 208 program, is that people
18 don't really realize that it is a management program
19 and not purely a planning program or a technical
20 evaluation. I think emphasis in the 208 program and
2i the programs set up under the Resource Conservation
22 and Recovery Act are on management. The way you get
23 that management is by doing the technical evaluations.
24 But another reason why you should take a look at
-------
56
1 using the 208 agency to some sort of degree, I'm not
2 trying to establish some sort of kingdom for 208, or
3 anything like that, but what I'm Just trying to do is
4 get a cooperation between the agency, and the reason
5 that I was going to bring out why you should use the
208 agency is because under this particular Act you
call for exactly the same type of procedure that 208
was devolved from. The 208 program has a citizen
committee, whether it's good or bad, and it has a
10 municipal advisory group or a policy-making group,
11 These type of decision makers are there, and I feel
12 they should be utilized or at least coordinated with.
13 MR. HOHMAN: Gentleman down at the back, and
then after this question is answered, we are going to
15 take a short break.
16 MR. NATKIN: Fred Natkin, Anglo-Fabrics,
17 Webster, Massachusetts.
18 We seem to have a problem, not so much with the
19 laws, but interpretation. We are in contact with EPA,
20 together with the Town of Webster, repeatedly, and it
seems to me that the results we had in having meetings
22 with these gentlemen from the State level was entirely
23 contradictory. We get a permit for one type of opera-
tion. The next fellow comes and says it is illegal.
-------
57
1 Then again we do It another way. We ask for technical
2 advice, and so far we haven't got anything. What Is
3 the solution to this problem?
4 MR. HOHMAN: First thing is try to find out
5 somebody who can answer the question.
6 MR. GARLAND: There are, as this gentleman
7 from Rhode Island pointed out, we need to be better
8 coordinated, and in the best of all possible worlds,
9 we have one-stop shopping through your permit. As a
10 manufacturer, you should be able to go to a pollution
11 control agency and say, "I want to do the following
12 kinds of things. What kinds of permits do I need?"
13 And that would be the end of it. I think we should
14 work towards that goal.
15 MR. NATKIN: I agree.
16 MR. HOHMAN: We want to give our court
17 stenographer a little break over here. She has been
18 going steady for better than an hour and a half. I
19 propose that we now take a fifteen minute break,
20 stretch, reconvene at ten minutes of three. For any of
2i those who are leaving, who are not staying for the
22 balance of the afternoon, please don't forget to turn
23 in your registration slips and the environmental
24 questionnaire in the box at the front.
-------
58
1 (Recess taken)
2 MR. HOHMAN: In the notice that we sent out
3 of this meeting, we asked everyone to indicate whether
4 or not they wished to make some kind of statement to
5 the people from Washington and to the agency. What I
6 want to do now is to go through and call, in the order
7 that we received these notices, the people who wish
8 to make a statement. In the interest -of time, I am
9 going to have to limit each statement to no more than
10 five minutes and we will use a little bell up here.
11 If you have a statement that is going to take longer
12 than that, I would suggest that what you do is give a
13 copy of that to the stenographer for the record, and
14 try to summarize your remarks. Again, would you please
15 for the record, state your name and who you represent
16 The first speaker is Wanda Rickerby. Is Wanda
17 Rickerby here?
lg PROM THE FLOOR: She is not here, but I
19 believe her statement and resolution will be coming by
2Q mail.
MR. HOHMAN: Donald Yeaple.
22 MR. YEAPLE: I didn't expect to be first
with a name that starts with Y, but my name is Donald
Yeaple, and I am representing the General Electric
-------
59
1 Company, Lynn, Massachusetts. My statement shouldn't
2 take more than two minutes.
- 3 G£ has a number of plants located in the New
4 England area. The largest plant, which employees about
5 eleven thousand persons, is in Lynn, Massachusetts.
6 In Lynn we generate about one hundred tons per week of
7 combustible waste, which is delivered to RES-CO Incinera
8 tor Projects. In return, steam is supplied by RESCO
for in-plant use.
10 We also generate metallic scrap, with an annual
resale value of 2.5 to three million dollars. Unfor-
12 tunately, a solid noncombustible, nonmetallic, un~
13 usable refuse is also generated for which a suitable
disposal site must be found. We have operated, and
15 will continue to operate for a limited period of time,
16 a small landfill for our own use. This is approved by
the State for our use as long as the waste is nonob-
18 Jectionable.
What happens to sludges, chemicals, solvents, etc.
20 In every case, they end up being shipped out of state,
resulting in a decent profit to the transportation
22 company and the out-of-state landfill operation. It
2g also increases our cost of doing business in Massachu-
setts. This has resulted in some ludicrous situations.
-------
60-
1 A spill firm was recently involved in cleaning up an
2 oil spill caused by one of our suppliers, and they
3 needed to dispose of snow and ice in which some oil
4 was trapped. Because Massachusetts would not allow
5 the material in landfill sites here, the snow was
shipped to Rhode Island at a cost of twenty-five dollars
7 per ton. The total cost was on the order of five
8 thousand dollars for probably less than fifty gallons
9 of oil.
I believe the only way to equitably solve the
disposal problem will be to set up State sponsored
hazardous waste and processing sites on a regional
13 basis. Three sites in southeastern, northeastern, and
central or western Massachusetts should easily solve
14
... the problem. Since the political atmosphere of locatin
10
these sites would be about as attractive as tha Biting
16
prisons, the State should be involved with the siting
decisions rather than the local communities. In fact.
18 '
they probably could be located on State owned land
19
^ The technology is available for the operation of
20
environmentally acceptable disposal sites, and by
21
encouraging regional sites available to all industry,
the marginal fly-by-night operator will soon disappear
23
It is a fact of life that incineration and resource
24
Of
-------
61
1 recovery will not solve all of our problems, and that
2 some landfill sites will be required. We need to pro-
3 ceed on that basis now. Thank you.
4 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Yeaple.
5 Mr. Otto or Mr. Berman from Mitre Corporation.
6 MR. BERMAN: We withdraw our statement on
7 the basis of the fact that the materials were adequatel;
8 covered before.
9 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you.
10 Mr. James Harvey, from Westboro, Massachusetts.
11 FROM THE FLOOR: He was unable to make it.
12 MR. HOHMAN: Murray Fox, North Oxford, Massa-
13 chusetts.
14 MR. FOX: I am with Recycling Enterprises in
15 North Oxford. I would like to know if the government
16 is going to do anything about public awareness for
17 recycling in the landfills?
18 MR. HOHMAN: Is that a question someone up
19 here would answer?
20 MR. HUMBER: Forgive me. I'm not sure
21 exactly what you mean. I went through some of the
22 things we are going to be doing working with the
23 communities.
MR. FOX: Yes. Is the government going to do
-------
62
1 public awareness information to let them know about
2 recycling and landfill to cut down the amount of space
3 being used?
4 MR. HUMBER: Yes. But we have in the past.
5 I guess you're saying we haven't done enough?
MR. POX: You haven't done enough period.
MR. HUMBER: I agree with you. We have not
done enough, and we plan to do more.
MR. HUEBNER: The State of Connecticut is in
10 the process right now of planning for aewer separation
conferences to be held, I believe, in Hartford, Connect
cut on March the thirtieth, and they will be inviting
13 municipalities and people such as yourself over the
14 next two to three week period. The conference is being
15 set up for the southern New England states, Massachu-
16 setts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. So that's a
17 partial answer to your question
lg We have to do more and we will be doing more
19 EPA has a whole bunch of publications, some of which
20 are down in back of the room, which address that
specific issue.
MR. FOX: When is this?
MR. HUEBNER: March the thirtieth.
2o
MR. HOHMAN: Mr. Thomas McNeil, Connecticut
-------
63
1 Waste Recovery Systems, Inc. I understand he Just caiw
2 in. Would you come over and use the microphone, pleas
3 so they can hear you? Would you give your name and
4 who you're with for the purposes of the court steno-
grapher?
MR. MC NEIL: Tom McNeil, My company is
Connecticut Waste Recovery System, Westport, Connecti-
cut.
9 I had requested half a minute of your attention
10 because I am in the process of trying to put together
11 a commercial pathological waste pickup service to
12 service the southern part of Connecticut as a complimen
13 to the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority's
14 regional plant. We have gone into quite a bit or 8«rr4
15 work along laboratories, hospitals, nursing homes,
16 veterinary centers, and so forth, and found out that
17 there is a substantial need for this type of service.
18 I Just wonder If you had or plan to promulgate any
19 guidelines that could help us in this particular en-
20 deavor? We have already designed a type of bag and
21 box that will be uniform in size, and while we haven't
22 got rates established, we do know roughly what the
23 operation would cost to run, and we feel that it would
. be both a service and probably a profitable operation
-------
1 for any operator who took it over.
2 The question is will there be guidelines for this
3 type of hazardous waste?
4 MR. SANJOUR: The answer is no.
5 MR. MC NEIL: I have to do it by guess and
6 by gard, with local authorities' guidance? Would that
7 be it?
8 MR. HUEBNER: One partial answer to that
9 question is the State of Connecticut, I believe, is in
10 the process of doing a pathological waste survey right
11 now, and if you got in touch with Joe Boerin of the
12 State, he could probably provide you with whatever in-
13 formation he has collected so far.
14 MR. MC NEIL: We've been in touch with the
15 Solid Waste people on this matter all ready. But their
ie survey isn't completed yet. 1 was curious to know
17 whether there was anything pertaining to the Federal
18 regulations that might guide us in this particular
19 regard; for example, containerizing pathological waste.
20 MR. HUEBNER: I guess the second part of that
21 answer, maybe Bill should respond to this. I would
22 think that one of the things that Washington is con-
23 sidering right now is whether or not pathological
24 waste ought to be considered hazardous waste, and if so
-------
65
1 all of the regulations that Bill spoke to you about
2 would be applicable In the pathological waste, including
3 how you store them and how you transport them. That
4 decisior
5 months.
4 decision is going to be made in the next eighteen
MR. HOHMAN: Mr. William A. Ube from the
Town of Winslow, Maine.
MR. UBE: My name is William A. Ube, Town
9 Manager in Winslow, Maine.
10 The statement is very brief, and perhaps more is
11 a question than a statement. We are going through the
12 process now of doing a regional incineration study
13 with five communities and one major Industry. The EPA
14 and the State make an awful lot of sanitary landfills.
15 It is my personal opinion that the sanitary landfills
16 are probably more of a problem than cleaning up our
17 rivers and streams in days to come. I really wonder
18 why the Environmental Agency of the State and Federal
19 government aren't putting more stress on getting away
20 from sanitary landfills and going to a resource recover^
2i incineration?
22 MR. HUEBNER: I think clearly the intent of
23 the Act, as stated in the first couple pages, is that
24 resource recovery has a very high priority in Congress,
-------
66
1 and Congress recognizes that we are using up the lands
2 very valuable lands at a much too fast rate. However,
3 the option you mentioned here, an incinerator, I have
4 to remind you that has a residue that has to be dispose!
5 of someplace, and also that incinerator will not be
6 able to handle a good amount of the municipal commer-
cial industrial waste stream, simply because you will
not get a lot of materials through the charging door.
You may not burn such materials as rubber tires, so
10 you're going to end up with residue plus unprocessable
11 material that's going to have to be disposed of on
12 land someplace.
13 The only technique that we are aware of right now
14 to properly dispose of that material is by utilization
15 of sanitary landfill concepts.
MR. HOHMAN: Edward Cousim or Theodore
17 Miller from the Hartford, Connecticut Metropolitan
18 District Commission.
19 MR. COUSIM: My name is Edward Cousim. As
20 I previously noted, I am President of the New England
21 Water Pollution Control Association. I am also exe-
22 cutive engineer for sewer operations for the Metro-
23 politan District Commission for Hartford, Connecticut,
_. and that all is a fancy name for sewerage treatment
-------
67
1 plant operator of about eighteen years.
2 My comments don't have to be for any of those
3 special outfits. I would like to give this input to
4 this meeting. The real reason that I felt that I
5 wanted to speak was that the brochure advertised that
6 there would be some reference made to research demon-
7 strations, and so forth. During the presentation it
8 was rather minimal, but rather it would seem to me that
it would be proper that sufficient funds and expendi-
10 ture in energy be made for research. My experience in
this field over the years has indicated that there has
12 been hardly any advancement in incineration. That was
13 just mentioned a minute ago. I have three of them,
14 eleven hearths. I am sure that they are some of the
15 largest incinerators in New England. They are not up
16 to date. We are having problems. There needs to be
17 vast improvements in incineration from the point of view
lg of burning, pollution control, air pollution control,
lg and as was pointed out a moment ago, when you have an
20 incinerator, you still have a solid waste problem that
can only be adequately taken care of by sanitary land-
22
The other comment that I would like to make, that
is kind of off hand, in as much as I don't know too
-------
68
1 much about 208 planning, and maybe I am way off base,
2 but it would Just seem to me that when a 208 plan is
3 made for that particular area, provision has to be
4 made on a percentage basis, or whatnot, that proper
5 disposal of the hazardous waste and other waste such
6 as the sludge, ash, or the incinerator ash, that area
7 is also designated right in the plant. Then there is
8 no question as to what's going to happen. That's what
9 I call planning.
10 MR. HOHMAN: Mr. Jack Thim from Acton Metal
11 Processing Corporation of Waltham.
12 MR. THIM: My name is Jack Thim, and I am
13 speaking as a representative of the National Assocla-
14 tion of Metal Finishers concerning hazardous waste.
15 I address my comments to Mr. Sanjour.
16 Our members are in the electroplating industry,
17 and as the results of clean water acts, we create
18 sludge or metal hydroxide. And in your December 16th
C?u^«;/es
19 meeting in Washington, Mr. Jtaa'ei"'stated that the EPA
20 wanted, and I quote, "The practical experience of peopl
2i who knew what they were talking about."
22 My question to you is: are we going to be given
23 an opportunity to give you input, and if so, who should
24 we direct this input to?
-------
69
MR. SANJOUR: Yes, and me
MR. THIM: Thank you.
MR. HOHMAN: Mr. Chaney from SEA Services.
MR. CHANEY: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentle-
men, my name is Bill Chaney. Though I work with the
Natural Solid Waste Company, I am speaking as an
7 individual, as a taxpayer who has been involved in
8 sanitary engineering for about twenty-five years, a lot
9 of it in solid waste. As an empethl'zer1 and once in
10 a while a helper of members of public works departments
who have to answer to various boards and are trying to
12 get something done about the solid waste problem, I
13 am very much disturbed when I go with a colleague from
14 the public works department to a public meeting, whethe
15 it's a board of aldermen, city council, whatever, and
they say, "Tell us how much money we are going to make
17 on recycling when we develop our center, which you're
going to tell us about." So we proceed to tell them,
19 and when we're through, they say, "Wait a minute. You
20 don't understand our question, either that, or you
haven't done your homework, because we read about John
22 Doesville making so much money on recycling and re-
23 source recovery and Jane Doesville in the other end of
the state, they're making a lot of money. What you're
-------
70
1 telling us is it is going to cost us money." So we
2 point out again that if through a Federal grant they
3 got the truck, and the maintenance of that truck is
4 through the Highway Department, and the driver comes
5 from the Public Works Department, and the Boy Scouts
clean up the mess on a voluntary basis, and taxpayers
separate at the recycling center, then we point out
that It's ten cents a ton a mile to haul this stuff,
and if they have to haul it a hundred miles, as they
10 often have to, there goes the total sum they are going
to get from the recovery. I am very much disturbed
when I go with a colleague from the Public Works De-
13
partment to a city council or even a legislative commit
;ee
to talk about resource recovery plants, energy conser-
14
vation plants, and the preamble of the meeting is how
15
it is going to cost two dollars and fifty cents a ton
16
when in reality it is fifteen dollars a ton today and
twenty dollars a ton pretty soon.
18
I thank you for your indulgence for listening to
this, and I appreciate the fact that it doesn't have
a great deal to do with public law, except I think
21
public law is fine and I think what we're trying to do
22
in the area of hazardous waste is particularly good.
23
It is going to increase the cost - the present day cost
24
-------
71
1 of operating a sanitary landfill in excess of five
2 dollars a ton. It is going to be ten dollars a ton
3 very soon, and certainly there isn't anything simpler
4 than that.
