TRANSCRIPT


                  REGIONAL PUBLIC  MEETINGS ON  THE

          RESOURCE CONSERVATION  AND  RECOVERY ACT of  1976

   March 3 and 4, 1977, Denver, Colo, and Salt Lake City, Utah
         These meetings were sponsored  by  EPA Region  VIII,
and the proceedings (SW-17p) are reproduced  entirely  as  transcribed
      by the official  reporter,  with  handwritten  corrections
                   by  the Office of Solid  Waste
               U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                               1977
                Re/,!:••-.
                 230 S-

-------
An environmental protection publication (SN-17p)  in the solid waste  management series.

-------
J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9
111
0 10
>
£ 11
MO
zg 12
§8 13
111 111
tt. > 14
1%
K 15
111
S 16
U.
17

18

19

20

21


22
23

24

25

BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In the Matter of:
PUBLIC DISCUSSION SESSIONS REPORTER' S_ TRANSCRIPT
on the RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT, PUBLIC LAW 94-580.

Auditorium
Denver Public Library
14th and Broadway Streets
Denver, Colorado
Thursday, March 3, 1977

The above-entitled matter came on for public
hearing at 9:00 o'clock a.m.
BEFORE:

JON P. YEAGLEY, Chief, Solid Waste Section,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII.

APPEARANCES :

VAL GREY Chief, Program Management and
Support Services, Office of
Solid Waste, Environmental
Protection Agency.

JAMES LEHR Deputy Director, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division,
Environmental Protection Agency.

ALFRED LINDSEY Chief, Implementation Branch,
Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste,
Environmental Protection Agency.
ROBERT A. LOWE Chief, Technical Assistance
Branch, Resource Recovery
Division, Environmental Protection

Agency .

-------
u
u
a.
So
0.
111
s
B
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


22

23

24

25
         APPEARANCES:  (Continued)
              BRUCE WEDDLE
Chief, Special Wastes Branch,
Systems Management Division,
Office of Solid Waste,
Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
g 10
S 11
U) O
0£ 12
Z A
iRAL REPORT!
DENVER. COLI
cn •*>• oj
lu
S 16
u.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

SPEAKERS :
James Lehr
Val Grey
Alfred Lindsey
Bruce Weddle

Robert A. Lowe
Anice C. Swift
Frank Rozich

NUMBER:
1 and 2










   INDEX
EXHIBITS
                                   49
                                   91
                                   62

                                   71

                                   98
                                  PAGE HO.

                                    106

-------
hi
O

K

So

02
6 O
 1


 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


 10


 11


 12
JJ8   13
Q
U
IL
14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21



22


23


24


25
          MB. JAMES LEHR:  Good morning. Ladies and Gentlemen.


I'm Jim Lehr from the Regional Office of the EPA,Deputy


Director of the Air and Hazardous Materials Division, and I'm


here on behalf of John Green and Roger Williams of the


Regional Office of the EPA to welcome you to this public


meeting discussing the new legislation in solid waste and


resource recovery.


          Before we get started, maybe in the interest of


hearing better and participating more directly with the


dialogue today, some of you in the back would move up.  This


is a friendly crowd, I think, so feel free to come up front a


little closer.


           (Pause.)


          MR. LEHR:  This is the first of two public meetings


that EPA, Region VIII, is having to discuss the early


implementation plans and characteristics of this new


legislation.  We will be meeting tomorrow in Salt Lake City


to have a similar type meeting to provide an opportunity for


everyone to have some input in the early stages of the Agency


plans for implementing this Act.  Some 60 similar meetings


are going on in the country providing this kind of a public


forum or public discussion on what RCRA, as the Resource


Conservation and Recovery Act is often called.


          This Act has been long needed to assist EPA and the

-------
      1


      2


      3


      4


      5


      6


      7


      8


      9



0    10


£    11
wo

OJ   12
2o



IS"
111 111
(t >   14


2°   15


     16


     17


     18


     19


     20


     21



     22


     23


     24


     25

Nation in the closing of the loop on environmental protection


programs. As many of you know, the Agency has had air


pollution control, water quality legislation, drinking water


quality legislation, and this year legislation regulating the


toxic materials and, of course, the Resource Conservation and


Recovery Act, helping us to prevent the further deterioration


of our land use in terms of disposal of discarded material.


          We have prepared for you a summary discussion of key


aspects of this new legislation and these short discussions ar


on your program, described on your program, and they are to be


about ten minutes in length and they are to be followed by a


30-minute discussion period where we invite you to participate


in a dialogue on that aspect of the Act.  We welcome any


questions and opinions and any concerns that you might have on


each of those four key aspects that we will be talking about.


At the end of the presentations, there will be an open period


to invite any miscellaneous kinds of comments that you might


have on the rest of the Act that wasn't covered on the


presentations.


          The panelists that are going to summarize for you


the key aspects of the legislation I'd like to introduce right


now.  On my far left is Bruce Weddle.  He's Chief of the


Special Wastes Branch in our EPA offices in Washington, the


Office of Solid Waste,  and he will talk about the land use



aspect.

-------
u
y

K
So
bl
Q
Ul
IL
  1


  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


 10


 11


 12
  8   13
14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21



22


23


24


25
          Fred Lindsey will summarize for you-Section 3-of the


Act, the hazardous waste portion.  He's Chief of the


Implementation Branch, again of the Office of Solid Waste in


Washington.


          And then there's Jon Yeagley on my immediate left.


Jon is from the EPA Office in Denver.  He is heading off the


solid waste management program in the Air and Hazardous Materials


Division.  Be will act as moderator of the program today.


          As I said, I'm Jim Lehr from Region VIII and to my

                \S
immediate rightxrt Val Grey who is the Chief of Program


Management and Support Services, again of the Office of Solid


Waste in Washington, and to his right is Bob Lowe who is the

                                         IN
Chief of the Technical Assistance Branch-am"the Resource


Recovery Division in our offices in Washington.


          Any of these gentlemen will be most pleased to answe


any questions you might have and the intention of this meeting


is to have a full and open dialogue on all aspects of this


legislation and its implementation.


          Before we start, I'd like to take a couple of minute


to summarize some of the major provisions of the Act and some


of the major purposes of this new legislation.  The Nation


faces enormous problems in terms of dealing with its discarded


materials.  Some three to four billion tons of such material


	 solid, liquid or gaseous 	 are disposed of every year.


That's something on the order  of ten million tons per day of

-------
Id
y


K
LI
10
£ o

feo

0°
O.K
III ul
K
Ul
Q
LI
u.
 10



 n



 12



 13



 14


 15



 16



 17



 18



 19



 20



 21



 22



23



24



 25
 materials that have to be contended with in some fashion in


 this country.   That includes some 30 to 40 million tons each


 year of material that is hazardous, directly hazardous to the


 health and safety of the people of this country, material that


 can get into the water supply and could get into the air and


 into the food chain and can constitute a direct health hazard.


 Particularly,  hazardous materials are addressed in this new


 legislation.



           It's an enormous problem, one which we have coped



 with in the previous years and one which Congress is dealing


 with directly in this legislation. Congress took quite a bit


 of time to update the 1965 and 1970 Acts and develop new


 legislation and received input from the public and industry


 and from Governmental Agencies in how best to address this



serious problemand benefited from the input of several major


 committees in Congress and as of late October of 1976, this


 new legislation was passed.


           It generally does three or four major kinds of


 things.  It establishes for the first time a vigorous hazardous


 waste management program.  It encourages, and in fact requires


 that Government, State, local. Regional and Federal, must move


 toward full comprehensive waste management .programs for dealing



 with discarded materials,  it does that through grants, throug'i



 funding special studies, through providing money for State and



 local agency implementation, does  that  through  major efforts

-------









u
y
IE
hi
U) 0
Q
(5 <
2 o
fco
sh
0. £
U u
< Q
u
a
Ul
u.









i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11


12

13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        8
in providing technical expertise and assistance in moving from




an open dump kind of method of disposal of discarded materials




to a full waste management system.




          The major of the commitment that Congress made to




this is not only in the body of the legislation, but in the




sum $180 million authorized to do the job in fiscal year '78




and something over that authorized by Congress for fiscal




year '79.




          Congress was serious about it; EPA is given the




major responsibility of it is serious about it; State agencies




who will develop programs to implement these requirements are




serious about it and I know that you all for being here today




are serious about grappling with this problem in a sound and




workable way.




          Let me introduce Jon now, if you have any opening




remarks as moderator.




          MR. YEAGLEY:  Thank you, Jim.  Let me just make a




couple of opening comments.  We do have registration forms on




the table in the hallway in the back for those of you who were




here earlier than I  *as and may not have gotten a chance to




register.




         We will be issuing a transcript of this meeting and i




you wish to get a copy of it, be sure that we have your name




and address on the registration form.          ..s,





          Also, if you wish to make a  statement that is over and

-------
Ill
y
I
K
HI
Q
Ul
u.
  1


  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


 22


23


24


25
above just a general question, I would ask that you indicate


that on the registration form. also.  We do have several


hand-outs, including copies of the Act, which we encourage you


to pick up out on the table in the hallway.


          At the end of each short presentation, if you have a


question or a statement, if it's one that you think you might


have difficulty having your voice heard, we do have a podium


down here by the stage with a speaker and we ask that you come


down here and make any statement and questions if you would


like to.


          We are transcribing the entire session so that we


can take full benefit of everything that is said.  I want to


just emphasize the point that Jim said that our purpose in


being here is to gather information.  Hopefully, you can gain


some knowledge of what the Act is about and how we are


directing ourselves to this point, but keep in mind our first


purpose is to hear from you.  I'm going to ask all the speaker


to keep that in mind in keeping your time short.


          I think that's all I need to say at this point.  I'l


introduce Val Grey at this time.


          MR. GREY:  The Resource Conservation and Recovery


Act of 1976, RCRA, as we have affectionately started to call


it, contains an unusually complete array of provisions which


could bring about a high degree of public understanding and


participation.  Taken together, these various provisions make

-------
Ill
o
K
U
U>0


ii

K
gf
    9



   10



   11



   12



u  13



   14



   15



   16



   17



   18



   19



   20



   21




   22



   23



   24



   25
                                                        10




it clear that the Congress understood that it is impossible fo


the public to participate meaningfully unless the Government



first produces valid scientific and technical data, and then


processes and publishes the information in such a way that


everyone may have access to it.  Only in this way can you. the


public, have a reasonable chance of influencing the social,


the economic, and political changes which the Law is designed


to bring about.



          (Slide.)



          In Section 8003, the Administrator of EPA is


required to develop, collect, evaluate and coordinate


information on nine key elements which are crucial to the


Act's purposes.  The Administrator is not only to implement


a program for the rapid dissemination of this information; he


is also to develop and implement educational programs to


promote citizen understanding.


          This makes it quite clear that the information


called for is not to be developed for the exclusive use of


those who, for one reason or another, may be considered


"experts" in the field, but for everyone.  Moreover, the


Administrator is asked to coordinate his actions, and to


cooperate to the maximum extent possible with State and local


authorities and to establish and maintain a central reference



library for virtually all kinds of information involved in



solid waste management,  for  the use of State and local

-------
u
o

K
Ul
wo
0. (L
III Ul
K
III
Q
Ul
L.
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                        11
governments, industry, and the public.


          (Slide.)


          Now, who is the public?  To insure that the public


participation process does not become lopsided, we felt it


was necessary to identify major categories of interest groups


who represent the public at large.  Under RCRA, we regard


these groups to include consumer, environmental and neighborhood


groups; trade, manufacturing and labor representatives; public


health, scientific and professional societies; and governmental


and university associations.  This spectrum of categories of


representative groups will be altered and supplemented as


necessary, if in the course of implementing the Act it appears


purposeful to do so.


          (Slide.)


          What does the law say about public participation?


Section 7004(a) of the Act states that any person may petition


the Administrator for the promulgation, amendment or repeal


of any regulation under this Act.


          Section 7004(b) deals with public participation.


It states that public participation in the development,


revision and enforcement of any regulation, guideline,


information, or program under this Act shall be provided for,


encouraged,  and assisted by the Administrator and the States


and further, that the Administrator in cooperation with the



States (Slide) shall develop and publish minimum guidelines

-------








Ill
y
K
So
" 5
? o
PORTI
R. COL
111 ID
<°
111
Q
HI
U.









1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        12
for public participation in such processes.




          Section 7002(a) states that any person may commence




a civil action on his own behalf against any other person 	




and person in this case includes the Dnited States 	 who is




alleged to be in violation of this Act,  or against the




Administrator if there is an alleged failure by him to perform




any act or duty under the Act.




          What are some of the available public participation




techniques?  The many techniques which can be used to involve




the public in Government actions fall into three major




categories.




          One, the use of appropriate public meetings, hearings




conferences, work shops, and the like, throughout the country




which EPA intends to plan and hold in consonance with the




Act's key provisions.  This meeting today is one of these




actions.




          (Slide.)




          Two, the use of advisory committees and review




groups, which may meet periodically but which will also be




called upon to review and comment upon major programs,




regulations and plans, no matter when these occur and no




matter whether a specific meeting is convened or not.




          And three, the development of educational programs




so that the public has an opportunity to become aware of the





significance  of the  technical data base and the issues which

-------
WO
hi
Q

B
      1



      2



      3



      4



      5



      6



      7



      8



      9



     10



     11



     12
£ o


§8   13

fl. K'
LI ui
E >   14




5°   15



     16




     17




     18




     19




     20




     21




     22




     23




     24




     25
                                                        13





emerge from it.  Effective public education programs depend



on the use of all appropriate communication tools, techniques,



and media.  These include publications, slides, films,



exhibits, and other graphics; media programs including public



service television and radio announcements and releases to the



daily and professional press; and public education projects



carried out by service and civic organizations with EPA



technical and financial assistance.



          (Slide.)



          What does the law say about manpower development?



Sections 7007(a) and  (b) authorize the Administrator of the



EPA to make grants or offer contracts with any eligible



organization for training persons for occupations involving



the management, supervision, design, operation, or maintenance



of solid waste disposal and resource recovery equipment and



facilities,  or to train instructors.  "Eligible organization"



is defined to mean a State or any State Agency, a municipality



or educational institution capable of effectively carrying out



such a project.



          Section 7007(c) provides that the Administrator shal



make a complete investigation and study to determine the need



for additional trained State and local personnel to carry out



plans assisted under this Act, and to determine the means of



using existihg training programs to train such personnel, and




to determine the extent and nature of obstacles  to  employment

-------
      9


g    10


g    11
U) O
  Q
0<   12


I?   ^
0. ic
u
Q
111
IL
15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                        14



and occupational advancement in the solid waste disposal and

resource recovery fields.   The Administrator is required to

report the results of such investigation and study to the

President and the Congress.

          I'll entertain any questions now on this area.

          (Pause.)

          MR. YEAGLEY:  Any questions?

          MR. GREY:  It must be pretty clear.

          MR. YEAGLEY:  Any comments?

          MS. LAWRENCE:  How much of this money, of this

$180 million, is allocated for studies?

          MR. GREY:  Allocated?

          MS. LAWRENCE:  I mean, how much is going for

management studies and so forth?

          MR. GREY:  You're talking about the 8007?  The amoun(t

that's authorized is $35 million for 1978.

          MS. LAWRENCE:  This will come out of the $180 millio|n?

          MR. GREY:  Let me define or at least make clear

the terms authorized and allocation.  Authorized is in the lav

	 whatever the Congress said. We can go that high.

Obviously, we seldom do in any law and we aren't likely to

in this law.  Our budget for '78 is considerably less than

$180 million.  It's roughly at $40 million as of this moment.

It keeps changing and it's being reviewed this week between


0 aud~g and Congress.  Only a  small  portion of that will go to

-------








Ill
0
a.
U
m o
a
ORTING
COLORA
0. of
111 UI
"=1
f
O
E









i
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11


12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        15
the studies and I can give you that figure,  if you like,  that




we have requested.




          (Pause.)




          MR. GREY:  Let me look it up later and get it to you




later.  It's in ay records, but for that section alone, it's a




very small amount,  it isn't very much.




          MS. LAWRENCE:  I'm glad to hear that.




          MR. GREY:  I'm glad to hear that.




          Would you identify yourself, please?




          MS. LAWRENCE:  Judy Lawrence.




          MR. GREY:  If you'll see me during the break or




something, I'll give you those figures.




          MR. YEAGLEY:  Let me just make a point.  Any others




of you that have a question, if you will give us your name so




that we can record that in the transcript and organization if




you're with a particular group.




          Any other questions?




          Yes, sir?




          MR. EDEEN;  Erik Edeen, Eagle County.  You made




reference to a dissemination library or central reference




library.  Where will this library be?  Will it be branch




libraries for quick reference to local Government officials?




          MR. GREY:  Well, I would estimate that would be an




expansion of our  current library.  EPA has a large library in





Washington. The solid waste portion  of that  library,  however.

-------
8
hi
wo


»2   12

p3

*8   13

0. o;
hi u
K >   14
hi
Q

E
15



16



17



18




19




20




21




22



23



24



25
                                                                 16
is not contingent or located in the same place as the EPA



library.  Our library is being maintained by private contract.



It's being maintained in conjunction with the solid waste

R£T£.l£YAt~
Lj.eaUiienL system.  It will be an expansion of that system



under the current law that would fullfil that requirement.



          MR. EDEEN:  Is there a place in Denver where we can



get this 	



          MR. LEER:  I might add that we also have a library



and an expansion of this library might be planned. But, there



is a library at EPA Headquarters in Denver.



          MR. GREY:  Does it have a solid waste identified



section?



          MR. YEAGLEY: Yes.



          MR. GREY:  They probably have the same in each



Region.  Now, in addition to that, we publish from Washington



a list of available materials.  This is not the total  library,



but it is material produced within our office, under the



auspices of our office, and available to everyone under one of



several systems, either directly through GPO, directly through



ua, in Cincinnati, or through the National Technical  Information



System which is run by the Department of Commerce.



          MR. YEAGLEY: I might just throw a. pitch in  there  foi



the Regional Office.  We have a fairly extensive inventory  of



the solid waste publications-.-<-I f we don't haVe^th* particulai
         publication on hand  that you wish,  we can order it for you.

-------
LI
o


K

WO
  1



  2



  3



  4



  5



  6



  7



  8



  9



 10



 11



 12
I:   13
111 HI
kl
Q
Ul
U.
 15



 16



 17



 18



 19



 20



 21



 22



23



24



25
                                                                 17
          Yes, sir?


          MR. ALTERS:  I'm Stephen Alfers, an attorney with


Dawson, Nagel, Sherman and Howard, in Denver.  You mentioned


something about review groups that were going to assist you in


this public participation. Would you expand on the composition


of these groups?


          MR. GREY:  The first group we're calling an ad ho«*


group because according to the Federal Regulations, we are


allowed to have an ad hoeRgroup for almost any purpose.


Because it takes some time and approval by the Office of


Management and Budget for a permanent advisory group, rather


than wait nine months or a year for the approvals, we're


going ahead with an ad ho*Kgroup.


          The ad hoefcgroup will be meeting in late April or


May, I think it's scheduled right now.  The number of members


or invitations going out is about 30.  This is a composite


list of our best estimate of who has a primary interest and


the capability to help us.  They are involved in the same kind


of groups that I read to you 	 environmental groups, labor,


public interest groups, educational groups, or specific


individuals that we know are prominent in the field of solid


waste.  I don't have a list of those people, but that is


roughly the number.


          Now, from the ad hocR groups they themselves will



select from among themselves representatives of each  area and

-------
in
y
u
wo
 1





 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




 10




 11




 12
P3



2*   13
U HI
o: >   14
u
Q

e
15




16




17




18





19




20





21





22




23




24




25
                                                        18






we hope to reduce that number to a permanent group of about



15 people.  That is, if we can get it approved.  Currently,




advisory groups say in Washington are not very popular and



are undergoing some critical review and probably rightfully so



and it's doubtful at the moment whether we could get official



approval of an advisory group.  But in the meantime, we can



legally proceed with an ad hoex group.  Next year we can have



another ad ho*x group for a different purpose, however, to keeji




it legal.  Does that answer your question?




          MR. ALFERS:  Yes.




          MR. YBAGLIY: Yes, sir?



          MR. LEFFLEN:  Dick Lefflen with Western Technical




Services.



          When are the grants under Section 7007, when will



they be available?



          MR. GREY:  I expected that question to be the first



one.  They are not available yet.  The resources that we are



getting now are so mejper compared to what we are authorized,



we are going to have a. difficult time priortizing our work.



The Sub-title C and D are our primary targets right now • ^he



sections in the 3000 and 4000 series.  Most of the money that



we have allocated to us in the current '77 budget, and what we



expect to get in the '78 budget will probably go mostly for



implementing both sections and it's not even sufficient for




those.  Some token amount will be given to 7007, but I can't

-------
Ill
o
III
(A O
  Q
2*
III UI
bl
O
Id
k.
  1



  2



  3



  4



  5



  6



  7



  8



  9



 10



 11



 12



 13



 14



 15



 16



 17



 18



 19



 20



 21



 22



23



24



25
                                                         19




 tell you  at  this  time how much.   I  can tell you it's not


 going  to  be  very  much.   We  are not  going to be able to implement


 this as fully  as  we would like to.


           If you  can get your Congressman to  support more


 funds, it's  fine  with us.


           Any  other questions?


           (Pause.)


           MR.  YEAGLEY:   Okay.  I  don't want to cut off any


 discussion here if you're interested in asking more questions


 on  the subject.


           Let  me  get this point,  then we'll proceed on with


 Fred Lindsey's discussion on hazardous waste.


           MR.  LINDSEY:   Good morning.  May I  say at the outset


 that we are  pleased and  we  appreciate the interest you have


 shown  by  coming in here  this morning to give  us the benefit


 of  your thoughts  and suggestions  on this whole matter of


 implementing this Act.   Let me assure you that we are


 interested in  receiving  your suggestions and  we will be


considering each and every one of  them.


           I'm  here to talk  about  the hazardous waste provisior


 and what  I'd like to do  is  again  summarize the requirements


 under  the hazardous waste part of the Act and also to discuss


 some of the  issues which we are facing, some  of the questions


 we  are facing  as  we attempt to deal with this area.  Sub-title



 C,  which  is  in the 3000  series, mandates a regulatory program

-------
u
o


£
(A O
  O
 1


 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12
p3
K°
  8   13
bl a
K >   14
lil
0
111
b.
15


16


17


18


19


20


21



22


23


24


25
                                                        20



to be defined to control hazardous wastes from the point of


generation 	 usually as an industrial waste, although not


always 	 to ultimate disposal at a permitted facility.  This


i« a very clear mandate 	 there's a lot of latitude as to


how we are to carry it out, but the mandate as to What we are


supposed to do is pretty clear.


          (Slide.)


          The first thing we have to do is come up with


criteria by which we can identify what is and what is not


a hazardous waste.  Congress has mandated in setting up these


criteria that we consider such things as toxicity, persistence


in the environment, degradability, bioaccumulation of


material, flammability and corrosiveness.  Once having


determined what the criteria are to be, we are to develop a


listing of typical materials which fit or fail those criteria


and thus are hazardous waste.


          Now, as with most of the hazardous waste regulatory


provisions of the Act, we have 18 months within which to do


this, to promulgate these standards or criteria.  This is


18 months from the passage of the Act and for those of you


who don't know when that was, it was October 21,  1976, which


brings us to a deadline then of April 21, 1978.


          In terras of identifying the criteria, some of the


problems are not only what level of toxicity and what type of


toxicity should we  include,  but also,  simply,  when is a waste

-------
      1


      2


      3


      4


      5


      6


      7


      8


      9


     10


U    11
in o

o<   12
S 0



I!i3
111 III
K >   14

JH
111
y
K
111
O

B
     15



     16



     17



     18



     19



     20



     21



     22



     23



    24



    25
                                                         21




a waste?  This may  seem clear to most people, but when you


think about it there are now some  industrial chemicals which


may  fit the category of hazardous  waste which are sold for


some small price and used  for some low grade purpose  such as


perhaps wetting down dusty roads or horse arenas and  things of


that nature, so we  have to be very careful  in defining when a


waste is a waste as well as when it's hazardous.


          One of the other questions we have involves the fact


that wastes are typically not pure substances. When we are


dealing with air pollution or water pollution, typically we


are  dealing with a  material like lead or abestos or some


specific chemical which is the pollutant and which we can


deal with directly.  When we are dealing with hazardous


wastes, we are dealing with brown  goo and red gunk and this


type of thing which is a mixture of a variety of things, any


or all of which can be hazardous and these  mixtures of the

                                Sv/y£V3&fS TIC.
various materials can be either gyabiotie or antagonistic


in their relationship from one to  another.


          So, we have a problem in first of all, trying  to


figure out how to test for toxicity or how  to test for any


of these characteristics, for that matter?  Do we test the


material or set our criteria on so many parts per million of a


substance that is in the material,  or do we test the  entire


material for toxicity?  Xhege arjs  some, of the questions  we arc



wrestling with and we would like to have any thoughts that yov

-------









Ill
u
>
K
III
(A O
Q
5«
So
I
Ul u
<°
ft
u
Q
bl
IL









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        22






may have, either now or later, on this issue.




          (Slide.)




          Under Section 3002 of the Act, we are required to




come up with certain standards which relate to generators of




hazardous waste.  These standards require record keeping and




reporting provisions to include such things as quantities of




waste, constituents of the waste, disposition 	 where the




material was sent and how it was handled 	 requirements for



the labeling of containers or the use of certain type s of




containers and construction requirements of containers may be




involved and probably more importantly is the initiation of a




manifest system which is to be designed to track the waste 	




to track the waste from cradle to grave.  That is, from the



point of generation to the point of disposal, to make sure



they get fron Point A to Point B.



          This manifest system is also to include, according




to Congress, pertinent information on the waste material which




may be needed by the transporter and the disposer 	 again,



characteristics and quantities and things of that nature.




          Now, on those states that already have a manifest




system under their current State programs, this has




specifically taken the form of a trip ticket approach.



For those of you that may be familiar with the California




system, that is a manifest system which will probably be





somewhat similar to that which the Federal system will be.

-------
Ill
u
10
£    ii
0)0


S«   !2
£ O

§8   13

0. tc
In u
K|   14



-------
Ul
o
Ill
no

g«   12
2 o

feo   .

P
Si5
   14
HI


S
IL
15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 24
important and one of the most difficult along with the 3001


Ejection that we have to deal with because it's here that owner


and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities


will have to meet regulations that we are setting up for these


types of facilities and it is by such standards that improper


disposal will be made illegal.  It's a very important part of


the Act, I think.


          Congress does require again that we come up with


certain specific types of regulations including requirements


for record-keeping and reporting, including how much material


was received, what type, and how it was handled and how it


was disposed and of course, compliance, again with that part


of the manifest system relates to feeders, storers and


disposers and we have to set up minimum requirements for


monitoring so that we can determine whether a site is or is


not polluting and minimum inspection requirements.


          There will be criteria for the design, location


and construction of such facilities, including such things


as where facilities can and cannot be placed, what design


options may be restricted or required.


          Maintenance and operating standards are also


required.  Contingency plans.  What to do if something goes


wrong.  What will be done.


          And then there is a class of regulations called for



Which we refer to as ownership  requirements.   This might

-------
Ill
y
kl
•8
K
Ul
Q
Ul
lL
  1


  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


 10


 11


 12
K   13
bi u
K>   14
15


16


17


18


19


20


21



22


23


24


25
                                                                 25
include such things as performance bonds, long term care  funds


requirements for training programs, site closure plans, things


of that nature.


          If that wasn't all inclusive enough. Congress has


said there is a provision in there that says such other


provisions as may be necessary to protect the public health


and environment.  It's a very broad mandate and we can


set those regulations pretty much as we see fit although, as


I say, there are a number of mandatory requirements.  Some of


the questions that we are facing here are kind of tricky.  We


would like to know, for example, what problems would a treatme


facility or disposer face in trying to integrate the standards


which we may come up with with those they already have to


comply with relative to air, water and OSHA standards.  Again,


we do not want to be deplicative or unnecessarily bureaucratic


with all of this and we would like to be able to integrate


them as far as we can.


          Should the performance standards of the hazardous


waste sewage treatment or disposal facility apply only at the


fenceline of the facility?  What form should the standards


take?  For example, they might tak« the form of what we call


performance standards which says you can't degrade the


groundwater beyond such and such and such a limit from any


disposal site.  Or, on the other hand, you can take the form


of what we would call an equipment standard which would say

-------
Id
O


a.

So
i
Id
D
LI
IL
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




23




24




25
                                                                 26
such things as if you're going to burn chlorinated hydrocarbons



you must have a scrubber with such-and-such a pressure drop.



Two totally different ways of regulating.  We're iaterested in



your thoughts as to how you would like to see this go.



          Should hazardous waste facilities be uniform



nationally or should there be some differokce in provision for



climatology or hydrogeology or density of population or



whatever?  Another major problem we can see being faced is



many citizens automatically oppose the siting of a hazardous



waste material facility 	 even a well designed, good



operating hazardous waste material facility 	 in their



locality.  They may be all for the principle, but they don't



want it here.  Now, this is common, not only with hazardous



waste materials, but with many other types of facilities aad



it's understandable.  Nevertheless, it's going to be necessary



to site these facilities and to site good facilities and we're



interested in any thoughts you may have as to how this type of



opposition can be dealt with or how we are, in fact, going to



be able to go forward and site adequate facilities.  How can



we proceed with that?  With training of the local people aroun<



one of the sites in terms of public meetings of this type and



training programs and educational lectures ?  On the other



hand, would very stringent facility standards have any



appreciable influence on that?  We would like to have your




thoughts on that.

-------
Ill
o
>
K
111
Ifl 0
  o
2«-
Ul in
Ul
Q

B
  1



  2



  3



  4



  5



  6



  7



  8



  9



 10



 11



 12



 13



 14



 15



 16



 17



 18



 19



 20



 21



 22



 23



24



25
                                                                 27
          Should the regulations published by EPA require


certification of employees that work at these facilities?


We certify boiler watcher operators and maybe we could certify


waste facility operators.  It's a question we would like to


have some input on.


          Should it require bonding and insurance of hazardous


waste facilities and even if we were to require it, are there


insurance companies who would consider undertaking the long


term, almost open-ended insurance requirements that might be


needed?


          What type of monitoring should be required?  How


often should testing be done?  Who should run the tests?


Should the facility itself; should the applicable State or


Federal agency 	 us, or should the State undertake this


type of testing?  These are just some of the problems with


which we are faced and the questions which we are going to


have to face and we would appreciate your comments on them.


          (Slide.)


          It's under Section 3005 of the Act where a permit


system is required for the facility.  By this mechanism then,


that facility would be brought into compliance with the


standards that would be developed under Section 3004.  The


Act says within six months after we have identified what is


and what is not a hazardous waste and have promulgated the



standards under 3004, that it would be illegal then  to dispos<

-------
Ul
y

tr.
ui
10


11


12
£ o

|8   „
 .
hi
K
 I
<
o:
u
Q
ui
u.
14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 28
of any hazardous waste as defined in the Act or as defined


under our regulations in any site that does not have a permit.


It will be illegal.  Now, given the 18 months that are in the


Act for developing those standards and then six months beyond


that, that brings us somewhere in the neighborhood of


October 21, 1978, assuming all time requirements are met on


the date that is required.


          Now, a permit will be granted based on whether or


not the regulatory agency feels the site is or is expected to


be in compliance with those standards we just talked about.


They have also set up certain requirements that are to be on


the application such as the manner of disposal or treatment,


the types and amounts of waste which they expect to receive,


the frequency of treatment or rate of application of disposal


and information on the site 	 I assume such things as


climatology and hydrogeology and things of that nature.


          There is also a provision in here which is of


interest and for those facilities which are in business at


the time of the passage of the Act and who have notified


EPA or the appropriate State under 3010 and who have applied


for a permit, they will be granted an interim permit to


continue operation until such time as EPA or the State has


adequately reviewed and gone through the paperwork and so


forth of making a decision.



          One of the questions that we are  faced with  in  this

-------
u
y


u
U) O
  Q
  1



  2



  3



  4



  5



  6



  7



  8



  9



 10



 11



 12
8
HI
U,
 15



 16



 17



 18



 19



 20



 21



 22



 23



24



 25
                                                         29



permitting area is should there be different classes of


hazardous materials, perhaps depending on the types of materi


or amounts of material received or what.  We'd be interested .


any thoughts you have on that.


           (Slide.)


          3006 of the Act authorizes states to undertake the
                                     •&•

permitting and enforcement requirements of the Act.  In  order


to be authorized by EPA, the State program would have to be


equivalent with the Federal program, consistent with other


State programs and maintain adequate enforcement programs.


Unfortunately, Congress didn't tell us what equivalent,


consistent and adequate are.  So, we are going to have to


wrestle with those definitions ourselves.  We will be coming


up with guidelines to assist the jitates in setting up what


would be acceptable programs.


          (Slide.)


          Section 3010 of the Act requires that within three


months after we have identified the characteristics of a


hazardous waste under 3001, once we have identified what is


and what is not a hazardous waste, three months after that


each person who generates, transports, treats or stores, or


disposes of any material fitting these criteria will have to


notify EPA or the appropriate s.tate.  This is a one time


requirement that is in the Act and notification probably will



be a pretty simple operation.

-------









Ill
>
K
III
WO
li
feo
0°
0- 
-------
u
y
So
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12
£•
bi m
III
Q
HI
IL
  8   is
14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 31
          MR. LINDSEY:  I would suggest 	 I'm not going to


read this. There are three types of facilities, treatment,


storage, and disposal, and the definition of thoee are in


Section 1004 of the Act and I think that will give you a fair


idea.  Let me say that such things as landfills will be


included.


          MR. HEMINGTON:  Any landfill?


          MR. LINDSEY:  Any landfill that receives hazardous


waste under the definition of the Act will come under that.


          MR. HEMINGTON:  There are numerous small disposal


facilities that receive small amounts of hazardous material


in small sites and you have to have a permit to do that?  I


think there's a possibility that enormous numbers of


facilities will be hurt by that.


          MR. LINDSEY:  I think there's a possibility that a


good number of places that would have to be permitted.  One


of the things that I indicated was should there be different


classes of permits for different types of wastes as received.


Are you suggesting that you feel that would be something we


should consider?


          MR. HEMINGTON: Nell, yes.  I think you ought to


consider the magnitude of disposal problems. For example,


that each mine that is out in the country, there are solid


wastes that are disposed of locally rather than transported



and because of the complexity, mix of waste, it's reasonable

-------
Ill
y

K
u
wo
 10
11
     12
0
0. tt
Ul W
o:
u
Q
m
u.
  o
  J

  o   13
14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21




22



23



24



25
                                                                 32
that some of them will fall into categories called hazardous



waste.  To some degree there should be an additional permit



requirement above and beyond the permitting required now.  I'gi



not sure 	



          MR. LINDSEY:  I think maybe I can take that point



one step further.  For example, most fluorescent lights



contain a ballast, a small ballast in them and that ballast



is PCB.  Trying to control this disposal of those little bits



of ballast that come from homes and so forth would be a pretty



near impossible test as far as enforcement.  This is one of



the problems we have, one of the questions we have, is how



can we control them and should we even try to control them



from the enforcement standpoint. Does anyone else have any



points on this?


          MR. TURK:  Donald Turk, Tri-County District Health



Department.'



          T think they're throwing you a real bag of worms

 IN                                    '
an* trying to define a hazardous waste/period.  Number one iSj



that if the Act was adopted to protect the public health by



the disposal of solid wastes and if solid wastes in and by



themselves are or do offer a public health problem, then all



of the solid wast* is a hazardous material to be disposed of.



          Number two is that the Act is designated as a.  solid



waste disposal, how do you intend to handle liquid industrial



"hazardous waste?"

-------
u
y
£
So

z *   12


§3   «
k K'
     14
Id LU
_j iii

a

8!
     15



     16



     17



     18



     19



     20



     21



     22



     23



     24



     25
                                                                 33
          MR. LIHDSBY:  If you look under the definition of


the Act 	 I can't speak for it verbatim 	 solid waste


also includes liquids, gases, that contain the gases 	 .


Includes solids, liquids, semi-solids that contain gaseous


materials that result from industrial, commercial, mining,


and agriculture.


          MR. TURK:  Then it would seem that reasonable


persons would have defined the Act as waste disposalxperiod^


and left out the solid.


          MR. LINDSEY:  It's really called the Resource


Conservation and Recovery Act.  it doesn't say anything at


all about solids in the title.


          MR. TURK:  Title II, Solid Waste Disposal.


          MR. LINDSEY:  You may be right. Sub-title C is the


hazardous waste disposal and you're right.  It does contain


some inconsistencies between the title of the Act and what


the Act addresses.


          MR, TURK:  I'm not trying to be fecetious.  You


really do have a problem because even solid waste, domestic


solid waste, in sanitary landfills, if there are any leachates


from this material, these leachates in and by themselves are


hazardous and toxic material.  Therefore, are you going to


permit all disposal sites?


          MR. LINDSEY:  I think the intention of Congress ia



probably not to go that far.  The criteria which we are given.

-------









Ill
u
a.
u
U>0
PORTING
R. COUORA
bl u

-------
I
Ul
Ifi O
  o
K
U
Q
Ul
k.
 1



 2


 3


 4



 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12



13



14


15


16


17


18



19


20



21



22


23


24


25
                                                                 35
           MR. LIHDSEY:  It's too early to say one way or


 another.  We haven't gotten to that.  So, I can't answer your


 question on whether we will or not because we haven't addressed


 the issue.  We'd be interested in any facts or problems you


 might see if we are to adopt that approach or on the other


 hand, any environmental problems we might encourage if we


 didn't take that approach.   Do you have anything you might


 like to say on that matter?  I can't answer your question,


 because we haven't gotten that far. But, we will have to


 wrestle with that problem.


           MR. MIHLAN:  I was wondering if the Act would cover


 only mainly large generators or include smaller type


 generators because if it would include a small agricultural


 operator or even just an applicator, he would be located in


 such a far part of the united States, like eastern Colorado,


 someplace where there might not be a hazardous waste facility.


           MR. LINDSEY:  You're saying it's impractical as you


see it?


           MR. MIHLAN:  I'm not saying it's impractical, I'»


 just wondering what you're going to do 	


           MR. LINDSEY:  I don't think it's clear in the Act.


 It doesn't say or not say,  as I read it, anything in there


 that would say yes or no, you include or don't include that.


 That then leaves us some latitude to consider that.  I'd be



 interested in any impacts,  economically or from a practical

-------









Ul
U
K
111
wo
" tt
S o
0°
0. a.
Ul Ul
J g
J
Ul
Q
a









i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13

14

15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        36






standpoint or environmentally going one way or the other.




          MR. FOSTER:  Al Foster,  Denver Regional Council of



governments.




          I'm interested in the schedule which you would



anticipate for the guidelines and regulations and what have you




for public comment and finalization and secondly, if you were




considering issuing those piecemeal or as one integrated



package.  I think we have a number of sections of the Act that




relate to hazardous waste there and they relate very much to




one another.



          MR. LISDSEY:  Yes, they do.



          MR. FOSTER:  And it might make sense, rather than




piecemeal then, to wait and put together an integrated package








          MR. LINDSEY:  That's a lot of questions 	 a lot of



issues there.  I suspect we will try to issue the ones that




clearly impact one upon the other together or very close




together so that the whole issue can be seen at once.  Probably



two of the sections which impact one upon the other are 3001,




how do we identify what is a hazardous waste?  If we're very




tight on that and we have a relatively small number of wastes




that fall into that category, then perhaps treatment standards




under 3004 would be much more strict.




          On the other hand, if we have a very broad number,




very large number of waste materials, extremely broad

-------
Ul
y
u
Ul O
      1



      2



      3



      4



      5



      6



      7



      8



      9



     10



     11



WJ   12



£3   13

QL K
iii iii

K>   14



£ °   15



     16



     17



     18



     19



     20



     21




     22



     23



     24



     25
bl
Q

Ul
IL
                                                                 37
categories of waste materials, it night be economically



unfeasible to have a tight control or standards for treatment,



storage, that kind of trade off issue.



          Relative then to the scheduling of how we will move


                                         o-«*p
forward from here, we are now conducting^a» this is one of the



meetings, a lot of public contact work at this point, what we



would call front and public contact work where we go to the



public and say okay, here's what we have to do.  He are



interested in your telling us how you see doing it, number one



and what kind of product do you see ending up out of all of



this.  Once we have done this, both in large meetings like



this and smaller group meetings discussing certain issues or



certain questions, then we will come up with a draft.  That



draft will have citizen coramentors on these drafts 	 people



that we will send these to on what's what and we'll publish



them as a notice of proposed rule making and that will be an


official publication saying this is what we are proposing and



giving an opportunity for hearings and written comments on



those. That will be down the road some piece, some time in the



fall or winter, something along those lines.  And then, it wil



come back and we will revise it based on hearings and comments



but there will be additional meetings like this later on also



in the schedule.


          MR. FOSTER:  Taking you back to the water quality



and thaproblems that EPA had in getting all the legislation

-------
Ill
o

K
III
in o
  O
2«-
hi ui
K
III
Q
111
U.
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14


15


16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                        38




and guidelines together, do you think you have the resources


available and the manpower available to meet the 18 months,


April 21, 1978, deadline?


          MR. LINDSEY:  Being a good bureaucrat, we never have


enough people.


          MR. FOSTER:  I know. I'm one, too.


          MR. LINDSEY:  Okay, all I can say, it's too soon to


say. We are doing our best.  We have schedules set up to allow


us to meet that if everything goes well and we are going to


try.


          MR. CHKN:  Phil Chen with Stone and Webster


Engineering.


          Two questions.  Will the permit system under 3005


trigger a NIPA review?


          Second, you have provided for interim permits for


facilities in business as of 10/21/76.  What positions do you


have for facilities that begin operations between 10/21/76


and 4/21/78?


          MR. LIMDSEY:  Let me answer the later question first


and then I'll ask Mr. Grey to answer the former.


          The later question 	 what was it again?


          MR. CHEN:  What positions do you have for people


that will be putting a facility into operation in the interim?


          MR. LINDSEY:  The Act does not grant any special


provisions for that.  It only has provisions for those

-------
Ill
u


IT
III
(A O
  Q
      1



      2



      3



      4



      5



      6



      7



      8



      9



     10



     11



     12
0
0. K
Id ui
&
K
LI
O
Ul
L.
     14



     15



     16



     17



     18



     19



     20



     21



     22



     23



     24



     25
                                                        39




facilities in operation as of the time the Act was passed.


So, as I would interpret it, they would require permits from


the outset which is within six months, I believe.  It will


be illegal to dispose of a waste without a permit within six


months after we have identified the criteria unless you were


in business, as I pointed out, as of 10/21.  That's what the


Act calls for.  Are you saying that there should be some kind


of special provision for those people going into business


now?


          MR. CHEN:  I would think so because yon pose a


dilemma to any operator who might put a. facility into


operation in conjunction with any other type of industry


where he might not be able to dispose six months after you


put the date in.  Perhaps he might be able to put it in


operation today and whenever you promulgate your identificatiojn


of hazardous wastes, he would have to shut down his facility


until April of 1978 when your permitting goes into operation.


          MR. LINDSEY:  I think there is a little confusion.


Within 18 months, which as I translate it is a final deadline


of April 21, 1978, we have to come up with standards for what


is a treatment, storage and disposal facility, for what


standards they have to meet and then within six months after


that it will become illegal to dispose without a permit.  So,


presumably people that go into business now after the Act has



been passed, would have to meet those requirements within

-------
Ill
y

K
w .
«,o
i= o
0"
0. K
Ul u>
Ul
D
Ul
U.
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14


15


16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                        40



those six months.  Between the six moaths.  Between the


identification of the standards.  They would have to meet


those requirements within those six months. Whereas, people


who have been in business for some period of time could get an


interim permit until the EPA paperwork clears for the permit


applications which might be some longer period of time.


          MR. CHIN:  To summarize, if I understand what you're


saying, if someone was going to put a facility into operation


which is passed 10/21/76, he may do so on the premise that six


months after April 21, 1978, he can obtain one of the permits.


          MR. LINDSEY:  He Would have tokiave a permit to


operate.  He would not be eligible for an interim permit.  I


can't say anything more about it than that.


          MR. GREY:  What was the question about the HEPA?


          MR. CHEN:  Under 3005, you're establishing a


Federal permit system.  Under the national Environmental


Policy Act of 1969, any Federal action that might have a


substantial effect, et cetera, will require a SEPA review.


Will this require a NEPA review?


          MR. GREY:  The Agency has never recognized that


regulatory actions required a NEPA EIS 	 Environmental


Impact Statement.  However, Mr. Train, before he  left, has


voluntarily agreed to do so by a statement of policy.  In  fact


he 'issued a policy exclusive of the old Solid Haste 'Disposal


Act of October,  '73,  I believe, or  '74.   But, he has  since

-------









Ill
y
K
in
wo
z "
feo
0°
0. d
UJ uJ
J u
2°
Q
111
L.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        41






expanded it in a letter to the CG and voluntarily has agreed




to do so for this particular Act or for solid waste management.



          Mot all Federal actions are major nor do they have




a significant impact on the environment.  We are reviewing all




actions to determine whether or not they are major or whether




they have a significant impact on the environment.  Those will




get an EIS.  This program would be a major program and very




likely would have an Environmental Impact Statement.




          MR. LINDSEY:  I think maybe the question went a littlje




further than that.  Are you relating when a permit is granted



whether or not that would require an Environmental Impact



Statement?




          MR. CHEN:  Yes, the individual permit.




          MR. GREY:  Probably not, because the major action is




the program itself.  Every agency has a decision to make on




any EIS action, what level of action do we write in the KIS.



Do we write it for that section of the law or do we write it




for all of the Sub-title C?  I would say probably that program



the permit program, would get a separate EIS, not each permit.



          MR. CHBN:  You're talking about a programatic EIS?



          MR. GREY:  Yes, and that would be an umbrella for




every permit.  Remember that every permit would not be a




Federal permit, obviously.



          MR. YEAGLEY:  Let me get one back here.  Yes, sir?





          LT. PETERSON:  Lieutenant Peterson, United States

-------









u
y
£
So
2 e
PORTII
R, COLC
U UI

K
III
Q
111
IL









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        42
Array Environmental and Hygiene Agency.



          I'm curious to find out what sort of regulation you




might anticipate as far as this getting a permit six months




after your program is promulgated with respect to Federal




facilities, particularly with sites that are now located that




will contain potentially hazardous materials and it's locating




a new site on the Federal installation?  Is that going to




require a permit six months after or is that going to be able



to get an interim permit?




          MR. LINDSIY:  A new facility at the same site?




          LT. PETERSON:  My question is, if you have a




disposal site now and if it's at its capacity and yon are now




in the process of finding a new location for a disposal




facility, does that constitute a new business under your



rules?



          MR. LINDSEY:  At the same site?



          LT. PETERSON:  At the same installation.




          MR. LINDSEY:  I don't know; we haven't addressed



that.  I guess it's up to us to determine and we haven't




addressed, for example, if there's a land disposal site whethe




it's military or Federal agency or private, if he. opens up a




new section, does that constitute a new facility.  We haven't



addressed that and I can't give you an answer yet.




          I should point out that you're familiar with the





provisions of the Act  to Federal facilities relative to

-------









Ill
u
£
WO
o *
? 0
PORT
R, COL
hi u
K
111
Q
111
U.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        43






complying with the State?




          LT. PETERSON:  IB that going to be discussed, that



particular section?




          MR. LINDSEY:  Am I going to discuss it?




          LT. PETERSON: Yes.



          MR. LIHDSEY:  Hot specifically.  If you like, I



could mention that.




          There is a requirement in this Act which says that




Federal facilities, whatever they be, whether to treat, store,




dispose or otherwise generate, et cetera, hazardous waste will




have to comply with the provisions of the Act which is not




unusual in the sense that NEPA guidelines apply to Federal.




On the other hand, it also mandates that such facilities would




have to comply with the State programs if the State is




authorized to take over the program and the facility will



follow that program.



          LT. PETERSON:  With respect to that, I have a




question about when the Federal facility has to comply with



the State program.  Were you interpreting or EPA in general,



interpret that as stating we at the present time must comply



with any State program or does a 	



          MR. LINDSEY:  There are not any authorized State




programs at the present time.  It would have to be a program




authorized by EPA under the guidelines and standards for what





is equivalent and adequate.  These haven't been developed yet

-------









Ill
u
>
EC
111
10 0
a
PORTING
R. COLORA
U UI
K
UI
O
111
U.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11


12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        44






so there wouldn't be any State programs until they are.




          LT. PETERSON:  It's only authorized State programs?




          MR. LINDSEY:  I'm not a lawyer,  but as I read  the Ad:




anyway, it seems to me that the intent of Congress is that the



Federal facilities be treated in the same fashion as any otter




type of facility. As I read it, but I'm not a lawyer.




          MX. GREY: Can I add a little bit to that?  We




recognize that there is a little bit of conflict about when a




Federal facility must comply with the Federal guidelines or




the State guidelines or regulations and programs.  We're



grappling with that right now. We don't have a resolution yet.



We realize that the Federal facilities are in the middle and




there will be nany cases where it would be impossible to compl;




with two different authorities and still be effective.  We are



not sure how we are going to handle this.  There really isn't




an answer to your question because this is under discussion



and we are going to try to perhaps issue the guidelines  in




such a way that they will be written in such a way that it wilL



make it clear what a Federal facility must do.



          MR. YEAGLEY:  I might make this further point on




that.  Past environmental laws have, as Fred mentioned,  required




that Federal facilities comply with substantive State




regulations, guidelines, or whatever.  I think the significant




point with this Act is that it requires adherance to procedural




aspects as well as the substantive aspects.  That is, if the

-------
g
      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6

      7

      8

      9

     10
wo
II   -
K   "
bl u
tt >   14
lil
S
     15

     16

     17

     18

     19

     20

     21

     22

     23

    24

     25
                                                                 45
State is authorized to run the permit program, the Federal
facility will have to obtain its permit from the State, where!
the past that would not have been the case.
          Yes, sir?
          MR. ROZICH:  Frank Rozich, Colorado Department of

Health.
          As I read the Act, all through it, its encouraging

the State and local agencies to assume various portions of the

Act that they feel they can handle themselves.  I wonder,
especially from the State's standpoint, we're considering of

course the permit program and the enforcement program, what
can we expect in the way of technical and monetary assistance

to handle this program the way you feel we should handle it?
          The reason I bring this up, I know our State
legislature and I feel others in the Region are getting to the
point where they are not willing to take any more of these
grants from the Federal Government and then have to throw in
so many dollars of State money and say eventually the Federal
share keeps dwindling and the State's share keeps going up.
In fact, there is a bill before our Legislature that would
require a Legislative review of all such grant programs.

          MR. LINDSEY:  Bruce Weddle to my left is going to
address that in some detail.  I just might mention that there

is $25 million authorized but not appropriated, so funding-wi^e

there will probably be somewhat less than that.  We would be

-------









Ill
u
>
K
III
•8
II
I-
Id ui
«!
<°
£
Id
Q
Id
b.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

U

12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        46






interested, and I would like to talk to you or someone else




about your concerns that you would have, whatever problems you



would have in taking over this program in our writing or




putting together the standards or criteria for what is




equivalent or you might have some comments that might help us



in that regard.




          We do have several jtates that we are working with



in that regard in helping us develop this. We are getting some




input, but certainly not all we need.




          MR. YEAGLEY:  Yes, in back?




          MR. HALLA:  Mike Halla, Fort Carson.




          I'd like to get back to the question immediately




preceeding this last one about Federal facilities.  You



mentioned Section 601 differs from past environmental




legislation because it submits Federal, facilities to procedura



requirements as well as the standing requirements of State



programs.  How do you feel that that will be affected by the




most recent Supreme court decision on Ruckleshouse vs. Kentuck
which indicated that Federal facilities or Federal agencies




are not subject to procedural requirements?




          MR. LINDSEY:  That was under a different Act, the




Ruckleshouse vs. Kentucky.




          It's my understanding, at least, that this is the




first Act which specifically states that Federal facilities




must comply with the procedural requirements as well.  How the

-------









U
U
u
wo
ig
c °
2-
!S
2°
Q
111
u.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        47
courts will interpret it, who can say, but it's  a different


Act and the Act is written differently and therefore one would


wonder, at least, whether or not the previous decision would


have any effect on the requirements of this Act.


          MX. HALLA:  Have there been any internal changes in


the EPA relative to this?


          MR. WEDDLE:  After the Congress passed this


legislation, the President debated whether to sign it or not.


The Department of Defense expressed its concern about this


section of the Act and we gave them a lot of assurances that


Federal facilities would be treated no differently than


cities or municipalities or states.  We are not going to have


more stringent regulations for them than for cities or states.


What that means and how it will be interpreted in the long run


is hard to say.  One thing it does mean is we are knowledgable


of the problem and we are concerned about the problem, but


beyond that, there's very little we can say today but that we


are concerned about the problem.


          MR. HALLA:  I would like to state one other thing


with respect to compliance with State programs, that there is


an existing Executive Order 11752, I believe, that requires


all Federal facilities to voluntarily comply with the State


programs.


          MR. GREY:  11752 applies specifically to the solid
                                                       fs

waste disposal Act.  We know we are going to have to revise
''/    *>       •*<

-------
UI
o

X
III
in o
  o
So

0°
0. K
U y
111
O
111
IL
 9



10



11



12



13



14


15


16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                        48




11752 and the problem is not with 11752.  The problem is in


the implementing of the guidelines and instructions that EPA


puts out on implementing Federal guidelines.  We have, as you


know, a data system which your requirements to meet EPA


regulations are included in that.  Are you aware what I'a


talking about?


          MR. HALLA:  Yes.


          MR. GREY:  If a Federal facility cannot meet the


requirements, it's required to request under the A—106 process


a request for additional funds so that they can comply and


EPA manages that system.


          MR. YEAGLEY;  Any other questions on hazardous


waste?


          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Can you see the definition


of hazardous waste definitely including all mine dumps?


          MR. LIMDSEY:  In the legislative history  	 I guess


it was the House version of the Act 	 it was made clear that


EPA was not to single out mine wastes specifically  except that


we are supposed to undertake a study of mine wastes which is


required under 8002(f) which we will be undertaking at some


point.


          On the other hand, if a mine dump or waste  from a


mine dump is considered to meet the criteria of being


hazardous under the Act,  it would be covered.



          MR. WEDDLE:  I  don't want to contradict what you

-------
Ill
o
So
Ul ui
bl


S
U.
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



 10



 11



 12



 13



14







 16



 17



 18



 19



20



21




22



23



24



25
                                                                 49
just said, but under the 8002(f) study, we just decided this



week that a major portion of  the funds we allocate in that



study would be to look at the regulability of the raining



industry and whether they can be included on the hazardous



materials provisions, for example, and I don't think we are



going to require a man that is producing several million tons



of waste containing lead above what would be considered



hazardous to carry it to a hazardous disposal facility somepla



I think I'm saying that is a problem that we are going to be



addressing under 8002(f).



          MR. LINDSEY:  Well, I've been out of town for a



week.



          MR.  YEAGLEY:  Any other questions now?



          I might just mention that we will be having a



summary discussion at the end so if an additional question



comes up on a subject we've passed, we'll pick it up then.



          At this point, let's move on to Bruce Weddle for a



discussion on land disposal.



          MR. WEDDLE:  We're here to talk about some of the



provisions of the legislation and some of the directions that



we are taking and more importantly, to listen to some of the



things that you have to say.



          Before I start, before I left Washington yesterday,



it's my understanding that we would have the Senate Confirmation




Hearings yesterday and today.  I haven't seen the paper yet.

-------
Ul



I
III
in o
  o
2«-
U ui
bl
Q
  1




  2




  3




  4




  5




  6




  7




  8




  9




 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21





 22




 23




24




 25
                                                        50





so I don't know if they were a disaster or a success.  Under



the assumption that they did go successfully, it's quite



likely that we will have an administrator and deputy



administrator by early next week.



          After hearing about the Act's hazardous waste



provisions, I'd like to shift gears a. little bit and talk



about the non-hazardous or land disposal problems of RCRA.



In the land disposal area, RCRA contains important new



requirements for the Administrator of EPA.  He must promulgate



regulations containing criteria for determining which faciliti



shall DC classified as sanitary landfills and which shall be



classified as open dumps.  He is required to publish an invent



of all disposal facilities or sites in the United States which



are dumps.  He is required to publish solid waste management



guidelines, including a description of levels of performance



required to protect groundwater from leachate.  The



implications and requirements for State and local governments



will be the subject for our presentation which I will be



giving a little bit later today.  I'm sure some of the



questions will overlap and I will try to determine which ones



will be handled better in my presentation now and which will



be handled a little bit later.



          RCRA offers broad new definitions for traditional



terms.  Solid waste is one of those.  I presume in answering



the questions from the gentleman from Tri-County Health that
                                                                        ry

-------
WO
     1



     2



     3



     4



     5



     6



     7



     8



     9



     10



     11
  £   12



  8   13



  >   14
     15
5*3
K
111

S    16
|L


     17



     18



     19



     20



     21



     22



     23



     24



     25
                                                        51



         «.     >)
the word solid is just used for convenience.  Disposal also


has a new definition.  It now means the discharge, deposit,


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


waste or hazardous waste into or on 	 those are the key


words 	 any land or water so that such solid waste or


hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the


environment.  What that simply means that any waste placed on


land or on the surface of the land or into the land that


results in any contamination of the environment, will be


considered disposal.


          The term "solid waste* now means any garbage,


refuse, sludge from a municipal waste water treatment plant,


water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control


facility.  What that simply means is that municipal sewage


sludge is specifically included in the definition of solid


waste.  However, the definition specifically excludes solid


or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial


discharges which are point sources subject to permits under


Section 402 of the FWPCA.  It also excludes nuclear material.


           (Slide.)


          As I said earlier, the definitions of sanitary


landfill and open dump refer to Section 4004 of this


legislation.  This section requires the Administrator to


promulgate regulations containing criteria for determining



which sites are sanitary landfills and which  are  open  dumps.

-------









Ul
y
K
III
WO
2 o
feo
0°
OL i
111 ui
J u
a.
Q
bl
|L









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        52
At a mimimum, these criteria shall provide that a facility


may be classified as a sanitary landfill and therefore not an


open dump only if there is no reasonable probability of adversi


effects on health or the environment from disposal of waste at


such a facility.  These criteria are due in one year from the


passage of the Act, in October of this year.  These criteria


will state what is an open dump, everything else can be a


sanitary landfill.  It will state that we, as the Federal EPA


will be saying what we will allow.  I'm sorry, we will not say


what we will allow, we will say what will be banned.
                                                              V

          It was the intent' of Congress for us not to tell


State and local governments what they should do, but rather


what they should not do.  It may seem like a subtle difference


but it's a major difference.

                                                  x
          Section 4004 (b) requires each State plaryC to


prohibit open dumps and require all disposals within a State


to be sanitary landfills.


           (Slide.)


          Using the criteria developed in Section 4004, the


states under the authority of 4005 will conduct an inventory
^f-

of all open dumps.  This inventory should be conducted in


fiscal  '78, meaning this October through September of  '78.


Following the completion of that inventory EPA will publish a


list of all open dumps in the country.  Any facility on that


list must be closed or converted to a sanitary  landfill within

-------
Id
0
t
Id
Q
B
Id
ui o
  Q
2£   12
 13



 14


 15


 16


 17


 18



 19



 20


 21



 22



 23


24


25
                                                        53




five years.


          Section 4005 also has an interesting provision as


does Section 7002 >« that is citizen supervision.  A citizen


may take any site that is not included in the inventory and no


included in the State plan for closure within five years or


upgraded to a sanitary landfill within five years, a citizen


or public interest group may take that disposal site operator


or open dump operator to the Federal courts.  And that is


significant because I suspect that the Federal courts would be


less sympathetic than the local courts.


          This provision would be particularly interesting


because it will put a lot of pressure on State governments to


follow our guidelines and obtain an EPA acceptable state plan.


If a state does not have an acceptable approved EPA approved


state plan, any open dump in that state is, therefore., liable


to citizen suit.  If a state has an approved plan and that


dump is listed, it's not subject to citizen suits under this


plan.


          (Slide.)


          I'd like to move on to Section 1008 which requires


the Administrator to publish within one year guidelines which


provide a technical and economic description of the level of


performance that can be attained by various available 	 and


I underline the word available 	 solid waste management


programs.  In two years, these guidelines will describe levels

-------
y


£

"8
     10
     12
     a
Ul ui
tt >   14
Ul
o
LI
L.
16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                        54




of performance, including appropriate methods and degrees of


control, that provide a minimum for protection of public healt^i


and welfare. These guidelines must also provide for the


protection of the quality of the groundwaters and surface


waters from leachates, protection of the quality of service


waters from run off from the sites and protection of ambient


air quality.  They must also provide for aesthetics such as


vector control and safety.


          In response to Section 1008, the current thinking of


the Agency is the updating of the existing land disposal


guidelines and initiate municipal sewjlr sludge disposal and


land utilization guidelines.