5 When you talk about a resource recovery energy
6 conservation plant, you are talking about a processing
7 plant that is analogous to a processing plant to in-
8 dustry. It is an operating cost. Its maintenance
9 costs are very high, and believe me, we have to go back
10 and tell everyone that we have to talk to in the city
11 council, public works board, whatever it might be,
12 that, "Look, this is a great act and we are going to
13 clean up things a little bit because of it, but it's
14 going to cost us some money, a great deal more money
15 than we're talking about today, much less eighteen
16 months from now."
17 I was in a city engineer's office this morning.
18 He had been telling his commissioner, his mayor, his
19 board, that the program for resource recovery in his
20 area looked pretty good to him, and it was going to be
21 in excess of ten dollars a ton, and on the mayor's
22 desk is a letter from a guy saying he is going to take
23 the problem off the city's hands for two dollars and
. fifty cents a ton. This is the sort of thing we have
-------
72
1 to educate everybody about. It is all well and good
2 to have some very fine laws, but we certainly have to
3 educate the public and it is incumbant upon us to do
4 this, because we're the ones expected to do the job.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. HOHMAN: Carroll Hughs from the Consoli-
7 dated Waste Association in Chester, Connecticut.
8 MR. HUGHS: Also the Institute of Scrap Iron
9 Steel in the small printing underneath that.
10 MR. HOHMAN: Right.
11 MR. HUGHS: My name is Carroll Hughs. I
12 serve as executive director of the Consolidated Waste
13 Association and the Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel.
14 The Consolidated Waste Association represents the
15 State's private refuse haulers; the Institute Scrap
lg Iron and Steel represents the scrap metal processor
17 in Connecticut and western Massachusetts. The haulers
18 haul probably seventy percent of the material in the
19 State of Connecticut. My scrap processors handle all
20 the metal that comes out of the State of Connecticut
from industry, and handles a vast amount of the mater-
22 ials collected from sanitary landfills, and everything
23 from white goods to other type of recoverable materials
and different types of programs.
-------
73
1 I think we keep using this term, resource conser-
2 vation. I really tend to like the old one a little
3 better of recycling, because I think we have created
4 a new euphemism, which the people are having some
5 difficulty getting used to, because in my State we use
resource recovery almost to mean the recovery of
7 materials that are utilized as fuel and incinerated
8 in some type of plant for fuel generation, or whatever.
I think the important point is that the recycling
10 efforts, as they are ongoing, have to be more emphasize
11 in this particular legislation, and whatever you pro-
mulgate as regulations. There are a number of import-
lg ant points I think that we have to look at in regard
to your overview as you started off today in speaking,
and one of them is the participation of those existing
In the solid waste area. Again, as I mentioned, my
16
haulers handle seventy percent of the solid waste in
the State of Connecticut. They also receive, at their
18
landfills, probably somewhere in the area of fifteen
~. to twenty percent of the materials, and that amount
20
is increasing rapidly during the last few months, and
I would think as the closings take place in other
landfills, that it will Increase more dramatically in
23
the future.
24
-------
1 I think the State level operation that is promul-
2
gated, and I don't see any reference to that, and it
3 is a question you can answer later, is what is the
4 mandatory participation of the users of the particular
system, namely the haulers, namely the secondary
6 material dealers, including the scrap metal processors,
7 paper dealers, and hazardous waste handlers? I see no
8 reference to it in the guidelines that you've put out
9 so far. I think one of the highest needs and the
10 biggest needs we have in the State of Connecticut is to
11 look towards the smaller scale operation, that small
12 recycling operation which can, in many cases, make it
13 very successfully in good times, but in bad times there
14 are difficulties of fixed cost and tonnage requirements
15 and transportation costs which municipalities tend to
16 look at on a fiscal year rather than a secondary
17 material dealer looks at it on an average of two years.
18 That is an argument that has to be developed and pre-
19 sented to the municipalities and grants designed to-
20 , ward bridging that particular gap with some sort of
21 subsidies to those smaller recycling systems.
22 I think there is enough research ongoing with the
23 twelve or fifteen companies that are dealing with the
24 fuel recovery and other type of processes which I don't
-------
75
think at this point need additional public money put in
them to encourage more of that particular process. I
think the smaller ones are bejlng ignored generally
speaking
There are probably several items that can be
added into guidelines that might be developed by you
for a resource recovery service or for that granting
process, and I would just like to suggest a few of
those considerations fba* your use in a resource recover
10 system. One of those la that the recycling centers or
solid waste transportation disposals should not compete
12 with or displace private sector operations. A very
13 Important point when government is dealing with the
14 overall aspect of solid waste and ignoring sometimes
15 the profit investment that's been made, in many cases
In millions of dollars In processing equipment to do
17 much the same function.
The representation of the scrap processing in-
19 dustry and every other must be mandatory in any develop
20 ment of planning stages, even at the local level, if
that's what you decide to do in a regional particlpatio
22 scheme, which you seemed to suggest in the first part
23 of your presentation. It is also Important that the
materials are generated from a recycling facility,
24
-------
76
1 particularly large scale recycling facilities, not be
2
let on the market at prices below the market price
3 that is established at that particular time. To do so
could have many, many ramifications to other aspects
5 of the market; namely, for instance, in the scrap
6 metal industry, the abandoned vehicles which are one
7 hundred percent handled by private industry in every
8 one of our states, and the market price of the metals
9 that are sold from those particular items would in fact
10 fall, in many cases, into similar categories of
11 materials that would be let on the market by resource
12 recovery systems, and if available purcnasing that is
13 going on in that area is made of the government center
14 at lower than prevailing markets, then it will affect
15 that particular aspect of recycling, that is abandoned
16 automobiles, white goods, etc., or more importantly,
17 the by-products of industry which have been recycled
18 for many years.
19 I think the economic evaluation should be mandatory
20 in any grants that are established by the Environmental
21 Protection Agency of funding with a local center, and
22 what is established in that area to deal with the pro-
23 blem of that particular solid waste. One of my concern|s
24 for that is in the definition of public law 94580.
-------
1
77
Secondary materials are not specifically delineated as
an exclusion from the category of solid waste. I don't
represent the Institute in Washington, but in the State
4 of Connecticut, we do have a provision in the State
5 statute which particularly excludes materials held for
6 shipment in any one of a number of programs, even those
7 dealing with local recycling of glass at a local govern
ment level, as well as industry level.
9 Maybe you could comment on my question in regard
10 to participation or anything else you might consider.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hughs.
13 MR. HUGHS: The question, the one question
14 I had at the beginning is will there be a mandatory
15 participation of the users in the solid waste stream
16 where those presently serving some capacity in moving
17 solid waste or processing It In the State organization
18 established in the Act?
19 MR. GARLAND: In the very first paragraph
20 of our Regional Identification Guidelines we recognize
21 the importance of private enterprise. We say that the
22 governor shall set up his planning region in consulta-
23 tion with local elected officials and private enter-
. prise. So we recognize that. It's up to you to convince
-------
78
1 the governor that you have a role.
2 MR. HUGHS: What you're saying is that you
3 are not going to require that the governor submit a
4 plan without our participation? You are not going to
5 turn that particular proposal back to the State to say
*> it is not comprehensibly done?
7 MR. GARLAND: If the^governor has held hearings
8 and given you an opportunity to comment, then we will
9 accept what the ^pvernor has decided. We are not going
10 to arbitrate family disputes within _s_tates. But we do
11 encourage people who don't like the way the_gpvernor
f
12 did it to use their state administrative procedure act
13 and to petition for review if they don't like the way
14 it came down.
15 MR. HUGHS: I want to refer to your document
o-v-X "neo-oio^y
16 here, the Resource Conservation DwwiepmeRt- Act of 1976
17 issues for discussions, page nine. In it you say that
18 there are three types of planning required of the State
19 And then below you list,b, what recourse should be
2o provided for aggrieved parties; and g, how can the role
21 of the private sector beat be identified and preserved?
22 What role should the private sector be given in the
23 planning process? How will an efficient competitive
. balance between private and public services be main-
-------
79
1 tained?
2 Am I to believe that is air or a guideline?
3 MR. GARLAND: This is advice to the governor.
4 If the governor chooses to ignore our advice, we are
5 out of luck. That is to say, the Act recognizes the
primacy of the governor, and we are in a position to
suggest these things. We are not in a position to re-
quire them. Okay. So they will be in the guidelines.
You will be able to point to them when you walk into
10 the governor's office and say, "It says right here if
the governor is not responsive," and I have no reason
to believe he would not be responsive -
13 MR. HUGHS: I am not saying he would be; I
am just saying what is our force in Connecticut,
15 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, any one of the states
, when a particular established agency is designated to
lb
17
be the state's agency, or whatever, or when a new one
, is established when one does not presently exist?
lo
MR. GARLAND: I would assume that the jpverno
20 would have some kind of advisory system, and that the
private sector would be part of that system.
21
MR. HUGHS: I would hope so also. That's
22
why I asked the question.
23
MR. HOHMAN: Robert LaBreck from Liqwacon
24
-------
80
1 Corporation, Thomaston, Connecticut.
2 MR. LA BRECK: I am Bob LaBreck from Llqwacon
3 Corporation, Thomaston, Connecticut.
4 We are a private corporation that deals in the
5 treatment of waste considered hazardous. We operate
6 a facility in Thomaston under NPD permits issued in
7 Connecticut. We are an alternative to an inhouse
8 system for an industrial operation. The economics of
9 an inhouse, or dealing with someone of our type, de-
10 pends on the specific waste and the specific conditions
U and situation of the individual company. But the way
12 things are right now, even more important in the evalua
13 tion, is the difference in enforcement and regulations
14 between states and within different areas within a
15 certain state. It is fair to say that Liqwacon is
looking forward to the definitions of what are hazardous
lb
waste and too, hopefully, some Federal regulations
which will issue constant and reasonable standards
lo
for effluent discharge, landfill operations, etc., and
20 the language of hazardous waste. That as long as there
is some consistency among areas, this could eliminate
21
situations now where Just because of geographical
location, local political situations, two companies
23
in the same business creating the same waste, one
24
-------
81
1 company has to spend multi-thousand of dollars on
2 Inhouse or out-df-house treatment systems and another
3 one sends it straight to a landfill or sewer system.
4 The hazardous section, I understand, Is where
5 there will be actual regulations from the Federal
6 government. I guess our question is: will those be
7 set so that they will be standardized and disallow
8 variances between neighbors, states, etc., or is it
9 right now Rhode Island is an easy spot for dumping and
10 landfill and Connecticut is not? Will inequities such
11 as this be corrected by the regulations coming out?
12 MR. SANJOUR: I would say your interests are
13 the same as our interests on that score. I would say
14 that those are very much the interests that were in the
15 minds of Congress when they passed Subtitle C of this
16 Act. However, there is a ringer, and that is that
17 Congress expected this Act to be administered by the
18 ^tates. In encouraging the jstates to administer it,
19 there has to be a certain amount of leeway given to the
20 sljate governments on how they administer it. In other
21 words, if we're going to make it strictly a Federal
22 program with nothing but state-hired people administer-
23 ing It, this obviously isn't going to fly with any
state. They would want a certain amount of flexibility
-------
82
1 in the interpretation of the laws and the regulations
2 in order to administer it.
3 Now, how much interpretation is a reasonable
4 amount? I imagine that issue is going to be resolved
5 and fought over in the next couple of years. We would
6 like to have it so that no state becomes a haven or
^
7 exclusive center; no state can Just arbitrarily prohibi
^
any waste coming in or even disposed of in their states
01* that no state become havens for pollution. That's
10 what we would like to see happen. But as I said, we
n have to give a certain amount of flexibility to the
states, and these two factors are1 going to be tried
over in the next two years, and the best I could sugges
14 to you is keep your oar in the water and let your
15 feelings be known on the subject. Write letters to
the Federal government, to EPA, to me, expressing your
16
opinions on this subject.
MR. LA BRECK: Will you be Incorporating
lo
minimum standards of both affluent standard and format
iy
- policies before the hazardous program? For Instance,
in Connecticut it is administered by the State; in
21
Massachusetts it is not?
22
MR. SANJOUR: Yes. However, the state doesn1
23 -
have to meet those initially. The state can qualify
24
-------
1
83
on an interim basis without meeting the Federal stand-
2 ards. I think they have given something - I forget the
3 amount of time - something like two years to come into
4 substantial agreement with the Federal standards.
5 MR. LA BRECK: To get some kind of a time
6 table, then, within like eighteen months you'll have
7 your minimum standard out?
8 MR. SANJOUR: Correct.
9 MR. LA BRECK: And then you may isstte interim;
10 one for another two years?
11 MR. SANJOUR: Not interim standards. A
12 state may apply for interim permits.
13 MR. LA BRECK: I mean interim authority. But
14 within two years after the eighteen months they would
15 have to get your minimum?
lg MR. SANJOUR: They would have to substantlall;
17 I meet the minimum. What does substantially mean? That'
18 the battle that's going to be fought in thd fte*t two
19 years. When Congress puts discretionary words like
20 that in an Act, it's inviting a battle. The sides will
21 then be Joined. Anyone who has an opinion will voice
22 his opinion. Some people would like to see substantial
23 mean exactly; some people would like to see substantially
24 mean give us a lot of flexibility. That's the spectrum
-------
1
we have to deal with. To a large extent we the Federal
2 bureaucracy depend on who we hear from, how loud he
3 talks. That's the way the system works.
4 MR. HOHMAN: Mr. Louis Sear from Madawaska,
5 Maine.
MR. SEAR: My name is Louis Sear. I am the
Town Manager of Madawaska. Madawaska is a small town
of six Wtonsand population, located on the Maine, New
Brunswick border. Right now it is under about eight
10 feet of snow, a condition which exists for about nine
11 months of the year. It also has about seven feet of
12 frost in the ground, a condition which exists about six
13 months a year. These two points I have a very hard
14 time to impress upon the EPA. This meeting, in my
opinion, anyway, demonstrates a little lack of communl-
. cation that exists between EPA departments. By that,
17 I mean that some EPA departments today didn't know
lg this meeting was being held
The Town of Madawaska has been served notice, and
20 I might add in a very discriminatory manner by the EPA
that unless it complies and ceases operation of their
21
open burning dump by August of '77, the Town of Mada-
2g waska can be held liable to the tune of twenty-five
thousand dollars a day. Now, today we have a meeting
24
-------
85
1 here' to discuss grants to rural communities and
2 authority for research, and so forth. It seems to me
3 that the horse is behind the cart. Madawaska is now
4 in the midst of budgeting close to two hundred thousand
5 dollars for the first year to comply with regulations
6 instilled by the EPA, money which it cannot afford.
7 And I might add here that when I asked EPA why Mada-
8 waska, we were told that it is because we could afford
9 it. We are asked to comply with something that could
10 be funded with a Federal grant.
11 Not only that, but I believe Madawaska is being
12 discriminated against by the fact that it has been
13 picked up by the EPA, along with I believe eight or
14 nine other communities in the State of Maine, and unles
15 a law is for everyone, I believe it is discriminatory.
16 We in Maine, and especially northern Maine, know what
17 that word means. All you have to do is drive north of
18 Bangor on the Interstate, and it suddenly ends in
19 Holton. We're the only §tate in the Union that does
20 not have an Interstate from one end to the other. The
21 politician that thought that one up must have been
22 pretty smart.
23 I firmly believe that the EPA should reconsider
. their complaint against Madawaska and allow us to
-------
86
1 fully explore the grant procedure before we go out and
2 spend two hundred thousand dollars, which we cannot
3 afford. When government programs were started, such
4 as the treatment plant, no town was asked or forced
5 Into construction unless it was funded by the govern-
6 ment. This should be the same for the dumps, especlall
7 In towns where such an expenditure Is needed.
8 The EPA should also look seriously Into the pro-
9 blems a sanitary landfill north of the forty-fifth
10 parallel. I am not trying to be funny when I say that,
11 because you will look at the possibilities, especially
12 this year, of providing a sanitary landfill with dirt
13 or even gravel, and it would be almost an impossibility
14 with the amount of snow we have. Thank you.
15 MR. HOHMAN: Mr. Sear, I would Just like to
16 make one passing comment, and that is that there is
17 nothing in the new Resource Conservation and Recovery
18 Act which relieves EPA of its statutory authority to
19 take enforcement acts as necessary to meet land and
2o air quality standards, which is the situation of those
open dumps in Maine. If EPA doesn't act, we are subjec
22 to citizen suit.
23 MR. SEAR: Are you saying, sir, that you are
going through with this lawsuit?
-------
87
1 MR. HOHMAN: Am I saying what?
2 MR. SEAR: Are you saying that you will go
3 through with this lawsuit if Madawaska does not comply?
4 MR. HOHMAN: I do not head up the Enforcement
5 Division, but if it were me, I would say yes.
6 MR. SEAR: What are these extensions? You're
7 talking about the eighteen month deal and the two year
8 deal. What are you talking about?
9 MR. HOHMAN: I think that we're talking in
10 one case about a program to initially stop and prohibit
11 I the establishment of any new open dumps, a program
12 which aims within five years to close all existing
13 open dumps. However, an open burning dump is something
U completely different and is a violation of the Clean
15 Air Act. So even though the Resource Conservation Act
16 gives you five years, the Clean Air Act does not. And
17 that's the one we have to go with in that case.
18 MR. SEAR: The easiest thing we could do, sir
19 especially in Madawaska, would be to cease burning.
20 However, the ramifications of that would be much worse,
21 because we would be polluting a stream which is near
22 the dump. I believe it would directly go into the
23 water stream and pollute the river further down. So I
2- feel that burning is much better than polluting the
-------
88
1 water.
2 MR. HOHMAN: Professor Louis Rossman from
3 the Department of Civil Engineering at Worcester
4 Polytech.
5 MR. ROSSMAN: I really didn't have a state-
ment, but I will ask a question Instead relating to
Section H which deals with research and training. I
would like to know how much money, if any, has been
appropriated for research, and if there is any monies
10 for traineeships for graduate students, and things like
11 that? And of the items you listed under Section 8001
12 which have these thirteen subjects for research, which
13 would have priority, if any?
14 MR. GARLAND: Of the fourteen million dollars
15 I mentioned for EPA operations, seven million are for
16 Subtitle H, which covers research. Your second
17 question?
18 MR. ROSSMAN: Is there any money for trainee-
19 ships for students?
20 MR. GARLAND: No.
21 MR. ROSSMAN: And of the thirteen research
22 items listed in Section 8001, are there any priorities
23 in there in terms of receiving funds?
24 MR. GARLAND: Okay. There is an ongoing
-------
89
l process of establishing priorities. Right now
2 priorities have to do with that research which supports
3 the regulations under Subtitle C or the criteria and
4 guidelines for land protection. Beyond that I think
5 your input to the research people in EPA would be
welcomed.
7 MR. ROSSMAN: Thank you.
8 MR. HOHMAN: That concludes the list of
9 those people who asked in advance for permission to
10 make a statement, and we now turn the floor open for
any questions or any statements anyone else may want
12 to make. Please use the microphone and identify
13 yourself.
14 MR. COBARBY: My name is Richard Cobarby. I
15 am the Director of Office of Local Assistance in the
,. Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs.
Ifa
17 I have a statement I would like to make for the
10 record. I would like to recommend on behalf of the
lo
Commonwealth of Massachusetts a couple of things: one,
19
that in the development of technical panels, EPA as a
matter of agency policy shall include members on those
panels from the designated State agencies in each state
which is statewide Solid Waste Planning Agency. The
other concern that I have is given the comments about
24
-------
90
1 the levels of appropriation, both in the Ford and the
2 Carter budget, measured against the authorization
3 levels, that's a pitifully small amount of money.
4 However, that is not my comment. Given that resources
5 at least in the ensuing year, and given the resource
constraints on the Federal government and President
Carter's pledge to balance the budget at some foresee-
able point in the future, it would seem very likely
g that the authorization levels in the bill are not
10 likely to be approached in fiscal '78 or '79. It
will be very, very serious resource shortages for im-
plementation. Given that, I would recommend that EPA
lg give serious consideration that funds allocated for
local, inter-local or regional planning of solid waste
feasibility studies, or any phase of implementation,
be passed through the state and allocated within the
16
state by the appropriate state agency
MS. DUXBURY: Dana Duxbury, League of Women
18
Voters.
The League is very concerned with the implementa-
20
tion of this Act. That the Solid Waste Division act
21
in a comprehensive manner, that we attack the whole
problem, solid waste management, first by starting with
23
the area of source reduction to reduce the quantity
24
-------
91
1 of waste that we are generating, remove the avoidable
2 waste; second, recover the resource from that waste
3 which is unavoidable; and third, to dispose of the
4 remainder in an environmentally sound fashion.
5 We have discovered that many people perceive
6 conflicts between these three areas, and when you get
7 down to the Implementation stages of any program,
whether it be a facility or a landfill hazardous waste
9 site, etc., that people are very confused and feel that
10 you can have one and not the other. They are very
unenlightened, often, about the specifics
12 The second thing that I would like to ask is that
13 the EPA keep the public as informed as soon as possible
14 about developments in resource recovery. I often say
15 if I sleep late one morning I may have missed some new
development. We feel that the public needs to be kept
aware of these developments so that they can make or
lg help to make decisions for their communities or for
19 their states that are indeed the best ones. We hope
20 that citizens will be encouraged by the _state agencies
and by the governors of the various states to have
22
input into the plans.
2g As far as hazardous waste disposal is concerned,
I think that the citizens of the six states really neec
-------
92
1 a great deal of information about what the status is
2 today. The fact that in my state we don't have an
3 approved hazardous waste disposal site, where are these
4 materials going? What are they? What is their impact?
5 The second area I would like to speak for is very
6 strong sanitary landfill criterion. What good do we
7 do if when we establish these criterias we Just move
8 the pollution from the air or land into the ground
9 water? In this region of the country we do have
10 serious geological, hydrological problems in certain
areas, and once we get that pollution into the ground
12 water, obviously this is an extremely expensive task
13 to remove it, if you ever could. I think possibly when
14 you develop your landfill criteria, you could designate
15 and let the public know whether or not you are going to
16 allow leachate, what type of leachate, what level.
They should have a say whether or not they are going
18 to be party to a decision that moves this leachate into
19 their ground water.
20 We would hope also that in your resource recovery
panels that you would give a great deal of assistance
to Implementation phases. We notice that they are
extremely long, extensive problems. Connecticut and
Massachusetts are feeling many pains, at the moment,
-------
93
1 as they try to Implement resource recovery projects,
2 and the degree of assistance and Insight that the EPA
3 can give into this certainly should help speed up the
4 process. Thank you.
5 MR. HtJMBER: You asked for some feedback.
6 First of all, I think the total authorization for the
7 bill for all sections is in excess of a hundred and
8 seventy-five million dollars. But only about fifteen
9 to twenty has been appropriated. And in conservation
10 resource recovery, the appropriation is less this year
11 than it was last year. So that gives you an idea that
12 in fact resource and recovery has seemed to be diminish
13 ing in the last couple of years.
U MR. PRYOR: My name is John Pryor, Super-
15 intendent of Waste Treatment Plant in Nagatuck,
16 Connecticut.
YJ I want to clear something up. It seems that
18 hazardous waste was considered, or a source of hazardous
19 waste was sludge from an industrial waste treatment
20 plant, and that sludge from a municipal waste treatment
21 plant was considered solid waste. Now, is there a
22 difference or since naturally industries do discharge
23 in a municipal treatment system, wiii municipal sludge:
-. be considered as one separate thing or will they be
-------
l considered on a case by case basis as to what you do
2 with them, whether they are hazardous or whether they
3 can be considered as solid waste?
4 MR. SANJOUR: Well, I happen to be very
5 sensitive to that issue, and my ears have been tuned
today and I didn't hear anything like that said. Maybe
7 you heard something I didn't hear.
8 Let me say that the Act gives the administrator
9 the authority to define 'hazardous waste in several
10 different ways. One way is to define It by criteria,
which means the makeup of the waste, what's in the
12 waste. If that route is taken, then municipal sludge
13 would be in the same category as Industrial sludge,
14 either it is hazardous or not the same as Industrial
15 sludge. However, the Act also gives the administrator
. the right to define hazardous waste by listing waste,
lb
17 and in that case he may list industrial sludge as being
hazardous waste and not list municipal sludges. He has
lg the authority to do either. All right.
20 I will tell you quite frankly, there is a debate
going on within EPA, and both positions are being
heatedly argued, and I cannot forecast right now which
2, way EPA is going to come down. If you have an opinion
on the subject, once again, I urge you to express that
-------
95
1 opinion often and frequently and loudly, one way or
2 the other because what people have to say on the sub-
3 Ject will very much influence the decision. That, I
4 can assure you of.
5 MR. HOHMAN: Any more questions?
6 MR. FRYER: John Fryer, City of Fall River.
7 On today's agenda there was an item entitled
8 Manpower Development, Public Information and Public
9 Participation. That latter portion has received
^hetF-f
10 relatively short *«»ipt today, I believe, but in the
11 Act :lt says, under Section 7004, b, public participa-
12 tion: "Public participation in the development, re-
13 vision, implementation, and enforcement of any regula-
14 tion, guideline, information, or program under this
15 Act shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted
IQ by the administrator and the state. The administrator,
17 in cooperation with the states, shall develop and
18 publish minimum guidelines for public participation in
19 such processes."
20 The first question I would have is: have these
21 been developed? Second, if not, when will they be
22 developed? And third is a general comment. I would
23 urge that at least more than the minimum be done under
the Act; that is the spirit of public participation
-------
96
1 be developed as part of the guidelines.
2 Could I have an answer to those questions, please?
3 MR. SKINNER: Let me tell you what we're
4 doing as far as public participation in general. We're
5 starting off by holding meetings like this in all of
6 our ten regions so that the public knows about the Act.
1 And it comes out to be something like thirty to
8 thirty-five meetings over the next four weeks, five
9 weeks. For every regulation that we develop under
10 the Act, we will have a list of organizations which
11 represent all aspects of the public, the National
12 Association of Counties, the International Institute
13 of Solid Waste, the private haulers, the environmental
14 groups will be represented, the academic communities
15 will be represented, and they will receive all copies
16 of all Information relative to the guidelines and
17 regulations when they're drafted in the draft form,
18 and we will solicit public comment on it and make
19 changes.
20 For every regulation under development under the
Act, we are going to hold public meetings where formal
22 statements will be made available. So we strongly
23 encourage public participation throughout everything
. throughout the Act. As far as the specific guidelines,
-------
97
1 the plan for those are to be published in approximately
2 six months. But we are even proceeding beforehand
in obtaining public input before the actual guidelines
4 are published
5 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, John. Any more
6 questions? If not, I want to thank all of you for
7 coming and participating. I would remind you again
to please leave your registration sheets and your
9 questionnaires in the box on the way out. Thank you
10 for coming.
(Hearing then suspended at 4:00 p.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-------
98
1 CERTIFICATION
2 I, Teri L. Lancaster, hereby certify the
3 foregoing to be a true and complete transcript of
the oral evidence presented at the hearing of the
5 Resource Recovery Act, held February 25, 1977,
6 at the Sheraton-Lincoln Inn, Worcester, Massachusetts.
7
8
9 .,
Certified Shorthand Reporter
10 "
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-------
/it*
^ /
?
SOUTHERN MID COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COMMIS
2C7i H3 9735 52 FRONT STREET BATH MAINE 04530
February 25, 1977
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
U.S. EPA
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Ma. 02203
Dear Sirs:
As we are unable to send staff to the February 25, 1977 Public Hearing on
PL-9U-580 I would like to submit the following comments on behalf of the Southern
Mid Coast Regional Planning Commission.
The Commission is concerned that the needs of small, rural communities be
recognized as regulations for PL-9^-580 are developed. Lessons learned through
demonstration projects in larger, urban areas will not provide adequate guide-
lines to small rural communities as they analyze their solid waste disposal
options. Funds should be made available which will generate cost data and new
ideas for disposal systems which can be used by rural communities both coopera-
tively and independently.
Further, communities in coastal Maine often lack sites suitable for sanitary
landfill disposal. There is a strong need for support of experimentation to
develop alternatives to landfill and the expensive option of traditional incinera-
tion. For example, more information is needed on law to stablize markets for
secondary materials, on use of small scale incinerators to heat public buildings
and on transportation constraints which limit inter-municipality cooperation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Jonn E. Matthews
Executive Director
JEM/pb
Ron Howes
Chairman, Solid Waste Management Division
State House
Augusta, Maine
-------
-------
1
2
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
3
4
PUBLIC MEETING
6
held at the
RAMADA INN
9
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE
11
12
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1977
13
14 commencing at
15
1:00 p.m.
16
17
MEMBERS OF PANEL:
18
MERRILL HOHMAN
19
WILLIAM SANJOUR
20
GEORGE GARLAND
21
JOHN SKINNER
22
DENNIS HUEBNER
23
24
-------
MR. HOHMAN: Good afternoon. I would like
to welcome all of you to this conference on the new
0>d
3 Resource Conservation^Recovery Act. I am Mel Hohman
4 from the New England Regional Office of the
5 Environmental Protection Agency.
6 I would like to start out by introducing
7 the people that are sitting at the front table. From
8 my left Dennis Huebner, who is chief of the Solid
9 Waste Program in EPA Region One, New England. Next to
10 him is Bill Sanjour from the Hazardous Waste Division
11 in EPA, Washington; John Skinner from the Systems
12 Management Division, EPA, Washington; and finally
13 George Garland from EPA Systems Management Division
14 in Washington.
15 I hope that all of you, when you came in
stopped at the registration desk by the back door
17 You should have been able at that time to pick up a
lg copy of the act, a summary of the act, and two sheets
19 which we have asked you to fill out. The first is a
20 registration form on which we have asked you to also
indicate later on today your reaction to this meeting,
22 any thoughts you might have on future meetings and so
23 forth. The second is for our general information,
something of an environmental questionnaire, which is
-------
1 mailed out to many environmental groups in New England
2 and we wanted to have a chance to see if your views
3 coincided with the views we get from other sources
4 on priorities in New England. We would appreciate it
5 if you would fill them out sometime this afternoon
6 and leave them in the box at the registration desk
7 when you leave.
8 Also down at the back of the room I would
g call your attention to a table containing some EPA
10 publications on solid waste which are available.
11 There are sign-up sheets there. If there's anything
12 you would like to see, fill out a sheet, leave it in
13 the box, and we will mail you those publications.
14 The New England Minicipal Center has been
15 helping us arrange this meeting today, and they also
have some material available down there for you to
17 look at, and I believe sign up if you are interested
13 in some copies.
ig This is the second of two briefings in New
20 England on the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, our new solid waste law. We held a
22 similar meeting yesterday afternoon in Worcester,
23 Massachusetts.
In preparation for this meeting, we have
-------
1 sent out more than 5,000 invitations to industry,
2 governmental agencies, all levels of government,
3 educational institutions, consumer groups, environ-
4 mental groups, and the general public as far as we
5 could define it. In addition, we also advertised the
6 meeting through press releases through the newspaper
7 and official notification of the meeting was published
8 in the Federal Register.
The purpose of the meeting is to briefly
10 outline for you the various aspects of this new act
to tell you what our thoughts are at the present time
12 on how this act will be implemented and to solicit
13 your comments and thoughts and ideas as to what should
be contained in EPA's regulations, guidelines, and
15 general approach of strategy in carrying out the
requirements of the new act.
Such participation, incidentally, is very
specifically required by the act. Section 7004 of
19 the act specifically requires the administrator of
20 EPA to consult with the general public as to the
, content of guidelines and regulations and so forth,
22 and we feel as an agency very concerned that there be
23 an opportunity to the maximum extent possible for the
24 public to participate with us before we develop these
-------
1 regulations. There is another very important role
2 for citizens also in the act, which we will not go
3 into in detail today, but I want to call it to your
4 attention, and that is, the citizens provision,
5 that is 7003, a provision in the act whereby the
6 citizen, who feels the act is not being carried out
7 properly or someone is in violation of the act, has
8 the right to file a complaint as a private citizen.
9 At the same time that we are soliciting
10 your views, I hope that you will not be discouraged
11 when you ask questions and we cannot answer them.