          In summary. Section 4004 establishes criteria for


establishing what an open dump would be and what a sanitary


landfill will be.  This raises many questions,  it raises


questions of discharge, raises questions of classification of


groundwater, where we would permit the degradation of some


groundwater from leachates and other groundwater must be


protected.  It raises questions of lining and treating at all


sites.  It raises questions about the types of wastes that


should be included 	 should they be limited just to municipal


solid waste, should they include municipal sludge, agricultural


waste, cess ponds and lagoons.  These are questions we are


wrestling with.


          Section 1008 in its relationship to Section 1004 is

-------
£

«g
§2
  °
S
U.
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10


11



12


10
16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                            55
another issue.  The current thinking is that 1008 would


provide the ^tate and local governments on environmentally


acceptable methods to achieve sanitary landfills as defined


in Section 4004.  It would be technical advice on how to do


it properly.  Section 1008 will be mandatory and for local


implementation grantees under Section 4008(a)(2)(a) and


simply be an advisory to the jtate and local government.


          That was a quick, brief overview of the land


disposal portions of the Act.


          I'd like to entertain any questions that we have at


the present time.


          MR. SHRUM: Daryl Shrura with the Oblinger-Smith


Corporation.


          Under Sub-title B, Section 4, Part C, you're saying


that all open dumps have to be eliminated by 1983.  I agree


totally with your objective, but what about out in rural


communities where the problem is they don't have the


funds to do this.  They don't have the means," they don't have


the equipment,* they don't have the necessary finances to make


the changes.  Are there going to be appropriated Federal and


State funds to make sure this Act is implemented?


          MR. MEDDLE;  It's two questions there. The first one


is, is it stated that all open dumps would be banned by


1983.  That would be an optimistic statement.  They -will be


banned five years after the publication of the inventory.

-------
Ill
o

IE
U
U) O
  Q
o°
0. IT
 I U

-------









hi
O
>
E
III
to o
Q

-------









Ul
y
iii
(fl O
Q
PORTING
R, COLORA
111 LI

^1
K
111
a
u
IL









i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11


12
13

14

15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        58






therefore, any site must collect and treat leachates generated




or would have to have a sensitive monitoring system to detect




any contamination.




          Class B groundwater could be something that the Stat




could write off because it's naturally unpotable, has been for




years, and forever will be.




          They're very difficult questions and I don't know hoi




we are going to proceed.  If you have any suggestions, I'd




be happy to hear them.




          MS. QUAIL:  How about things like piles of silica,




material just sitting on top of the earth?




          MX. WSDDLE:  How did it get there?




          MS. QUAIL:  Say you're making steel.  You have got




this residue that is deposited on the site of the plant. Do




you think that would come under this?




          MR. WEDDLE:  It's possible, but I can't answer that




question.  One of the approaches of the criteria, which will




come up at least six months before the hazardous waste




definitions, would be to include all wastes with the criteria




for hazardous wastes and set a baseline for environmental




disposal of everything, all waste, and any additional criteria




would be developed under Sub-title C or perhaps on the 1008




facility.  That may or not be the case.  It's a good one and




we're going to have to try to focus our own minds and raise





these questions in public forums like this.

-------
Ill
u
i
u
«§
_
<
te.
u
a
10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21




22



23



24



25
                                                                59
          If no one else has a question and I have a minute, I



have a question that wasn't raised earlier and may or may not bi



an issue in this region.  That is an inclusion of municipal



sewjPr sludges as hazardous waste.  There may not be any



operators here that will come home to, but I thought it might



help those of you here to know where we stand or would like to



stand on the cess ponds and lagoons in EPA'  Current thinking



is that the Agency would have difficulty excluding municipal



sludge under the definition of hazardous waste.  Industrial



sludges have the exact same or similar characteristics to



municipal sewage sludge.  It's my estimation that a percentage



of the municipal sevjar sludge will indeed be a hazardous



waste.  For example, a number of cummunities have a number of



PCB concentrations up to 200 parts per million. Certainly I



think that would fit any definition that we may develop on



hazardous waste but on the other hand, I think that the vast



majority of sewage sludge will not be classed as hazardous



waste but will be addressed in the criteria of 4004.



          MR. TURK:  Don Turk, Tri-County Health Department.


          The last Colorado State Legislature 	 let me go



back.  The State solid waste Act did include sewage sludge as



being solid waste.  This last State Legislature did amend this



Act to say that if the sludge met the standards adopted by the



State Board of Health for use as a fertilizer for beneficial



use, then it would be excluded from the terminology as being a

-------









Ul
o
£
111
in o
Q
PORTING
R, COLORA
Ul Ul
V.
Ul
Q
Ul
u.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11


12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        60





solid waste.  How would this fit into the Federal requirement




provided that the sewage treatment facility does put out a




quality of sewage sludge that would meet the fertilizer



standards?




          MR. WEDDLE:  We are wrestling with the same issue.




It could go either of two ways.  One, that EPA would




establish such levels that could be acceptable for use on




agricultural lands and that any sludge meeting those levels




would be a resource and handled like a resource recovery would



be.  On the other hand, it could be that it's a solid waste



but the beneficial use of solid waste, not just sewxr sludge,




but compost and other waste utilization could come in on that




and criteria on those would be different than for a sanitary




landfill or 	



          MR. TURK:  Do you have any target dates for



addressing this?



          MR. WEDDLE:  Well, the criteria are due in final



form in October next year.  I suspect that we will have to go



forward in draft form sometime early this summer, but we will



be wrestling with that issue probably over the next three




months and we shall solidify our thinking on that at least




for the draft purpose by June.




          MR. ROZICH:  The reason Don brings this up, both he




and I have been working on a task force to come up with criter La




as to what is acceptable sludge for agrinomical use and we are

-------
hi
O
111 111
KS
j S
ui
Q
UI
U.
It

wo


SK   12
£ O

K O   ,„
0°   13
0. IT
14


15


16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 61
just down to the last draft now, we hope, and if there is


going to be a change we would like to know it as soon as


possible.


          MR. WEDDLE:  You just said something near and dear

                        og,
to my heart because sewar sludge is my area of expertise.


I'd be delighted to look at what you are drawing up, both from


the professional standpoint and from a bureaucratic standpoint


on how this fits into the Agency thinking.


          MR. TURK:  Can we get your name and mailing address


from Jon later?


          MR. WEDDLE;  Yes.


          MR. LEHR:  Maybe you could contact Jon Yeagley or


myself and we'll get involved next week.


          MR. WEDDLE:  I have some cards if anyone wants those.


That's open for anybody in the room that would like me to take


a look at something dealing with municipal sewad sludge.


          MR. YEAGLEY:  I think in general I'll expand on what


Jim is trying to get to that anytime you have need for a


review of standards, or regulations, or whatever, we'd be


more than willing to do that through the Regional Office and


in those areas where we don't have those capabilities such as


the one that Bruce just mentioned, we'll certainly tap the


Washington office.


          I think at this point we need to take a short break,



s.f for nothing but to give this gal down  front here a chance

-------









III
o
a
u
m o
: PORTING
LR. COLORAD
III IW
i°
a
u
L.









i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        62





to revive her fingers.  Let's take a ten-minute break and then


                                         o^i
we'll commence with resource conservation/recovery.



          (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)



          MR. YEAGLEY:  At this point, I'd like to continue so



we can maintain some schedule.  I'd like to introduce to you



now, Mr. Bob Lowe, who will speak on resource conservation 4^d



recovery.



          MR. LOWE:  Qood morning.  I'm going to talk about



the sections of the Act that deal with resource conservation



and resource recovery.  The Act provides authorization to do a



lot of good things, we think, but before I discuss the section:



of the Act and raise your hopes about what might happen and



what someday might flow from this, I want to reiterate the



budget constraints that have been mentioned earlier.  As you



know, we have a relatively low level of funds and staff to



implement this Act.  The Act gives us much greater



responsibilities than we have ever had before, but we haven't



had a budget increase or a commensurate increase in staff.



          The aspect of this that affects us directly is what



priority within our Agency will be given to resource



conservation and resource recovery.  In general, the priority



seems to be going in the direction of hazardous waste



management and land disposal guidelines and primarily because



those sections of the Act have specific mandates and specific




deadlines and the resource conservation and resource recovery

-------
hi
y

IE
hi
«0


§«
p3
c o
0°
0. if
ae
ui
a
hi
IL
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21




22



23



24



25
                                                        63




sections of the Act do not have such requirements, so it's


natural that people who are responsible for administering and


managing this Act would lean in that direction.


          There's also the issue of what is the traditional


orientation of our Agency which has typically been a pollution


control agency and not an environmental protection agency.


The resource conservation and recovery is more in the line of


environmental protection as opposed to the pollution control.


          Having said that, I'd like to review those sections


of the Act that address resource conservation and recovery.


          (Slide.)


          Resource conservation and recovery is specifically


addressed in these sections shown on this slide.  The guide-


line section that was mentioned, I believe first by Bruce,


calls for guidelines in the area of improved solid waste


management.  We have already written some guidelines under


previous legislation and we are going to reissue those


guidelines.  It's unlikely that we are going to issue any new


guidelines, or at least not for some time, primarily because


of resource constraints.


          The next item on here is the resource recovery and


conservation panels.  I would like to go into that in a little


more detail in a moment. The section of the Act, Sub-title D


	 for those of you who are bureaucratically inclined and



would rather talk in terms of letters and numbers and not in

-------








hi
0
K
hi
mo
W tt
? 0
PORT
R. COL
hi ul
"5

-------









LI
y
So
0 J
S o
12
U u
K z
1*
te.
Ul
Q
u
L.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                         65






 to increase the market for secondary materials.   Their review



 should,  we are hoping,  they will remove any restrictions on thi




 use of secondary materials and they will increase the




 requirements for use of secondary materials and  hopefully this




 action by the Federal level will be imitated by  State and loca




 governments and hopefully even by industry and create a demand



 for secondary materials.




           (Slide.)




           This will give you an idea of some of  the study




 areas that are called for under one section,  8002.   As you  can




 see,  mining wastes  and sludge are included on here  and that's




 Bruce's area and he's already mentioned that.




           One thing I'd like to mention is what  is  referred to




jyfi here as small—scale low technology recycling  processes and




 product separation.   These refer to source separation and




 collection and for  those of you who are not familiar with that



 terminology that is  a recycling system in which  the generator



 of the waste,  the householder or the people in office building:



 or commercial establishments, segregate recyclable  material



 such as newsprint and office paper and keep them separate from



 other materials  and they are collected and handled  separately



 on their way to a user such as a paper plant.  These things,




 having been specifically included in the Act,  show  an emphasis




 on this area.




           (Slide.)

-------
Ill
y
  o
Q. (E
Ul uj
Q
HI
li.
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21




22



23



24



25
                                                        66




          One of the most significant areas in the Act was the



creation of a resource conservation committee whose charge is



to study certain methods and approaches to resource



conservation, ways of reducing the amount of material that is


produced or used in the first place in an attempt to reduce thJ3



amount of waste that will require disposal.



          In this list of items, there is a study for incentives



and disincentives such as taxes and penalties, public policies



such as depletion allowances and some other things.



          This provision is both good news and bad news.  The



bad news is, by requiring more studies as an alternative to



passing the kind of provisions, laws, and so on, effectively


Congress has delayed the implementation of those programs for



at least three more years because it's not feasible for the


Congress to pass such laws and regulations while it's being


studied.  On the good side now, it does at least include in th


law specifically a requirement to address these issues.  But



most importantly, the studies are now being done by a


cabinet committee, a committee composed of the Secretary of



Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chairman of the Council



of Environmental Quality, the Administrator of the EPA is the


Chairman.  It also includes a representative fromthe



President's Office of Management and Budget which I might add



that a mere representative of that office is equivalent to a



secretary of one of the Cabinet departments.  But, that will

-------
Ul
O
>
wo
0£
is
111 u
"I
Ul
Q
B
 10





 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


22


23


24


25
                                                        67


give you an idea of how things work in Washington.

          The significance of this being a Cabinet level

committee is this, this is about the fifth tine that such a

study of material utilization and waste impacts have been

studied since about 1950, but prior to this, all the studies

have been outside the Administration.  They were done by

special commissions.  This is the first time that the study is

being done within the Administration, and therefore, the

likelihood of any recommendations being implemented is that

much greater.  I think it's fortunate that this has started

taking pla ce at the beginning of a new Administration because

it's likely that the people who do the study and sit on the

committee will be around later to recommend legislation and

implement and recommend programs.

          (Slide.)

          Section 2003, which calls for the creation of resour

and recovery and conservation panels to provide technical

assistance and governmental terminology and provide information

and advice and guidance to State and local government

officials and to the private sector and to anyone else who is

willing to listen for all these purposes that are listed up

here.  As an example of some of the things they would be

doing under this program would be to help states design and

implement regulatory programs, to help them design and to


help them plan and develop alternatives to land disposals sue!

-------
Ill
o

K
111
0)
      1


      2


      3


      4


      5


      6


      7


      8


      9


     10


     11


     12
0
0. I
111 ul
< '
K
Ul
Q
Ul
u.
     14


     15


     16



     17


     18



     19



     20



     21



     22



     23



     24



     25
                                                        68



as the separation system or the resource recovery facility.


          (Slide.)


          Thse panels will be composed of people who have


expertise in the following areas:  technical, marketing,


financial, and institutional.  They will be composed of EPA


staff, consultants under contract to EPA, and other State and


local public officials who will be brought into the program


under the concept which we call peer matching where we bring


together public officials who have had experience in a certain


area and they will be sent to other communities where they are


facing that problem.


          I should mention that the title of this program or


the resource and conservation panel is somewhat misleading in


two respects.  First of all, it's not limited to just resource


conservation and recovery, but the technical assistance progran


is being planned to address all areas of solid waste managemen


including hazardous waste management. This is appropriate


because if we are going to do an effective job of protecting


the environment, the technical assistance is going to be


required to make any regulatory program effective and the


administrators of this law should have at their disposal both


regulatory tools and technical assistance so they can bring


to bear whichever is appropriate in that circumstance.


          The other misleading of this title is that the word


"panel* normally brings to mind the idea of a fixed unit of

-------
Ul
o

a.
iu
10 0
  Q
K
111
a
u
k.
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12
feo   ,,

?
0- ir
14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                         69




individuals, let's say  four people which will convene as a


unit and travel as a unit. But, that's not  the way we are


interpreting this.  We  are interpreting this to mean something


on tha order of a stable or a pool of resources, a list  of


individuals or firms with known expertise who would be called


on one at a time or in  groups, whatever is  appropriate,  in  the


particular circumstances, to address particular problems.


          The law requires that 20 percent  of the general


authorization for this  Act, 20 percent of $35 million or


$7 million, be spent on the resource conservation and recovery


panels.  At the moment, that's 20 percent of a fairly small


number, so we don't really know what it's going to be.


          I have some questions I'd like to ask the audience


and get feedback to help us in our planning of this program,


but before I do that, I'd like to open the  floor to hear any


comments you have, suggestions you have, on what I have  already


said.  Are there any such comments or suggestions or questions


I'd be happy to take them now.


          MS. FOSTER:   Al Foster, Denver Regional Council of


Governments.


          To raise an age old bugaboo in the resource and


recovery laws, is there any provision in the Act to study


freight rates or try to do something about  that problem?


          MR. LOWS:  No, there is not; but, the Railroad



Revitalization Act of 1975, I think it was, required the

-------
hi
y

K

wo


oj
S o

feo

0°
fi. a
 | LI
10
11
12
13
     14
     15
a.
ui

2    16
u.


     17
     18




     19



     20



     21




     22



     23



     24



     25
                                                        70




Interstate Commerce Commission to review and I guess, modify



	 at least to review 	 its rate structure as it relates



to the transportation of secondary materials in comparison to



virgin material and it required that the Interstate Commerce



Commission allow EPA to review what it's doing and we are



doing that. We are reviewing the Interstate Connerce Commission's



activities.



          MX. FOSTER:  May I suggest that you encompass that



in your incentive-disincentive study you have on the list for



the Cabinet study?



          MR. LOWE:  Yes, I'm sure it is, but I will make sure



that gets back to Washington. We have looked at this issue



before and we have found that freight rates do discriminate



against secondary materials on certain commodities.  But,


freight rates also discriminate in favor of secondary materials



of other types, so it's not altogether clear and I'm not sure



the freight rates really do mean that much, anyway.  It's



an idea that's easy to lable and easy to conceptualize and



therefore, it has become very popular and talked about.  I



think it's a problem, but I think the amount of attention to


           i±
be given to.is larger than it deserves in relation to some



other problems.



          MR. YEAGLEY:  Before we go on to other specific



questions, I'd like to introduce Mrs. Anice Swift from the



League of Women Voters, who has a prepared statement to give.

-------









Ill
o
£
111 Q
D
PORTING
R. COLORA
111 UJ
\l
K
111
Q
111
li.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        71
          MS. SWIFT:  I'm Chairman of Solid Waste for the




League of Women Voters for Boulder.




          As the League State Chairman of Solid Waste has




stated a written opinion which has been given to you, we are



encouraged to find how many of the League's national state and



local positions on the management of solid waste have been




taken into consideration in this law.  One of our special



interests has to do with the recovery of usable materials




before they get into the waste stream to be buried in landfill




or compacted under high technology disposal systems.




          We are concerned that under the implementation law



too much attention and money has been given to the highly



technical logical plans for solid waste management and not




enough emphasis given to low technology plans which encourage




the recovery and conservation of solid waste materials



for programs focused on the beginning of waste treatment.



          These fears are well grounded in the Denver




metropolitan area.  The Denver Regional Council of Governments



spent a great deal of time and money in the past several years



studying the feasibility of high technological resource



recovery plans.  Finally, last July, that proposal was



shelved as not being a feasible solution at the present time




for the Denver metro area.




          On the other hand, without help from governmental




agencies, several low technology plans for retrieval of reusab

-------









Ill
u
>
ir
w o
o
li
K
111 UI
<°
111
D
Ul
IL









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11


12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        72
materials at the front of the solid waste stream, notably




Eco-cycle in Boulder, have demonstrated that they have made a




real contribution toward cutting down the amount of solid



waste to be disposed of and toward conserving many valuable



materials for reuse.




          We are glad to see the many ways which the new




Solid Waste Disposal Act can give support and assistance to




such programs, in particular by many of the ways that




Mr. Capcfield emphasized, by making grants available to purchas




equipment, tire shredders, for example, to aid in the reuse of



discarded materials by providing Federal assistance and




obtaining information on the marketing of recovered materials,



by encouraging through the Secretary of Commerce the greater




use of recovered materials, by removing the present economical



and technical barriers for their use.



          Thank you  for this opportunity to take part in this



discussion.



          MR. YEAGLEY:  Thank you.  Are there any other



specific questions on the subject of resource conservation




recovery?




           (Pause.)



          MR. LOWE:  I'd like to thank Mrs. Swift for her




comments.  We have heard those comments everywhere we have




gone and we are glad to hear them here.




          You might  be interested to know what we are doing

-------
Ill
y

K
hi
100


i«
F3
K O
£ U
K
111
Q
LI
L.
 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21




22



23



24



25
                                                        73
with respect to the Denver area.  We gave the Denver Regional


Council of Governments a grant for the project that ended last



July and they were prudent enough not to spend very much of our


money and so there's a good amount left.  We are now trying to



work out an arrangement with Eco-cycle to implement a source



separation system, and we're still trying to work that out.



          When we gave the grant to the Denver Regional



Council of Governments, we gave similar grants to a number of



other communities and we are working with a few of them to do



the same thing even where some of the original projects, the



large-scale projects, are being still planned.  We think a



source separation and resource recovery facility can co-exist



and we'd probably be better off than either one of them alone.



We're working with some of them on that.



          Are there any other questions before I go into mine?


          (Pause.)


          MR. LOWE:  I'd like to give you some idea of the kin<



of issues that we are trying to deal with and if you have any


comments on these either now or later, I'd appreciate hearing



them.


          Given that we have fewer people and less money than



we need to answer all the requests for technical assistance, w<



are going to have to prioritize our efforts.  The question is,



to whom shall we give our technical assistance?  How do we



select communities to be recipients of technical assistance?

-------
Ill
y

(E
Ul
wo
0. IT
K
III
Q
LI
IL
 1


 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21



22


23






25
                                                        74



Do we do it on the basis of the most tonnage of waste, in whic'i


case we will give our technical assistance to New York City


first, Los Angeles second, Chicago third, and so on, and we


probably would not give any assistance to smaller communities.


          Should we give our technical assistance on the basis


of who has the most critical environmental problems, in which


case we would not give it to a place like Los Angeles which ha >


a very good landfill.  In that respect, we may be discriminating


against them, even though they deserve something for doing a


good job in the past.


          Should we give our assistance where there is the


greatest level of ignorance?  This was not on my original


list.  This was suggested in our public participation meeting


in Pittsburg on Monday night.  My immediate reaction was I


could just picture myself reading off the list of people that


we decided to give our assistance to 	 the following people


are judged to have the highest level of ignorance.


          One problem there is, if the ignorance level is so


high, we might not ever achieve any successes.  If we can


bring somebody from 90 on a scale of 100 	 90 to 100 	


we may be achieving more than bringing somebody from zero to


70.  That's one of the problems of using that criteria.


          Another criteria is giving technical assistance on


the basis of most likely to succeed.  In that case, we could


address all sized communities whether they have a serious

-------
     10
     11
Ill
y

£
So

O <   12

- °
g8   13
0. II
Ul Ul
 I u
tt
111
D
HI
IL
     15


     16


     17


     18


     19


     20


     21



     22


     23


     24


     25
                                                        75



problem or not and our current thinking is that this is the


one we prefer.  Our overall objective is to recycle and conser


the greatest amount of waste and to solve the most critical


environmental problems and we will take into account all of


these factors. But, our thinking is if we work with the


communities most likely to succeed, we will be helping to


create models which other communities can follow and they can


do on their own later and in that respect, we can budget our


resources.  I'd like to hear comments on that.


          Another issue is, should we give technical assistant:^


to only a few states, cities, counties, but do it in a very


in-depth way 	 give them as much help as we can?  Or, should


we hit as many communities as we can in a shallow manner 	


the inch deep, mile wide approach?  That is a big question and


we don't really have an answer there.


          When our Resource Conservation Committee and our own


administration are considering the resource conservation


options, what criteria should they use; what subjects should


they study; what material should they concentrate on?  Should


they look at total overall pollution, meaning even if the


material doesn't get into the waste stream because it's


reused or has a long lifetime, but in the course of producing


it or extracting it from the earth and manufacturing it it


generates a lot of air and water pollution and let's say a lot


of toxic wastes in the particular production cycle, should tha-:

-------
u
y

K

wo

§2
2 o
111 Ul

"=1
_l 1"

-------
     1


     2


     3


     4


     5


     6


     7


     8


     9


     10


     11


     12


     13
hi u
K >   14
hi
O

K

WO
hi
Q
hi
IL
     15


     16


     17


     18


     19


     20


     21


     22


     23


     24


     25
                                                                 77
           (Pause.)


          MR. HALLA:  Mike Halla from Fort Carson.


          Nith regard to demonstration projects and pilot


plans, it seems to be a perception that I have that the only


way the regional communities or large cities will ever have


resource recovery programs is if they each have their own


demonstration project.  There have been many instances where


a demonstration project being successful and being duplicated


in other cities.  Is this what the intent of these projects


were in the beginning?


          MR. LOWE:  The answer is yes.


          I take issue with your statement that demonstration


facilities are the only way to establish projects in a city


because there are a number of communities already that have


plants in operation or signed contracts and plants under


construction.  There are two notable examples of demonstration


projects, both of which are Federal demonstration projects


which resulted in plants being built elsewhere.  One is the

                                                   •xfo'
system in St. Louis, Missouri.  It's called "trasly^kilowatts


where garbage was shredded and burned in a lake or utility


boiler to supplement the coal.  There is already a facility


operating in Ames, Iowa, and there are facilities under


construction in Milwaukee, Chicago, Bridgeport and Rochester,


New York, using that concept.  The demonstration project in


Franklin, Ohio, is being imitated in Cade County, Florida,

-------
Ill
y
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12
F"

§3   13

0- n
III u
111

2
b.
15



16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        78




which is where Miami is and also in Hempstead. New York.



          There are several example* of other technologies



that we didn't feel needed demonstration because they had



been demonstrated in Europe and systems like that are being



built in this country.  One is now operating in Saugus,



Massachusetts, and another is operating somewhat unacceptably



in Nashville, Tennessee, but it's unacceptable for management



reasons, not technical reasons.



          MR. HALLA:  If there are several demonostration



projects, how does the Agency see a continued need for additio



demons trations?



          MR. LOWE:  That is a good question and we hear all



opinions on that and I'd like tdhear your opinion unless your



statement implies one.  One justification for doing more



demonstrations is by having more demonstrations, we increase



the number of technical options that communities would have to



choose from.  Some of the available technologies are not



applicable in every situation because the markets for the



recovered products do not exist, so if we wanted to develop



the number of alternatives, demonstrating would be the way to



go.



          Should the Federal Government be demonstrating at



all or should we allow the private sectors to do that?  That



is a good question, also.  We are tossing that over and « look



at the private sector and we see some research and development
                                                                   al

-------








Ill
0
K
111
U) 0
Q
o <
2 o
PORT
R. COL
111 in
K
111
Q
111
L.









1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11


12

13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        79






going on, but the public sector as a customer for these




systems is a very difficult customer to deal with.  For privat<




companies who think whether or not they want to develop




these technologies, they sometimes say, well, we're not going




to bother developing this .technology because it's so difficult



to deal with municipalities, so difficult to sell them the



product, it takes two, three, four, five, six years to make a




sale, it's just not worth it, so we won't do it.  When we




hear signals like that, we think the Federal Government ought




to be involved in it.  On the other hand, tiere are some




systems being marketed by the private sector.  We are looking



for feedback on whether you think the existing arrays of



technology are satisfactory.




          Do you have an opinion on that or not?  You don't



have to answer now if you don't want to.




          MR. HALIA:  I don't wish to state an opinion now.



I just wondered if there was any framework to stop demonstratii




projects once success is achieved.



          MR. LOWE:  Well, we will not demonstrate the




St. Louis system again, even though that system was a very



early prototype and the systems that have followed that in



other cities are significantly different from the one we did.




We feel we have planted the seed and whether or not we need to




do others is being evaluated now.




          Do you have a question, in the back?

-------
iii
y
U) 0
  a
£o
    1



    2



    3



    4



    5



    6



    7



    8



    9



    10



    11



    12
Ul
a
in
L.
;8  13


i£
:>  14


!S
:    15



    16



    17



    18



    19



    20



    21



    22



    23



    24



    25
                                                        80





          MR. HERMAN:  Russ Herman.  You use the term



successful projects.  How do you define "successful?"



          MB. LOWE:  Good question. We define successful in a



number of ways depending on who we are talking to and how mud



jeopardy our program is in.  The main criteria for success is



does the project meet its original objectives and that can be



defined in a lot of ways.  The main objective of our projects



is to increase the amount of information so that municipal an



state officials can make good decisions, hopefully the projec



will result in something worth doing and it will be imitated.



But, we also consider a project successful if it teaches



somebody not to do something.  I think we consider the St. Lot



project a success even though as a piece of hardware it didn't



work very well, it demonstrated a concept and it is now being



imitated.  Our facility in Baltimore is somewhere between the



viewing and the unveiling.  It's essentially over and as a



technical process it probably will not be imitated.  It's



unfortunate that that method which we had so much hope for,



unfortunately, we no longer have that as an option.  But, on



the bright side, we learned some things about a variety of



things.  We learned something about the procurement process,



how to negotiate a contract with a private company and we



learned about  shredding and receiving and those kinds of



things.  Materials handling and those kinds of things that could



be used elsewhere, so I think that is very valuable,so I think

-------
Ill
u

I
111
wo
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12
§8   13

fcs
£>   14
 I Ul
K

III
Q

bl
b.
15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        81





in some respects that project was a failure, but in other



respects it was successful.



          MR. STOCKWELL:  Hill you just take this and maybe



just a little recitation on that.  It looks like it involves



just what we're talking about now.



          MR. LOWE:  What Mr. Stockwe11 has handed me is a



newspaper clipping reporting on a demonstration facility



funded by the United States Energy Research and Development



Administration, known as ERDA.  They invested, I think,



$30 million into building a facility in Florida,  I don't know



what the amount was, but it was to build a facility to process



all waste and produce methane gas.  I don't know the latest



status on that, but the legislation that ERDA operates under



is similar to ours.  They have a program similar to ours and



we are working mostly with them 	 sometimes against them 	



on these and other projects.  We would not attempt a project



like this because they have done it.



          Are there any other questions on any aspect of this?



          MR. STOCKWELL:  Only that further into the article



there it says, it seems to be progressing and the possibility



of success 	 if it doesn't say it there, it's in the later



part of the writing.



          MR. LOWE:  Naturally, we're hopeful about something



like this.  It's kind of early to tell.  I have some fears




about this only because the prototype of this facility, which

-------
LI
y


K
Ul
wo
 1



 2



 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12
£ o


§8   13

0. £
111 UI
K
III
o
111
u.
15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                        82




I think is 50 tons per day, is very, very small.  Once you go


in very small steps,  if you have something of one scale then


the next step should be something you could fit into your


garage and the next step something you could fit into your


house and then you start getting bigger and bigger.


          One of the problems that we had in Baltimore was we


went from a 30-ton per day pilot facility to 1,000 tons per


day demonstration and that was a factor of 33 times and it was


just too much.  The problems that we had were directly related


to that.


          MR. GERDOM:  Joe Gerdom, Laramie-Albany County


Planning Office.


          The allocation of technical assistance, I would hope


that, of course, realizing the time limits and so forth, rathe;-


than using those communities and regions that would be most


likely to succeed that perhaps it would be simpler for a


demonstration process to use protypical communities that could


be identified which would 	 although they may not have the


capability of most likely succeeding, they would in their


example show the greatest number of community pitfalls as well


as potential points for success in demonstrations and through


some identification and operationalizations of your objectives


in the Act that you could do this.  You could accomplish this


identification in such a way as to stratify various communitie^


to which you would apply this technology.

-------









Ill
w
W 0
o
0 <
S o
feo
0°
0. I
111 in
"I
<°
111
Q
111
li.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11


12

13

14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        83





          MR. LOWE:  In other words, what you're saying is we




should give importance, priority, to the demonstration value o




a given project?




          MR. GERDOM:  Not only from success, but from possible




shortcomings that might be encountered and through that provide



both a positive and negative demonstration.