12 We are not yet far enough down the road to be able to
13 give you all of the answers to the questions. The
14 principal purpose of the meeting today is to help
15 generate ideas so that ultimately we can answer those
lg questions.
17 The general pattern of the meeting will be
18 a series of short presentations on various aspects
19 of the solid waste program in New England, a general
20 overview of the act, and then some more specific
2i details about critical sections of the act that we
22 are thinking of comments on. After each of the
23 presentations, we would like to have questions from
24 the public that deal with your understanding of the
-------
1 act and with the material that is presented during
2 that presentation.
3 After we conclude that part of the program,
the second part would be an opportunity for people,
5 who want to make formal statements and recommendations
6 to us on how the act should be carried out, to be
7 able to do so. Many of you have indicated on your
registration notice that you do want to make a
9 statement. When we get to that part of it, we will
10 call on these people first, and then anyone else who
wishes to make a statement.
12 We do have a court reporter making a
13 transcript of this conference for our use in
14 developing the regulations and so forth. I would
15 ask that if you do make a question or a statement,
that you identify yourself, give your name, tell us
17 where you are from, so it can be part of the record.
13 Copies of the transcript will be available for public
19 examination in the EPA Regional One office in Boston
20 and in our Washington headquarters office. If anyone
wants a copy of the transcript for their own use, the
22 best thing to do would be to contact the stenographer
23 directly after the close of the meeting and make your
. own personal arrangements for a copy of the transcript
-------
1 With that introduction, I would like to
2 get started with the program, and our first speaker
3 is Dennis Huebner. who is chief of the Solid Waste
4 Program in Region One of EPA, who is going to talk
5 about the solid waste problems that we have in New
6 England in general and give you kind of a broad brush
7 overview of what is in the new Resource and
8 Conservation Recovery Act.
g MR. HUEBNER: Thank you, Mel. I too would
10 like to welcome you, and I certainly appreciate your
11 interest in attending. As a matter of interest to
12 you, as Mel mentioned, this is the second briefing
13 that we have conducted. Yesterday we had approxi-
14 mately 350 people in Worcester, and today it looks
15 like we have probably a good hundred, and it certainly
lg indicated the interest in this new piece of
17 legislation.
18 What I would like to do is to give you a
ig brief overview of the act as Mel mentioned, and this
20 overview is going to be followed by more detailed
2i presentations on the individual sections by Washington
22 program personnel.
23 What I would like to do first, though, in
24 order to better relate to you how the act will impact
-------
1 on New England is discuss from my point of view what
2 I think our problems are in New England and try to
3 indicate to you in my opinion again what I think, some
4 of the trends are that are emerging here in New
5 England to solve some of these problems. I think,
6 first of all, what I would have to say is, in general,
7 that unfortunately political institutional problems
8 are probably at the top of my list in terms of getting
9 things done here in this region. It is extremely
10 difficult, if not impossible, to locate new sites for
11 facilities, whether they be disposal sites operated
12 in conformance with state regulations, resource
13 ] recovery facilities, transfer stations, et cetera, it
14 is extremely difficult, even when we can inform the
15 public that these facilities will be operated in
lg conformance with definement of laws, that they would
17 be willing to locate them within their jurisdictions.
It is also extremely difficult, if not
19 impossible, to get communities working together to
20 solve common problems, reach common goals. I would
imagine this is the result of the very strong local
22 government that is quite prevalent here in New England
23 Hopefully this new act will help us overcome some of
24 these institutional, political barriers. We are also
-------
faced with a number of environmental problems which
are quite prevalent in New England.
What I would like to do is show you a few
slides and some of the things and ongoing practices
5 in a good portion of New England. Fortunately, we
6 don't have this type of operation, at least to my
7 knowledge, and this is simply the utilization of solid
8 waste to fill in bodies of water, and to my knowledge,
9 all of these practices are no longer in existence.
10 This i§ kind of an interesting situation.
11 The problem that has resulted in the improper location
12 of a good number of disposal sites years ago. The
13 dump site is located in the lower portion of the
14 screen. The leachate emanating from that dump is the
15 red liquid in the center of the screen and is
16 migrating in a northerly direction towards the town's
17 water supply, and in the upper right-hand portion of
18 that screen. Hopefully we don't have too many problem:
19 like this, but we very well could and it could very
20 well be showing up in the future.
Just to show that we do have good operations
22 in New England, this is a particularly aesthetically
23 pleasing entrance way to a sanitary landfill site
24 located in the State of Connecticut. Refuse is being
-------
10
1 delivered to a fairly precise working area, the
2 refuse is being compacted on a slope on a daily basis,
3 and covered at the end of the operating day.
4 As a result of other pollution control laws,
5 particularly the Clean Water Act and the Clean 'Air
6 Act, we are ending up with more and more residuals
7 from these operations that have to be disposed of on
8 land. This is an example of some sewage sludge, which
9 is being disposed of on land rather indiscriminately.
10 In this slide, it is probably difficult for you to
11 make out, that there are some tires in the upper
12 right-hand corner. What this municipality was doing
13 was mixing the tires in the sewage sludge for reasons
14 unbeknown to me and probably reasons that could not
15 be explained to the local officials either.
16 This is another example of sludge being
17 applied to land. The trench is dug, and the sludge
18 is in the trench. This is in an area with a high
19 water table. This sludge is presently acting like
20 quicksand. It is really a safety hazard. We also
2i have sludge being disposed of in lagoons, and
22 eventually these lagoons will be filled.
23 Sludge is being used in a beneficial way
24 in New England. There are a number of facilities
-------
11
1 where sludge is being applied to land. EPA strongly
n
endorses and recommends this use.
3 Septage is a huge problem in New England
that we are going to have to address and pay a lot
more attention to it in the future. Approximately
33 percent of the households in New England are on
septic tanks, and the septage is a problem that I'm
sure most local officials tear their hair out on when
9 they have to consider what they are going to do.
10 Some of them are located at land disposal sites. This
11 is just another example of one.
12 Unfortunately, we have a good number of oil
13 spills in New England. Now, when these spills come
14 ashore, there's a good amount of material that results
15 from the spills that has to be disposed of in a
16 proper manner on land. This is an example of some of
17 the cleaned up material of a spill that recently
18 occurred in Rhode Island, and this is to give you an
19 idea of what it looks like being disposed of on land.
20 Obviously, when you have a spill, there aren't too
21 many communities that are willing to take this materia
22 onto their land disposal areas and use up their
23 volume. We have got to do something to plan for sites
24 in the future to properly handle this material so that
-------
12
1 we are not looking around at the last minute for sites
2 for disposal.
3 Lagoons are prevalent in New England. This
4 act addresses pits, ponds, and lagoons. Here
5 industrial solvents, waste, oils, and tires are
simply dumped into it, obviously, with some
7 environmental consequences.
8 With fly ash from municipal power plants in
g New England, we have an energy problem. That energy
10 problem may result in the conversion of oil-fired
11 utilities to coal. When these plants start burning
12 coal, there's going to be huge mountains of fly ash
13 to have to be properly disposed of on land.
14 We have a number of special hazardous wastes
15 that we are presently dealing with. This slide shows
a storage area in Massachusetts that was recently
17 cleaned out of pesticides, excessive pesticides, that
18 were no longer legal for use. These materials have
ig to be provided for proper disposal someplace.
20 Tannery wastes from a tannery plant cause
a special problem concerning disposal on land. Rubber
22 tires. I get many, many calls from local officials on
23 what to do with rubber tires. This slide demonstrates
what I would call a very unenvironmentally,
-------
13
1 unacceptable practice: disposal of the tires in some
2 vacant piece of property.
3 Paper mill sludge as a result of our
4 industrial permit program. Those are 55-gallon drums
5 that have been disposed of on the banks of a river;
6 some containing liquids, some not. This is a
1 disposal site that has been receiving over the years
8 many industrial containers, liquids, et cetera. Many
9 of our liquids for a lot of the small businesses in
10 New England, rather than install a treatment system,
11 barreled their waste, liquid waste, and unfortunately
12 a good number of those wastes end up at our local
13 disposal sites.
14 There is a tank truck getting ready to
15 discharge their liquid waste into a disposal site.
lg Another slide showing some hazardous or industrial
17 waste being disposed of.
18 With that as background, what has been
19 happening in New England? I think, in general,
20 during the past five years, in the absence of a
2i federal mandate, federal legislation, we have made
22 great progress in solid waste management primarily
23 because of the initiative on the part of state and
24 local government. Strong statewide leadership is
-------
14
1 emerging and had emerged prior to passage of the
2 acts.
3 In Connecticut three years agcj the
4 Conservation Resources Recovery Authority was
5 created. They are presently building their first
6 facility, resource recovery facility, in Bridgeport,
7 Connecticut.
8 Two years ago in Rhode Island, a Rhode
Island solid waste management corporation was
10 established. This corporation is presently planning
on constructing a facility to service the entire
12 State of Rhode Island right now. Both of these
13 corporations and the authority have the ability to
14 finance, construct and operate resource recovery
15 facilities.
Massachusetts presently offers very
17 similar services via the Department of Environmental
18 Affairs, and is presently negotiating a contract to
19 construct a 3,000-ton-a-day facility that will service
20 50 cities and towns in northern Massachusetts.
We have also had a much greater interest in
22 the development of much more stringent legislation,
23 land disposal regulations, interstate government, and
. a good number of our solid waste management practices
-------
15
1 over the past five years have been improved as a
2 result of the passage of these regulations.
3 There is a much greater interest on the part
4 of the public, public officials, citizens, on source
5 reduction type measures and programs, particularly as
6 evidenced by the passage of both environmental bills
7 in both the jtates of Vermont and Maine. We have
8 also had an increase in the number of source
9 separation programs. People are very interested in
10 taking out of the waste stream prior to disposal paper
11 bottles and cans.
12 This slide depicts a paper separation
13 program that has been initiated in the Hartford,
14 Connecticut, area and wastepaper is being picked up
15 by a trailer rigged in the rear of a packer truck on
16 a normal daily collection route. We have a couple of
17 demonstration projects.
18 This slide shows a truck that is presently
19 being operated in Marblehead, Mass., and a similar
20 one in Somerville, Mass., which is a compartmentalized
2i refuse collection vehicle. People separate their
22 waste in the home to different classes of paper, cans
23 and glass. This truck on its normal collection route
24 will pick up these recyclables on its daily run.
-------
16
1 We have had a much, much greater involvement
2 on the part of private enterprise, which I think has
3 been very good, in New England. We have had a number
4 of incinerators that have been closed down due to
5 their impact on air quality. A number of these
6 incinerators have been converted into transfer
7 stations by private enterprise who were hauling these
8 wastes to private disposal sites operated in
conformance with state regulations.
10 We have a number of transfer stations. As
the location of these disposal sites gets more
12 difficult, we have had to haul our waste further and
13 further away from metropolitan areas. It makes sense
14 to build transfer stations to cut down on some of
15 these great haul costs. Many of these transfer
lg stations are operated again by private enterprise.
17 There are a few that are operated by the public here
18 in New England.
ig This will give you an idea and you are
20 not going to be able to read the names on the slide,
and I apologize for that if you counted up the dots
22 we have a good number greater than ten energy
23 recovery facilities proposed for New England. Many of
24 these are currently being developed with the
-------
17
1 assistance of the private industry, resource recovery
2 industry.
3 The rural people, particularly here in New
4 Hampshire, have been very interested in advocating
5 resource recovery systems. For most of you in this
room, I'm sure you visited the Nottingham facility,
7 which was the first one established here in New
8 Hampshire. People separate their waate in the homes,
9 bring their source separated waste to this facility,
10 where paper is baled and cans are crushed, glass is
11 color separated and hauled to distant markets. The
12 Nottingham facility was the first one.
13 There is one in existence now in Hampton
Falls. There is one in existence in Plymouth. There
15 is one in Swansea, and there are others. As shown
lg again by the dots on the slide, many are proposed.
17 There are two facilities that are presently under
18 development in the State of Maine.
19 We also obviously have had a much greater
20 interest on the part of citizens in New England to
recycle, and I think evidence of this is displayed at
22 each one of our disposal sites, almost every transfer
23 station, almost every incinerator conversion. What
you're seeing here is a slide depicting the center
-------
18
1 at these facilities for the receipt of the source
2 separated material. These are milk cartons that have
3 been baled and packaged for delivery to a market in
4 Wellesley, Massachusetts, and another slide depicting
5 the operation, the Wellesley operation.
6 With that as background, the Resource
7 Conservation and Recovery Act was signed by the
8 President only a few short months ago on October the
If*'
9 2Jtft6c-f 1976. The objectives of this new act are to
10 protect health, to protect the environment, conserve
11 valuable material resources, conserve valuable energy
12 resources, and these objectives are to be achieved
13 through technical and financial assistance to state
14 and local officials which you're going to hear more
15 about from the presentations by some of the people in
lg Washington: manpower development, the prohibition of
17 future open dumping, the conversion or closing of
18 existing open dumps, the regulations of hazardous
19 waste, development guidelines for solid waste
20 management, research and development programs,
2i demonstrations, federal, state and local government,
x'
22 industry, partnership in building these facilities
23 and planning these facilities, and a public education
24 program. Thank you very much.
-------
19
1 I would be happy to answer any questions
2 right now if you care to do so.
3 SPEAKER FROM FLOOR: When is it anticipated
4 that financial and technical assistance will be
5 available?
MR. HUEBNER: The speakers from Washington
7 will address that issue. I could address it right
8 now, but it would be taking away from something they
9 will be telling you in a few minutes.
10 MR. HOHMAN: With that general overview,
we would like to take a closer look at the requirement
12 of the act and implementing it. I would like to
13 introduce Bill Sanjour from our Washington EPA office
14 to talk about the hazardous waste regulatory portion
15 of the act.
lg MR. SANJOUR: Thank you. I am going to be
17 talking about Subtitle C of the Resource Recovery and
18 Conservation Act which deals with hazardous waste.
19 We are dealing here chiefly with industrial wastes.
20 It is not to imply that all industrial wastes are
hazardous, they certainly are not by a long shot, but
22 most hazardous wastes are industrial wastes. These
23 wastes are currently disposed of by the most part in
24 pits, ponds and lagoons and to some extent in
-------
20
1 municipal landfills, but mostly on industrial waste
2 disposal sites rather than in the municipal waste
3 stream.
4 Taking a look at some of the provisions of
the act for hazardous wastes, the most critical
section is 3001, which defines hazardous waste. This
has to be promulgated in 18 months from the passage
of the act, which was last October, and the act
9 allows for two ways to identify hazardous waste: one
10 is by its characteristics and the other is by a
11 list of specific wastes, and, essentially, the
12 administration of EPA has been given its choice of
13 doing it one way or the other or both.
14 Let me just read some portions of the act
15 that deal with that definition. It must take into
16 account toxicity, persistence, degradability in
17 nature, potential for accumulation in tissue and
18 other related factors, such as flammability, corrosive
19 ness and other hazardous characteristics.
20 The next section of the act is 3002, which
2i deals with standards for generators of hazardous
22 waste. These are also to be promulgated in 18 months,
23 and these standards deal largely with record keeping
24 and reporting, and the principal feature of the
-------
21
1 system of hazardous waste is the manifest system.
2 This is a system whereby anyone who generates a
3 hazardous waste has to keep records on where those
4 wastes are going, and they can only go to approved
5 facilities or sites. This is the principal mechanism
6 by which Congress saw to control the management of
7 hazardous wastes.
8 Section 3003 deals with standards for
g transporters of hazardous wastes, and here again the
10 principle is one of record keeping and compliance with
11 the manifest system.
12 Section 3004 gets into a new feature of the
13 act. These are standards for owners and operators of
14 facilities that store, treat and dispose of hazardous
15 wastes, and here we are into a permit system because
16 the standards established under this section will be
17 used as the basis for issuing permits to these
18 facilities under Section 3005.
19 Here Congress intended us to write standards
20 which include record keeping, monitoring and inspectio:
2i design criteria, maintenance, contingency plans. In
22 case something goes wrong on the site, long-term
23 plans for either closing up the site eventually or
24 maintaining it in perpetuity, if necessary, and
-------
22
1 financial responsibility for owners and operators on
2 such sites.
3 In addition to the explicit standards
specified in the law, also provisions or the act
also has a more general statement on acts for which
may be written as may be necessary to protect human
health and the environment which is a very broad
statement which can be used to include such provisions
9 as protecting groundwater supplies, surface water, or
10 air pollution, or even odors. The authority is there.
11 Section 3005 of the act is the system of
12 issuing permits for facilities that treat, store or
13 dispose of hazardous wastes, and these permits will
14 be issued by the state governments, if the states
'§> ^
15 take over the program, or by the Federal Government
16 otherwise. There are also provisions for interim
17 permits, while the permit is getting started and
18 anyone who registers will automatically have an
19 interim permit which would not necessarily meet the
20 provisions of Section 3004 until there is sufficient
2i time to process permits and determine the conditions
22 for them.
23 Section 3006 is to authorize state
<
24 hazardous waste programs. This is the provision
-------
23
that Congress envisioned the provisions of this
portion of the act as being administered by the state
if they wished to. The Federal Government is to
write guidelines for the ^states to take over the
program.
Now, basically, both Congress and the
Federal Government is encouraging the states to take
over this program and we will do jus't about everythin
9 we can within the scope of the law to achieve that
10 end. There are also provisions for interim
11 authorizations for ^states which do not meet the
12 guidelines, so that even if a jstate does not meet the
13 federal guidelines, they can still get interim
14 authorization to administer this program for several
15 years until it brings its own operations and
16 procedures into line with the Federal Government.
17 Section 3010 is a system whereby generators
18 transporters, treaters and disposers of hazardous
19 wastes are required to notify the Federal Government
20 of their existence. This is a provision on those
2i people, not on the government, and if they do not
22 notify the government of their existence and they
23 continue to handle hazardous wastes, they will be
24 in violation of a law subject to fine. If they do
-------
24
1 notify the government, then they essentially have an
2 interim permit to operate until the government gets
3 around to issuing permanent permits, and the response
4 is required within three months of the publication of
5 the act.
6 Section 3011 is for assistance to the states
7 There are provisions in the act in the fiscal year '78
8 to give the ^tates grants to set up a separate
9 program. These are not grants to build facilities or
10 to design facilities but to operate the program, the
11 hazardous waste management program itself. These are
12 to be allocated based on the amounts of hazardous
13 wastes in a state rather than strictly on a population
14 basis. I think that completes the act.
15 DICK KELLER, TOWN OF ALTON: Would septage
16 come under hazardous waste?
17 MR. SANJOUR: No, septage would not come
18 under the provisions of Subtitle C. We are dealing
19 here with mostly toxicity, explosives, things like
20 that, none of which are septage. Any other questions?
2i Thank you.
22 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, Bill. I would like
23 to turn to another aspect of the act, and that is the
24 whole question of land disposal and the program to
-------
25
1 begin a closure of existing open dumps, development
2 of sanitary landfills. George Garland from our EPA
3 Washington office will be the speaker.
4 While George is coming up, I have also been
5 informed that we ran out of copies of the act, and if
6 you didn't get a copy of the act and you would like a
7 copy of it, please so indicate on that registration
8 sheet we asked you to fill out and leave at the back
9 of the room, and we will mail you a copy as soon as
10 we get another supply in.
11 MR. GARLAND: Thanks, Mel. Bill Sanjour
12 has just talked about the hazardous waste provisions.
13 Everything else that isn't hazardous is covered by
14 the general land protection divisions. I will
15 generally cover some definitions of the criteria for
lg sanitary landfills, the inventory of open dumps that's
17 called for, and our guideline provisions and later on
18 John Skinner will talk about the support to state and
19 local governments to help meet the things that I will
20 be talking about.
2i The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
22 has a very broad definition of disposal, which I will
23 read to you right now. Disposal means the discharge,
24 deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or
-------
26
1 placing of any solid waste or hazardous wastes into
2 or on any land or water so that such solid waste or
3 hazardous wastes or any constituent thereof may enter
4 the environment or be admitted into the air or
5 discharged into any waters including groundwaters.
6 You will note that groundwaters are
7 specifically mentioned in the act, and this specific
8 mention recurs throughout the act, so that we are
getting a new emphasis on looking at groundwater.
10 This definition of disposal means that open
dumps and sanitary landfills are going to be a much
12 broader concept than we thought of in the past.
13 Section 4004, which I will discuss in a
14 minute, gives the criteria for distinguishing an open
15 dump from a sanitary landfill, but let me now read the
definition of solid waste so that you will know what
17 we are talking about before going into these disposal
18 facilities.
19 The term solid waste means any garbage,
20 refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water
supply treatment plant or air pollution control
22 facility or other discarded material, including solid
23 liquid, semisolid or contained gas material resulting
from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural
-------
27
1 operations and from community activities. So we have
2 a very broad intent to protect groundwater, surface
3 water and so forth from land disposal.
4 Section 4004 calls for criteria for
distinguishing sanitary landfills from open dumps.
They are due within one year from the passage of the
7 act. That means they are due in October of this year,
8 and they do contain rather general language that there
should be no reasonable possibility of adverse effects
10 at a sanitary landfill. The definition of reasonable
11 probability and the definition of adverse effects are
12 left to the agency. This is an area then where we
13 will be seeking lots of comments over the next nine
14 months.
15 An appraisal of Section 4004 is that all
lg disposal is required to be in sanitary landfills and
17 that the necessary mechanisms for seeing that this
18 happens are put into the state plans. As I said,
19 John will get into that a little later.
20 When the criteria are published, we can do
an inventory of open dumps within the next 12 months.
22 First 12 months the criteria are published, and the
23 next 12 months we come up with an inventory of open
ni dumps. The administrator will publish that list of
-------
28
1 open dumps at the end of that year, and then they will
2 have to be closed or upgraded, which means that the
3 solid waste will have to go to an improved resource
4 recovery facility or sanitary landfill. If it is
5 immediately available or if it is not and the state is
6 planning, then there should be a schedule, step-by-
7 step schedule, for compliance with the law over a
8 maximum of five years, and that compliance schedule
9 should be published in the state plan.
$
10 If the state chooses not to plan, then the
11 citizens' suits provision provides recourse to the
12 public. Mel mentioned that earlier. It basically
13 says that an aggrieved party can sue someone who is
14 in violation of the act, that that person will have
15 to pay the court costs if found guilty. The suit
lg will take place in Federal Court, which gives a little
17 different thrust to the present situation.
18 If you are an aggrieved party right now, you
19 might go to a lower level court, and if there were no
20 option that didn't require crossing political
2i boundaries, the court might be reluctant to force,
22 say, Concord's waste on a nearby town. But in a
23 Federal Court it is not likely that the judge would
2> be quite so sensitive to local politicians, okay,
-------
29
1 haul it 50 miles because that's where the nearest
2 sanitary landfill is.
3 It is probably beneficial for the ^tate to
4 be in the planning division, whereas, these criteria
5 will generally specify the kinds of issues that we
6 want to deal with in doing away with open dumps, and
7 our guidelines will get more specific. The act
8 requires us to publish within 12 months technical and
economic descriptions of available practices and
10 within 24 months to give levels of performance that
will protect public health and the environment.
12 One of the difficult things to do is
13 decide just where the government needs to write guide-
lines, and that's one process where we will be looking
15 for a lot of public input. In the interim, we have
tentatively decided to go ahead with two guidelines.
17 One is an update of our existing land disposal
18 guidelines and another is a new guideline for land
19 disposition of sludge, which is now explicitly part
20 of the definition of solid waste.
Any questions on the land protection
22 provisions of the act, Section 4005?
23 JOANNE MARINER OF RICHMOND, MAINE: My
24 question was in reference to Section 4005, if this
-------
30
1 would refer to private dumps already existing say for
2 five or ten years on private property?
3 MR. GARLAND: Yes.
4 LARRY CUSHMAN FROM THE TOWN OF RUMNEY: My
5 question is this idea of moving solid waste from one
6 place to another as you mentioned, you used the term
7 Concord and the Federal Court and so forth, does that
8 also imply the movement of waste across state borders
9 from say, for example, from Massachusetts to New
10 Hampshire?
l\ MR. GARLAND: As you may know, the Supreme
12 Court acted on an appeal by the State of Pennsylvania,
13 I believe, against the State of New Jersey in the last
14 few days. The court basically decided to duck the
15 issue. It is the agency's policy that we support free
flow of waste across s,tate lines. We think that
17 that's an arbitrary barrier to creating interstate
18 agreements or adequate pollution control facilities.
19 It is not clear in the act just what the act says.
20 Part of the Supreme Court's decision was to wait and
see how the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
22 affected that issue. Again, it is EPA policy that
23 that kind of flow across state lines should not be
restricted.
-------
31
1 LARRY CUSHMAN: As a citizen of the State
2 of New Hampshire, I am thoroughly against that stand
3 of the Federal Government.
4 MR. SANJOUR: Let me address that issue so
5 far as it complies to hazardous wastes. The reason
6 we are in favor of the free flow of hazardous wastes
7 is because a great many of these wastes require very
8 exotic or special kinds of treatment, you know,
g special kinds of incinerators. The economics of
10 scale simply don't exist for every area of every
11 state to have its own facilities for treating all the
12 wastes that may be generated by the industries within
13 that s-i-ate. So a far more practical solution is to
14 have a regionalized concept, at least operationally
15 on the treatment of hazardous wastes. For example,
16 I think probably one rotary kiln incinerator will
17 probably service most of southern New England
18 economically, but I doubt very much if it would be
19 economically viable to locate one in every _s£ate in
20 New England. For that reason, we are in favor of the
2i free movement of the hazardous wastes in the states.
22 I recognize this sort of thing as abused
23 by some states, essentially banning the disposal of
24 hazardous wastes and just letting the problem be
-------
32
1 dumped on some other neighboring state which has less
2 restrictive laws. Such considerations are one of the
3 prime reasons this act was passed, so that there would
4 be uniform laws between states, so that one j£ate
5 could not become a haven for polluters and the next-
6 door state become banned to all disposal. There would
7 be uniformity between the^sjtate laws. That's one of
8 the requirements of this act, and with that uniformity
9 provision, we feel that it is in fact rational to
10 require that there be the free flow of movement
11 between states. Now, the act does not specifically
12 require that, but at the same time the act does give
13 the administrator the discretionary authority co
14 require that if he so chooses.
15 MR. GARLAND: John Skinner will be discussin'
lg our regional guidelines a little later, but let me
17 say in those guidelines we are sensitive to the issue
18 that people tend to want the problem to go away and
19 not to face the fact they generated the waste and they
20 have a certain responsibility for taking care of it.
2i So, when we are asking the Governor to define planning
22 regions, we are asking him to do it in such a way that
23 all the planning regions have available within the
24 region available space for land disposal.
-------
33
1 GEORGE HARDARDT, HAMPTON: Suppose our state
2 chooses not to get into the act? You were vague on
3 this. Who are they going to sue, the citizen?
4 MR. HOHMAN: They will sue the operators of
5 the disposal facilities.
6 GEORGE HARDARDT: In our case, Hampton,
7 New Hampshire. Do we have a recourse for not getting
8 into the act?
9 MR. GARLAND: You can talk to the Governor
10 about it.
11 GEORGE HARDARDT: If our state chooses not
12 to get in the act, are the funds then available to
13 the town?
14 MR. GARLAND: No.
15 GEORGE HARDARDT: Yet we can get sued?
16 MR. GARLAND: By your fellow citizens.
17 JOAN SCHREIBER, STATE REPRESENTATIVE,
18 DURHAM: How does the EPA program to close open dumps
19 in favor of sanitary landfills reflect-an increased
20 concern of EPA for groundwater?
21 MR. GARLAND: In the past, we have focused
22 on a design criteria for sanitary landfills. We have
23 talked about daily cover, and this has been generally
24 regarded as a panacea for all problems. Now, it is
-------
34
definitely helpful in dealing with a number of issues,
but it is not sufficient in dealing with the ground-
3 water problem.
4 Now, the act calls for addressing that issue
5 specifically. When we revise our land disposal
guidelines, those guidelines look pretty good right
now for a lot of the issues that are raised in the
act, but they don't address the groundwater issue
sufficiently, so we will be beefing up the language
10 dealing with how you protect the groundwater in our
11 guidelines, for example. Did you want to say more
12 about that?
13 JOAN SCHREIBER: It's my understanding that
14 soil conditions in New Hampshire are very poor for
15 sanitary landfill and that our areas are very limited.
16 This is why I'm questioning the emphasis on sanitary
17 landfills.
18 MR. GARLAND: As I say, our concept of what
19 is a sanitary landfill will have to undergo some
20 revision. It may be that you have to go to the
expense of a liner, a bottom liner or a top liner,
22 that prevents the precipitation from getting to the
23 waste in the first place. In other words, the sanitar^
24 landfill is not just a facility that relies on
-------
35
natural attenuation to take care of leachate.
We'd like to take a break to fix the mikes.
3 (A short recess was taken.)
4 MR. HOHMAN: I will ask the speakers up
<> here, when someone asks a question, to have the
6 speaker repeat the person's name and the question and
give the answer; and, if anyone would prefer to come
up here and ask the question directly themselves,
9 they can do so.
10 MR. GARLAND: Just as a final note, the
11 act calls for criteria for sanitary landfills. It
12 might well call for criteria for adequate disposal of
13 solid waste. The act is not encouraging people to
14 use sanitary landfills. In fact, it emphasizes using
15 resource recovery so that if traditional types of
16 land disposal methods fail to meet the criteria, the
17 act would in fact be discouraging land disposal as a
18 practice.
19 GEORGE HARDARDT: Has anybody in Washington
20 figured out the economic impact that this is going to
21 have in all the cities and towns in this country, or
22 like every other law, they will figure it out later?
23 MR. GARLAND: The question is: has anybody
24 figured what the economic impact of the law will be.
-------
36
1 or like every other law, will they figure out what
2 the economic impact will be later.
3 Part of the provisions of the act call for
4 part of our administrative procedures call for
5 inflationary impact statements and, indeed, we are
considering that.
GEORGE HARDARDT: Is that an answer to the
question?
9 MR. GARLAND: I guess what you're basically
10 saying, do I know what it's going to cost you for
11 adequate sanitary landfill, and I can tell you
12 GEORGE HARDARDT: No, that's not the
13 question.
14 MR. GARLAND: What the economic impact is
15 going to be. I guess you're telling me if Hampton,
16 New Hampshire, has to pay five bucks a ton for land
17 disposal instead of fifty cents, what is that going
18 to do to Hampton.
19 GEORGE HARDARDT: To the taxpayer or to
20 the whole country.
MR. GARLAND: I haven't figured it out for
22 Hampton.
23 GEORGE HARDARDT: I don't want Hampton; I
24 want the whole country.
-------
37
1 MR. GARLAND: I guess basically the answer
2 to that is that Congress has weighed the pros and
3 cons and decided that the impact is worth it in
4 general.
5 GEORGE HARDARDT: They don't know what the
6 impact is?
7 MR. GARLAND: The way the process works,
8 when Congress passed the act, people testified about
9 the way the thing will fall out and they weighed the
10 whole thing and decided that it was a good thing to do
11 MR. HUEBNER: Let me further respond to that
12 question. I know you're from a rural area and you are
13 probably speaking as a rural citizen and as a taxpayer
14 The impact on you, the taxpayer, could be more money.
15 If you're paying for an open dump or filling in the
lg river that I showed you a slide of, obviously you're
17 not spending that much money right now. For that type
18 of operation you're going to be paying for it in the
19 future. Someone is going to have to clean it up.
20 Somebody is going to make you do it. It may not be
2i the Federal Government, but it will be someone.
22 In terms of the metropolitan area, I showed
23 you a picture of an incinerator that had been closed
24 down. Those incinerators have cost records associated
-------
38
1 with them which we have access to. Many of those
2 incinerators were costing citizens such as yourself
3 $20 to $40 a ton to operate.
4 Now, we can build resource recovery
5 facilities today, which the act encourages, and we
6 know how much they cost, and their cost is based upon
7 the operating experience in Connecticut, Rhode Island,
8 and Massachusetts, and could be somewhere in the
9 vicinity of $8 to $12 a ton.
10 In the urban areas we are saving money by
11 as much as threefold, okay? In the rural areas it
12 could cost more money. However, you have to take into
13 account the type of practice that I showed you in that
14 slide of waste being dumped into a river and what the
15 economic hardship of that is going to cause the
lg community in the future.