          MR. LOWE:  That's a good point.  I might say that we




have taken that into account in the past.  One reason we found




the Denver Regional Council of Governments an attractive




candidate was it was a regional council of governments and it




had a good reputation nationally for being able to achieve




things.  We thought that would be a good model.



          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In this resource recovery,




getting back to Russell's question, would you expect that thes<




projects would become self-supporting or do you always expect




some Governmental support?



          MR. LOWE:  Would the demonstration projects 	




          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No. no.  If in fact these



projects work, is part of their feasibility the fact that they



should be self-supporting?



          MR. LOWE:  Definitely, yes.  Self-supporting, I must



qualify that.  There are two sources of revenue.  One is




product revenue received from energy and material and the othe




is revenue from the service of providing disposal for the wast




At this point in time and for the foreseeable future, the reve:

-------
Ill
y


£
u
u) O
  Q

0 S
fco

0°
(L ir
III u
K

HI

Q

111

IL
 1





 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12





13




14




15




16




17




18





19





20




21





22




23




24




25
                                                        84






from the sale of products will not be high enough to offset



the costs of their disposal.  There will always be a problem.



          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Going one step further, as I



understand Eco-cycle in Boulder, they will pick up, free of



charge, recyclable materials from private people; is that not



correct?



          MR. LOWE:  I don't know yet.  I'll know after lunch.



          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay; if you decided upon



them, or Governmental agencies in general did this kind of



thing, how do you expect then for the public ever to assume



they're going to be charged because they pick something like



that for a resource recovery area or a sanitary landfill?  In



other words, I think you might be starting something here that



is going to snowball in a sense that it appears that the



Government then is willing to give free of charge this kind of



service to the public or 	



          MR. LOWE:  Can you respond to that, Al?



          MR. FOSTER:  Al Foster.



          What we hope will happen is that we can pick up and



separate material from homes and businesses to a very large



degree and the sale of materials in that instance, we would



expect then eventually to cover all costs and it would operate



in a non-profit type of mode so you're not requiring subsidies



from the Governmental agencies.



          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  in other words, it's something

-------
      1



      2


      3


      4


      5


      6


      7


      8


      9


     10



UJ    11
U) 0
  Q

2e   12

  3
K O   .„
0°   13
0. or
bl u
K >   14
Ill
o
te.
u
Q
111
|L
     15


     16


     17


     18



     19


     20


     21



     22


     23


     24


     25
                                                                 85
that could be withdrawn over a period of time?


          MR. FOSTER:  That's correct.  However, 1 know  that


many of us anticipate that not 100 percent of all the wastes


are going to be recovered from that route and you will always


have somewhere between 30 to 50 percent of all types of  waste


including concrete and so on, that will go into landfills.


In that instance, we are going to/iave a service charge just


like you pay now for garbage pick up.


          In addition to that, once we get to the level  where


we know how much material people will voluntarily separate,


there will be a certain amount left of people who will not


separate on their own and for that you will have to have a


mechanical type system to separate those types of waste.  At


the present time, those types of systems, we still have  a


charge, probably a service charge rather than a governmental


subsidy, but it's the same thing.


          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Wouldn't it then be more


reasonable to fund them only to a certain extent and charge


then a certain amount so that the public, in fact, does  not


become induced to believe that they may well be going to get


this free?


          MR. FOSTER:  1 overlooked saying something and that


is, people in Boulder, for example, and in the region of my


business, will continue to pay for garbage and trash pick up


for material not separated.  All this does is take some  of tha

-------
IU

y


£

u
WO
     10
     11
     12
0"   13

&£'.
K>   14



Is.
Ill

S    16
U.

     17
     18





     19





     20





     21





     22





     23





     24




     25
                                                                 86
to the recycling operation.




          UMIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In other words, you would not




fund anything other than materials for recycling?




          MX. FOSTER:  That's correct.  We are looking only



for recyclable materials.




          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  When household garbage become




recyclable or an energy producing source, do you intend then



to fund that pick up?




          MR. FOSTER:  Perhaps 	




          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'm just pointing out the




general idea that there may be something the matter with the




concept of picking any of this up totally free because sooner



or later the public is going to have to come around to the



fact that the Government didn't mean to provide free service




in this area.



          MR. FOSTER:  I'm taking over for the EPA here and I'



sorry.  What we're talking about here is kind of a demonstrate 1




guess on these concepts and as they become economically



feasible then I think the Government will adopt that kind of




approach.  It's kind of a start-up system which Ithink will



limit 	




          MR. LOWE:  I think it's important to understand what




the Federal money is used for and it's used for different




things in different projects.  Frequently, it's used for




preconstruction and pre-operation activities  such  as  the publilc

-------
Ill
o

K
U
in o
  Q
O <
  Zo:
_ o
tr.
hi
Q
111
U.
 1


 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21



22


23


24


25
                                                        87
relations in advertising work necessary to make the household


understand how to participate in the program or to pay to


somebody for negotiating with the paper company that's going t


buy the paper or if a special kind of truck is required, it's


not likely that a truck manufacturer will invest the money in


a new type of truck unless it's had some kind of assurance tha


the truck will be bought.  If the Federal Government says well


we'll buy the truck for this purpose, then they have that


assurance and they will go ahead and make that truck.


          There's always the question of, okay, let's say we


use a new kind of truck,  is that new kind of truck going to b


financially successful?  Is the system in which it is used


going to be financially successful?  That's a major question


and that's the reason why we invest the money initially.  So


far, we haven't had the problem with having a free of charge


system and raising the public's expectations.


          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In other word, the public


has always been willing to pick up the costs later after it's


no longer funded?


          MR. LOWE:  Yes, they have.  Or, what we've been


funding was something that was new and additional to what they


were paying before.  Generally, we fund one small segment of


the total operation of the local governmert and the public


doesn't always perceive the change because it's usually so



small.

-------
LI
y

K
in
WO

(9 <

Is
0°
Q. K
111 u
10



11



12




13




14



15



16



17



18




19




20




.21




22




23



24



25
                                                                 88
          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Under this section of the



bill, would there be similar educational processes whether it



be literature or otherwise?  I think what bothers me more



about the resource recovery is nobody ever talks about the bad



things that can happen and a lot of people get into it before



they realize all the other alternatives that they didn't



realize when they started.



          MR. LOWE:  That has been a problem and we, ourselves



were guilty of that up until about three years ago.  I think



if you read our literature, I think we have earned the



reputation that we tell both sides of the story.  We will not



enter into a demonstration or evaluation project unless there



is built into the project some mechanism for gathering data



and analyzing and reporting it in some meaningful fashion.  In



our list of available information are a number of reports.  We



will not enter into a demonstration project unless we are



provided in advance for the preparation of reports.



          Just to give you an example of how important that is



to us, it used to be that we would have the grantee write



the reports.  Well, grantee* are not report writers necessaril



They are public works directors who are responsible for making



machines work, not necessarily engineering investigators.



So, what we have done is hired research firms and consulting



firms to gather this kind of data and write these reports and



these reports are available and if you'll write  to us, we'll

-------









Ill
u
>
1C
u
(DO
2 0
1- J
o "
0- £

K5
£
hi
Q
hi
U.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

12

13


14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        89
send you a list of what things are available.


          MR. McCLURE:  Tim McClure with the Colorado Open


Space Council on Solid Waste Recycling Workshop.


          Our main obstacle 	 we're sort of a coalition on

recycling projects across the state.  I'd like to mention some
                              ^
of the problems we have in trying to organize and continue


operating recycling projects.  The main one is transportation.


There is just not sufficient and cheap enough transportation t>


haul the materials.


          Another is processing machinery and storage facilities.


We desparately need a bigger storage facility so we can


economically ship things in the Denver area or somewhere in


Colorado, anyway.

          Another thing we would like to see is some kind of


motivation for private enterprise to start using the


recyclable products.  For instance, a big problem here is the


facilities for recycling glass are very limited here and try tb


ship it clear to Oklahoma City 	 it's hardly worth it for ths

price of glass.  So, if we could get private enterprise


interested in making glass jars or what not made from cullet

here in Colorado, that would solve that problem.


          I think if those things can be addressed when you're


implementing this Act, rather than just all the studies, we


will have a pretty good situation.


          MR. LOWE:  Thank you.  Let me make two comments in

-------









u
u
>
U) O
Q
lo
2«-
Ul u
_l w
2°
U
O
111
li.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        90





response.  One is, most of the equipment used in solid waste




processing has been borrowed from other industry, food




processing, mining, that kind of thing, lumber and paper



machines and some of it needs refinement and in some cases tha(t




refinement is taking place in demonstration projects and in




other cases it's taking place on its own and over time that wi{ll




improve, but you're right.  At the time, it's a problem.




          Also, you mentioned the incentives for using




recycled materials.  These studies that I mentioned that the




Resource Conservation Committee will undertake will address



that.  Some of the studies we have been doing in house will




address things like that.  By studies, I mean, we have a



gutt feeling that certain things will work and we have one




concept that we're working on now that we think will be



effective and politically acceptable.  But, before we can




persuade other people that it will be, we have to do analyses



to see what the results will be to give people an idea what



will happen with this, to give people some idea what would



happen if this kind of a. measure would be passed.  We have to



explain it to them in terms that they will understand and




using data sources that they will believe and that takes




a lot of time and persuasion going to this guy and that guy




and when we say studying, that's a lot of the time.



          MR. YEAGLEY:  Are there any other questions on this




subject?

-------









Ul
u
>
Ul
Q
U <
11
K|
£
Ul
Q
111
U.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        91
     (Pause.)

          MR. YEAGLEY:  Okay, let me make a comment that we

are right at about 12 noon.  We only have one more section.

So, if you'll bear with us, we'll proceed with that and pick

up a couple of presentations that we will have from the

audience and then we'll adjourn, hopefully somewhere close to

the time that we can all get something to eat.

          I'll present Bruce Weddle to you to speak on state
                                                       "•$'

and local program development.

          MS. WEDDLE:  One of the clear messages of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is that states should
                                               *>
play a dominant role in solid waste management.  By that,  I

don't mean to minimize the local role and you'll see why as

we progress.  But, the states will be responsible for

administering both the hazardous waste provisions of the Act

as well as eliminating open dumps.  The Governor,  in

consultation with local elected officials, is given the

flexibility to structure a mechanism for preparing and

implementing solid waste plans which build on existing

efforts.  At the Federal level, the EPA will publish

guidelines for the identification of regions, state plans,
                                              Z
and state hazardous waste programs.  I'd like to focus on the
    ^

non-hazardous waste aspects for the rest of my talk.

          Essentially, Sub-title B requires EPA to publish


two sets of guidelines.'  4002 (a) and 4002 (b).  The first set

-------
LI
U
WO
     1



     2



     3



     4



     5



     6



     7



     8



     9


     in
     1U



     U



     12
  o


§8   13

(L of
Ul a
K >   14
     16


     17


     18



     19



     20



     21



     22



     23



     24



     25
                                                                 92
identifies regions and the second set identifies what should


be an acceptable state plan.  The first step for the 4002(a)
                 ^

guidelines are really a three step process on which EPA has


one part. The first part is that EPA by this April will


publish guidelines for the identification of those areas which


have common solid waste problems and are appropriate units


for planning regional solid waste services.  After the


publication of those guidelines, the Governors of each state
                                                       '^

have six months to work with local communities and local


elected officials to identify boundaries of areas within each


state which will then be used for regional and local planning.


          Following the designation of those boundaries, the


Governor then has another six months, working again with local


elected officials to identify an agency or agencies within eaci


of those regions to implement the state plan.  The Governor
                                  ^

also has to identify an agency to oversee that state plan.


          In doing so, it's important for the Government to


consider existing multi-functional agencies having authority


for solid waste planning and management.  An example of one of


these agencies could be the 208 agencies, created under


Public Law 8200.  Certainly a minimum of linkage should be


established between the state solid waste planners and the
                        ^

208 planners.  In some cases, the 208 agency may be the


designated agency for solid waste planning.


          The second set of guidelines which will be developed

-------
Ill
u
Ill
U) O


ȣ   12
£ O
8«-
Ul ul
     13




     14



     15



     16



     17



     18




     19



     20



     21




     22




     23




     24



     25
                                                        93





concurrently and published in April 1978, 18 months after the



passage of the Act.  Section 4002(b) requires the Administrate



again after consultation with Federal, State and local



authorities, to promulgate guidelines to assist in fhe



development and implementation of state plans.



          These guidelines must, at a minimum)prohibit the



establishment of open dumps within the State and require that



all state plans require either resource recovery or disposal iji

    '4


sanitary landfills.  Again, it's either open dump or sanitary



landfills for resource recovery.



          State plans must have a provision for the closing or



upgrading of all existing open dumps within the state.  It
                                                •sf_


must also have a provision for the establishment of such state



regulatory powers as they may be necessary to implement the



plan.  It must also have a provision that no local government



shall be prohibited under State or local law from entering int|o



long-term contracts for the supply of solid waste to resource



recovery facilities.



          (Slide.)



          I'd like to step back from my planned presentation



and ask' a favor from each of you in the audience.  What you're



saying is being duly recorded and will be assimilated by the



EPA.  I think another way that you can have an even stronger



impact in the way of guidelines and rules and regulations and



that would be to express your concerns in writing to the

-------
hi
O
111
V) O
  Q
  1


  t


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


 10


 11


 12
K
Ul
O
LI
U.
\L U   10
0°   13
0. K
14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21



22


23


24


25
                                                        94



Regional Office on whatever matter is of concern to you.  For


example, throughout the day we have talked about appropriation


levels versus authorization levels and there is quite a


difference.  In some cases, I think we have to face reality,


sufficient funds won't be available to do all the things that


this legislation suggests or requires an<$ there may be other


ways to get around some of your concerns.  For example, one


gentleman mentioned the isolated rural areas north of here am


he was concerned about funding for local communities to pay fo


equipment and funding to upgrade dumps in his area to sanitary


landfills.  If that funding isn't available 	 and it probably


won't be 	 maybe there's another approach to the problem of


rural communities.  Perhaps the criteria under 4004 could be


made into several classifications.  Maybe one could be a


classification for rural areas and one could be for communitiejs


of less than 10,000 or counties with less than 10 people per


square mile.


          We in Washington have often been iafeendated by


environmental groups who say that groundwater should be


protected at all costs.'  There will be industry lobbyists


who will have their own viewsj  jfhere will be the National


League if Cities with their own views.  I think-the best way


for your views to be heard is through direct form of


communication with your Regional Office or though your lobby


groups.

-------








Ill
y
ui
in o
Q
PORTING
R, COLORA
UI UI
*!
<°
UI
0
UI
u.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11


12
13

14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        95
          This slide shows the authorization of FY 78 and FY 7<



This money will be allocated accordhg to population formula



with no state receiving less than one half of one percent.

        *,


although we would suggest some alternatives in the disbursal



policies.



          The FY 77 budget has been changed by the Carter



Administration.  Rather than tell you what the changes are,



the Carter budget which will be submitted to Congress, I think



this week, includes $12 million in FY 77 funds currently under



the general authorization for both Sub-title D and Sub-title C



planning and an additional $5 million which will b^fal located



through the 208 planning agencies for residual planning by the



agencies.



          (Slide.)



          Section 4008 (a) (2) authorizes $15 million for fiscal



1 78 and fiscal ' 79 to state and local governments for
                      ^


implementation of programs to provide for resource recovery ant,



hazardous and non-hazardous waste management and studies.



This assistance includes facilities planning and feasibility



studies, consulting fees, surveys and analyses of marketing of



recovered resources, technology assessments, legal expenses,



construction feasibility studies, and on and on and on and on.



          It specifically excludes construction funds or the




acquisition of land.  Unfortunately, under  the current budget

-------









Ill
u
>
K
111
U) O
o
Z«
ft g
0°
0- n'
III U
J w
< °
111
O
lit
u.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11


12
13
14

15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        96


submitted to Congress,  that is the $12 million carter budget;

it's not likely that there will even be sufficient resources

to fund this section.

          The first priority as we see it,  is to establish

state programs for both hazardous waste and for Land disposal.
'4
The second priority would be the local funding and I would lik3

to hear your thoughts and comments on that statement after I

finish.

          What I just said is our current thinking and it

certainly can be swayed by your comments and the comments

received by the other regions,

          (Slide.)

          The last slide I have discusses rural communities

assistance.  Again, $25 million is authorized in FY 78 and

79.  These will be used for grants to states for assisting
                                      ^-
comraunities with populations of less than 5,000, and counties

with populations of less than 10,000 or less than 20 people

per square mile.  This does include equipment purchase but

excludes land acquisition.

          I would urge communities that fall into this

classification not to plan on any funding under this section

in the near future.  I seriously doubt whether Congress will

appropriate sufficient funds for this section to be adequately

implemented,  indeed, it's my own thinXing  that we as an

office would be better off not funding this section at all

-------









kl
O
I
bl
WO
0<
- 3
0°
D. £
bl hi
< °
bl
0
Ul
L.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13

14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                         97
^than funding at a minimal level.   The  reason I  say  that is,  if


 there was only one or two million dollars  available under this


 section,  many communities would wait in the  hopes of getting
 •^

 this money,  rather than taking the steps they will  have to


 take anyway  to comply with the 4004 criteria.   So,  unless the


 Congress  or  the Administration decides to  fund  this somewhere


 near the  full level,  we;as a  nation^are probably better off


 with no funding at all.  Again, we encourage your comments.


 That statement is my  own opinion,  not  the  opinion of the


 office.


           Rather than elaborate on this, I'd like to entertain


 any  comments you have now,


           (Pause.)


           MR.  WEDDLE:  No comments about what I just said abou


 local governments and priorities?


           (Pause.)


           MR.  WEDDLE:  can I  assume then that you all agree


 with what I  said?


           (Pause.)


           MR.  WEDDLE:  Again,  it'a my  opinion that  £tate


 planning  is  probably  the most important thing we can do with


 the  initial  funds we  receive  and  local grants and special


 grants and other grants are of a  secondary priority.


           MR.  YEAGLEY:   I might make the general comment that


 if you don't agree  with this  type of approach,  it might be

-------
      1


      2


      3


      4


      5


      6


      7


      8


      9


Ul    ln
U    10


£    11
Ifl O

0£   12

- °

| 8   13

UJ u
K >   14

JS
K
til
Q
Ul
U.
15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                        98



appropriate to shoot a letter off to your Congressman or


Senator and suggest to him that additional money might aid us


in meeting some of the situations that don't come right out


on the top priority.


          MR. WEDDLE:  I might add that it would be very


useful to send a letter to the Regional Office or to us


because what I have stated today is current thinking and


certainly not concrete.  A case could be made for the


implementation of those state plans or a minimal funding of
                        •^

other sections of the legislation.  We'd be glad to take a


look at your comments.


          MR. YEAGLEY:  With that in mind, I would suggest


that if you have a comment that you'd like to put in writing


to the Regional Office, you can send it to me.  Our address is


1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 900, Denver, Colorado, 80203.


          At this time, I'd like to call on Frank Rozich.


Frank has a prepared statement he'd like to give to us.


          While Frank is coming up, for those of you who don't


know him, he's the Director of the Water Quality Control


Division of the Colorado Department of Health.


          MR. ROZICH:  That was it until October 1 and at that


time we had a reorganization and now it's the Water Quality


Control and Public Health Engineering Division which includes


water supplies, water pollution controls, solid waste and


swimming pools and anything else they can throw at us.

-------
Ill
y


K
u
wo


£2
Z 0
LI

Q
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21





22




23




24




25
                                                        99






          I might point out that this statement which we'll



turn in, incidentally, was prepared by Orville Stoddard who



heads up our solid waste program and he did plan to be here



but unfortunately, he didn't plan too well since he also has



a training session down in Southeast Colorado today so he



asked me to at least point out some of the highlights of it



and that's about all I'll do.



          We do, I think, after listening to today's discussion



we'll probably submit another letter later on.  Of course, not



knowing what was going to come out of this discussion, we



didn't address it at that time.  This is very general in



nature and more or less tells what we are doing in Colorado.



          The Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Act was enacted in



1967, amended in 1971 and again in 1976, the latest being the



change to allow for agrinomic use of sludges.  This State Act



provides for regulatory control of land disposal sites and



facilities.  The location, design and operation of new sites



and facilities have improved  considerably as a result of the



requirements for engineering reports and operational plans



and of course, minimum standards which we developed.  County



regional solid waste management planning projects were



encouraged and have initiated cooperative approaches to iraprovs



solid waste management practices.  The use of transfer systems



improved landfill technology, and conversion of substandard




sites to sanitary landfills are results of planning and

-------
Ill
u
111
U) O
  Q

§2
t o

feo

Ou
0. X
111 UJ
111
Q
Ul
IL
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14



15



16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        100





implementation by local governments and private entities.



          Presently there are no designated sites and facilitii



in Colorado foystorage, processing and disposal of non-



radioactive hazardous wates nor specific requirements for



generators and transporters of hazardous waste,  incidents



of environmental damage and property damage have occured as a



result of uncontrolled disposal of chemicals in landfill



sites.  Some hazardous wastes are presently being shipped



regularly out of state to hazardous waste sites in Idaho and
                 %


Nevada.



          There are some resource conservation recycling



projects in operation in Colorado.  They rely heavily on



volunteer help for separation of reusable materials such as



ferrous, non-ferrous metals, paper, corrugated paper and



glass.  The feasibility of using shredded refuse as a fuel



supplement to generate electricity was investigated by the



Denver Regional Council of Governments.  Even though available



technology indicates this can be done, various constraints



prohibited its implementation.



          The objectives of this Act are consistent with those



of our Department.  The cooperative development of regulations



standards and guidelines with provisions for technical and



financial assistance in planning and implementation can improve



solid waste management practices throughout Colorado.




          Our department  supports  this Act and encourages funding

-------
hi
y

K
Ul
100
10


11


12
2-
Ul ul
K
Ul
Q
Ul
b.
  8   13
14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                                 101
of authorized amounts for planning, implementation, and


construction of improved solid waste management systems to


protect public health and the environment in Colorado and


the nation as a whole.


          Thank you.


          MR. YEAGLEYi  Thank you, Frank.


          MR. LEHR:  One question.  I'm assuming that by your


support of the Act and the purposes of the Act, when the time


comes for the State's assumption of some of the responsibilities


you, at this point anyway, intend to proceed to that end; is


that correct?


          MR. ROZICH:  We are presently proceeding there.


One of our first acts was to set up a committee consisting of


environmentalists, local officials, industry people in the


refuse collection and disposal area and this committee has


been meeting once a month.  We're presently working on the


work plan to be submitted to EPA.  Our next procedure will be


to look at our Act and compare it to the Federal Act to see


what changes need to be made and of course, we're looking


for the guidelines to come out of EPA so that we can


manipulate ours accordingly.


          However, as I pointed out earlier, we are going to


be looking very closely as to what we intend to assume if


there isn't the funding to carry out or implement whatever we


do assume like the permit plan and so forth.  °ur present

-------









u
y
a.
u
10 8
OPTING
COLORA
0. 2
U U
<°
U
Q
UI
IL









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        102






thoughts are 	 and I was talking during the break to the




gentleman fro* EPA here.  I think we're pretty much in accord




in that we are looking to have the program implemented on as




low a local level as is possible with the State acting only as




an overseer and of course stepping in wherever the locals



can't handle it.




          HR. YEAGLEY:  Any other questions on this State




situation?




          MR. EDEEM:  Eric Edeen, Eagle County.




          Getting back to Bruce Weddle's comment on rural



community assistance, I don't believe that they should be




across the board excluded.  If there are some opportune




situations where this situation would prove to be a



worthwhile project, I think this should be pursued.



          MR. WEDDLE:  I guess in concept I agree with you, bu




our experience has been that with the limited amount of money




for local governments, you and 5,000 other local communities




stop working on everything they are doing and wait until they




find out if they are going to get Federal monies to do it.




And perhaps we can only fund 1 or 2 percent of that 5,000 and




as a result the net environmental effect is a loss because




this money has hindered progress rather than assisted in




progress.  So, my point was if we are going to fund under this




section, we ought to have enough money to do it right so that





we don't hinder the  progress  of the community.

-------
      1


      2


      3


      4


      5


      6


      7


      8


      9


g    10


S    11
w o
  o
££   12


§i   13
0. IT
y>   ,A
a: >   14
K
111
Q
UI
U.
15


16


17


18



19


20


21



22


23


24


25
                                                                 103
          MR. LEHR:  Let me expand on that.  I want to make


sure everybody understands completely that EPA policy on any


of these items has not been defined.  I want to make it clear


that on any of these items that we've addressed today, that


EPA policy and implementation of this Act has not been defined


These public meetings are for the purpose of assisting in


defining those policy calls that are going to have to be made.


Issues of who gets the funding are nowhere near being defined


at this point.  This is why we are getting your input and your


comments and thoughts are being solicited and are appreciated.


          Any budget issues, since the budget has not been


defined, is also up for considerable speculation.  I urge you


to keep that in mind as you consider the fact that priorities


have to be set in implementing a lot of these things in this

      tJK
new leaiglation.  Bow many dollars will be available EPA


doesn't know yet.  Clearly, everything can't be done and there


never is enough money to do everything, but decisions have not


been made for how much money will be given to various portions


or the implementation of this Act.


          When you write your comments down 	 and I urge you


to give this some more thought as you reflect back over the


meeting today 	 as you put your comments down, if you would


keep in mind that the options are wide open in terms of policy


and budget questions in the implementation of this Act.



          MR. EDEEN:  It seems like in the past  your  emphasis

-------









Ill
o
K
111
in o
a
PORTING
R. COLORA
111 LI
<°
IK
111
O
LI
U.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11


12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        104






has been on the larger communities and that there is a need




for some work in communities of less than 5,000 population or




if you have examples of those.  All of the examples that you



cited were from larger municipalities.




          MR. LEHR:  That's where the demonstrations were




Because that's where the application  came from and because




that's where the matching funds are.




          MR. GREY:  I think essentially your comment is correi




that the focus has been on large technologies, large




communites and so forth, but that's why we have a new law that



specifically addresses itself to smaller communities and



smaller technologies.  Now, what we need are the funds to




pursue that.




          MR. WEDDLE:  We have done a very limited amount of



local community work.  Some in western Colorado a year ago wit*



a technical assistance program of about $20,000.  I forget



which area it was, but you're right.  I think the reason for




that is the problaa faced by a larger community is that



absolute magnitude sways the Agency to push resources into tha




area.  I think the environmental impact for a community of




5,000 is probably minimal compared to that of suburban Denver




and so forth.  I think that's why Congress put this section in




          Congress can appropriate money under that section an




require EPA to spend it.  It's not totally under our own pervi




to say yes we will spend it or no we won't,   it's FY 78 funds

-------
Ul
u
i
hi
MO
      1


      2


      3


      4


      5


      6


      7


      8


      9


     10


     11


ȣ   12

P J
tr O   10
ou   13
0. 1C
III u]
S>   14

JS
     15


     16


     17


     18


     19


     20


     21


     22


     23


     24


     25
Ul
Q
Ul
U.
                                                                 105
and it's up to both EPA and Congress to request  funds in this

area.


          My only point was that it ought to be  funded at an


adequate level and we urge you in your correspondence to


whomever you write to to make that point because that's


something that we would intensify on in the progression of the


budget hearings.  We certainly support funding at the rural


level and I think especially the Federal money that's in this


Act which includes purchase of equipment would be very


beneficial.  So, I'm not trying to be adamant about my position


just trying to see if you understand my point.


          MR. YEAGLEY:  Any other comments?

          (No response.)


          MR. YEAGLEY:  Any comments in general  about any of


the subjects we have dealt with today?


          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What is your name?

          MR. YEAGLEY: Jon Yeagley, Y-e-a-g-1-e-y.


          MR. LEHR:  Jon is listed in the program and the

address of our office is also listed on that yellow pamphlet


as a return address.  Use that or anybody you can find down


there.

          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Can we use the  same address t(J>


get the report on the 8002 study?


          MR. YEAGLEY:  Yes.


          MR. WEDDLE:  That study  probably won't be complete

-------








Ill
o
K
111
WO
PORTING
R. COLORA
LI HI
"!
<°
it
u
Q
111
k.









1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11

12
13

14
15

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        106
for 18 months.  It's FY 78 funds and it started on FIT 77 funds




but the report to Congress isn't due until October of '78,




so you are going to have to wait awhile, unfortunately.




          MR. LEHR:  Perhaps if you have general queries and




you're not sure who to write to then use John Green. He is




also listed on the program.  He is the Administrator and the




right person will get your letter.




          MR. YEAGLEY:  Anything else before we close this up;




          MRS. SWIFT:  Thank you for such an interesting and




clear explanation of this difficult-to-explain Act.,




          MR. LEHR:  We appreciate your being here today.




There has been a big time commitment for you, but it has been




very helpful.




          MR. YEAGLEY:  Thank you, very much.




                            (Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 were




                             received into the record.)




          (Whereupon, at 12:20 o'clock p.m., the hearing in




the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

-------
                                                                  107
u
o


K
III
U) O
M
&*
tc.
Ill
o
ui
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                           REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
                   This is to certify that the  attached proceedings



         before the Environmental Protection Agency in the matter of:



         Public Hearing on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,



         Public Law 94-580, at Denver, Colorado, Thursday,  March 3,



         1977, was held as herein appears, and  that this is the



         original transcript thereof.
Donna L. Gioia

Official Reporter

FEDERAL REPORTING SERVICE

980 Ursula Street

Aurora, Colorado  80011

-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT  OF  HEALTH

             4210



    March 2, 1977
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO SOttO • PHONE 388-6111
                             Anthony Robbini, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Dinctor
    Mr. John A. Green
    Regional Administrator Region VIV
    1860 Lincoln Street
    Denver, Colorado 80203

    Dear Mr. Green:

    Landfills are used universally throughout Colorado for the disposal of solid
    wastes.  Historically ravines and arroyos have been filled and some marginal
    land reclaimed for beneficial use.  Constraints that keep sites and facilities
    from maintaining compliance with minimum state standards for sanitary land-
    fills include economic, hydrological, geological, topographic, climatic and
    soils conditions.  Increasing amounts of solid and liquid wastes, sludge and
    slurries add to operating  problems and costs.  Public acceptance of landfill
    sites and facilities is not readily obtainable within municipalities, suburban
    and developing areas, mountainous and agricultural areas.

    The Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Act was enacted in 1967, amended in 1971 and
    1976.  This State Act provides for regulatory control of land disposal sites
    and facilities.  The location, design and operation of new sites and facilities
    have improved considerably as a result of requirements for engineering reports
    and operation plans, and compliance with minimum standards.  County and region-
    al solid waste management  planning projects were encouraged and have initiated
    cooperative approaches to  improve solid waste management practices.  The use
    of transfer systems, improved landfill technology, and conversion of substandard
    sites to sanitary landfills are results of planning and implementation by local
    governments and private entities.