17 Hopefully that helps to better respond to
18 your question.
19 MR. GARLAND: Anyone else?
20 DAVE SCOTT, LAKE REGION PLANNING COMMISSION,
2i IN MEREDITH, NEW HAMPSHIRE: You answered a few
22 minutes ago that for the state to get into the act
23 there would be no money available to the community.
24 My question is on the 208, the Water Quality
-------
39
1 Management Act of '72. There is an option, and I
2 wondered if that same option is available in this act,
3 that option being that if the communities get together
4 and designate a region as they have done in the Lakes
5 Region -- a number of our communities have designated
6 us as a waste treatment planning agency for the
7 region -- if those communities then through us could
8 get the money they need to build the facilities that
9 you people are requiring, because right now we have
10 done enough planning.
11 Most of these communities are in the positio
12 that if they had the money, they could build, they
13 could get the implementation underway. If the law
14 says you have to do it and then flatly says if the
15 s£ate doesn't get into it, the communities have to
lg come up with it on their own. It seems to me that
17 maybe under the law as Congress has enacted it, EPA
18 would be subject to suit.
19 MR. GARLAND: Dave Scott wants to know if
20 communities get together and come up with their needs
2i and approach EPA directly as, for example, under the
22 Federal Water Pollution Act where areawide agencies
23 are funded directly, is this a possibility.
24 John Skinner will be discussing the funding
-------
40
1 provisions of the act a little later and hopefully
2 he will deal with your question more completely then.
3 ' LARRY CUSHMAN, TOWN OF RUMNEY: You said in
4 answer to the lady's question here about sanitary
5 landfills and that waste was supposed to be put in
6 those, that not necessarily, but would you help me
7 then to understand well, under Section 4004 it
8 says disposal required to be in sanitary landfills,
9 et cetera. Doesn't that point to the sanitary landfil
10 as being the main type of disposal area that you are
11 suggesting?
12 The reason why I ask this question is I have
13 been conducting, along with my colleague, a four-year
14 study of the effect of groundwater at the Ashland
15 Sanitary Landfill in Ashland, New Hampshire. We have
16 had four years of checking perimeters on that
17 particular site. But I still wonder, as her question
18 implies, there's maybe not that many sites in the
19 s.tate for a good sanitary landfill, yet this is
20 directing towards sanitary landfills primarily.
21 MR. GARLAND: He's asking for a clarificatio
22 of the lady's question on sanitary landfill. The act
23 in Section 4004 calls for criteria so that we can
24 distinguish a sanitary landfill from an open dump.
-------
41
Now, that in itself is saying that if you're going to
put solid waste on the land, in any of the waste that
I talked about when I read the definition of disposal
that you have to do it in accordance with the criteri
5 It is not saying that it is a good practice or a bad
6 practice. But I might editorialize a bit and say tha
it is going to be a necessary practice for many years
to come for some portion of the waste stream, and
9 right now for a large portion of the waste steam,
10 unless we come up with some breakthroughs that are
11 well, okay, I don't want to get into the whole issue
12 of resource recovery. John Skinner will also be
13 discussing that a little later.
14 But what I am basically saying is that any
15 solid waste management system in the foreseeable
16 future will need as one component a land disposal
17 site, and finding those sites that are adequate,
18 engineering them in such a way that they do not
19 contaminate the groundwater, is going to be essential
20 If you happen to be in a_state that has very poor
sites, it means you're going to have to take extra
22 pains to engineer good pnes.
23 GERARD CLARK, DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE: Has
24 any distinction in the act been made between larger
-------
42
1 municipalities and smaller municipalities? I think
2 some of the more rural areas of th^ state solid waste
3 could be prohibitively expensive. I'm not speaking
4 particularly from the point of view of Dover itself,
5 but in terms of improving groundwater conditions
within the State of New Hampshire.
7 MR. GARLAND: Gerry Clark, Dover, New
8 Hampshire. He's wondering if the act recognizes the
9 difference between urban areas and rural areas. The
10 answer is yes. In the guidelines John will be
talking about later, it specifically recognizes that
12 difference. When he talks about the funding
13 provisions, he will be talking about some funding
14 | provisions that are especially for rural areas.
15 MR. HOHMAN: Why don't we pick up on that
point and turn next to John Skinner, who is going to
talk about a number of other aspects of the act,
including the resource conservation recovery, the
19 whole area of technical assistance, and the whole area
20 of financial assistance.
21 JOHN SKINNER: Thank you. I guess I'm
22 supposed to answer all the questions that were asked
23 previously. Let me make a couple of points before I
24 start with my presentation.
-------
43
1 I'm getting the sense from the audience
2 that you think this is something that is going to be
3 laid down upon you, it's an unreasonable set of
regulations and a great economic impact on the nation,
and we in Washington are not going to be sensitive to
anything that happens. I hope that is not the case
^ and not the reason we're having the meeting today.
8 We are looking for public involvement and
public participation during the entire regulatory
10 development process. We are holding meetings in
11 approximately 30 cities in the next couple of weeks
12 so we can tell people what the act says and start to
13 get some of their inputs into its input early. We
14 are going to hold public hearings on the development
15 of every single regulation in the act. We are going
16 to do economic analyses and impact statements on
17 every regulation in the act so we are going to know
18 what they cost before we promulgate them.
19 Also, as we get into some of the state
20 development aspects of the act, you will see it is
2i not a totally state-controlled program. There's
22 plenty of opportunity for local governments and
23 regional organizations to get together and put
24 together solutions and obtain funding themselves and
-------
44
1 to petition and to work with the state government to
2 obtain funding themselves. I hope that that message
3 comes across when we finish all of this.
4 I am going to cover three things. The first
5 thing I am going to cover is the resource recovery
6 and conservation provisions of the act, and I'm going
7 to cover the provisions for state and local develop-
ment, the state planning process, the local planning
g process, and I'm going to finish up with the grant
10 provisions under the act, how much money is allocated
and what it is allocated for.
12 First of all, I'd like to point out that
13 the act is called the Resource Conservation and
14 Recovery Act. From everything that's been said, you
15 might wonder why, and if you read the act, you might
wonder why, because there's no major provision for
17 resource recovery and conservation.
13 Resource recovery and resource conservation
19 is mentioned over and over again, but there's no
20 | major grant program, no major regulatory program for
resource recovery or resource conservation, and there
22 are no construction grants for that purpose. The
23 reason why it is that way is because Congress was
24 unable to come to a decision as to how they wanted to
-------
45
1 proceed in the area of resource recovery, and
2 therefore set in motion a set of study programs which
3 hopefully in two or three years will come up with some
4 answers, but they still call the act the Resource
5 Recovery and Resource Conservation Act, and there are
6 some specific instances in it which do deal with
7 those subjects.
8 For example, the guidelines that were
g mentioned ought to include resource recovery and
10 resource conservation, and there are resource recovery
11 ! and resource conservation panels which are technical
12 assistance panels, which the agency is supposed to
13 provide for assisting communities in establishing
14 resource recovery and resource conservation programs.
15 I will speak in much more detail about them later.
16 The development of state and local programs
17 are to include resource recovery consideration and
18 resource conservation consideration. There are
19 provisions for information and studies on those
20 subjects, also provisions for demonstration of new
2i and innovative means of developing materials and
22 energy from solid waste.
23 One aspect of the act that deals explicitly
24 with resource recovery and conservation is Section
-------
46
1 2003, which calls for the establishment of resource
2 recovery and conservation panels, and these are panels
3 which their objective is to provide technical
4 assistance, not financial assistance, but technical
5 advice and technical information for a whole series
6 of purposes.
7 You can see some of the purposes that are
8 indicated there. These technical assistance panels
g are to help in the development of regulations under
10 the act. They are to help local communities and sjtate
11 governments solve problems. You can see some other
12 things that they are supposed to do. While they are
13 called resource recovery and conservation panels, we
14 envision these as being panels of expertise across-
15 the-board in solid waste management, sludge
collection, disposal, hazardous waste management, as
17 well as resource recovery and conservation panels.
18 These panels are supposed to be-teams of
19 experts which are to include expertise in the
20 technical aspects of solid waste management, the
marketing aspect of solid waste management, and the
22 financial and institutional aspects of solid waste
23 management, and these latter three are'as were given
emphasis in the act with the recognition that these
-------
47
are some of the most difficult problems.
We have technologies that can solve
problems, but in many cases ways of financing them
and institutional arrangements for operating them are
not clear, so Congress gave emphasis to those aspects
The teams are to be composed of EPA staff, both in
headquarters and the regional office, consultants
from private industry, from universities, consultants
9 from sjtate and local governments, and the teams will
10 also involve something that we call pe,f matching. We
11 will take loca] officials, who have solved particular
12 problems in their communities and pay for their
13 transportation and bring them to other communities
14 which have those similar problems, so that their
15 expertise can be transferred. We think that's a
16 very effective means of providing technical assistanc
17 from one community to another.
18 Two important provisions are that this
19 assistance is to be provided to state and local
20 governments upon request and at no cost to them, and
2i 20 percent of the general authorizations under the
22 act are to be used for that purpose. Another
23 resource recovery and conservation provision is the
24 Resource Conservation Committee. This is the
-------
48
1 committee that was set up to resolve what more is
2 necessary in the resource recovery and conservation
3 areas. It is a cabinet level committee which is
4 chaired by the administrator of EPA, and includes the
"^^
5 Secretary of Commerce, Labor, Council on Environmental
6 Quality, Department of Treasury, and several other
7 agencies
This committee is supposed to carry out a
series of studies over a two-year period and come up
10 ! with some conclusions and recommendations for
11 expanded legislation. They are supposed to look at
12 tax credits for the use of recycled material. They
13 are supposed to look at placing charges on the use of
14 virgin materials to reduce their consumption. They
15 are supposed to look at rearranging existent public
lg policies, such as the depletion allowance, the capital
17 gains treatment, which perhaps influenced the use of
18 virgin materials and provides some disincentive to
19 the use of secondary materials. They are supposed to
20 look at whether certain restrictions should be placed
on the manufacture and use of consumer products, so
22 they provide less waste when they're discarded. So
23 all of these aspects are to be considered over a
24 two-year period and come up with conclusions and
-------
49
1 recommendations.
2 I think the important aspect of this is that
3 it's a cabinet level committee. This is not supposed
4 to be a team of people working at the staff level in
5 the agency. They're looking for policy level decision;
6 from the administration on these points. That's very
7 different from the way studies of this type have been
8 carried out in the past.
There are a number of other studies in the
10 act related to resource recovery and resource
11 conservation. This is a list of them. I'd like to
12 point out two of them: one, which is oriented to
13 its small scale and low technology, which will be
14 applicable to smaller communities and emphasis on that
15 was placed in the act. Also an emphasis on front-end
lg separation at the home and at the store for recovery
17 of materials. Special studies are called for in that
18 area and technical assistance to follow the studies
19 is called for in that area.
20 Another provision of the act calls for a
change in federal procurement provisions, where the
22 Federal Government themselves are now expected to
23 maximize the use of recycled materials and the product
they buy, and this is for purchases greater than
-------
50
1 $10,000. Two years from now all federal agencies
2 must procure items with the highest percentage of
3 recovery materials. This is to include fuels
4 purchased by federal agencies. They are encouraged
5 to use solid waste as a fuel where feasible. It also
6 includes state governments and their vendors who use
7 federal funds to purchase similar products.
8 They have to follow these specifications,
g and these specifications for procurement are to be
10 developed by the National Bureau of Standards and also
11 by the Office of Procurement Policy, which is in the
12 Office of the President, and EPA has an advisory in
13 the development of these procurement provisions.
14 That concludes everything I have on resource
15 recovery and resource conservation. I would now like
lg to turn to the sj;ate and local program development
17 provisions, and you will see that this act provides
18 a mechanism and recognizes that the state and local
19 governments should assume a dominant role in assuring
20 proper solid waste management.
For the most part, this is not a federally
22 oriented program. It is a program oriented towards
23 the state and local governments. Even in the case
24 where we have federal regulations for hazardous
-------
51
1 wastes, the hope is that the states will pick up these
2 programs and it will not be a federal enforcement
3 program for the most part. The whole series of
4 mechanisms within the act attempt to involve the
5 local and state governments in a way to meet their
6 planning and implementation needs. First of these
"7 two are indicated at the bottom of this slide.
8 Six months after passage of the act, which
9 would be this April, six months from last October,
10 EPA is required to issue some guidelines, non-
11 mandatory guidelines, for identifying regional
12 planning areas. These guidelines should indicate
13 what areas or what criteria should be used for
14 selection of areas that make sense for planning
15 regional solid waste management operations.
16 Six months after we issue these guidelines -
17 And, by the way, we have a first draft of these
18 guidelines which are sent around to all =<-=jte offices,
19 aovernors, state association of counties, state
20 governments, private industry associations, and they
2i are going to distribute them to all members. A
22 draft was sent around to them this week, and we will
23 be going through several other drafts.
24 The guidelines will be published by the end
-------
52
of April or probably a little after that. Once these
guidelines are issued in April, six months later the
3 governor of each state,in cooperation with local
^ ^ ;
4 governments and that is spelled out in the act, in
5 cooperation with local governments should designate
6 areas that are appropriate for planning solid waste
management, planning areas. Six months following that
the state, which is different from the government,
^
9 the state in cooperation with local government should
;$-
10 identify responsibilities for agencies within those
11 areas, and the act changes its wording from the
12 governor, who is supposed to specify the areas, to
13 the _state and local governments which I assume means
14 involving state legislators and more involvement of
^,
15 the elected officials at the local level to designate
16 responsibilities.
17 This designation process, which takes place
18 over a year after promulgation of our guidelines, is
19 a prerequisite for obtaining federal funding. The
20 way we are approaching this is that we are not going
2i to specify particular institutional arrangements that
22 we think are desirable. We are going to leave this
23 open and up to state and local governments to decide
24 themselves. What we want to make sure of is that it
-------
53
is an open process, that everybody is involved in it
that has a stake in it, and that responsibilities are
clear, and that people are accountable for what they
are supposed to do; otherwise, the way it is structure
5 institutionally at the local level is going to change
6 all over the country depending upon level.
We have a few copies of those auidelines
today. If anybody would like copies, leave your name
9 after the meeting and we will send them to you.
10 A year after we issue these guidelines for
regional planning, we also have to issue guidelines
12 for development of state plans, and this involvement
13 of the state and local government is also supposed to
14 specify an agency or group of agencies to develop a
15 state plan, and the act calls for some specific
lg provisions in that state plan.
17 The act says that there are some minimum
lg requirements for acceptable _s.tate programs, and one
19 of them is that state and local planning and
20 implementation responsibilities be identified, that
open dumps be phased out over a five-year period, and
22 that all solid waste at the end of that period is
23 either disposed of in a sanitary landfill or a
24 resource recovery facility. Another requirement for
-------
54
1 the state plan is that there be clear regulatory
2 authority for accomplishing that, that there be
3 clear regulatory authority for implementing the
hazardous waste management program, if the state
5 chooses to do that.
6 An interesting point is that this fifth
7 point contractual freedom is that the act says that
if there are any local laws which prohibit communities
of signing up with resource recovery facilities for
10 a 20-year period or for an extended period of time,
11 it is necessary to finance that facility, those laws
12 will have to be adjusted under the state plan. So
13 that there is an encouragement for long-term planning,
14 for resource recovery, and changing of local
15 institutions that impede that. As I indicated
lg previously, the state law should result in sanitary
17 ! landfills or resource recovery or resource
18 conservation programs for all solid waste at the end
19 of the five-year period. Once the sjtate plan is
20 submitted and approved by the agency, then the
approved^state plans are eligible for federal funding
22 under the act.
23 I'd like to turn now to the funding
24 provisions. For the development and implementation
-------
55
1 of state plans there's 30 million dollars authorized
2 in fiscal year '78 and 40 million dollars authorized
3 in fiscal year '79. These funds are to be shared
4 on a population formula between the states based
5 upon their populations except that no state shall
6 get less than one-half of one percent of the funds.
7 I'd like to point out that there is a
big difference between authorization levels and
g appropriation levels. That's the maximum that can
10 be spent in this area. What actually comes out of
11 the President's budget and the congressional budget
12 process might be very different from that and quite
13 often is lower than that, but that is the authori-
14 zation for that purpose alone.
15 Another section of the act provides 15
million dollars in grants in fiscal year '78 and
17 '79. Fifteen million dollars each year for things
18 like plan feasibility studies, consulting, market
19 studies, economic investigations, technology
20 assessments. Two important aspects of these funds
and the other funds are, one, that they cannot be
22 used for land, they cannot be used for purchase of
23 land, they cannot be used for construction. These
24 funds are not to be distributed on a formal basis;
-------
56
1 these funds will be distributed on the assessments
2 of needs and by the recommendations of state and
3 local governments. This is a way the communities
4 can get funding by themselves independent of the
5 state planning process.
Hopefully, when the state plan is submitted,
-j=^__
7 these types of programs would be incorporated in the
8 state plan. In fact, that is a requirement. When the
^
g state plan finally does become submitted and approved,
^-
10 that the allocation of all funds including these is
made clear within the state plan. This does not mean
12 it goes to thejstate, it goes to the local government,
13 but it's spelled out in the state plan.
Also there is some special assistance for
15 rural communities. Fiscal year '78 and '79 there
will be 25 million dollars each year for rural
communities and these are grants. You can see the
population cutoffs. This is for communities with
populations of less than five thousand or counties
20 less than ten thousand, and there are some other
, provisions in the act specifying the types of
22 communities and the poverty level of those communities
23 as well as one of the provisions.
,. These funds are for construction, and
-------
57
1 they're primarily to be used for those communities
2 which cannot comply with the open dumping prohibition
3 in any other way. Let me stress that, however. It
4 might not make sense for every community to have an
5 extensive resource recovery facility or land disposal
6 facility, and we encourage regionalization, and the
7 act encourages small communities to cooperate to the
8 greatest extent possible and incorporate into larger
9 facilities, but where that is not possible, there are
10 opportunities for special funding of those small
11 communities for construction.
12 So if you add up the three grant programs
13 25 million dollars, 15 million dollars and 35 million
14 dollars I guess that comes to something like
15 70 million dollars or 80 million dollars in grant
authorizations. There is also approximately 30
17 million dollars for the hazardous waste program.
18 For _sj:ates that pick up the hazardous waste program
19 there's a 30 million dollar grant program. So
20 that brings the total grant provisions under the
act that is oriented towards _state and local
22 governments to about 100 million dollars per year
23 for the next two years.
24 SPEAKER FROM FLOOR: How much of that is
-------
58
1 really going to be available?
2 MR. SKINNER: Well, let me tell you what we
3 know, and we don't know very much as far as that is
4 concerned. The former President's budget, the Ford
5 Administration budget, called for about twelve million
6 dollars for state and local governments in 1978.
7 Seven million dollars of those funds would come througl
8 a comprehensive grant program and five million dollars
9 would come through the 208 provisions of the act.
10 Since that budget was submitted, the agency issued an
11 appeal, and we understand that the new administrator
12 has also been able to obtain additional funds for the
13 agency, but it's not clear how much of those
14 additional funds will be available for solid waste
15 purposes.
16 We also know that congressional committees,
17 especially the Public Works Committee, the Senate
18 Committee, which wrote that act and is very, very
19 concerned about obtaining full funding of the act so
20 that all of the provisions are implemented properly,
2i have indicated that they are going to request and
22 argue very strongly for full funding of the state
23 program grants in fiscal year '77 and also funding
24 for many of the other grant programs.
-------
59
1 So that is as much as we now know about the
2 budget. I am optimistic there will be funds. If
3 there are no funds, we are wasting our time in a lot
4 of areas, and we shouldn't be implementing the
5 regulations or writing the regulations if there are
6 no funds for the local people to carry them out. I
7 am somewhat optimistic about additional funds, but
8 beyond that, I can't be very helpful at this time.
9 GEORGE BARROWS, MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON
10 ENVIRONMENT: I have a question regarding resource
11 recovery. You stressed it and mentioned it several
12 times. My question is that since I've been recovering
13 and saving everything for a good many years that I
14 could possibly recycle, recently I've been unable to
15 get a recovery place that will take in paper which I
1@ sort and save. Now, my personal legislative stationer
17 has been on a hundred percent recycled paper for five
18 years. My question is: is the EPA paper a hundred
19 percent recycled? And if not, why not?
20 MR. SKINNER: EPA has two types of paper:
2i the kind that it buys itself which is yellow, which is
22 a hundred percent recycled, and the kind that the
23 joint committee on printing of the Congress purchases
24 for us, which is white, which is a hundred percent
-------
60
1 virgin. There are regulations for procurement of
2 stationery which are controlled by the Congress, and
3 that group in the Congress has been very, very
4 reluctant to make changes to incorporate recycled
5 materials. We have been working with them closely,
but it's a long,difficult process.
7 This is one of the areas that the act did
8 not address. To the extent that we can purchase
9 ourselves without having to go through those
10 provisions, we try and maximize the use of recycled
11 paper. We will have in the next year recycled paper
12 programs where we are going to be recycling office
13 waste in all federal buildings in the United States
14 Government. That will be another program instituted
15 in the program.
16 GEORGE BARROWS: I recently tried to renew
17 my legislative stationery and I had to hunt for
18 printers that have recycled paper.
19 MR. SKINNER: That's one of the arguments
20 we have from the committee: they can't get it. We
2i seem to be able to get it.
22 RONALD MENN FROM VERMONT: You briefly
23 indicated some criteria for regional planning groups.
24 I was questioning whether that criteria, conditions.
-------
61
1 whatever they may be, will be flexible enough to
2 allow a state to use existing regional planning.
-^
3 MR. SKINNER: We are very aware of that.
4 To the extent that states have carried out planning,
5 have designated responsibilities in the past, they
6 can simply reaffirm those designations. We don't want
7 to institute an entire process to shake up and change
8 everything that's been done in the past unless it's
g necessary to do that.
10 The thing we are concerned about for some
11 waste, clear designation of responsibility has not
12 been received in a lot of state plans, and we want to
13 look at those particular waste streams and assign an
14 agency a responsibility for managing those wastes.
15 We know there are a lot of good_state programs, and
lg we want to build on those rather than change them.
17 REPRESENTATIVE-ELIZABETH GREEN: One of the
18 problems we have been working on for three sessions
19 or so, it sounds to me as though your federal act is
20 starting a process which will not have the guidelines,
2i you know, in very specific form for some time to come.
22 What I would like to know is: you have indicated, I
23 think, that you would be patient with those who find
24 it hard. We are in New Hampshire. My question is:
-------
62
if we, for example, need to take two to three years
to evolve something that you would consider, how in
the meantime are we going to handle things like air
pollution and open dumps? I think what I'm asking
you: can we have some way of a question of opinion
from other agencies which might also have a problem
that they will not lower the boom on us?
MR. SKINNER: There are other laws on the
9 books like the Clean Air Act which have certain plans
10 and provisions which have to be met. I would question
11 why you have an open burning dump.
12 ELIZABETH GREEN: I could explain it. It's
13 a long, sad story. We have an air pollution schedule
14 which would have phased out all open burning dumps
15 except in certain cases there have been extensions
16 granted. These are in violation of the federal
17 approval of our regulative schedule, but they have
18 been overlooked up to this point. On many of our
19 small towns, we do an air quality in that town. If
20 there is no provable degradation of air quality in
2i those towns, they are allowed to burn on a limited
22 burn schedule. We do still have burning dumps. I
23 don't think I meant to give you the impression that I
24 approve of these. I don't. I think it's bad.
-------
63
1 However, if compliance with this natural
2 recovery act is going to require major changes and
3 gives us scheduling problems for both ^tate and local
4 units of our government, then what I need to know,
5 what my committee needs to know, what many of our
6 towns need to know, can we be given enough time to do
7 this or are we going to have the air pollution people
8 and burning dump people force a town into a program
g in direct conflict with the plan we have?
10 MR. SKINNER: I hope not. The act will be
11 implemented through the regional office of EPA, and
12 they will be responsible for reviewing the _state plans
13 and looking at the schedules that are laid out, and
14 they hopefully will work with the air pollution
15 offices at the regional level for coming up with
lg reasonable schedules, but I really can't say anything
17 more than that.
18 MR. HOHMAN: We had the same type of questio
19 raised yesterday, which is an apparent conflict
20 between different^federal laws. The Resource
2j Conservation Act gives up to five years to close all
22 of the open dumps, whereas, under the Clean Air Act,
23 generally speaking, they should have been closed down
24 two years ago. What we are going to try to do is to
-------
64
get as much consistency and uniformity between these
different programs, but I can't stand up here, for
example, and promise anyone that we will not close an
open burning dump for the next five years, because we
5 are subject to citizens' suit by someone who wants to
6 close that dump under the Clean Air Act. What we
7 will be trying to do is to get all of those dumps on
an enforceable compliance schedule and get progress
9 going/ because over the next five-year period we are
10 shutting them down as fast as we can.
11 LUCILLE ALLEN FROM MILFORD: When the act
12 was made law last October, I read some comments that
13 there was to be quite an emphasis on the big
14 expensive energy consumptive, dollar consumptive,
15 resource recovery plans. Now, as I read over the
16 resume, I find that this is not so, and I hope that
17 is correct. What I would like to comment on is that
18 New Hampshire doesn't have enough waste, even if we
19 gathered it all together in one spot, for a large
20 resource recovery plant. I would hope that your
development panels, your research groups, will look
22 into the kind of small community operation that would
23 involve source separation and heat recovery from the
24 burning of energy.
-------
65
1 If a town, for instance, had a cluster of
2 small buildings, the townspeople might be sort of
3 reluctant to envision garbage trucks, drifting,
4 blowing paper and waste in their beautiful community
5 center. But, if some prototypes were developed to
6 show that this is in fact possible, thinking I
7 believe it's about 11 million BTU's per ton of
8 garbage, this could very easily be used for heat.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. SKINNER: We definitely intend to
11 emphasize both source separation and small modular
12 units that could be used in small communities, in the
13 technology development aspects of the act, in the
14 technical assistance panels of the act, and also we'd
15 encourage that in the development of _state plans.
IQ In the past, we perhaps have not given enough emphasis
17 to that.
18 We do have several projects right here in
19 this area which do provide for communitywide source
20 separation in Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts
21 We have been working with those communities for the
22 last two years to develop techniques for collecting
23 separated materials from the home and recycling them,
24 and we are very encouraged by that, and we will
-------
66
1 continue to do those sorts of programs elsewhere.
2 LUCILLE ALLEN: Are you doing anything in
the development of markets or perhaps being a clearing
4 house of information for markets for secondary
5 materials?
MR. SKINNER: We have information on
purchases of secondary materials, and we have
compendiums of people nationwide that will purchase
9 different types of materials. We have procedures
10 developed for obtaining and securing markets. We
encourage five-year contracts, for example, and
12 floor prices so that as the market fluctuates it
13 doesn't get into a situation where they can't support
14 their operation. So we try to provide as much
15 information as possible along those lines.
16 BRUCE MILLS, MONTPELIER: In Vermont there's
17 at least one community, Colchester near Burlington
18 where the operator of a landfill is taking methane
19 gas out of the landfill that's been accumulating for
20 several years. Now, would a methane operation on a
landfill be eligible for assistance?
22 MR. SKINNER: For what type of assistance?
23 BRUCE MILLS: To demonstrate recovery of
methane from a landfill.
-------
67
1 MR. SKINNER: We do have authority for
2 demonstrating new technologies. We currently have
3 several methane recovery demonstrations in operation:
4 one in Mountain View, California. The philosophy that
5 we have taken with these demonstrations is this is
6 not to be a subsidy program in general, so we are not
7 going to fund many, many of them. We are going to
8 fund a few of them to get the technology demonstrated
g and disseminated through information. If it had some
10 new aspect to it or an unusual aspect that was
important to look at from a research and development
12 prospective, there would be some funds.
13 BRUCE MILLS: I don't know of any you
14 funded on the East Coast.
15 MR. SKINNER: That's right. And there
might be a difference in terms of landfills. Submit
17 your grant application to our Office of Research and
18 Development.
19 BRUCE MILLS: Also what about something
20 like a project to convert animal wastes, primarily
dairy manure? Could manure go into methane?
22 MR. SKINNER: Yes. I think that would be
23 something that would be of interest.
> BRUCE MILLS: How soon could someone expect
-------
68
1 to get that kind of grant? Probably two years from
2 now?
3 MR. SKINNER: We are talking about first the
4 funds being allocated, which they haven't been yet,
5 and priorities of things we want to look at under the
6 act. If that falls in the category, then the grants
7 may be forthcoming. It could be a year, year and a
8 half process.
9 BRUCE MILLS: Since ERDA is involved,
10 Energy Research and Development Administration, I
11 assume you're going to be coordinating with them in
12 the energy recovery aspect of the act?
13 MR. SKINNER: Yes. The act explicitly
14 calls for coordination with ERDA. We have an inter-
15 agency agreement between the two agencies that spells
lg out the responsibilities of the two agencies on any
17 recovery projects, and the act references that
18 agreement and says that the provisions of that
19 agreement shall be adhered to by both agencies, so
20 by law we are forced to cooperate in a particular way
2i that we came into agreement previously.
22 MALCOLM CHASE, SELECTMAN, IN DURHAM: We
23 have been talking about federal, state, local, county
%- "^-
24 governments, all through this procedure. Is there a
-------
69
place in it for the private sector whereby you can
encourage private enterprise to develop these services
3 and serve a region under controls and that sort of
4 thing? I think this is a very .important feature that
ought to be further expanded upon. In our area
designations we encourage cooperation and communicatio
with the private sector for their inputs.
MR. SKINNER: Yes. We see this as a total
cooperative effort including privates as well.
10 SPEAKER FROM FLOOR: Would you say something
11 about forest products, waste, bark and that kind of
12 thing? What in the program addresses itself to those
13 kinds of problems which are sort of unique to this
14 part of the country?
15 MR. SKINNER: That's one area we haven't
16 been working in enough. We have one project in Lane
17 County, Oregon, where bark and wood waste will be
18 combined with solid waste and energy will be recovered
19 from it, and there will be information on that, but it
20 is something that beyond that, we really haven't
2i gotten into. I think the act gives us responsibility
22 in that area, and I think it's something we will get
23 into.
24 DAN COSTELLO FROM MANCHESTER: What is the
-------
70
1 earliest possible date that grant funds would be
2 available to the local community for planning purposes
3 MR. SKINNER: Fiscal year '78 starts in
4 October and the 208 funds under the act would be
5 available after that date. Over the past five to
6 eight years we have been providing grants to states
7 and to local communities under other provisions of
8 the act, but the new funding will probably not be
9 available until after that date.
10 ROBERT LAKE, REPRESENTATIVE FROM CONCORD:
11 Two things I don't think you have gone into. One is
12 the fact that most of the input for the act came from
13 localities and states, and that in regard to the
14 impact on towns and so forth, most of it has come
15 from those areas for the act. The other thing is
lg that you might comment on the economical differences
17 between landfills and resource recovery, and in
18 particular insofar as the problems we are running into
19 with landfills.
20 MR. SKINNER: That's a question we could
2i spend a lot of time on. Depending upon the part of
22 the country, the amount of protection that's necessary
23 in order to protect the groundwater, landfills can
24 have a wide range of costs. Similarly, as far as
-------
71
resource recovery facia.j-.ies are concerned, depending
upon what's recovered, the process that's used, the
3 material prices that are being obtained, the energy
4 prices that are being obtained, the size of the
5 facility, could have a whole other spectrum of costs.
We find that they overlap in large urban areas
7 generally, that cities that have to long haul to land
8 fill or have to use marginal land and have to
9 involve themselves in extensive site development and
10 site preparation generally will find the costs of
11 that competitive with resource recovery in cases
12 where markets for materials are good, but you can
13 find many exceptions to that rule as you go around
14 the country. Our recommendation is that every
15 community do a thorough economic evaluation before
16 proceeding with either one of them. Any other
17 questions?
18 LARRY CUSHMAN: You mentioned two or three
19 times now 208. Are you referring to Public Law 92500?
20 MR. SKINNER: Yes, sir.
LARRY CUSHMAN: Well, what connection does
22 this have with that law?