    Presently there are no designated sites and facilities in Colorado for storage,
    processing and disposal of non radioactive hazardous wastes nor specific require-
    ments for generators and transporters of hazardous waste.  Incidents of environ-
    mental and property damage have occured as a result of uncontrolled disposal
    of chemicals in landfill sites.  Some hazardous wastes are shipped regularly
    out of state to hazardous  waste sites in Idaho and Nevada.  This R.C.R. Act
    provides for regulatory control of hazardous waste from generation sources to
    final disposal by the Environmental Protection Agency or by a State Agency.
    The control measures must  be as stringent as E.P.A. requirements.

-------
                                 -2-
There are some resource conservation and recycling projects 1n operation 1n
Colorado.  They rely heavily on volunteer help for separation of reusable
materials such as ferrous, non-ferrous metals, paper, corrugated and glass.
The feasibility of using shredded refuse as a fuel supplement to generate
electricity was investigated by the Denver Regional Council of Governments.
Even though available technology indicates this can be done, various constraints
prohibited implementation.

Coordinated planning efforts can favorably effect the feasibility of resource
conservation and recovery alternatives.  The Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 has objectives to provide for regulatory control of hazard-
ous wastes from its source to final disposal by the E.P.A. Administrator or
State Agency.  This Act provides technical assistance and funds to State, region-
al and local entities for solid waste management planning and implementation.
This Act broadens the roles of the public and private sectors in solid waste
management including land disposal, hazardous waste management, resource conser-
vation and recovery.

The objectives of this Act are consistent with those of this Department, as
indicated above.  The cooperative development of regulations, standards and
guidelines with provisions for technical and financial assistance in planning
and implementation can improve solid waste management practices through out
Colorado.

This Department supports this Act and encourages funding of authorized amounts
for planning, implementation and construction of improved solid waste management
systems to protect public health and the environment in Colorado.

Sincerely yours,
Frank Rozich P.E., Director
Water Quality Control Divisior

FR/OS/jj

-------
                                                The League of Women Voters of Colorado
                                                                  1600 Race Street
                                                                 Denver, CO. 80206
                                                                   303 - 320-8493
                                    STATEMENT
                                      to the
                   UNTIED STATES EINVORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                   March 3, 1977

     Since I am unable to attend the meeting, I wish to submit this prepared
statement for the official transcript of the Public Discussion Session on the
Kesource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL9'<-580) in Denver, Colorado on torch
3, 1977.
     We believe that democratic government depends upon the informed and active
participation of its citizens and requires that governmental bodies protect the
citizens' right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding
open meetings and making public records accessible.  In order to facilitate
informed and active participation, we suggest the following:
          1.  Since many citizen groups depend on monthly newsletters to dispense
information to their membership, it would be helpful if notices of public meetings,
plan changes, hearings, etc. could be received at_ least 3_0_ days prior to the date
of the meeting.
          2.  The right of the public to know the results of research projects,
pilot systems and demonstration  projects should be interpreted to include measures
for immediate release of the information, perhaps within 60 days of completion.
The League of Women Voters was involved in an EPA project in June and July of 1975,

-------
but the results were not made public until October of 1976.   This tine-lag
should not be considered to satisfy "Rig* to Know" requirements.
     We conroend those responsible for creating and implementing the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.  As a result of our nationwide study of solid
waste practices, the League of Women Voters has recommended  since 1972 that the
federal government should establish policies and programs to increase the demand
for secondary materials.  We sugeest that the Department of  Corrmerce include in
its studies methods to:
         .  Equalize tax treatment for virgin and secondary  materials by such
methods as reduction of tax exemptions for extractive industries and increase
of tax exemptions for secondary materials industries.
         .  Equalize transportation costs for virgin and secondary materials.
        .  Increase changes for federal land uses which yield virgin materials.
         .  Reduce subsidies for the use of inorganic fertilizers and/or offer
subsidies for the use of compost and sewage sludge.
         .  Offer tax benefits to companies which install equipment that allows
use of recyclable materials.
         .  Revise federal specifications for products made  of reclaimed materials.
         .  Increase federal government purchase orders for  products made ol
reclaimed materials.
     As the staff at E.P.A. are well aware, the League of Women Voters believes
the federal government whould establish policies and programs to encourage recycling
of post-industrial and post-consumer wastes and to reduce the generation of solid
wastes.  We would emphasize the importance of subtitle H, "Research, Development,
Demonstration, and Training" for the planning, implementation, and operation of
resource recovery and resource conservation systems, including the marketing of
recovered resources..the production of useable forms of recovered resources,

                                       -2-

-------
including fuel, from solid waste, the reduction of the mount of such waste and
unsalvageable waste materials.  Studies In the Denver area Indicate we should be
able to process our waste and recover materials and enersr, but the technology
suggested for our specific needs is still beyond what most local govemiMntal
officials consider a reasonable cost.
     Even before high technology systems there Is an immediate need for small
scale and low technology solid waste management systems,  including, but not limited
to, resource source separation systems.  Need we remind you of our work in many
states on "Bottle Bills" to effect source separation of a specific material?  We
would like to see funding patterns that reflect the energy and financial savings
in source reduction or source separation more than in the high technology systems.
Mast counties in Colorado are much more concerned with rural systems and source
separation than with waste conversion or high technology systems.
     Finally, a comment on the state Program Development.  The League of Women
Voters supports measures to improve the coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency
of governmental units within the state of Colorado toward furthering integrated
planning for environmental management.  We would suggest that planning be coordinated
with, or done by, the 208 Water Qualify Management planning areas, where
practical.  Areas which are already planning for enerpy impact, prowth management
or the provision of other services.  Vie do not support the proliferation of
planning agencies.  The programs should take into account the qualify of life ar.i
provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of citizens, present and
future.
     We again  ask that the public be involved  early  in the decision-making process
and  that alternative solutions be considered.  Public hearings on  the state plan
should be held throughout the state.   This public meeting is  evidence of E.P.A.'s
interest in public  involvement.  We  can only underscore the importance of  public
                                       -3-

-------
awareness and involvenent if we are all to succeed In promoting the protection

of health and the environment and conserving valuable material and energy

resources.
                                         Clara Lou Hunphrey
                                         League of Women Voters  of Colorado
                                         Solid Waste Chairman

-------

-------
 I            UNITED STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

 2                         OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

 3                           WASHINGTON, D. C.

 4                                  and

 5            UNITED STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

 6                              REGION VIII

 7                          1860 LINCOLN STREET

 8                            DENVER, COLORADO

 9

10

11                       PUBLIC DISCUSSION SESSION

12                                 ON THE

13                RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY  ACT

14                          "PUBLIC LAW 94-580"

15

16                         Friday, March 4, 1977

17                              Hilton Hotel

18                       150  West 5th. South Street

19                          Salt Lake City, Utah

20

21

22

23

24    Reported by:

25    Barbara G. Andersen, CSR
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                              228 JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                  531 1906

-------

-------
2
1
2
3

4

5
6

7
8

9

10

I!
12

13

14

15

16
17

18
19

20

21
22
23

24
25

INDEX
SPEAKERS QUESTIONS OR REMARKS BY
Introduction and Overview of Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act:
JIM LEKR, Deputy, Air and Hazardous Material Division,
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
Opening Comments:
MODERATOR - JON P. YEAGLEY, Chief, Solid Waste Section
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
Manpower Development, Public Information, Public
Par tic ipation ;
VAL GREY, Chief, Program Management and Support
Services, Office of Solid Waste,
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W., Washington, D. C,
Yukus Y. Inouye, Commissioner,
Utah County Commission
51 South University Avenue
Provo, Utah

Ms. Joyce Hunt, President
J. E. Hunt & Associates
6250 South 1300 West
Murray Utah
Ms.. June Wickham, Vice-Chairwoman
Salt Lake Group Sierra Club
3814 Birch Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah
Ms. Emily Hall, Environment Chairwoman
League of Women Voters
2652 East 6200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. Yukus Y. Inouye
Mr. Randall S. Isham, Wildlife Biologist
Utah Department of Transportation
Room 408, State Office Building
Salt Lake City, Utah


PAGE




3

f

8





11



16




18



19



22
23



25
ANDERSEN REPORTING
    2J8 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
2
1
2
3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14
IS

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23
24
25





INDEX (Continued)
SPEAKERS QUESTIONS OR REMARKS BY
Hazardous Wastes:
ALFRED W. LINDSEY, Designate Chief, Implementation
Branch, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Office of Solid Waste,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.

Mr. LeGrand 0. Jones, Assistant Manager
Utah Motor Transport Association
P.O. Box 686
Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. Lawrence Mills., Geaeral Manager,
W. S . Hatch Company
643 South 800 West
Woods Cross, Utah

Ms. June Wickham

Mr. John Weber, Environmental Control Engineer
Stauffer Chemical Company
P.O. Box 25893
Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. Duane Whiting, Senior Hydrogeologist
Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc.
P.O. Box 8009
Salt Lake City, Utah

Mr. Yukus Y. Inouye

Mr. Peter Poletto, Executive Director
Sweetwater County Priority Board
P.O. Box 632
Green River, Wyoming
Mr. Alton Huf faker
Environmental Control Supervisor
Kennecott Copper Corporation
Box 11299
Salt Lake City, Utah
Ms, Emily Hall
Land Disposal:
BRUCE R. WEDDLE, Chief, Special Wastes Branch,
Systems Management Division, Office of Solid Waste,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.


PAGE





25




37



39

44




46



48

51




53




54
55




57
ANDERSEN REPORTING
    728 JUDGE BUILDING
 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
          531 1906

-------
2
1
2
3

4

5

6

7

8

9
10

11

12

13
14
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25







INDEX (Continuedl
SPEAKERS QUESTIONS OR REMARKS BY
Mr. J. Dewell, Environmental Control Engineer
Phillips Petroleum Company
Woods Cross Refinery
Woods Cross, Utah

Mr. John Weber

Mr. Roger Stead, Chief
Air and Solid Waste Program
South Dakota Department of
Environmental Protection
Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota
Resource Conservation and Recovery and Overall
Technical Assistance:
ROBERT A. LOWE, Chief, Technical Assistance Branch
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C,
Mr, Yukus Y. Inouye
Mr, W, Robert Richards
Kaiser Steel
Box 452
East Carbon, Utah

Mr, William F. Christof fersen,
Regional Representative
United States Brewers Association
3027 East Bonnie Brae Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah

Mr. Randall Isham

Mr. John Weber

Ms. Joyce Hunt

State Program Development:
BRUCE R. WEDDLE, Chief Special Wastes Branch,
Systems Management Division, Office of Solid Waste,
United States 'Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Robert A. Lowe on behalf of Utah Department
of Transportation Representative
ANDERSEN REPORTING
328 JUDGE BUILDING
531 1906


PAGE



63

64






65






69
79



81





88

93

94

95





97

103




-------
2
1
2
3
4
5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12
13

14

15
16
17
18
19

20

21

22
23
24
25


INDEX (Continued]
SPEAKERS QUESTIONS OR REMARKS
W. Robert Richards
Mr. Roger Stead
Ms. Joan H. Ogden, Chairperson
West Valley Multi-Community Committee
3454 South 7580 West
Magna, Utah

James Dean Maxwell, Environmental Specialist,
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
125 South State Street, Room 4012
Salt Lake City, Utah

Mr. Clair Anderson, Sewage Disposal Operator
Bear River Town
44 North 2nd East
Bear River City, Utah
Dr. Garth R. Morgan
Special Projects Coordinator
Templeton Linke & Associates
40 West 2950 South
Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr . Yukus Y . Inouye
Ms. Joan S. Ogden


EXHIBIT

General Report No. SWC - 174
Defenders of the Outdoor Heritage
Post Office Box 15135
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115



ANDERSEN REPORTING
228 JUDGE BUILDING


PAGE
104
110



114





120




125




125
130
131







Attached





-------
 ,   SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,  FRIDAY,  MARCH  4,  1977:   9:00 A.M.


 2                              	oOo	


 3              MR. LEHR:   It's time.  We can begin, ladies and


 4   gentlemen.  My name is Jim Lehr, L-e-h-r.  I am not on the


 5   program or your agenda today.  I am here on behalf of Jack


 6   Green, Administrator from the  EPA office in Denver, which


 7   includes Utah in its area of activity.  I am very  pleased


 8   that so many of you came out today to participate  with us


 9   in some dialogue on this new legislation.


10              Are you able to hear well enough?   I won't be


II   the only one speaking  today.   The gentlemen on the panel


12   will also be discussing aspects of this legislation with


13   you, and so will you,  I hope.  The purpose of  this meeting


14   is to get your input,  your thoughts, your ideas, your


15   recommendations, your  complaints, if you will, on  this


15   legislation and how we might best go about implementing it.


17              EPA is having a series of these discussions

                                       •trni.
18   all across the country.  In RegionjK we're having  our


19   second today.  We had  a meeting yesterday in Denver and


20   got many, many good suggestions, and ideas, and recommends-


2i    tions as to how we might best  go about developing  implemen-


22   tation plans for this  legislation.  That's the kind of


23   feedback we want from  you today.  Participate  freely  and


24   openly, please, and throughout the session.  This  legis-


25   lation is a major loop-closer  in programs the  federal
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
     government,  state  governments have for protection of

     environmental  quality.   You are  aware of the Clean Air Act,

     Drinking  Water Act,  and other water quality protection

     legislation  that EPA and other agencies have been working

     with  the  last  few  years in developing environmental

     protection programs.  This new legislation closes that

     loop,  I think,  in  providing for  full waste management

     programs  for those materials that are discarded,  for those

     materials that result from air pollution control  activities,

10   water pollution control activities,  and just plain discarded

I    materials.   This is  a very important piece of legislation

     we'll  see evolving over the next few years.  We have

     arranged  for you today  a series  of four presentations that

     cover  the major points  in that legislation, and at this time

I    I'd like  to  introduce those that will make the presentations,

1C   and they'1*  be  introduced again  later on.   The panelists,

]?   starting  from  the  far left,  are  Mr.  Fred Lindsey,  who is

     Chief  of  the Implementation Branch,  Hazardous Waste Manage-

     ment  Division  in our  office in Washington and Office of Solid

     Waste.  To his  right  is Bruce Weddle,  who comes to us also

2]   from  the  office in Washington, the Office of Solid Waste,

22   who is Chief of the Special Waste Branch.  To his  right is

     Val Gre-, who  is also from our office in Washington and

     is the Chief of the  Program Management and Support Service.

     And at this  table  on  the left is Bob Lowe,  L-o-w-e.   He's
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 6*111
                                531 1906

-------
     not on the program, either.  He's here in place of Tom

 2   Canfield and Bob will give you his title.  He's Chief,

 3   I think, of the Hazardous Waste --

 4              MR. LOWE:  Resource Recovery and Technical

 5   Assistance Branch.

                MR. LEHR:  •— Resource Recovery and Technical


     Assistance Branch in our Washington office.

                And then Jon Yeagley, the Moderator today, is fro


     our office in Denver.   He's Chief of the Solid Waste
             in -H\e.
     Section •«•* Hazardous Materials Division.


                Before we begin with the panel presentations,

.    I wanted to call your attention to a couple of things

.-   and provide you a little summary of my perspective of the

     major thrust of this legislation.  As you came in, I

     think most of you got copies, not only of the program

     today, but also of an issue paper of the legislation itself

17   and a summary sheet of the legislation.  EPA has been trying

     to cope with the many, many issues that have to be resolved

     in deciding how best to implement this legislation.  Many

20   of those issues are in that paper that you received when

     you came in.  We're here to get input from you on those

22   issues, some additional thoughts from you either here or

23   later.  And I'll make clear on the record we'll be open for

24   some time for your thoughts following the meeting today.


25   And for mailing addresses, you might use the address that's
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
 I    on this yellow program*that's the address of  the office  of

 2    the EPA in Denver, and we would appreciate hearing  from  you

 3    and we will transmit to whomever is necessary whatever your

 4    input might be.  John Green is the Regional Administator.

 5    Address your communication to him or to Jon Yeagley,  who

 6    is going to compile all this input.

 7               The nation has faced an enormous problem,  as

 8    you know; a problem of some three to four billion tons

 9    of discarded material generated and material  that needs

10    to be disposed of each year, some ten million tons  each  day

11    of solids and liquid and contained gaseous kind of  material

12    This legislation deals with that material.  It's not  simply

13    a Solid Waste Act; it's a piece of legislation that tries

I4    to cope as best as possible with disposal of  this enormous

55    amount of waste.  Included in this three to four billion

16    tons each year is some thirty million tons of an enormous

17    and unbelievable number of truly hazardous material;

18    material that can blind and can maim and can  harm public

j9    health, yours and mine; material that needs special handling

20    material that enters our water and our air and can  enter

21    our food chain.  And in the interest of public health and

22    in coping with this enormous amount of waste, Congress has

23    enacted this legislation.  In October this last year, after

24    many, many years of coping with the two old acts, the 1965

25    and 1970 acts, many meetings involving public  industry and
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
 1   government agencies and several Congressional committees,

 2   this act does several major things in grappling with the

 3   problem.  One is to establish a hazardous waste regulatory

 4   and control program, which you'll hear about later this

 5   morning in great detail, but a program that will truly man-

 6   age these  toxic materials, these hazardous materials with

 7   an enforceable regulatory program for the first time.  This

 8   act also establishes waste management programs that are to

 9   be the result of the best thinking industry; state, regional

10   and local governments; along with whatever support the

II   federal government can give, in establishing more than

12   sanitary landfills and establishing more than dumps, in

13   establishing as best as possible full waste management

14   systems.  The act also puts major emphasis for the first

15   time on reducing volumes or reusing them or reusing

16   the discarded material, recycling it, and putting it back

17   into the system.  Those three, I think, are the primary

18   thrust of the legislation.

19              The slide on the screen gives some of the

20   legislative objectives I mentioned in the protection of

21   public health as the primary objective; protecting environ-

22   ment, visual environment as well as health environment;

23   conservation for natural resources and for energy resources.

24              And these objectives will be achieved through a

25   variety of techniques with major emphasis on technical and
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531 1906

-------
 ,    financial assistance to the state and local governments

 2    which the act calls for doing the job.  It's not a federal

 3    program.  The action for this kind of program has to be

 4    with state and local and regional governments, and EPA's

 5    intent is to encourage that:  manpower development,

 6    training kinds of things, prohibition of open dumping, the

 ^    future of this act, conversion or closing of existing

 8    open dumps.  You'll hear more about it.  It's another

 9    feature in this act, and, of course, the regulation of

10    hazardous wastes.

'1               Jon, if you want to begin to give some last

12    minute instructions?

13               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Let me just make a couple of

14    comments about what we are going to be doing here, how

15    we'd like to have you participate.  Just to emphasize the

16    point that Jim has already made, our purpose in being here

17    this morning is to gather your input on how we can best

18    implement this Resource Conservation Recovery Act.

1'               Somewhat differently than previous ^federal acts,

20    we are seeking out your input prior to having made major

21    decisions that will be required as a result of this act, and
                                                         •^^
22    we're hopeful that going about public participation in this

23    manner will not only allow you to have more timely input

24    but will also allow us to have the benefit of some of the

25    grass-roots experience.  Obviously we get a little distant
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             238 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
     from the problem, as I'm sure you are well aware, and I

     think it's important that we seek your help and your input.

 ,   So therein lies our purpose.  We hope you'll take advantage

     of this opportunity to give us your concerns, your comments,

     whatever.  We would be glad to hear from you as we go on.

     J. will just mention:  If you'll refer to the program, you'll

     note on there that we have four speakers — actually five

     speaking slots.  Each speaker will speak for ten minutes —

     ten minutes or less, let's put it that way — and I'll
-0   encourage the speakers to stay with that.  After/teach  topic

     then, we'll have approximately thirty minutes of just public

     input: your comments, questions, statements, whatever.  I

     will ask when you ask a question or make a statement, please

     state your name and your association — who you're with —

.,   for the benefit of the reporter.  We are transcribing the

„   entire meeting, which will help us as we go back and try to
ID
.-   formulate this information into regulations and standards

     and criteria.  Please give your name and your association.

     Those of you who have filled out a registration form and

20   indicated that you'd like to make a prepared statement, I

2)   will call on you for your statement based on which of these

22   blocks at the bottom you have marked as it appears in that

     section of the program.  Now, let me just make one comment

24   on that:  If for some reason you have to leave earlier  than

     that section comes up, just let me know, and we'll try  and
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111
                                531-1906

-------
                                                              10
 1    be very informal here and we'll get you in ahead of time.

 2    I'm  interested in hearing all of the statements and all of

 3    the  questions.  And if you feel that you have to leave

 4    earlier than that time, when we get to that point, let us

 5    know and we'll squeeze you in.

 6               For the benefit of the gal doing the transcrib-

 7    ing  I'll suggest that we try to talk one at a time — and

 8    I'll make every effort to insure that we do -- and also talk

 9    hopefully,  at a decent p,Zace.

10               If Y°u have trouble keeping up with us, just

,,    holler.  We'll try to adjust to that.  Okay.

12               Jiro mentioned some handouts that you all picked

13    up at the door.  Unfortunately they weren't at the door

14    when you came in, so I'm sure that most of you don't have

15    them; however, they are there now.  Correct?  Okay.  Some-

I6    time during the meeting, if you happen to be back at the

17    table in the back, we do have about four handouts; we have

18    copies of the act, we have copies of the overview that Jim

19    was  mentioning of the special issues, and we have some other

20    associated literature with the Jtf^w Resource^Conservation aw

2i    Recovery Act.  They're available to you, and we encourage

22    you  to pick them up.

23               I think that's about all the comments that I

24    need to make at this time, and with that in mind, we'll

25    proceed right on into the program.  Again, T encourage you
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SM-T LAKE CITY, UTAH 54111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               11
 1   to be informal.  If you do have a prepared  statement

 2   and if you have it written down, it will be very  helpful

 3   to us if you could give us a copy of  it.  If  it turns  out

 4   to be your only copy, put your name and address on  it  and

 5   we'll send it back to you next week.  But it  would  be  very

 g   helpful to the gal that's doing the transcribing  to have

 7   that to insure that what you say is actually  what gets

 8   printed.

 9              At this point, then, we'll move  head,  and  I'll

10   introduce Val Grey, who will be talking on  the plans

II   for development of public information and public  partici-

12   pation sections.

13              MR. VAL GREY:  I think Jim was trying  to say

I4   that the spelling of some of the more technical terms

,5   would be corrected by your submitting a copy  of your

Ig   prepared statement.

]7              The Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act

jg   of 1976, which we have started to term  "PCRA" —  you'll

19   be hearing that all morning — contains an  unusually

20   complete array of provisions which could bring about  a high

21   degree of public understanding and participation.  Taken

22   together, these various provisions make it  clear  that  the

2j   Congress understood that it was impossible  for the  public

24   to participate meaningfully unless the  government first

25   produced valid scientific and technical data  and  then
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84TI I
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                                12
     processed and published the information in such a way  that

 2   everyone may have access to it.  Only  in this way can  you,

 3   the public, have a reasonable chance of influencing  the

     social, economic, and political changes which the law  is

     designed to bring out.

 5              Now, in Section 8003 the Administrator of EPA  is

 7   required to develop, collect, evaluate, and coordinate

 Q   the information on nine key elements which are crucial to

 9   the Act's purposes.  The Administrator is not only to

...   implement a program for the rapid dissemination of this

..   information; he is also to develop and  implement educational

.    programs to promote citizen understanding.  This makes it

     quite clear that the information called for is not to  be

..   developed for the exclusive use of those who, for one  reason

     or another, may be considered "experts" in the field,  but

     for  everyone.  Moreover, the Administrator is asked to

]7   coordinate his actions and to cooperate to the maximum

     extent possible with state and local authorities and to

     establish and maintain a central reference library for

2Q   virtually all kinds of information involved in solid waste

-.   management for the use of state and local governments,

22   industry, and again, you, the public.

23              Now, who is the public?  To insurance  the  public

     participation process does not become  lopsided, we felt  it

25   was necessary to identify major categories of  interest
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             S28 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               13
 1   groups who represent the public at large.  Under RCRA we

 2   regard these to include the consumer; environmental and

 3   neighborhood groups; trade, manufacturing, and labor

 4   representatives; public health, scientific, and professional

 5   societies; and governmental and university associations.

 6   This spectrum of categories of representative groups will

 7   be altered and supplemented as necessary if, in the course

 8   of implementing the Act, it appears purposeful to do so.

 9              What does the law say about public participation?

JO              Section 7004 fal of the Act states that any

U   person may petition the Administrator of EPA for the

12   promulgation, amendment, or  repeal  of any regulation under

13   this Act,

14              Section 7004 Cbl deals with public participation.

15   It states that public participation in the development,

16   revision, and enforcement of any regulation, guideline,

17   information, or program under this Act shall be provided

18   for, encourage, and assisted by the Administrator and the

19   States, and further, that the Administrator in cooperation

20   with the States shall develop and publish minimum guidelines

21    for participation in such processes.

22              Section 7002 (al states that public participation

2J   in development, revision,  and enforcement of any regulation

24   guideline information or program under this Act shall be

25   provided for, encouraged,  and assisted by the Administrator
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             238 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                               14
and the States and, further, that the Administrator

in cooperation with the States shall develop  and  publish

minimum guidelines for public participation.   Section 7002 Caj

states  that any person may commence a  civil  action on his

own behalf against any person and "person" defined to include

the United States Government, who is alleged  to be in

violation of this Act or against the Administrator if

there is an alleged failure by him  to perform any act or

duty under this Act.

           What are some of the available public  participa-

tion techniques?  The many techniques which can be used

to develop the public on governmental actions fall into

three major categories:   Cll the use of appropriate  public

meetings, hearings, conferences, workshops, and  the  like,

throughout the country, which EPA intends to  plan and to

hold in consonance with the unfolding of the  Act's key

provisions — this meeting here  this morning  is  one  of those

actions.   (21  the use of Advisory  Committees and Review

Groups, which may meet periodically, but which will  also

be called upon to review and comment upon major  programs,

regulations, and plans, no matter when  they occur and no

matter whether a  specific meeting  is  convened or not.  And

 C3J  the development  of educational programs  so that the

public has an opportunity  to become aware of  the significance

of  the technical data base  and the  issues which emerge from it
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                              228 JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               15
                Effective public education programs depend on tht

     use of all appropriate communication tools, techniques, and

     media.  These include publications, slides, films, exhibits

     and other graphics, media programs, including public service

     television and radio announcements and releases to the daily

     and professional press and public education projects

     carried out by service and civic organizations with EPA

     technical and financial assistance.

                What does the law say about manpower development?

     Sections 7007Cal and CbJ authorize the Administrator of

     EPA to make grants or offer contracts with any eligible

     organization for training purposes for occupations

 .    involving the management, supervision, design, operation,

     or maintenance of solid waste disposal and resource recovery

     equipment and facilities, or to train instructors,

                "Eligible organization" is defined to mean a

]7    State or any State agency, a municipality, or educational

     institution capable of effectively carrying out such a

     program

20               Section 7007(cl provides that the Administrator

     shall make a complete investigation and study to determine

22    the need for additional trained State and local personnel

     to carry out plans assisted under this Act and to determine

     the means of using existing training programs to train

25    such personnel, and to determine the extent and nature of
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             J38 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               16
 1    obstaces  to employment  and  occupational  advancement in the

 2    solid waste disposal and resource  reovery fields.   The

 3    Administrator  is required to  report  the  results  of  such

 4    investigation  and  study to  the  President and to  the Congress

 5               That's my 10 minutes, and I will  entertain any

 6    questions at this  time.

 7               Yes, sir.

 8               MR. YUKUS INOUYE:  My name is Yukus Inouye,  and

 9    I'm a County Commissioner of Utah  County.

10               One question I have  is  that we  do not wait in

11    Utah County to proceed.  We have some problems now.   What

12    about getting funding for the projects that's going  on

13    now?

14               MR. GREY:  Which projects are you talking  about,

15    training projects?

16               MR. INOUYE:  Training and the gambit  of  resource

17    recovery.

18               MR. GREY:  All right.   I'm the  first  speaker

19    up here, but you will hear this probably all morning,  but

20    funding is one of our major problems in  implementing  the

21    law.  Currently we are under a fiscal '77  budget which  was

22    budgeted, planned for, and appropriated  under the old

23    Congress and under a previous administration for a previous

24    law.  We have reprioritized our program  and  tried to

25    divert as many of the resources that we  currently have  for
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1»0&

-------
                                                               17
     all programs under the new legislation under RCRA.  It's

     far, far from being sufficient.  Now, some programs are

     not going to Be funded at all.  Our manpower and training

     programs are not going to be funded.  Our public partici-

     pation program will be funded to some degree — as you can

     see, we're here this morning •— so we funded something.  We

 7   do have a library which is in embryonic form but can be

 8   expanded for full use under the RCRA.  We intend to have

 *   public hearings with all of our regulations and guideline

10   development.  We intend to have an Advisory Committee, as

II   I have indicated in here.  We are funding an Xd/Hoc commit-

12   tee to begin with.  This is '77 I'm talking about, and so

13   we are to some degree able to divert current resources.

M   Our first new budget under a new administration and a new

IS   Act, RCRA, is under discussion this very week.  We have

16   made it known through several means what our requirements

17   are to fully implement RCRA.  Our total authorizations for

18   '78^0 up to $181 million.  Currently it looks like we'll

19   have at the most around 45 or 46 million counting everything

20   I can count into that pot.  Still we do not have sufficient

21   funds for manpower training developments.  We may wind up

22   with a study, at best, on the manpower needs, but not much

23   more than that.  On other special studies which involve

     public participation programs, we'll have somewhat more fund

     I would say somewhere up to $1 million of grant moneys for

     the various sections of the law.  But when we have 56 entiti
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8^111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                               18
     in the United States — 56 States because it includes

 2    Puerto Rico and Guam and others, the District — we're not

 3    going to go very far with $1 million.  I don't know  if that

 4    answers your question, but I wanted to give you sort of a

 5    broad base of the answer that you'll be hearing constantly

     this morning .

                MR. LOWE:  I'd like to respond to Mr. Inouye's

     question.

                As a general rule we will not fund a project

     to reimburse you for money that you've spent prior to

     our approving an application for grant money.  One reason

12    for this is that one of our purposes in giving money is

     to induce recipients to do something.  If you've already

     done it, then that purpose no longer applies.  In a  sense,

     that discriminates against communities and other organiza-

     tions like yourself who have taken the initiative without
]7
     _federal assistance.  We applaud  that,  but  the  inequality st
     exists.  I would say, though,  that  if  you  were  to  apply for

     continued funding  for the  same kind of project,  then the

20   fact that you've already spent money for that kind of

2j   project would count  in  your  favor and  you  would probably

22   be more likely to  get a grant  awarded  than someone else

23   who had not already  had a  program underway;  therefore,  it

24   demonstrates your  commitment.