23 MR. SKINNER: That law says that 208 agencie
24 that are designated under that law in their planning
-------
72
process should consider residual disposal in that
planning process and should consider, for example,
sewage sludge in that planning process. Many of them
have not done that, but some of them have. So they
have a responsibility for planning and perhaps
implementation under that law.
7 We have a somewhat parallel responsibility.
8 This act calls for coordination between the two laws,
9 and it also says that if a community and state feels
10 that a local 208 agency is an appropriate agency for
11 carrying out solid waste management planning, then
12 they can be designated for that purpose. It does not
13 say they have to, and our caution is that whatever
14 agency is delegated for that purpose should have,
15 one, expertise in solid waste management; and, two,
16 the authorities to carry out that responsibility.
17 Many 208 agencies do not.
18 So we feel that you should look carefully
19 at 208 agencies before designating them for that
20 purpose, but there is a potential overlap, and we are
2i aware of it and communities are going to have to be
22 aware of it as well.
23 NEIL ALLEN FROM PORTLAND, MAINE: I had two
24 questions. One is: could you tell us when the
-------
73
1 regulations will be issued from your department?
2 MR. SKINNER: Yes. There are different
3 schedules for each of the regulations. Most of the
4 hazardous waste regulations are scheduled for a year
5 and a half from passage of the act. Is that right,
6 Bill?
7 MR. SANJOUR: Eighteen months from the
8 passage of the act.
9 MR. SKINNER: Eighteen months from passage
10 of the act. The sanitary landfill regulations are
11 one year from passage of the act. The act passed
12 last October. The state planning regulations are
13 eighteen months from passage of the act. The guide-
14 lines for regional identification this April, six
15 months from passage of the act.
16 NEIL ALLEN: So your regulations will come
17 out in doses kind of?
18 MR. SKINNER: Yes.
19 NEIL ALLEN: My second question had to do
20 with the private sector. If you look around the
2i country now, you see some of the prototype systems
22 that are beginning to fail or the private sector
23 sponsors are pulling out. Monsanto in Baltimore and
24 Union Electric in St. Louis are probably the examples
-------
74
1 that come quick to my mind now. Is there any thought
2 in Washington to think of tax incentives or subsidies?
3 Because, if you're going to make recycling work and
4 if you're going to really answer the energy problem,
5 you're going to have to offer those kinds of things to
6 the private enterprise.
7 MR. SKINNER: That was one of the provisions
8 that was looked at under the earlier version of this
act. There was a loan guaranty program. There was
10 : also an investment tax credit. Both of those were
rejected by Congress.
12 My personal opinion is that if a community
13 goes ahead and has a good plan, if they have legal
14 authority and a good marketing plan and tie up with
15 a reputable resource recovery firm, they can obtain
financing. I have seen it happen in a number of
17 cases.
18 There has been about a two million dollar
19 financing written for resource recovery plans in the
20 past year and a half alone. That was one of the
reasons why the loan guarantjfdid not pass in this
22 last session of Congress. If two years from now
23 there is not a significant increase in resource
24 recovery, doesn't move along, there will be serious
-------
75
1 reconsideration in that sort of provision.
2 NEIL ALLEN: That's really not the heart of
3 the matter. You can always get financing. You can
4 always put a package together to get financing. But
5 in terms of long-range operating costs, Union Electric
6 has pulled back and said it's not economical.
7 Monsanto is trying to cut their losses, obviously. Is
8 there any thinking in Washington? If they're really
9 going to crack this nut, they have got to work
10 perhaps a little more closely to the big utility
companies and big chemical companies.
12 MR. SKINNER: I agree with you. I think you
13 should. Are you suggesting subsidizing the long-term
operating cost? I don't think that would ever really
15 be considered.
NEIL ALLEN: What about tax incentives they
need?
18 MR. SKINNER: Yes. That was considered in
the last session, and as this act proceeds towards
20 implementation, as some of those problems become
. clearer, there might be legislation along those lines.
22 BILL FULLER FROM CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE: I
23 have two questions. One is relative to what Mr.
Cushman was saying about 208 funds. Most 208 funds in
-------
76
1 the state have already been allocated and budgeted and
'i>
2 so on. Are you talking about some additional 208 funds
3 And if so, where are they going to come from?
4 MR. SKINNER: The '78 budget does have
5 additional 208 funds.
6 BILL FULLER: How much?
7 MR. SKINNER: Five million dollars in the
8 Ford budget alone for the solid waste. That might
have been changed in the Carter budget.
10 BILL FULLER: Does the law address such
things as correcting the present transportation cost
12 across ^sJzate boundaries where recycled material pays
13 some kind of a premium versus virgin materials?
14 MR. SKINNER: This law does not. The
15 Railroad Reorganization Act has provisions for the
ICC to look into those freight rates. I understand
17 that the secondary materials industry is very unhappy
lg with the ICC's progress in doing that.
19 BILL FULLER: This law doesn't address that
20 specifically?
21 MR. SKINNER: Does not. I guess that's all
22 the time v^ have for these questions.
23 MR. HOHMAN: We will have more time for
24 additional questions on everything we have covered
-------
77
1 today. We have specific requests from a number of
2 people who wanted to make statements on the act to
3 I EPA, and I'd like to call on those people now. If
they are here and if they are going to make a state-
5 ment, I suggest they come up and use the mike.
6 Mr. Charles Clifford from the Central New
7 Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.
8 MR. CHARLES CLIFFORD: I .will waive my time
for Dave Scott.
10 MR. HOHMAN: We had a card that said you
11 wanted to make a statement. Louis Correlous from
12 Bennington, Vermont.
13 LOUIS CORRELOUS: I'm here, but I will pass
14 on the statement that had to do with hazardous waste
15 treatment.
16 MR. HOHMAN: Lucille Allen.
17 LUCILLE ALLEN: I made my statement already.
18 MR. HOHMAN: Leo Rochelle from the City of
19 Auburn, Maine. Cynthia Bernard or Ronald Gansorrow
20 from Nashua, Conservation Commission. Joseph Borin
from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
22 Protection. Leonard Martin from the University of
23 Massachusetts. George Olson from Exeter.
24 GEORGE OLSON: I will pass for Dave Scott.
-------
78
1 MR. HOHMAN: Nathan Cooper or Russ Foster
2 from Somersworth.
3 NATHAN COOPER: I think most of my questions
4 that I had at the time that this was sent out has
5 been answered. We're dealing with sewage sludges,
6 and our interest is funding. We are working right now
7 trying to get 208 funds, and we have been assured
8 that we will get some 208 funds on a research project.
9 But with this new act coming out, we have been
10 looking for additional funds, which I think has been
11 pretty well defined up to now.
12 MR. HOHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cooper. David
13 Scott. Everybody is yielding time to David Scott.
14 DAVID SCOTT: Thank you very much. I am
15 David Scott, Executive Director of Lakes Region
lg Planning Commission, Meredith, New Hampshire, and I'm
17 speaking just briefly on a couple of notes I'd like
18 to make.
19 Regional Planning met yesterday in Concord
20 and they asked me to speak representing them and
2i that represents the five substate regions in the
22 State of New Hampshire designated by the Governor
23 as the planning agencies within those regions.
24 Our concern is that, number one, the EPA
-------
79
1 recognize at least in New Hampshire that a great deal
2 of solid waste planning has been accomplished by the
3 regional planning agencies. There are at least ten
4 different studies that have been accomplished in the
5 State of New Hampshire all the way from the North
6 Country Council, Lakes Region Planning Commission,
7 the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Council, South Western
8 New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, Region
9 Five which involves Central New Hampshire, Southern
10 New Hampshire and the Nashua Region and the Strafford-
11 Rockingham Council. George Olson and Chuck Clifford
12 are here as the other directors.
13 Our concern is that a great deal of regional
14 planning has been done, and from that regional
15 planning there have been some significant results.
18 In my region there were 21 communities in one of the
17 plans we undertook. At -this point of time 13
18 communities have made significant changes in their
19 method of solid waste disposal. The Keene area is
20 now accepting in their sanitary landfill several
2i communities. Three at this point and two more which
22 are considering joining the Keene landfill operation.
23 In the Concord area I'm sure that I don't
24 have to tell people in Concord, but the EPA might be
-------
80
1 interested in knowing the City of Concord has for the
2 last two and a half years been participating with four
3 communities in their landfill. Three town landfills
4 are now operating in their second year. So these
5 kinds of very specific accomplishments are important,
6 and I think in the promulgation of any regulations
7 this kind of preliminary activity, because the EPA
8 is now beginning to get into this area, doesn't mean
g that we should be starting from scratch throughout
10 the country.
11 Another point I'd like to make in our region
12 is that we have some private enterprise which has
13 operated or developed a sanitary landfill site and is
14 now in the process of working with our communities.
15 The communities are working closely with us, and we
lg are attempting to get them out of the substandard
17 sites. The ones there aren't effectively operating.
18 A good operating site is being undertaken by private
19 enterprise, and we recognize and each of the regions
20 recognize these accomplishments in the sanitary land-
2i fill, and the short-term immediate objective is to
22 get people out of unsatisfactory conditions into
23 something we can live with for a period of time.
24 We recognize also new technologies coming
-------
81
1 along. We feel the role we should be playing now is
2 making available to the communities the options that
3 are five years or ten years down the road, and this
4 includes proposals at least one proposal that we
have with four regional agencies interested in it,
and that is making use of the railroad in New Hampshir
for collecting solid waste disposal, and one specific
proposal where we collected I know will provide the
energy to operate a regional sanitary waste treatment
10 plant. We are looking forward to that.
I might add that this latter proposal is one
12 that we have been working with with a couple of our
13 cities, with the State of New Hampshire, and there's
14 no money available we've been told. We have tried to
15 express the concern we have that not only is this a
lg good solid waste type of operation, but also we are
17 talking now about making the rail feasible perhaps a
18 long-term operating mechanism. We are talking about
19 reusing this waste material for energy purposes, and
20 we are talking about using it as part of a wastewater
treatment management facility.
22 We feel that we have put a lot of the pieces
23 together and we have had absolutely no encouragement
24 from any level of government in getting the funds to
-------
82
1 do the engineering, technical study of this, which we
2 would have in house if we had the funds to accomplish
3 it.
4 I might add that in New Hampshire the major
5 portion of the regional planning agency budgets is
6 made up by local government. Commitment to do good
7 planning is there. What we need is some, money to do
8 some engineering and technical assistance.
9 Our recommendation is rather than get into
10 a great deal of additional planning and plan making,
11 that we take some of the things that have been
12 recommended and get the funds out to the communities
13 and to our agencies that are going to be building,
14 constructing the facilities, so that the impact -- if
15 we are going to be talking about more funds, the
jg impact on the local tax rates would be minimized by
17 getting the cost of solid waste back to the local
18 level. I really believe we have done a lot of planninj
19 that is necessary and it is now time to start building
20 some of the facilities.
21 MR. HOHMAN-. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr.
22 Dexter Risdor from the Cummings Letter Company in
23 Lebanon, New Hampshire. Eric Burkland from Deerfield.
24 ERIC BURKLAND: Pass.
-------
83
1 MR. HOHMAN: A couple of comments. In his
2 presentation John Skinner mentioned the regulations
3 on defining a regional planning area and the
4 boundaries that would be coming out in April. If
5 anyone would like a copy of that regulation, if you
6 would so indicate on your registration sheet, we will
7 get it to you as soon as we get it. I hope we had
8 enough registration sheets for everyone. If you
9 didn't get a registration sheet, just put your name
10 and address on a piece of paper and leave it in the
11 back of the room when you leave, and we will get that
12 to you.
13 BENJAMIN K. AYERS FROM MOULTONBORO, NEW
14 HAMPSHIRE: I'm a commissioner with Lakes Region
15 Planning Commission and I sent in a card. I would
Ig like to endorse the statement of Mr. Scott and leave
17 my remarks at that.
18 MR. HOHMAN: Let me make two announcements
19 and then we will get back to the statements again,
20 please. The question was asked about information on
2i who is buying recycled material. The EPA Region One
22 Office in Boston does have a directory of people who
23 are purchasing, recycling centers, and so forth. If
24 you would like a copy of that, just call the Public
-------
84
Affairs office and EPA in Boston.
I have also been asked to announce that on
3 March 30th there is a conference on source separation
4 programs to be held in the State of Connecticut. If
anyone is interested in getting more information,
touch base with Dennis Huebner after the meeting.
LOUIS SARELAS: If I may, I'd just like to
amplify just a couple of comments made by Mr. Scott,
if you will allow me.
10 My name is Louis Sarelas. I serve as
11 town manager for Bennington, Vermont. Prior to that
12 I served as city manager in Claremont. I mention
13 that only to indicate some type of expansive
14 observation and perhaps participation in landfill
15 areas and the problems which we all have shared.
16 In Bennington we have another problem, and
17 that has to do with PCB lagooning which EPA has
18 commented on and defined very clearly in its report.
19 A very dangerous material. But what I wanted to do
20 is merely amplify slightly what Mr. Scott brought
2i out as far as the planning done by regional planning
22 commissions.
23 I think that any act, and particularly acts
24 that relate to EPA, and all of us are interdependent
-------
85
1 to EPA for all of our major problems of sewer, water
2 and everything else that has surfaced, and in
3 Bennington's case it has to do with the lead pipes
4 and the surface entrances where we have a significant
5 problem is potentially possible that we might become
6 the criterion for the entire nation in terms of our
7 response and what we have done to meet this problem.
8 But the key here is: what does the
9 governing body do? How does it receive this
10 information? How can it support what is brought forth
by a qualified regional planning commission? Is it up
12 to the chief executive, which may be the town manager
13 or city manager? Is it up to a newspaper article? Is
14 it up to our state representatives and senators?
15 The clue here, I think, is having the
governing bodies understand -- and I recognize that
17 perhaps information should be given to members and so
18 on, but there are so many considerations. There's
19 the political consideration of where the land is, of
20 how long it's been there, on what type of other
influences determine whether it may be changed, or
22 any type of program maybe initiated over and above.
23 There's the economic factor of the ongoing garbage
24 collectors or refuse collectors within the community.
-------
86
1 There are the influences involved.
2 So I guess that what I'm saying is that
3 yes, we have had plans that involve single communities
4 those who are isolated a great distance away from
5 potential joining forces or regions, and we have had
6 the others that are the regional groups, three, four
7 or five communities that could join. But the under-
8 lying problem still, I think, is related to acceptance
9 to understanding, and to support for this type of thin
10 So all the guidelines in the world can be
11 great, but the obstacle is right there at the point
12 of action within the communities themselves, and
13 perhaps we might elicit some type of comments or
14 perhaps even communicate where the plans that have
15 been implemented and the problems which have not been
lg solved completely, because they never will be, but the
17 ongoing process, I think that perhaps the communities
lg themselves can demonstrate what they have done and
19 should receive some type of direct acknowledgement
20 from EPA through the state, but again direct
2i acknowledgement so that actions can continue in those
22 areas.
23 I speak for Bennington, because we had to
24 face the PCB problem and how to contain it. It's a
-------
87
very simple way of having it sucked up and carted
away someplace at a cost of $567,000, but that's just
one. We had leaching, and the impounded brine in
certain lifts that have been there for years, and that
leachate would just continue coining out.
Well, fortunately, I think we have solved
that too, but this is just an example of how a
community has responded through the assistance of the
9 regional planning commission, their participation,
10 and perhaps there might be some kind of acknowledge-
11 ment for those communities where the obstacle of the
12 implementation through this new type of act may dilute
13 a significant percentage of efforts, because we have
14 already had them share in the effort in some way.
15 It's just a consideration that I thought I would bring
16 out.
17 MR. HOHMAN: Any other questions or state-
18 ments? If there are no other questions or statements,
19 I want to thank all of you for coming. We are
20 delighted with the turnout. We really appreciate the
21 fact you're willing to give up a Saturday afternoon
22 to spend with us. Thank you very much. We stand
23 adjourned.
24 (The hearing then ended.)
-------
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 March 28, 1977
9
1Q I, NANCY A. DIEMDOWICZ, hereby certify that
the foregoing record, Pages 1 - 87 is a true and
complete transcription of my stenographic notes
13
14
15
16
CertifieiS^Snortha'nd Reporter
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
------- |