25              MR. GREY:  Yes, ma'am.

                MS. JOYCE HUNT:   My name is Joyce Hunt, J. E,

     Hunt and Associates. I would  like  to  ask  you,  clarifying
                                                                  11
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               19
 1    what you are saying,  is  there  a  technical  data to

 2    substantiate a complete  total  resource recovery system

 3    now; is there funding with  EPA rather than for all of

 4    these studies?  I'm  familiar with  Utah County's problem.

 5    And with the project being  to  do total resource reovery

 6    now, rather than wait -- people  don't stop making garbage

 7    for studies.

 8               MR. LOWE:  There is no  money now.   And I'd like

 9    to get into that in more detail  when my turn  comes up.

10               CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:   We will come back to that

II    issue,

J2               Are there other  question of this speaker?

13               Yes, ma'am.

14               MS. JUNE  WICKHAM;   June Wickham of the Sierra

,5    Club.

]g               CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:   Could we have the spelling

]7    of that?

18               MS. WICKHAM:   W-i-c-k-h-a-m.  I would like to

19    have him back up and tell me what  funds are being

20    appropriated for committees, rather than for  delegating

2i    funds for technical  assistance with the different groups.

22    Can you tell me what committees  you're funding for?

23               MR. GREY:  You mean the Advisory Committee?

24               MS. WICKHAM:   Yes.

25               MR. GREY:  We have  about^OO, 000 for public
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             2J8 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               20
 1    participation right now set aside this current fiscal year.

 2    I am not sure how much of that will be spent on the jXd Jloc

 3    Committee.

 4               Now, let me explain the Advisory Committee.  We

 5    are taking steps to get a formal Advisory Committee for the

 6    implementation of RCRA which would meet periodically,

 7    roughly speaking, twice a year.  In order to do that, we

 8    have to have OMB — Office of Management and Budget •—

 9    approval for such a committee.  We are in the process of

10    getting that approval; in fact, the document is on the new

II    Administrator's desk this week for signature.  In the

12    meantime — and that takes some time, though, another

13    several months before we can get it approved, and by the  tim

14    we get it organized, it would be to function this fiscal

IS    year.  In the meantime, we are organizing an Ad Hoc Com-

16    mittee.  It is being called an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee  --

17    excise me, Review Committee, rather than Advisory Committee

18    and it is scheduled currently, I think, for late April or

19    May.  Someone else in my office is handling that; I cannot

20    give you all the participants in that group.  But they will

21    spend a substantial amount of money to bring those people in

22    and to operate that Ad Hoc Committee for the number of

23    sessions needed to start this advisory process.

24               MS. WICKHAM:  Could you tell me what groups of

25    people are going to be on this Advisory Committee?

                MR. GREY:  Just about everyone I mentioned.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             328 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                              21
     Now,  if  you ask me whether the Sierra Club is on it or not,

     I can't  answer it, but my guess is,  it is, because you're

     considered one of our major environmental groups that we

     would solicit or  invite to the meeting.  If you'd like to

     Jcnow more about it, I suggest you write to Tom Williams of

 6    our office,

 7               MS,  WICKqM:  Washington or Denver?

 8               MR.  GREY:   In Washington.   Tom Williams is the

     Director -- not the Director, but the Chief of the

10    Technical Information and Communication Branch.  And the

II    rough number of groups that will be  represented is upwards

12    of 30 now,  and I  would almost bet that you're on it.  We

13    will have to, however, for the permanent Advisory Committee,

14    reduce this number to a maximum of 15 because that is the

15    way our  charter has been written up  for the permanent

     Advisory Group and the way we're going ahead with OMB.

17    That may not be sufficient, but we are going to allow each

18    major category of groups, like environmental groups, to

1'    select from amongst themselves the two or three that would

20    represent that area of interest.

21               MS.  WICKHAM:  That really isn't my question.  My

22    main question was why are all the funds going to the Advisor

     Committee instead of  some of it being diverted for technical

24    assistance  to some of the communities that presently have

     problems with landfill operations?
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mill
                                 531 1906

-------
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
 24
 25
                                                             22
           MR. GREY:  All the funds are not going to the

Advisory Committee, only a small portion of that which has

been set aside for public participation.  The technical

assistance fund is another area, another pocket of  funds,

and we will be covering that later, and you will be able

to ask exactly how much for which type of technical

assistance.  The technical assistance will come under

the group that handles discussion of the panels, the resource

and conservation panels.

           CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Yes, ma'am.

           MS. EMILY HALL:  Emily Hall, League of Women

Voters of Utah.  How will you prioritize?  What group will

actually make the final decision?  In other words,  r'm

curious to know how much actual public participation will

be used in the final decision-making for which technical

assistance will be used?  It  seems to me that  in many of

these projects, you take lots of public  input, but  the  final

decisions are made not by the public, but  by  two  or three
    people,
               MR. GREY:   Could I  ask that we withhold that
 question  until  we  get to the technical -- the resource

 conservation panel,  because Mr.  Lowe here will be discussing

 that,  and that  is  one of the issues of how we prioritize

 or  how do we select  our main thrust of technical assistance,

 and he has a number  of alternatives which he'll present to
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                              228 JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S4111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              23
     you and maybe we'll ask you that question instead of  you

 2    asking us,

 3               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Yes.

 4               MR. YUKUS INOUYE:  I have another question:

 5    Generally the implementation is the responsibility  of the

 5    local government, and I find as a County Commissioner we

 7    get guidelines, and when it comes to the point of imple-

 8    mentation of all the regulatory requirements that the

 9    local government has, it becomes very awkward financially,

     as well as technically, to meet the requirements, and I

     think that throughout the meeting here I'd like to  hear

12    how the local government is going to implement these

     regulations, funding and otherwise.

14               MR. GREY:  I guess again we're off the subject

     of public participation and into local funding, and

     Mr. Bruce Weddle will be covering the state programs  and

17    local programs and how we fund which particular types.

18    So I hope I don't sound like I'm putting everyone off,

19    but we are covering that, and I know that is of prime

20    interest to everybody, since we have been to several  of

2|    these meetings already and that seems to be the tenor of

22    the interest, and we are prepared to talk about it, but if

23    I may ask we put that off.

24               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Yes, sir.

25               MR. RANDALL ISHAM:  Randall Isham, I-s-h-a-m,
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 9*111
                                 531-1906

-------
                                                               24
 I    Utah Department of Transportation.

 2               You indicate you would be  having  a  limited

 3    library set up with the program.  Will  you be  continuing

 4    to supply pamphlets and booklets as you have in  the  past

 5    in the Office of Solid Waste?

 6               MR. GREY:   Yes.  Very definitely so.   Those of

 7    you who have dealt with our distribution of  materials  know

 8    that we put out a publication called  "Available
                  ^
 9    Information r Materials", which  is getting rather thick,

10    and we have probably within EPA  the best source,  the

II    largest distribution, the largest selection  of technical

12    and specialized literature on solid waste management that

13    is available to the public free.  That  is not  quite  the

14    library.  The library means essentially that there is  a

15    library of books to which you can refer, get extracts, and

16    so forth.  But this would be, let's say, an  additional

17    service in addition to the library, the distribution of

18    those documents which are generated through  the  auspices

19    of the Office of Solid Wastes.

20               MR. ISHAM:  Will this be continued?

21               MR. GREY:  Yes, it definitely will  be.  Now,

22    somebody asked about priorities  of different expenditures.

23    We are always taking off  the  top a certain  amount for

24    the production of publications of different  documents and

25    the distribution of those documents,  because,  after all,
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             a2B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531-1904

-------
                                                               25
     any other study that we  fund or any work  that  we  do  results

     in a document that must  be made available,  and since one

     of the major thrusts of  this legislation  is to make  this

     information available to everybody, we're taking  off the

     top of our budget those  funds which deal  with  the distribu-

     tion of those documents.

 7              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Any other questions on this

 8   particular part of our meeting?

 '              CNo responsel

10              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Okay.  At this point,  then,

11   we will proceed on into  a discussion of hazardous waste,

12   and I'll introduce to you Fred Lindsey, and with  that I'll

13   ask Fred to come up.

M              MR. ALFRED LINDSEY:  Can you all hear  me?  I'd

15   like before I get started to add my words of appreciation

     to those that have already been made to all of you for

     coming out and joining with us to discuss with us this

18   whole issue of this new  Act and to give us  the benefit of

19   your suggestions and comments.  May I assure you  that

20   we are interested in what you have to say and  in  any sug-

21   gestions you have, and we will consider them fully.   This

22   is perhaps the seventh or eighth of these sessions that

23   have been held so far, and the comments and suggestions whic i

24   we have received so far  have been very helpful, and  T

25   expect that they will continue to come in.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                              26
 1               As is indicated,  I am here to discuss the

 2    hazardous waste management provisions of the Act, and what

 3    I expect to do here,  briefly, is to summarize the require-

 4    ments as we see them  of the Act and to develop some of the

 5    issues and questions  which we're facing now and will

 6    continue to face for  the next period of time.  Subtitle C

 7    of the Act, the Hazardous Waste Management Provision,

 8    mandates that a regulatory program be put together, the

 9    purpose of which is to control hazardous wastes from the

10    point of generation,  usually an industrial concern, to

II    the ultimate disposal at a permitted facility.  Now, this

12    is a very clear mandate.  There is quite a bit of latitude

13    as to how we carry it out, but the mandate as to what it

14    is we're supposed to  do is pretty clear.

15               Now, the first thing that comes up in one of thos

16    difficult parts of this particular requirement is that we

17    identify characteristics of wastes which makes them hazardou

18    or not hazardous.  That is,  criteria for what makes a waste

19    hazardous or not hazardous.   Now, Congress has mandated that

20    we consider, in doing this,  such properties as toxicity,

21    persistence in the environment, degradability, bio-accumulat

22    in tissue, flammability, and corrosiveness, as well as

23    perhaps others.  Once having done this, we're to use these

24    criteria to develop a list of typical examples of wastes

25    which then are hazardous under this set of criteria.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               27
I               As with most of the hazardous waste provisions

1    of the Act/ we are given 18 months in which to do this,

3    Now, that's 18 months from passage of the Act, which  --

4    to those of you who are not familiar — was October 21st,

5    so our deadline, then, for most of these sessions is  the

6    21st of April, 1978.

7               A couple of the questions which we face rela-

8    tive to this criteria, obviously — some of the questions

9    are fairly obvious — such as How do we test toxicity?

10    What levels of toxicity do we choose as being hazardous

11    or being the limit for hazardous? and things of that

12    nature.  In addition, we face the question of when is a

13    waste a waste?  Now, that might seem ludicrous at first

14    glance, but think of it this way:  Some materials are sold

15    for a very low price and then used for such things as

16    wetting down roads, horse arenas, and things of that  nature

17    and some of these materials can be and have been in the

18    past hazardous and have created problems.  So our defini-

19    tion of what is a waste is also an important thing.   How

20    do we devise such a definition?

21               We'll be interested in any comments you might

22    have relative to that.

23               Another problem:  Wastes are typically mixtures

24   of many different materials.  When we're considering  air

25   pollution and water pollution control, we typically think
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              28
     in terms of lead or some phenol or some specific material

 2   in the water or air, which is then the pollutant.  However,

 3   when we're talking about hazardous waste, we're usually

 4   talking about red gunk or green slime or this sludge or

 5   that combination of liquids, and they're not pure

 5   substances.  The interaction of the many materials which

 7   may be in that waste can be antagonistic or synergistic in

 8   creating more problems or fewer problems for that waste

 9   than what the sum of the parts might indicate.  So the

     problem becomes:  How do we determine — in other words,

     how do we test a waste material to determine whether or not

12   it is hazardous.  Do we do it by in some manner trying to

13   determine what the components are and what the combination

     of components are likely to cause in terms of hazard or

     do we set up standard tests for the wastes themselves by

     which the actual wastes can be tested and is that practical

17   and is that possible and what tests might exist?

18              So if any of you have any knowledge in these

19   areas, why, we would very much like to have your opinions

20   and your suggestions and your data, if you have some on

2j   these issues.

22              Section 3002 of the Act requires that we come

23   up with some standards for generators, those people who —

24   those organizations and firms, et cetera, that generate

25   the waste to start with.  And these include requirements
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               29
 I   for recordkeeping and recording, keeping track of such

 2   things as quantities, constituents of waste and  the manner

 3   in which they were disposed; requirements for the labeling

 4   of containers and for perhaps the use of certain types

 5   of containers, perhaps construction provisions for

 6   containers; and, probably more importantly, the  setting up

 7   of a manifest system.  Now, the manifest system  is to be

 8   designed to track wastes from cradle to grave, as we say;

 9   that is, from point of generation to point of disposal,

10   to insure that they do move from generation to an

II   acceptable disposal site.  The Congress has mandated that

12   the manifest system also include pertinent information

U   to be added by the generator for use by the transporter

14   and disposer in carrying out his part of the mission.

15   Where manifest systems exist today, they have typically

Ig   taken the form of a trip ticket which accompanies a waste

17   load.

18              Now, some of the questions we face in this area

19   are:  How can recordkeeping and reporting firms  be minimized

20   and yet provide adequate control of hazardous waste manage-

21    ment problems in their movement?  How can we minimize the

22   paperwork and the reporting work so as to do that.  How can

23   we integrate it, perhaps, with the other requirements that

24   various firms have to comply with, with other environmental

25   programs or other government systems?  Should transport
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mill
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              30
    manifests be uniform nationwide or  should  there be  some

    leeway allowed for differences in the way  local or  state

 3   or area economies work?

 4              Similar requirements are mandated  under

    Section. 3003 for those people who transport waste from

    one point to another.  Again, recordkeeping requirements

    will have to be set up which will include  such things as

    the source of the waste  and the delivery point of the waste.

    There will be labeling requirements,  again, for  the

JO   containers; compliance with the manifest system  or  that

II   part of the manifest system that deals  with transportation;

12   and then there is a requirement that  whatever we come up

13   with under the transportation section must be consistent

14   with the Department of Transportation regulations.

15              Section 3004  of the Act  is really  a very

    important part of the Act because  it  is here  that we set

17   up standards for treatment, storage,  disposal facilities

18   for those people who own or operate them.  And it  is by

19   such standards, then,  that  improper disposal  will be made

20   illegal.  So this is a very important section of the Act.

21   Congress has mandated  certain  standards, that we provide

22   certain standards, including requirements  for recordkeeping

23   and reporting,  again,  which would include  information on

24   how much material was  received  and how it  was treated or

25   disposed;  of  course,  compliance  with that section  of the
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4J11
                                 531 1906

-------
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                              31
 manifest system that deals with the treatment, storage,
 and disposal facility.  We must set up minimum requirements
 for monitoring and for inspection, so as to insure that
 adequate information is collected to determine if a site
 is in. fact polluting or not.  There will be location,
 design,  and construction standards which will include such

 things as where facilities can or can't be placed; what
 design options may be restricted, required, or otherwise
 controlled.  Maintenance and operating standards are
 required.  Contingency plans  are required, setting up
 plans as to what course of action will be followed if
 something goes wrong at the facility.
            Then there's a broad classification of require-
 ments which are called "ownership standards", what we call
"ownership standards", which might include such things as
 requirements for performance bonding for long-term care
 funds, for having training programs, for setting up site
 closure plans.  Any or all of those could be considered

 under this section.  Then there's also a statement in there
 which in effect says that such other standards as necessary
 to protect public health and the environment might be set.
 So it's a very broad mandate in this section, and how we
 carry that out is going to be a matter of some concern to
 us for the next period of time, and we'd like your thoughts
 on how we should implement the various parts of this section
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              32
                I'm not going to read off large numbers of

     questions here, but in order to stimulate your thinking,

     I would like to throw out a couple of the problems which

     we face;  For example, should performance standards at a

     hazardous waste facility of this nature apply a defense

     line at a facility or someplace else?  Alternatively, what

     form should such standards take?  Should they be what we

     call performance standards in the sense that we perhaps

     set some limit on, you know, "Thou shalt not degrade

.„   groundwork" beyond some certain limit as a result of

     really hazardous waste facilities?

..              Or should they take a different form which we

.-   might call equipment standards, such as, "You're going to

..   burn chlorinated hydrocarbons; you must have a scrubber

._   with a pressure drop of such and such."

.-              What form should they take?  Or should there be

)7   some combination?  Difficult question?

,8              Should regulations published by EPA under this

     section require certification of employees working at

20   hazardous waste facilities?  We certify boiler operators.

     Should we certify the operators of hazardous waste

22   facilities?  Should we require bonding or insurance  for

     hazardous waste facilities?  If so, is the insurance

     industry ready to undertake this sort of thing.  These are

25   just a couple of the questions.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                              33
                I would like to point out that one of the hand-


     outs which was mentioned earlier is called "Issues for


     Discussion",  It's like maybe a 5- or 6-page — 10-page,


     take it back — white publication here or list here, mimeo-


     graph list, which you can pick up at some point, and it


     contains ,a variety of questions of this nature for
 6

     which we're really looking for input and suggestions, and


     we would appreciate having them, if not today, in writing


     at some later point.


                Section 3005 is the provision for setting up a
10

     permit system or the requirement, really, for setting up a


     permit system.  And it's by this permit system, then, that


     we would bring treatment, storage, and disposal facilities


     into compliance with the requirements under Section 3004,


     with the standards under Section 3004.  Now, the permit


     system applies not to generators or to transporters but,


     rather,  to treatment and storage and disposal facilities.


     And in order to obtain a permit or to receive a permit, a


     facility would have to convince EPA or the appropriate State


     agency — permitting agency — that they are in fact


     meeting  the requirements of a facility as outlined or


     as developed under Section 3004.


                Now,  within six months after we promulgate the


     standards for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities


     under 3004, it will become illegal to dispose of hazardous
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             328 JUDGE BUILDING

                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111

                                531 1906

-------
                                                               34
    waste without a  permit.   Now,  assuming we have 18 months —

    we do have 18 months to  come up with the standards under

    3004, and assuming we meet that deadline -- why, that would

 4   bring us, then,  to approximately October 21st, 1978.

 5               Now,  Congress also sets up some of the

    requirements which would be included in a permit applica-

    tion.   In making an application, one would have to give

    us adequate information  on the waste itself, including

    the manner of treatment  or disposal, the types and .amounts

    of waste which are to be received, the frequency of

    treatment or the rate of application in the case of

12   disposal.  It would also require that there be information

    on the  site, including such thing as hydrogeology and

    climatology and things of that nature.

                There is also a provision in here for the

    granting of interim permits.  Now, this applies only to

17   those  facilities which were in business as of the passage

    of the  Act and who have notified the State or EPA under

,9   Section 3010, which I'll get to in a minute, and who have

20   applied for a permit.

                Now, because there is a rush, or there will be

22   a rush  of permit applications at that point, Congress saw

23   fit to  say that anyone who has done all of these three

24    things  and has an ongoing operation will be granted an

25    interim permit until EPA can process and go through the
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                             35
     paperwork,  et cetera,  to either grant or deny a regular

     permit.   Congress is clear in its intent that it would

     like to  have the States take over the permitting and

4    enforcement parts of the Act or requirements of the Act

5    from EPA,  There is no requirement that the States do this.

     But Congress indicated very strongly that it provide this

     method.   If the State did not do it -- the permitting and

8    enforcement part — then the EPA must, in order to fulfill

'    the State Program.   The program would have to be equivalent

10    to the federal program , consistent with other State

II    programs which have been authorized, and must contain

12    adequate enforcement provisions.  Unfortuntely, Congress

13    never told us what "equivalent", "consistent", and

14    "adequate" were.  So these are definitions which we'll be

15    wrestling with over the next few months on which we'd like

     to have  your opinions.  We must set up guidelines to assist

'7    the State in setting up acceptable programs.

'8               Section 3010:  Within three months after we have

19    identified the criteria for what is and what is not a

20    hazardous waste, there is a requirement in the Act that all

21    generators, transporters, treaters, storers, or disposers

22    must notify EPA or the appropriate State that they do

23    handle hazardous wastes in some fashion.  This is a one-time

24    requirement.  It's likely to be a very simple requirement

25    in terms of the paperwork, and so forth, that will be
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             218 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH mill
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              36
 I    necessary,

 2               Congress has authorized $25 million for each

 3    of two years to assist the States in setting up hazardous

 4    waste and management programs.  They have not appropriated

 5    that amount, and as you heard before, we're not quite

 5    sure how much money will be appropriated for this.  There

 7    will almost certainly be some, but what the total  amount

 8    will be is unclear at this point.  We will be devising a

 9    formula which will be based on the amounts of hazardous

10    waste and on our estimates as to the extent of public

II    exposure  in the various States to these wastes and that

12    formula then will be used to  decide how much each  State

U    gets or what percentage.

j4               That's it in brief,

15               As I say, we would be very much  interested  in

15    having you comment to us on these issues or any others

17    that you may have as time goes along.  We really want  your

13    thoughts, and we will take every one of  them  to heart

19    and consider them.  I am here, then, to  receive  any

20    inputs, any suggestions, any  comments, or any  questions

2|    you may have.   I  see you've got  some  slips  of  paper.

22               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Before we  open  up  to general

23    questions,  I would  like  to  indicate  that we do have a

24    couple of individuals  that  indicate  they would like to

25    make  a statement  at this point  on  hazardous waste..
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             238 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                               37
 1               I will  ask you to come -up to the microphone

 2    to make the statements so that we can all hear well and

 3    the  gal can catch  everything that you have to say.

 4               First of all,  I'd like to call on LeGrand Jones.

 5               MR<  LeGRAND JONES:  LeGrand Jones with the

 5    "Utah Motor Transport Association,

 7               I guess like a lot of people here, in filling

 8    out  that form I checked everything to make sure I'd

 9    covered or protected myself, and I really did not intend

10    to make a formal statement.   But let me comment to a

II     couple  of items that Mr,  Lindsey has stated here.

12               In regard to the  storage and the packaging —

13     or you  alluded  to  specification of containers in the

14    transportation  process,  the  manifesting, and so on.  You

15     made the statement that you  must be consistent with the

K     Transportation  Act.  And I would like to add our amens to

17     that statement.

|g                As you  know,  we have many agencies that we must

19     deal with in the area of  transportation and storage, and

20     we have a proliferation of regulations to contend with, and

21     we certainly hope  that you will keep true to your statement,

22     and  in  fact be  consistent with the Transportation Act in

23     that regard.  And  I would just ask one other question in

24     closing:   For clarification  I ask that you restate your

25     position to make sure that I clearly understand.  Are we
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             126 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CJTY, UTAH 84:1)
                                531-1906

-------
                                                              38
    in fact dealing only with  commodities  that are defined as

 2   waste?  Or do you  see  the  possibility,  Mr. Lindsey,  that

 3   a corrosive  liquid, as an  example,  that is being

    transported  or stored  to be used in an end product

 5   or in a manufacturing  process,  that we could twist this

 6   definition and in  fact imply  that it comes under the Act,

    when it  is  not really or  is  not clearly in my opinion

    defined as a waste product.   Are we clearly dealing only

 9   witli waste products of hazardous commodities?

10              Thank you.

II              MR. LINDSEY:  Should I answer that now or do

12   y°u want  to  wait?

13              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   Yes,   Go ahead and respond

14   to that,  Fred.

15              MR. LINDSEY;  Fine.   As I say, the Act is -- I

16   think  I may  have  alluded  toward it, but not clearly — the

17   Act clearly  deals  with wastes.   Okay?  Now, we have to

18   define,  as  I think I  pointed out it's one of the problem

19   areas, when  is  a waste a  waste?  Now, we're not talking abou

20    intermediate products, intermediates that are shipped from

21   one plant to another  to be used as a product.  But there

22    is a  gray area  in there where materials which are truly

23   wastes  are  occasionally used for some minimal purpose, and

24    I think  I used  the example of perhaps using hazardous

25    chemicals,  which has  been done.  I have known examples of
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               39
 j   this as a way of wetting down roads -- dirt roads — or

 2   horse arenas or dusty areas, parking lots, and things  like

 3   that, which have then caused serious problems.  So we  have

 4   to consider, then, that there is this area where a product

 5   may have or a waste material may have some very minimal

 5   use or value and decide to come to some decision on this

 7   matter.  We haven't as yet tried to identify or come up

 g   with a. definition of what is a waste.  Okay?  So we have  to

 9   try and address that,

IQ              If you have some suggestions'on how we're going

II   to work that — we haven't gotten to that yet.  We're

12   thinking about it.  We would be interested in your

13   suggestions -- write to us and let us know.  But clearly

14   I think we are not talking about chemicals which are

15   intermediates for other products and things of that nature.

16              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Okay.  I'd also now like to

17   call on Lawrence Mills.

1g              MR. LAWRENCE MILLS:  My name is Lawrence Mills.

19   I am General Manager of the W. S. Hatch Company.

20              We are a trucking company, a common carrier of

2j   bulk commodities and tank trucks and using all other types

22   of units.  I also serve on the Executive Committee of

23   the Utah Motor Transport Association and the National  Tank

24   Truckers Association in Washington, D.C.

25              Well, our concern, of course companies like
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                             40
 1   ourselves, and of course ourselves, we'll be transporters

 2   of these hazardous wastes as soon as they are set up

 3   to transport to recycling plants or disposal areas or

 4   whatever.  And of course we're concerned primarily in that

 5   area today, although we have other concerns in residuals

 6   disposal of the material remaining in our tank after

 7   unloading, but that's not the problem I want to address

 8   right now.

 9              In the area of transportation, though, I might

10   point out in your hazardous materials management issues we

II   are concered with — at least I'll be talking on Subjects

12   8, 9, 10, and 13 -- as Mr, LeGrand Jones of the Utah Motor

13   Transport suggested, we're currently regulated in the

14   movement of hazardous materials and almost all products

15   that we transport or companies like us transport by both
16   the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Depart-
17   ment of Transportation, as well as by almost every State
18   regulatory agency we operate in throughout these United

19   States.  We would not like to have additional transportation

20   regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency if
21   current ICC or DOT regulations can be applied or modified

22   to apply to your requirements under this Act,  We, there-

23   fore, would like to encourage you to work with these

24   transportation regulatory agencies to see if something can't

25   be worked out to perhaps modify their regulations instead of
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                                531 1906

-------
                                                               41
 1    imposing an additional set of regulations on us through

 2    EPA.  And two examples of this in the area of No. 9

 3    on record, counting first, you mentioned trip tickets and

 4    transport manifests.  As a common carrier now, all

 5    common carriers are regulated through a bill of lading

 6    system.  We are required to have a bill of lading for

 7    everything we move under common carriage.  We would

 8    encourage the EPA to review these bill of lading require-

 9    ments under ICC and DOT regulations and see if this system

10    cannot be adopted for transportation of hazardous wastes,

U               The second under No. 8 on the reporting

12    requirements and recordkeeping, we now have to make

13    numerous records and reports to both the ICC, Federal

14    Department of Transportation, and various State regulatory

J5    agencies, and we have to maintain records in accordance

16    with these regulations, and we are wondering, also, if

17    it isn't possible to work within this framework instead of

18    requiring an additional set of recordkeeping through EPA.

19    We hope that you would work with the Interstate Commerce

20    Commission and the Department of Transportation and the

21    various State regulatory agencies to develop procedures and

22    guidelines in transporting of these wastes.

23               On Item No. 10 concerning container and labeling

24    requirements: drums, cargo tanks, and other specified

25    containers are now regulated by the Federal Department of
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             326 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                              42
 '    Transportation.   They have a very detailed set of specifica-

 2    tions and design requirements on what they consider hazard-

 3    OTIS materials,  I realize all hazardous wastes are not

 4    considered hazardous materials, but still, it would seem

 5    that that would be a good starting point, and if you could

 6    work with those regulations and specifications, I think

 7    you'd find the drums and cargo tanks and other containers

 8    can be fit within that framework or at least modified to

 9    fit within the framework.  The same thing with labeling.

10    A very extensive labeling system has been interstate for

II    years now and will go into effect July 1 of this year

12    on regulating all transportation of hazardous materials

13    such as flammables, corrosives, poisons, gases, and so on,

14    and we think that that is an area that you can work with

>5    DOT on.

16               And finally, on No. 13, the insurance require-

17    ments area:  In the transportation of hazardous substances

'8    we find that we're facing a higher and higher premium cost

19    in order to transport these.  And even that doesn't cover

20    all situations.  There are certain commodities that we now

21    transport that require even extra premium coverage due to

22    the nature of the risk involved in some of the products

23    moved; currently such things as LP gases, propane, butane,

24    hydroxylamine, and crude oil categories, to name just a few

25    of them.  Now, it's conceivable, of course, when we get to
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Will
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               43
...
     waste mixtures that are now being disposed of perhaps



     in a different manner than hauling to a treatment facility,



     or these wastes as you mentioned, sludges or some other



     mixture, could require an additional higher risk and,



     therefore,  your insurance would require a higher premium.



     So we would request consideration — of EPA considering



     assuming part of this risk on these extra types of



     hazardous wastes, because we are not sure that truckers



     or common carriers can afford to move this, and you would



     have a problem there for getting transportation if the
.     insurance was not available or of prohibitive cost.



                One last comment:  Mr. Jones brought up a



..    question on the movement of corrosive materials as a



     hazardous waste.  There is a product that come to mind, that



._    being the one of spunacid, which is sulfuric acid run



.,    through a petroleum refinery and that, of course, is a used
lo


     product,  the spunacid moved by our company and others



18    to other manufacturing facilities, and while it's moved



.„    in that course, we would hope it would not be defined as



.0    a waste substance, but only being moved to a treatment or



     disposal facility.



22               Thank you very much.



„               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Thank you, Mr. Mills.



                Fred, would you come back now.  We'll open to



25    general comments and questions and, hopefully, answers.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                            44
                MR. LINDSEY:  I'd just like to thank Mr. Mills

     for that statement.  Some of those comments can be helpful

     to us, and we will consider them fully.

                Are there any other questions or comments or

     suggestions that you might have, anyone?

                Yes, ma'am.

                MS. JUNE WrCKHAM;  June Wickham.  Will

     hazardous waste still be permitted at sanitary landfill

     sites?  And the second question:  What enforcement powers do

.    you have under this law for hazardous waste?

                MR. LINDSEY:  Okay.  Question No. 1:  Will

     hazardous waste still be permitted in routine disposal

..   at sanitary landfill sites?  The answer to that is yes,

     if the facility obtains a permit and if it then complies

     with all the requirements that we have as yet to set up unde

    Section 3004, that is, all the standards for such facilities;

..   otherwise, the answer is no.

                The second part of your question was -- I'm

,9   sorry?

20              MS. WICKHAM:  Enforcement.

                MR. LINDSEY:  What kind of enforcement authority

22   exists under the Act?  There's really three ways enforcement

23   can be carried out under the hazardous wastes provisions

     of the Act.  And one of the provisions is that EPA or the

25   authorized State has the authority to inspect, take samples,
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                              45
     and otherwise analyze whether a facility is meeting the

 2   requirements of its permit.  If it is not meeting the

 3   requirements of its permit, then there is a procedure

 4   within the Act which includes public hearings, et cetera,

 5   by which the permit can be revoked.  And without a permit,

 5   a facility cannot operate.

 7              Further, there is provision within the Act

     whereas the Government can take direct action against a --

     either criminal or a civil action — It's under Section

     3008,  I believe.  We have copies of the Act here, and you

     can look it up and read the actual wording for yourself —

12   under  Section 3008 where we can proceed with direct court

13   action in court to stop some specific problem from being

     perpetuated.  That's on a case-by-case basis.

15              Thirdly, there's the citizien's suit provision

16   which  provides that any citizen can go to court to force

I7   the compliance with the provisions of the Act, including

     the standards under Section 3004,  the standards for those

19   facilities.

20              That's the three ways.

21              MR. GREY:  There's also the imminent hazard.

22              MR. LINDSEY:  Oh,  yeah.  There's also the

     imminent hazard provision.  For those actions or those

24   situations where a hazard is imminent, a hazard to human

25   health is imminent, why, there are provisions to get a
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             2!B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
2
 3
 4
 5
 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                              46
direct injunction to prevent that happening.

           Val, what section is that?  Seven  thousand  •—

           MR. GREY:  7003.

           MR. LINDSEY:  7003 of the Act.

           Any other questions, please?

           Yes?

           MR. JOHN WEBER:  Yes.  John Weber,  Stauffer

Chemical.

           You have a very  short time in  which you have

to publish these regulations.  What are your  plans for

public review of the criteria you set up  before they are

promulgated?

           MR. LINDSEY:  Okay.  Let me address that whole

procedure, if I might, because that may be of interest

to a lot of people.  As was pointed out a little earlier,

we decided to go about the  regulation writing procedure

a little differently this time, and we decided to come to

the public first and say, "Okay.  Here's  what we have to

do.  How do you see us carrying this out  and what do you

see the final product  including or  consisting of?"  That's

what we're about now.  There  are, as was  pointed out,  a

number of meetings  such as  this being held around the countr

to explain the Act  and try  and generate  interest to the

point of receiving  that kind  of  information.   We're also

holding different types of  meetings,  including one-on-one
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              47
     meetings with public interest groups, with various  firms,

 2    with trade organizations, with college professors,  and

 3    with anybody we know that has a specific expertise  that

 4    we're interested in, in order to gain data, identify

 5    alternatives, and things of this nature.  Then there have

 5    been a few and will be a great many more what we call

 7    round-table discussions or small group meetings to  which

     we invite people representing all different interests

 9    relative to hazardous waste, including public interest

10    groups, including industrial organizations, and including

     probably unions and other interested groups and people

12    that we know, again, who have experience or have expertise

     in a given area, and we will invite them to sit down with

14    us to discuss a specific problem, perhaps, how can  we get

     control air pollution from such facilities, for example?

     We'll have those people in and we'll sit down and discuss

17    all the alternatives.  Once having received, then,  all this

     public input, public suggestions from the various publics, w

     will then put it all together, weigh it, and analyze it,

     using contractors to assist us in some cases, and we will

     then come up with a draft.  That draft will be submitted

22    throughout our agency for comment by other parts of the

23    agency who have interest and experience in this area, and

24    it will be submitted to groups of outside reviewers — again

25    those same types of people who have expertise and interests
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              48
     in  these  areas,  for  comment,  and then we'll review it and

     we'll go  forward ultimately with the notice of proposed

 3    rule-making.  Now, the  notice of proposed rule-making is

 4    a draft set of regulations.  And there'll be a formal

     comment period and there'll be public hearings on that,

     at  which  time there'll  be  again more time for the public

     to  input  into this whole thing.   And then after that's all

     done, then we'll revise it again,  based on the input, and

 „    go  on with the final regulations.

...              There is  one other thing  I might mention,  and

     that is something called Advance Notice of Proposed

     Rule-Making, which is typically a notice that EPA is

     starting  work on certain areas,  and  in this case, we're

     going to  be including -- they're not yet issued — but we

     will be including in the hazardous wastes area, at least,

     a significant list of issues,  perhaps some of the ones

     which are on these sheets  which you  have already seen.

.„    Again, these will be published,  and  there will be an  open

     period in the hopes,  again, of gaining public input,  and

     this will be done rather soon.

               That's basically it.

               Yes,  sir.  Next, please.

               MR. DUANE WHITING:   Duane Whiting, Ford Bacon &

,.    Davis  Utah, Inc. W-h-i-t-i-n-g.

25              Along the same  lines that Mr. Mills was
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1904

-------
                                                              49
     discussing on this proposal from the storage point of view,
     what attempt is your agency making to coordinate the
     effect of the regulations that you're proposing or that
     you will be setting, based on several other laws which
     are already in existence or are now being proposed.  To
     ray knowledge there are about six that would have some
 o
     conflict.  The Guidelines for Mining and Milling, Toxic
     Substances Act, Toxic Guidelines under 301 and 304, Safe
 8
     Drinking Water Act,  Sections 208 and 404 of the Federal
     Water Pollution Control Act.  All of these have provisions
10
     in them for either ground water or surface water control.
                MR. LINDSEY:  Yeah.  You're addressing the whole
     question of whether there's overlap between various Acts,
     and to some extent there is some overlap; it's almost
     unavoidable in the sense that Congress passes these things
     piecemeal.  However, the overlap is not, as we see it,
     great.  But there is the definite need for coordination, and
     I'll be interested in turning over to the people who are
I O
     dealing with the storage provisions of the Act your comments
     as to where you saw the conflict being, to make sure we
     do in fact address that,
                MR. LEHR:  If I may comment here a little bit
    before you leave that point.  We are very concerned that
     there be as little overlaps as possible and can benefit
     from anybody's regulations, like those of the ICC.   I
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                            328 JUDGE BUILDING
                          SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                              50
1   found Mr. Mills' comments very helpful.   But in the copy of

2   the Act that you picked tip  in the  back.  Section 1006

    specifically instructs EPA  to make sure  that it doesn't

4   overlap and that it uses all of  the authorities in the

5   other Acts wherever possible and uses  authorities and

    procedures and what not from other agencies that may

    have regulations that pertain.   It very  clearly instructs

    EPA to keep its Act out of  anybody else's wherever possible.

    So I tRinJc that concern will be  taken  care of.   It certainly

10   is our intent to do so.  That is an excellent point.

               MR. LINDSEY:  Let me  say how  that is carried out

12   in the way in which we put  together regulations.  When we

13   first sit down to  put together regulations, the agency forms

    what is called a work group.  That work  group,  then, is

,s   made up of not only people  from  the lead office — in our

    case the Office of Solid Waste  —  but  also people from all

17   of the other major offices  in EPA  — which in this case

|g   includes the Office of Toxic Substances, the Air Pollution

19   Guidelines Division, the Office  of Water Planning Standards,

20   the Office of Air  Quality  Planning Standards, and all of

2|   the others whose area of concern or whose expertise in terms

22   of having put together a permanent Act like this before

23   can be brought to  bear so  that we  do two things:  No. 1,

24  insure that there  is no overlap  with other EPA type

25  environmental regulations,  and  (21 that we get the benefit
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                                51
     of their experience, things not to do as well as to do,

     in proceeding down this path,  I might also point  out

     in reference to Mr. Mills' questions that the Department

     of Transportation — I can't remember the name of  the

     division — but the division that deals with hazardous

     materials transport is serving as an advisory on the

     work group for the Transportation Committee.  So this has

     been a big help to us in the early stages of this  whole thinj

                Yes, sir.

                MR. YUKUS INOUYE:  Mr, Inouye again.  What

     happens with the input that you give when the attorneys

.-   get ahold of it and make the law, what happens?  I under-

     stand that when the attorneys, get ahold of it, a lot of

     the information that is given, they say it's unconstitu-

.r   tional, it's this, and it's that, and it's changed quite

16
.,              MR. LEHR:  Sometimes that happens.

18              MR. LINDSEY:  Attorneys do have a whack at this,

     because we don't write — as engineers and economists and

20   all " apparently well enough to suit them or whatever the

     reason may be.  But there are attorneys on the working

22   groups — the working groups that I mentioned — so we

     try to minimize the amount of that as we go along  by having

     input from the attorneys -- in our case, the Office of

25   General Counsel — as we proceed.  But in the end, once the
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531-1906

-------
                                                               52
 1    language is written, the decisions are made,  and  then  the

 2    language is written by us and  approved by  the working

 3    group, then the attorneys will add their input to that.

 4    I hope that we — we will certainly  insist that insofar

 5    as possible the intent or meaning of what  it  is we're

 6    trying to do will not be altered substantially unless, as

 7    pointed out, it becomes clear  from the attorneys  in the

 8    Office of General Counsel that it's  not legal or  not

 9    possible to do it that way.

ig               Do you have any comments  in addition to that?

jl               MR. LOWE:  I've heard a number  of  comments  just

12    like that, that EPA's regulations which are written -- the

13    final writing that is done by  lawyers -- are  written

,4    partially to keep EPA out of Court and to  make it easier

15    for the EPA lawyers, and that  sometimes makes it  mores

]6    difficult for those who are trying to implement those

]7    regulations.  That's a systemic problem within EPA, and

13    your bringing it to Fred's attention I think  will help

19    at least to make us aware of that problem.  I don't know  if

20    we can change it, though.  If  you're concerned about that,

2j    which I hope you are, it would be worthwhile  bringing  that

22    to the attention of the proper people through the proper

2j    channels.  The proper people would be the  top administration

24    of EPA, and the proper channels would be your representative

25    in Washingtoni the National Association of Counties, your
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               53
     Congressional delegation, that kind of people.


                MR, LEHR;  The lawyers try to make things as


     clear as possible,  but all of the panel members, since


     none of us are lawyers, can commiserate with them.  They


     have something to worry about.


 ,              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   Nor is it particularly
 o

     necessary to come to their defense.


                Are there other questions?
 8

                MR. PETER POLETTO;  Peter Poletto with the


     Syonting Sweetwater  County Priority Board.
10

                And the  question I have is one thing I guess


     you'll be doing under this Act is defining exactly what is


     a  hazardous waste.   I don't know if this has been done in
13

     all  cases.   But once you define what are hazardous wastes,


     will this be recognized by all other federal agencies?


                The reason I bring up this point is because up
16

     in Sweetwater County, the County, together with some other


     local  governments,  has leased land from the BLM, Bureau of


     Land Management,  for a sanitary landfill site, and I guess


     one  of the  provisions of the  lease — the leas,* agreement


     is for 25 years •—  is that the site will handle no hazardous


     wastes.   Now,  I don't know.   It's not clear to me what is th'


     whole  scope or spectrum of hazardous waste, and if EPA


     defines  a thing as  a hazardous waste or not a hazardous


     waste, will the BLM recognize this?
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Will

                                531 1906

-------
                                                              54
 .               MR.  LINDSEY;   The answer to the question is, yes,



     this is a federal law set up by Congress that we do identify



 ,    what is a hazardous waste, so that in the sense that we



 4    are talking about it here — the treatment, storage, and



 -    disposal of these wastes -- that will carry the weight of



 *    law, and all parts of the federal government will have to



 7    accept that.



                MR.  POLETTO:   There won't be any haggling between
 O


 „    you and the Bureau of Land Management?



                MR.  LINDSEY:   Not after we have promulgated



     the standards.   There may be some haggling, but —



                MR.  LEHR:  Not any more than usual.



                MR.  LINDSEY;   — it should be relatively easy



     to square away.  It's pretty plain.  It's pretty clear.



     There is not a lot of ambiguity in the Act.



                MR.  POLETTO:   Okay.
16


._               MR.  LINDSEY:   Are there any other questions?



,g               Yes, sir.



)9               MR.  ALTON HUFFAKER:  Alton Huffaker  from



20    Kennecott Copper.



                Does the Act provide an avenue  for recourse in



     the event that a permit is  denied?



                MR. LINDSEY:   Yes.  There would  always  be  — You



.    mean  if  somebody comes  in for  a permit  to  dispose  and



--    a  permit is not granted,  would they have  avenue of recourse
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING


                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111

                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              55
 .    Yes.   They could take it to the courts.  There would be no



     reason why they could not take it to the courts.  I would



 .    assume the plea could be made on many grounds: that we did



     not meet the requirements of the Act, that we had been



     arbitrary or capricious, or whatever.  As I say, I am not



 -    a lawyer, so the enforcement end of it is a little out of



 .    my line, but there would always be that recourse.  Of



 „    course, there would be the recourse of petitioning the EPA
 o


     for a review and things of that nature, as well.  There



     will  probably be the provision set up for compliance



     schedules.  Okay.  So if a permit is denied or if it is



     granted with certain stipulations, that might include a



     compliance schedule approach.



                MR. LEHR:  Section 7006 touches on that a little



     bit.   But I am sure there will be adequate review provisions



,,               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Yes, ma'am.
ID


]?               MS. EMILY HALL:  Emily Hall.  Is there anything



. -    new in this Act which will help us cope with long-standing



 „    pollution problems of hazardous nature, such as vitriol
20
     tailings.   We can't seem to get any action.  We feel it's
 .    a_federal problem to be shared with the State, but nothing



     is going.



 3               MR.  LINDSEY:  There is a provision in the Act.



 .    There is no provision for a grandfather clause.  We're



-.    talking about action which exists from here on.  The example
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING


                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8<111

                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              56
     disposal facility which does not meet the standards, for



     example, that we come up with, that disposal facility will



     have to be closed, but there is no requirement in there or



     no provision in there that we are able to make anyone do
3



4



5


    under the imminent hazard provision, whether or not that
o
     anything about that.  It's not clear to me, however,



     under the imminent hazard prov:



   might apply.  I just don't know.
 8



 9




10



11




12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22




23



24




25
7


               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  I might just make the comment



    relative to the vitriol tailings problem, I am sure you are



    aware that there is a study going on now that the EPA and



    the Energy Research and Development Administration are



    jointly working on through Ford Bacon & Davis Utah.  It



    our hope that with the results of this study, which is



    one of the noxious piles being studied — one of eighteen,



    something like that — is vitriol pile.   We're hopeful that



    Congress will see fit to appropriate dollars to actually



    carry out the recommendations of those studies.  So in that



    particular case there is some action, albeit a slow moving



    in the direction of control of that problem.



               Okay.  At this point I'd like to suggest we take



    a short break.  I'd like to suggest that it be very short,



    however, say five or ten minutes.  I'll encourage you not



    go off too far away, and we will call you back in a short



    time.



               CShort recess. 1
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING


                             128 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                                57
  I               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   At this point we'll move into

 2    the  land  disposal area,  and I'll introduce Bruce Weddle to

 3    you.

 4               MR.  BRUCE R.  WEDDLE:   Before starting today, I'd

 5    like  to express my appreciation  for the good turnout today

 6    and  to say that I've been delighted with the questions that

 7    we've been receiving.  They're some of the better questions

 g    that  we've received in any of the public meetings.  I hope

 9    it continues  through the rest of the morning.

ig               I'd  also like to mention about the Administrator

II    and  the Deputy  Administrator  of  EPA to those of you who

12    may  not be aware,  Doug Costle and Barbara Blum passed

l>    through the Senate confirmation  hearings with flying

14    colors Wednesday and a vote of nine to nothing in their

IS    favor took place on that date.  The expectations are that

IG    the  full  Senate will act on their confirmations either

17    Monday or Tuesday of next week.   Hopefully that is the case

Ig               After hearing about the hazardous waste provisions

19    I'd like  to shift gears  and talk about the land disposal

20    provisions of that legislation,  particularly in the

2i     nonhazardous waste area.  In  this area the Act contains

22    important new requirements for the Administrator of EPA.

23    He must promulgate regulations containing criteria

24    for determining which facilities shall be classified as

25    sanitary  landfills and which  shall be classified as open
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                              58
 I   dumps.   I'd  like  to  note  right  here  that there'll  be two

 2   types of disposal which especially serve the public, and

    these are an open dump or a  sanitary landfill.   The

    Administrator is  required to publish an inventory  of all

    disposal facilities  or sites in the  United States  which

    are  open dumps, and  he is also  required to publish solid

    waste management  guidelines, including resource recovery,

    and  a description of the  levels of performance  required to

    protect ground water from land  disposal.  The implications

.-   of these guidelines  and the  criteria to State and  local

..   government will be the discussion of my later presentation.

.               During this half  hour I'd like to focus on

„   Sections 4004 of  the Act  and 1008 of the Act.  This legis-

..   lation  offers broader definitions to traditional terms such

    as  "open dumps"  and "sanitary landfills".  These will be

„   distinguished by  the criteria promulgated under Section 4004

J7   which  I'll talk  about shortly.   There are several new

]8   definitions that  I'd like to emphasize.  The first of these

19    is definition of  "disposal".  "Disposal" now means the

20   discharge, deposit,  injection,  dumping, spilling,  leaking,

     or  placing of any solid  waste or hazardous waste into or

22    on  —  let's underline those words "into or on" because it

    means  both surface disposal as well as  subsurface disposal

     on land or water, so that such solid waste or hazardous

25    waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 (90S

-------
                                                                59
  1              The  term "solid  waste"  has  also been signifi-

  2   cantly  broadened.   "Solid waste" means any garbage,  refuse,

  3   sludge  from  a municipal  waste  water treatment plant,  a

  4   water supply treatment plant,  an  industrial treatment plant,

  5   an air  pollution control facility,  et  cetera.  This  includes

  6   both solid,  liquid,  semisolid,  or  containing gaseous

  7   materials  resulting from industrial, commercial,  mining,

  8   and agricultural operations.   However, it specifically ex-

  '   eludes  dissolved materials  in  domestic sewage,  or solid or

 10   dissolved  materials in irrigation  return flows,  or indus-

 11   trial discharges which are  subject to  the permit system of

 12   Section 4002 in the Federal Water  Pollution Control  Act.

 13   It also excludes special nuclear waste or by-product materiajl

 H   as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

 15              As I said earlier,  the  definitions of "sanitary

 16   landfill"  and "open dumps"  refer  to Section 4004 of  the

 17   legislation. This  section  requires the Administrator to

 18   promulgate regulations containing  criteria for determining

 1'   which facility  shall be  classified as  "open dumps" and which

20   shall be classified as "sanitary  landfills".  These  criteria

21   are due withine one year, or October 1977.  Again, these

22   criteria will state what is an open dump.  Everything else

23   will be a  sanitary  landfill.   I'd  like to clarify that a

24   bit.  It is  not our intention  to  tell  you what you can do.

25   We will tell you, rather, what you cannot do.  It is
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             328 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 8*111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                              60
I    important in the intent of Congress that we should not

2    tell you how to manage your waste, but, rather, to tell you

3    what you can't do.  It may seem like a play on words, but

4    it is a significant difference at the local level.

5               State plans are required under Section 4004 Cb}

5    to prohibit open dumps and require all disposal to be a

7    sanitary landfill.  Using criteria developed in 4004, the

3    State will conduct an inventory of all open dumps.  This

9    inventory will begin in October of this year and end in

10    September of 1978.  EPA will then publish a list of all

II    sites in the country that are open dumps.  Any site

12    contained on this list must either be closed or converted

13    to sanitary landfill within five years.  This section

14    also contains another interesting provision which gives

15    the local citizen groups and other interested parties

16    quite a bit of leverage on State planning.  And that is

17    the citizen suite provision.  Any site that is an open dump

18    that is not contained in the State plan is liable to citizei

19    suit for closure.  The expenses of such litigation will be

20    born by the operator of that site.  However, that site can

2|    obtain immunity from prosecution if it has two things:

22   CD it must be listed on the inventory of open dumps and

23   f2f it must be listed in an EPA approved State Plan.  So

24   there will be a lot of pressure upon the State to obtain EP,

25   approval of their plans, for without that approval of  the
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                              22B JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mill
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              61
  I    site  that is an open dump within that State is subject

  2    to  prosecution under federal law in jrederal court for

  3    closure.   That's important;  it's the federal court, and I

  4    suspect that federal judges  will be somewhat less sympa-

  5    thetic to local problems  than State or local courts have

  6    been  in the  past.   So this citizen supervision is a strong

  7    provision and will  have great impact on State planning.

  8              In the State plan, every site that is an open

  9    dump  must either have a closure plan or a plan to upgrade

10    to  a  sanitary landfill  within five years.

11              I would  like to move now quickly to Section 1008

12    of  the legislation.   This section requires the Administra-

13    tor to publish within one year guidelines that provide a

14    technical and economic  description of the level of

15    performance  that can be obtained by available solid waste

16    management practices.   And I'd like to underline the word

17    "available",

18              In two years those guidelines shall describe

19    levels of performance,  including appropriate methods and

20    degrees of control  that provide at a minimum for protection

21    of  public health and welfare.  These guidelines must also

22    provide for  the protection of the quality of ground waters

23    and surface  waters  from leachates and protection of

24    quality surface waters  from  runoff and protection of ambient

25    air quality.   They must also provide for disease and vector
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 64111
                                531-1906

-------
2
3
5
6
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

 25
                                                              62
control and safety control and esthetics.

           Under this section the agency currently  intends

to update its existing sanitary landfill guidelines  and

to implement municipal sewage sludge disposal and utiliza-

tion guidelines.

           To summarize what I have said, Section 4004

establishes criteria for determining if a site  is an open

dump or a sanitary landfill.  This raises several jtey

questions, particularly in the groundwater  area.  Since

we're talking about protection of public health, does this

jection require zero discharge to all  groundwater?   In

other words, would all sites have to be lined,  or only

these that have to be collected and treated?  Does  the

agency haye the latitude to classify aquifers or do the

States have the latitude to classify groundwater.   By that  I

mean can we classify some groundwater  that  must be  protected

at all cost or should we allow contamination of existing

groundwater that perhaps is already contaminated from natura
sources?
           The  scope  of  these  guidelines is another issue
we're facing.   Should  these  guidelines include agricultural

waste, municipal sludge; should  it just be limited to muni-

cipal solid waste?

           I encourage any questions or comments you have on

the  scope  of these  criteria.
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              63
 1              Section 1008 is tied directly to the criteria

 2   in that they will provide the advice on how communities

 3   can implement alternatives and environmentally acceptable

 4   methods for waste management.

 5              Essentially, 4004 will tell you what you can't

 6   do and 1008 will tell you alternative ways on how you can

 7   do it.  These guidelines will be mandatory on a federal

 8   facility and on local implementation grantees under

 9   Section 4008Cal f2{CAI and they will simply be advisory

10   to State and local governments.

11              I would like to entertain any questions at this

12   time.

13              MR. J. DEWELL:  I'm J. Dewell, Phillips Petroleum

14   Company.  One technique used for disposing of sludge oils

15   is a thing that's called land farming sometimes.  If you're

16   familiar with it, I won't go on from there.  How would this

17   definition of an open dump take into account these land

18   farms  where they are well run.  I think there are some

19   problems with some people's operation of land farms, but thei

20   are some well run ones that I know of.  How would that be

21    rectified with fuel sludge dumpers and landfill?

22              MR. WEDDLE:  Okay.  If you'll permit me I

23   could  draw a parallel to municipal sludge in farming.  It's

24   the same thing.  It's a different material and it may be

25   known  to more people in the room.  Both land farming tech-

     niques can have a beneficial use, depending upon the quality
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              64
     of the material being spread on agricultural land or

     on land, even.  The question you raise brings the issue

     to the forefront.  Can certain practices be excluded from

     the criteria?  For example, if you place waste oil or

     municipal sludge on agricultural land in agronomic rates

     in such a way that you will not detrimentally affect the

     environment, that shouldn't be called disposal and perhaps

     could be excluded from the definition.  If that is the

     case, EPA in all likelihood would probably define what

10   is acceptable practice.  If your practice would happen to

     meet those criteria, it would be excluded.  On the other

12   hand, if you did not meet those criteria, you would fall

     underneath the 4004 criteria.  You would either hcive to

14   upgrade or close such practice.  I don't know if I

     answered your question or not.  We're certainly going to

]6   address it.  But it's much too early for me to indicate

17   which way we'd go.

18              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Any other questions?

19              MR. JOHN WEBER:  John Weber, Stauffer Chemical.

20   What do you do with an existing dump once you close it?

2i   Do you have certain protections that you have to provide

22       that facility or do you just close it and forget about  i

23              MR. WEDDLE:  Unfortunately there is less

24   contained in the Act for nonhazardous waste disposal sites

25   than there is for hazardous waste disposal sites.  Federal
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mill
                                 531 1M6

-------
                                                               65
     control over land disposal of nonhazardous wastes  is


 2   minimal at best.  The Congress  intended  for  the  State


 3   programs to assume nonhazardous waste enforcement  permitting


     cpabilities, so retrofitting of old sites, prevention  of


     continued damage from old sites that have been closed,


     really aren't at rest, other than perhaps the imminent


     hazard section of the legislation.  That's an issue that


 g   the States are going to have to wrestle  with, and  I am not


 9   sure what we will do about it or what we will recommend.


     It's possible we may promulgate guidelines under 1008  that


     suggest alternative ways to close old dumps  to minimize any


l_   further environmental degradation.


,3              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Any further questions or


     comments?


                MR. ROGER STEAD:  Roger Stead, Department of


     Environmental Protection, South Dakota.  I was just wonder-


     ing, is there any chance that communities or people would be


     exempted from this Act or there is a possibility that


     burning for volume reduction would be allowed in smaller


20   communities?


                MR. WEDDLE:  There are two questions.   Let  me


22   handle the latter one first.  Would open burning,  say,  in


     small communities be exempted?  My best  guess is that  they


24   would not be exempted from the criteria.


25              MR. STEAD:  Why I ask that, there are two bills


     in the legislature right now addressing  this issue, and I





                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                              66
 1    think both of them will pass, allowing for open burning

 2    in South Dakota.

 3               MR. WEDDLE:  If the Governor doesn't veto it as

 4    he has in the past.

 5               MR. STEAD:  He vetoed it last year, but  it

 6    looks like we're going to be able to override him this

 7    year.

 8               MR. WEDDLE:  Okay.  I have visions of several

 9    scenarios:  One could be a legal battle with EPA within

10    the State.  One of the problems that would raise is that

II    it is possible that the Regional Administrator of EPA

12    in Washington would not approve a State plan that permitted

13    open burning.  If it did not approve such a State plan,

14    every site within the State that was an open dump would

IS    then be subject to citizen suit.

16               I'm not sure that the site operators in  the

17    State of South Dakota wouldn't apply enough political

18    pressure upon the legislature to overturn such an

19    eventuality.

20               That's a scenario that may or may not happen,  but

21    it's possible under this legislation.

22               Jon, would you like to add anything to  that.

23    You're much more familiar with South Dakota than I  am.   I

24    may have been totally off base.  I am not sure.

25               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  No, I think your comment,
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             23fl JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1706

-------
                                                               67
 1   Bruce is right.   I don't  really have  a  whole  lot to add.

 2   This has been a recurring problem  in  South Dakota,  as

 3   Roger mentioned.   I will  make  the  point a little differentl

 4   that you made:  The definition of  "sanitary landfill" for

 5   rural communities is  to be made and there's not a firm

 6   decision made yet.  However, in the past, historically,

 ^   sanitary landfilling  has  not included open burning, it's

 8   very adamantly prohibited, and I think  it's reasonable to

 9   assume  that will  continue.  On the other hand,  I will say

10   that with caution in  that that decision has not yet been

11   cast in bronze, if you want to put it that way.  Hopefully

12   we won't have to  sue  you,  though,  Roger.

13              MR, STEAD:  Is it reasonable to assume that

14   there will be different classes of landfills,  perhaps, for

15   cover daily, for  example  --

16              MR. WEDDLE:  That's a hard question.

17              MR, STEAD:  — for  smaller communities?

18              MR. WEDDLE:  I can't say it's reasonable to

19   assume.  That's one of the questions  that came up in

20   Denver  yesterday,  and we  will  give serious consideration  to

21    varying operational procedures based  on the size of the

22   community.  We fully  recognize and Jack Green in Region 8

23   recognizes the cost of sanitary landfill in rural communi-

24   ties, isolated communities, may be beyond what the  citizenry

25   can or  should have to bear.  So I  can't say.   It's  likely
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mil)
                                 531-1906

-------
                                                               68
 1    there will be classifications, but it's something we will

 2    be wrestling with and giving serious consideration  to.

 3               CHAIRMAN YBAGLEY:  Let me make a further comment

     on that, Roger, to you directly, and to everyone in the

     room here.  The definition of "sanitary landfill",  as  I

     mentioned, is in the development stage.  I would encourage

     any and all of you to supply your input in writing,

     particularly if you have an issue such as this one  relating

     to rural communities and the financial burden on a  rural

     community to come up with a system that allows for  daily

..    cover and no burning and et cetera, et cetera, making  very

.,    sure that you point out these kinds of issues and reinforce

„    them so that we can consider that sort of a thing and  have

     the benefit of your comments to do that.

I;               Having said that, I will repeat that I would

     appreciate receiving those comments.  My return address  is

     on the program.  My name is Jon Yeagley.  Keep those cards

     and letters coming.  I'd be very much interested in hearing

19    from you in writing to emphasize the comments that  we  are

20    hearing now.

                MR. WEDDLE:  Did we answer all your questions?

                MR. STEAD:  Are we going to get into the planning

23    at all?

                MR. WEDDLE:  That will be the subject of my

25    presentation to follow  the resource recovery presentation.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531-1906

-------
                                                               69
  ,              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

  2              We will proceed into resource and recovery  and

     I will call Bob Lowe.  We will be getting back to Bruce  for

     those of you who do have concerns on the State planning  and

     the scenarios involved there.

                MR. ROBERT A. LOWE:  I am going to deal with  the

     sections of the Act that addresses ways to reduce the  amount

  g   of waste that has to go through disposal.  There are two

  9   approaches to this:  one is waste reduction, and the other

...   is recycling or resource recovery.

I.              Waste reduction, for those of you who are not

     familiar with that term, means taking certain measures such

  .   as  reusing products or using less material per product  or

     using products for a longer period of time and not replacing

.,   them indiscriminately.  Those are methods of waste reduction

                Before I go into discussing the provisions of the

     Act which are indicated on the slide that address resource

jo   conservation and resource recovery, I am obligated to repeat

     what's been mentioned earlier and that is the fact we have

2Q   very little funds and a small staff to implement these

     sections of the Act,  so a lot of these sections will either

22   go unimplemented or unfunded where others will be funded or

     implemented at a very low level of effort.  But we do have

     certain authorities now that we didn't have before; certain

25   authorities we had before in general terms we now have in
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             136 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mill
                                531-1904

-------
                                                              70
     specific terms,  and therefore, the channel is open to

 2    doing work that we couldn't do before, and all we need is

 3    the money.  I must also point out that the funding issue

     and the staffing issue applies to the entire Solid Waste

     Office and, therefore, priorities have to come into place.

     At the time priorities were given primarily to Subtitles

     C and B and the landfill criteria definitions, and so on.

 g    The reason for this is that those sections of the Act have

 9    definite and specific deadlines and the resource conserva-

...    tion and recovery sections of the Act do not have such

..    specific deadlines, and for that reason, when it comes time

j    to cut it, the decisions have been made to give greater

     emphasis to the areas with specific mandates and deadlines.

     I am not particularly happy with that, but it's a fact that

     we all have to live with at the moment.

                Now, my concern is that the resource conservation

17    and recovery portions of the Act are not weakened to the

     point where they're so ineffective that they can't be

     effective in the future.  I don't think that any regulatory

2Q    program can be effective without providing for alternatives

     to land disposal.

22               Well, having given a little philosophy beyond  my

23    boundaries, maybe I'll go right into  the text of my  talk.

                Resource recovery and resource conservation are

25    provided  for in  the following sections of the Act:
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             236 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 S3!-1906

-------
                                                               71
 1               We are authorized to write guidelines under

 2    Section 1008.  We have already written some guidelines

 3    tinder the previous legislation.  Those will be reissued.

 4    I don't contemplate writing additional ones now, at  least

 5    in the area of resource conservation and resource recovery.

 6               The new Act creates resource recovery and

 7    conservation panels to provide technical assistance

 g    as the Government charted out for you in information and

 9    advice.  And I'll discuss those panels in a little more

10    detail in a moment.

U               Subtitle D which provides procedures and

12    authorization for funding of State programs and local

13    programs and projects requires that recourse recovery and

14    resource  conservation be considered.  And I can go  into

15    that in response to your questions, if you want, but

15    Bruce Weddle is going to discuss that in greater detail

]7    when I am finished.

IS               Section 8003 — and I use these section numbers

19    for those of you who are bureaucratically inclined and not

20    used to dealing in concepts and ideas.  A good bureaucrat

2i    can go through an entire day speaking in numbers,

22    abbreviations, and acronyms, without saying a full word

23    of more than one syllable.  We place great emphasis  on

24    developing information and on disseminating it to people

25    who can use it.  We put great emphasis on that in the past,
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              72
 ,    and,  as Val indicated,  we'll continue to put great emphasis

 ,    on that.  The demonstrations up here mentioned under

     Section 8004, I'd like to just briefly discuss all of the

     sections under Subtitle H, which is all of the 8000 series.

     Sections 8002, '4,  '5,  and '6 call for a wide variety of

     studies and demonstrations and evaluations.  We have done

     such things in the past and we will continue to do such

     things in the future as our resources allow.

                One thing I might point out here under demonstra-

     tions is, in the past we have been authorized to award

..    demonstration grants to State and local governments.  Now

     we're empowered to conduct demonstrations through a contract

     mechanism where we can deal directly with a private company.

     And that's where some of our demonstration projects have

     failed or at least have been inadequate in the past.  One

.f    of the problems has been that we have been forced to deal

     through a public sector body of the city, which is not

     equipped and not set up to do research and development.

     We think we can do it quicker and better in some situations

     with a contract with a company.  I am speaking primarily of

     hardware demonstrations.  There are other kinds of

22    demonstrations, demonstrations of innovative planning

„    procedures, human procedures, things like that, which of

     course we have to do, and it would be preferable to do

25    through a public company.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                               73
                 Section 8002,  just as an example of some of the

 2    studies  that are being more called for under the Act,  I'd

 3    like  to  emphasize a couple of them on here, and that is the

      small scale,  low technology,  and front-end separation  areas.

      These refer to  source  separation and separation collection.

      For those  of  you who are  unfamiliar with that term, "source

      separation" refers to  a recycling procedure where the

      generator  of  the waste, either the householder or office

      building occupant,  or  commercial establishment segregates

      recyclable materials,  like paper,  and keep it segregated

      through  separation collection all the way back to the

      consumer,  like  the paper  companies do.  And we have been

      placing  additional emphasis on this,  gradually increasing

      emphasis over the last few years,  and the emphasis will

      continue to increase.

                 Section 8002 Cj!  calls for  the establishment

17    of a  Resource Conservation Committee.   The purpose of  this

18    committee,  which is  a  cabinet level committee,  is to

      investigate and  report to  the Congress on various incentives

2Q    or disincentives that  could be applied to increased recy-

21     ding  and  to reduce  consumption of materials;  in other words

22    to conserve resources,  to  examine  existing public policies,

      such  as  depletion allowances,  and  to  do a few other things

24    that  are listed  on the slide.

25               The way Congress handled this issue is both good
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B*lll
                                531 1906

-------
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                             74
and bad >— for those of you who would have liked to have seen

Congress take action and implement specific actions now

instead of by calling for a study that effectively delays

any action until the studies are complete, which could be

three years from now.  On the other hand, it did specifi-

cally recognize and give priority to, some signifiance to,

these kinds of issues.  And, more significantly, I think the

creation of a cabinet level committee is a very significant

thing.  Waste utilization and materials utilization in

general has been studied for or five times since about 1950.

But previously it's been only through special  study commis-

sions created outside of the administration.   This is the

first time such a committee on such a study has been

authorized within the administration at the cabinet level.

And I think that because of that the recommendations that

this committee comes up with are more likely to be imple-

mented, especially because the administration is new and

will be in office when the studies are completed and will

therefore be in a position to recommend action where called
for.
            I  find  it  interesting  and,  for  those of you who
are interested  in how Washington  politics  works,  the. committe

is composed of  many high  level  people:  the Secretary  of Labor

the Secretary of Commerce,  the  Administrator of EPA,  the

Chairman  of the Council of  Environmental Quality, a represen-

tative  of the Office Of President's  Management and Budget,
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               75
 1   which should give you an  indication of  the relative  power

 2   in Washington, that the community representative  of  the

 i   Office of Management and  Budget  is equal  to  the Secretary

 4   of Labor or the Secretary of Commerce.  That's a  fact  of

 5   life that we have to deal with.

 6              Now, getting on to the resource recovery panels.

 7   The purpose of these panels is to provide technical  assis-

 8   tance to help meet the objectives of  this Act, to help

 9   States design and implement regulatory  programs,  both

10   for hazardous wastes and  other wastes,  and to help the

11   States and the local governments develop  alternatives  for

12   land disposal, such as resource  recovery  programs, source

13   separation programs, and  resource conservation programs.

14   The term  is misleading,  the "resource  recovery and

15   conservation panels"term  is misleading, I believe, in  two

16   ways:  First of all, it's not limited to  resource recovery

17   and resource conservation.  It extends  to all areas  of

18   solid waste management, including hazardous  waste management

19   And the second point is that the word "panels" implies

20   something a little bit different from the way I interpret

21    this.  "Panels" implies that a fixed  unit of individuals,

22   let's say four people, who will  meet  as a unit and travel

23   as a unit and, when called by Salt Lake City, let's  say, thejy

24   travel to Salt Lake City, four people sit down and provide

25   information and advice.   I don't see  it working that way.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                               76
     I see the creation of a pool of resources  •— a  "stable"  is

 2   a term somebody has given to it — essentially  a  list  of

 3   people, EPA staff, consultants under contract to  EPA,  and

 4   State and local officals, who can be sent  to a  city  or

 5   state where help is needed, and those  individuals would

 6   be called on by the EPA staff as needed, as appropriate

 7   under the circumstances, so that maybe only one goes to  one

     city and another person goes to another, or a whole  team is

 9   brought in.  These teams will be required  by law  and will

10   have expertise in the following areas; technical, marketing,

     financial, and institutional.  The inclusion of the  areas

     other than technical represents new emphasis under this  law

     and recognizes that engineering alone will not  solve the

     problem.  The teams will be composed of, as I mentioned,

15   EPA staff and sometimes contracted to EPA  and State  and

     local officials, who will be provided through a program  we

17   refer to as peer management.  The program  will  also  include

13   implementation grants which are authorized under  Section

19   4008, which Bruce will mention a little  later on.

20              If YOU are interested, I could  get into the

     method of selection that we have employed  in the  past  and

     might employ in the future.  And in a moment I  will  ask  for

     comments and suggestions, and then after that I want to

24   raise a few questions that we have on  fundamental policy

25   issues that we would like your input on.   With  respect to
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
 1   what  somebody asked  earlier:   What kind of public partici-

 2   pation are we conducting  ourselves?  Who do we listen to,

 3   in other words?  Well, we listen  to anybody who takes the

 4   time  to contact us,  first of  all.   On a regular basis,

 5   though, we listen  to several  organizations who do take the

 6   time  to deal with  us and  give us  their opinions.   And we

 7   meet  with these people one-on-one  and from time to time.

 8   But we're having special  meetings  next week.   We're having

 9   a series of three  meetings, and these meetings are by

10   invitation only, and that is  for  the purpose of keeping the

II   group small so we  can discuss details in a meaningful way.

12   And the thing we are going to be  discussing is the draft

13   program plan for the technical assistance program.

14              Of the  three meetings,  one is with industry,

15   another is with representatives of government organizations,

16   and the third is with the environmental and civil groups.

17   And most of the organizations I have heard in here are

18   represented either directly or indirectly by the  participants

19   of these meetings.   I will be glad to tell you who they are,

20   although I don't have the list with me.

21               At this point  I'd  like  to open the floor to  any

22   comments, suggestions, criticisms,  or questions that you

23   would have.  And then I'll step back in a moment  and we'll

24   answer any questions  you  have.

25              CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:   I'd  like to call on a couple
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                               8
    of  individuals who  indicated they would like to make


    statements  at this  time before we open to general questions.


 3               Commissioner Inouye, would you like to make some


 4   comments?


 5               MR. YUKUS INOUYE:  The solid waste business has


    been the most frustrating for me as a County Commissioner fo


    the past four years.  I think that we had a private industry


    contract with us to give us the service for a fixed fee.


    They were  so close  in opening the project and yet so far,


10   because there is no track record.  And the statement that


II   I made previously of rewarding or awarding for those that


12   are proceeding with a method of recycling, I think that if


13   they are encouraged and would be benefited by financial


14   help, it may solve  some problems for the industry.


15               And  I think that we have been an affluent nation;

    we  have been wasteful.  I think the time is here when we


17    should mine, so  to speak, our  solid wastes or garbage.  r


\8    think there is  a lot of dollars and a lot of good material


19    that we're just  covering up, throwing away.  And I think


20    that if there is ever a time that the federal government
                                           *&

21    could help of solving and conserving our natural resources,


22    it  is through this effort of recycling.  It has been most


23    confusing to me because, without the track record, you get


24    so  many different organizations and methods thrown at you,


25    and they also are lacking in track record.  And I think  in
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             220 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111

                                 531-1906

-------
 1   recycling, whether  it be  of  a gaseous nature,  methane

 2   and  so  forth,  if  there is a  good track record, and I think

 3   this is where  we  got to .start, is to establish a track

 4   record, and  I  think this  is  where the jrederal government

 5   could help,  because private  industry or the local government

 6   to tell the  citizens that, "Yes, we have a method; we'd

 7   like to try  it,"  they'll  say, "Well, let somebody else try

 8   it.   We can't  afford to." And this is the frustration that

 9   I have  had.

IQ              And I  think again I'd like to emphasize that I

I)   was  in  the farming  business.  I mean — to relate a story -•

12   I was in the farming business, and I raised a group of

tj   cattle.  In  order to sell breeding stock you have to

14   show an "it" cattle and win  a few ribbons.  And I got a

IS   book that told me exactly how to catch that calf in the

16   corral, how to put the halter on it, and how to groom it,

17   but  when I got into that corral, the calf hadn't read the

18   book.  And I think this is where experience is the deal.

]9               r want to congratulate you for what you're doing

20   here today,  for coming out in the field to work with those

21    that have caught that calf in the corral.  And I think  it's

22    important because theory and where we implement, as we  have

23    to  as live professionals implement in the field, is a real

24    problem, as I mentioned before.  Thank you.

25               MR. LEHR:  Thank you  very much.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8X111
                                 531-1906

-------
...
                CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY;   Thank you very much,

     Commissioner.

                Is  Mr.  Jones still here?  LeGrand Jones?  He

     mentioned that he  thought he  might like to make a statement

     here also.

                Okay.   Let's open  up to general questions.

                Yes. You here in  the foreground.

                MR. W.  ROBERT RICHARDS:  My name is Bob

     Richards .

                So  far  this morning my concern is that the whole
     program appears to be directed really at very large

     standard metropolitan areas.   These are the only areas

     large enough to generate the  amount of waste that can

     really profit by a full-blown recycling program or the end

.,    product that has some commercial value or by a large

.,    compacting operation whereby  you get sufficient reduction
._    or any of the other means that the smaller towns would
. „    consider exotic operations.   And I wonder if there has
.„    been any concern given to the problem of the very small

     town that has an open dump in most cases because they

     can't afford much more, if any.  The equipment to run a

--    sanitary landfill is pretty expensive and the outlook of

     manpower is even more expensive.  I would hope that in your

-.    looking at these studies you  would consider how can you

     apply some of this technology to a little town like Elast
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
     Carpenter or Surmyside or Moab or Kanab where they don't

 2   generate enough garbage to fill three trucks in a week,

 3   and could never possibly justify some of the large

 4   expenditures required for this more exotic recovery.  I

 5   also wonder how many people realize really there's an awful

 5   lot of things you're talking about do take place in a very

 7   small town.

                I live in a very small town now and, really,

     recycling takes place.  A certain amount of recreation is

     there; a certain amount of social intercourse takes place.

     I'm referring to the kids who reduce the amount by shooting

.-   at bottles with BB guns and pellet guns; a certain amount of

.,   recycling in the sense there are people who have trees who

..   drag these to the dump who never have chain saws or fire-

]5   places,  so the dump becomes a place where you recycle the

.<   wood.  We're planning a new dump and there is provision for

17   the people to park the trees on one side so they won't wind

18   up in a sanitary landfill, and it will also provide an

19   opportunity for people to get some firewood at a relatively

     low cost.

                We have some other ingenious arrangements that

22   haven't been considered.  People always bring their garbage

23   to the dump on Sunday morning, I've found, in a pickup truck

24   And the trucks line up, and this is where a certain amount

25   of spiritual uplift on Sunday morning takes place.   Many of
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531 1906

-------
 1    these trucks leave with more in them than when they came.
 2    Therefore, we have not only recycling but constant cycling
 3    back and forth.

 4               What I'm pointing out, in a way, is there is a
 5    kind of a point of operation that takes place out there.
 6    I myself do welding and go out and gather up an angle iron
 7    from time to time.  I don't know where else I can get an
 8    angle iron.  Small dumps provide this kind of thing.

 9               I really do seriously, though, think that an
10    awful lot of this is directed at only the very large cities
II    and in Utah we've only got one SMSA and all the rest of the
12    state has very, very small operators, and I just don't see
13    any application to that.

14               MR. LOWE:  Thank you very much for that comment.
15    I'd like to respond to both your comment and that of
15    Commissioner Inouye.
17               The distance between here and Washington is
IS    definitely a problem.  This is my first trip here, personall
19    and I have a different feeling about the place already.  I'm
20    sorry we didn't meet two years ago.  I think we might have
21    done some things differently.

22               In terms of encouragement and financial help, we
23    can provide the encouragement and advice and assistance,
24    without the financial help, if, indeed, that's not available
25    In some places -- I don't mean to be facetious — I think
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             238 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                              •a
 I   that in some places we have been asked to come out  just  to

 2   put our stamp of approval on a project to help persuade

 3   those who are skeptical.  In some places we have done that

 4   and have been told that that was important in the success

 5   of the project.  Other places we've helped kill projects

 6   because we put a stamp of disapproval on it, but we have to

 7   do that to keep our credibility sometimes.

 g              You're right that there is a need for a  track

 9   record.  X think what you're saying is that without a track

10   record opportunities are difficult to evaluate and difficult

II   to justify making a commitment.  To some extent we can help

12   you already by telling you what's going on in other parts

13   of the country, which is essentially where our expertise

14   comes from.  We don't make it up.  We're not that smart.

15   In another sense, though, the many, many aspects of this

15   field, with the technology and legal and procurement

17   aspects, are new and there is no track record, or very littL

18   in the way of a track record, and this, we think, is the

19   justification for demonstration programs, demonstration of

20   both hardware and nonhardware products.  That is all I can

2j    respond to that at this point.

22              With reference to your comments about small

23   communities, we have not given enough emphasis to small

24   communities in the past and, depending upon the outcome of

25   these public participation meetings and one of the questions
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mill
                                S3) 190S

-------
 I    I  will  ask shortly,  I believe we will be giving more emphasi

 2    One thing we have been doing, though, is there are a couple

 3    of communities principally in Arkansas which are using small

 4    incinerators with heat recoveries to produce steam, and

 5    therefore recover energy from their solid wastes.  We are

 6    entering into a contract with a private R & D firm of some

 7    Rind of consultants  to evaluate this to provide information

 3    to the  public as to  whether or not this is a worthwhile

 9    approach and what the pros and cons are economically,

10    environmentally, and politically.

Ij               We also put a lot of emphasis into source separa-

12    tion programs which can be applied in small communities.

U               There are special problems, though, I know, in

14    small communities just in the management of a given project;

15    having  the available staff, time, and expertise to do the

15    necessary planning that a larger community can do.

17               But this is the kind of problem that I think we

18    are going to be addressing, that we should be addressing

]9    in the  future.

20               Let me just raise a couple of these questions

2i    that I  have, and I will open back up for more discussion

22    if you want.

23               Given that we cannot give our technical assis-

24    tance or our financial assistance to every community, that

25    means we are going to have to prioritize the requests
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             536 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
 \    that we  do  get.   What should be the basis of this priority?

 2    There  are several criteria that could be applied: one is

 3    most tonnage,  second could be most critical environmental

 4    problem,  third could be most likely to succeed, fourth

 5    could  be the greatest level of ignorance — in other words,

 6    the largest need,  fifth could be the demonstration value

 7    of a particular  project.

 8               If  we awarded technical assistance or a grant

 9    on the basis of  most tonnage, then we would be solving the

IQ    largest  amount of the problem in terms of tonnage, but we

II     would  have  to  ignore the small communities.  If we awarded

12    money  and help on the basis of serious environmental

13     problems, then we might discriminate against points like

1^    Los Angeles which has a very good landfill; and if they

jj     wanted help on. resource recovery, for example, then we

I6     would  say,  "We can't help you.  You have done such a good

17     job in the  past,  we  can't help you," and in a sense we'd

Ig     be discriminating against someone who has done a good job,

19     really,  and in some  sense deserves some kind of reward for

20     that.

2)                Someone suggested that we award technical

22     assistance  and money to those that have the greatest level

23     of ignorance.  The thing that occurred to me when I heard

24     this was, I sort of  pictured myself announcing the

25     recipients  of  our  financial assistance, "With great pleasure
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531 1906

-------
 \   I can  tell you who  the most  incompetent people  in the

 2   country are."

 3              The most likely to  succeed is one of the

    criteria that we  have given the greatest priority to in the

 5   past.   We'd  like  to recycle  the most tonnage and clean up

 6   the most problems,  and we do take all of these  factors

 7   into  account to  some extent, but the most likely to succeed

 3   criterion — first  of all, let us deal with any size city,

    let us deal  with  any community whether it has a serious

    environmental problem or not and, most of all,  it provides

    an example which  other  communities can follow later, even

]2   if they don't get our financial and technical help.  That's

13   the way our  thinking is  going right now.  I'd be happy to

    hear  your comments  in disagreement or in agreement with that

               Another  issue is, with our limited capacity for

    assistance,  should  we concentrate on a small number of

17   communities  and  give them all the help we can give them, or

,8   should we give  a limited amount of assistance to a large num.

19   of communities?

                One  question I have concerning the studies that

    the  Resource Conservation Committee are going to be doing:

22   They're going to have to look at options that will focus

23      on one aspect of the material stream versus another.

24  And  how do they decide which aspect to look at?  Do they

25   do  it on the basis  of total overall pollution, meaning not
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             328 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
     only that pollution that occurs in the land disposal site,

 2    But also the pollution associated with mining the raw

 3    material in the first place and then processing it and

 4    manufacturing it, which is a problem, or should it be

 5    concerned primarily with resource scarcity or employment

 5    impact or balance of payment.  If we dealt with resource

 7    scarcity, for example, then we could forget anything that

     had to do with glass because glass is made of many

     abundant resources.  If we deal on the basis of scarcity,

     maybe we'd give our attention just to what materials are

     very scarce; tin, for example.  There are a number of other

12    questions that I could raise, but maybe I have talked too

     much.

14               What comments do you have?

15               Sir?

|6               MR. WILLIAM F. CHRISTOFFERSEN:  I'm Bill

17    Christoffersen.  I'm Regional Representative for the United

18    states Brewers Association.

19               I would like to ask what has the EPA done --

20    you said a lot of these things are in their infancy — what

2|    have you done as far as coordinating with the National

22    Center for Resource Recovery, which is financed mainly by

23    private industry, on some of the things that they have come

24    up with in technology?  And, No. 2, you were talking about

25    what is happening in smaller cities.  What has happened to
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (Mill
                                 531 1906

-------
     the pilot program in Franklin, Ohio, with a population of

     about 11,000 that was started a few years ago; is that thine

     working?  And/or in what other cities are the particular

     resource recovery programs working that are in existence

     now?  Another question I'd like to ask:  Has anything been

     done through our Congress or through EPA or anyone else about

     the discrimination between raw materials and reusable

     material on freight rates.  Now, this is one thing that's

     holding private industries from getting involved in

10   resource recovery; and another one, tax incentive on new

     materials and reusable materials.

.-              MR. LOWE:  Thank you.  The National Center for

     Resource Recovery is a nonprofit organization created by

     industry, mainly those industries and associated labor

I5   organizations that make materials that end up in the waste

16   stream.  The purpose of their organization is to advance

     the state of the art of technology and the implementation

     of technology to recover resources as a way of solving solid

.„   waste disposal problems as opposed to waste reduction

2Q   measures.  They are located in Washington, and we communi-

2J   cate with them regularly, and we know about their projects

22   and they know about ours, and we try not to duplicate their

     efforts.  One project they have underway is to help plan

„   and finance a large-scale material separation system in

     New Orleans.  As a result of that project, we are not doing
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                              -90"
 1    one like that.  We are waiting to see what the results of

 2    that project are.

 3               You asked what the status of Franklin and other

 4    cities are.  Franklin, Ohio was a project funded in part

 5    by an EPA demonstration grant, and that project, as far

 6    as its demonstration is concerned, is complete.  The plan

 7    is operating and taking care of all of the municipal waste

 g    and sewage sludge in Franklin on a daily basis now.  In

 9    terms of a demonstration, we believe this is somewhat

JO    successful because it's been imitated by at least two

II    communities that we know of: Bade County, Florida, which is

12    where Miami is, and Hempstead, New York, which are signed

Ij    contracts to build systems using similar equipment, although

14    they are producing a different product.  In both cases

15    they're producing electricity.

K               Rather than going into what's happening in other

17    communities, I'd like to invite you to send for—if anybody

IS    is interested, let me know, preferably in writing, it

19    would make it much easier for me — and I can send you what

20    we call a Nationwide Survey of Resource Recovery Activities

2i    which is a status report of what is happening in resource

22    recovery and waste reduction programs around the country.

23    We have that as one of our information materials and we'd

24    be glad to send that to you.

25               With respect to freight rates, since you asked
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                              C10
 \   me  the  question,  at  the break I read the latest issue

 2   and saw this  report  and found something I should have known

 3   earlier in the  week.  The Railroad Revitalization Act of

 4   1975 required the Interstate Commerce Commission to review

 5   its rate structure,  looking for discrimination against

 6   secondary materials, and to take action on that, and

 7   authorized EPA  to review that process.  I just read that

 3   the Interstate  Commerce Commission has completed its inves-

 9   tigation and  we already have a contractor in place to do

10   the review for  us and that is going on now.  So that's the

II   status  of that.  According to this report, which is always

12   reliable, the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission,

13   directed certain railroads to adjust their rates according

14   to  certain percentages which were deemed to be percentages

U   Of  discrimination.  I'd like to make one comment on freight

15   rates,  though.   Freight rates is a concept that a lot of

17   people  have latched onto and that has been given a lot of

18   publicity.  I don't want to minimize that as a problem,

19   but I think there are other problems that haven't got as

20   much publicity  and there are other problems that don't have

2|   handy labels  like that and are much more significant.  Those

22    are the kinds of problems that we are dealing with.  They're

23   the kinds of  problems that you, Commissioner Inouye, have

24   brought up.

25               Well, that's enough on that.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
 I              In terms of tax incentives, as I mentioned, tax

 2   incentives are going to be looked at by the Resource

 3   Conservation Committee,  One incentive, this incentive

 4   package that we have been working on over the last year and

 5   a half, is called the product charge, and it's intended to

 5   review the economic differential between the use of virgin

 7   materials and the use of secondary materials by giving a

     credit to those people who use secondary materials and

     phasing that credit out over time and charging, putting a

     tax,  essentially, on those who use virgin materials,

..   phasing that in from zero the first day of implementation

l_   and phasing that in over a 10-year period, so that the

     difference between the charge and the credit would be con-

14   sta,nt, and the purpose, then, would be to offset the

.5   difference, the economic disadvantage now suffered by

     secondary materials as a result of the way our materials

17   utilization system, economic system, has developed.  Just
     to give you an idea why this kind of thing takes so much

19   study:  It's not just a bunch of people fumbling with each

20   other in an office.  If a certain kind of measure is going
2)    to be introduced, these people who are affected by it

22   want to know that they're going to be affected, and they

     want to know how they are going to be affected, and it's

24   not always easy to tell.  It sometimes requires a lot of

25   time and a lot of analyses:  How is labor in the glass
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
 I   industry going to be affected?  How  is  transportation going

 2   to be affected?  What's going to be  the effect on  balance

 3   of payments?  There are all kinds of aspects  that  have to

 4   be looked at.  That's part of what we are doing.   Another

 5   part of it is taking that information to the  people who are

 6   going to be affected and saying, "Here  is what we're  think-

 7   ing; what are your reactions?" and helping  to introduce the

 8   concept gradually and build public support  for it  where

 9   that support is deserved and find out where the opposition i

jO   where that exists, too.  Well, that's where we have been.

11              Any other comments or questions?

12              MR. RANDALL ISHAM:  Randall  Isham, Department of

jj   Transportation.

14              On this Resource Recovery and Conservation Panel,

15   you indicated State and local governments could receive

16   assistance.  What about the private industry  which might

17   be cooperating with the local government on solid  waste

18   disposal and will they be included as people  who could be

19   assisted?

20              MR. LOWE:   The question is:  Can private industry

2i   be a recipient of technical assistance?  If you read  the

22   Act literally, the answer is no, because, at  least in

23   Section 2003,  it limits assistance only to State and  local

24   governments.   I am sure, though, that somewhere else  in the

25   Act we could justify giving assistance  to private  industry.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
     We have to be careful, though, as a matter of policy,  not

     to give assistance to an individual company where  it would

     advance their — would help their competitive advantage

     and disadvantage their competitors.  Do you follow me?

                MR. ISHAM:  Yeah.

 6              MR, LOWE:  What we try to do, therefore, is

 7   work through the city, and the company that they're dealing

 g   with, the particular company, may be helped in the process.

     We also take steps ourselves to work through associations

     representing an entire industry, representing various entire

     industries, and that way we advance the cause of certain

     industries without advancing the cause of any particular

     member.  Of course we do so only if we think that  the genera

     good would be helped,

]5              MR. JOHN WEBER:   John Weber.  Are any of your

16   programs aimed toward setting up recycling centers so that

,7   people who are interested could bring their paper  to one

     place,  their bottles to another,  their cans to another, or

.„   whatever,  to another?

20              MR.  LOWE:   Yes,  there are.   We don't do this

     directly.   We encourage State and local governments to do

     that.   Mostly,  we  encourage them through our technical

     assistance,  but to some extent,  we encourage them through

     our  financial assistance.

25              Jon and I  met  yesterday with people from Boulder,

     Colorado,  who are  negotiating  for the  amount of money that's
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8<111
                                531-1906

-------
 1    left in a grant that we had given to the Denver Regional

 2    Council of Governments, and that would be used to increase

 3    tfvfi effectiveness and the coverage of a source separation

 4    program in the Denver area.  That's the kind of project

 5    that we're working on.  We also awarded demonstration

 6    grants to two towns in Massachusetts to develop data on

 7    source separation programs, recycling programs.

 3               Yes, ma'am.

 9               MS. JOYCE HUNT:  Joyce Hunt, J. E. Hunt &

10    Associates.  I'd like to point out one thing that I have

II    heard several people ask about, this particular thing about

12    having something to do with, take like paper, or just doing

U    partial resource recovery, and would completely alter the

14    financial structure, profit  structure for private industry

ls    and if too much of it was done, it takes  away from an

I6    area that normally private industry would want to come  in

17    and do total replacement.  Like, for example, if the paper

18    were all taken out, it would change the  structure.

19               MR. LOWE:  Essentially, I think what your

20    question is:  Can a source separation program which removes

2|    paper, which recycles paper, can that source separation

22    program coexist with a mixed waste central processing

23    facility, which probably would  involve energy recovery

24    that would want to burn the paper?  Is that  the question?

25               MS. HUNT:  What I am saying,  if anything were
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8^111
                                 531 190fi

-------
 I   started in an area or  a  law passed  for  a  partial  resource

 2   recovery program in an area,  then a private  industry that

 3   would want to come in  and do  a  total resource recovery

 4   would not be as apt to want to  come into  that area because

 5   it would change the profit structure.   Where you  do this,

 6   please Be aware of that  fact  where  this is going  on this is

 7   going to alter the attractiveness for private industry to

 8   come into that area,

 9              MR. LOWE:   It is our opinion that source separa-

10   tion programs and central processing plants  can exist

II   together.  Tt's better if they're both  planned simultaneous'

12   !y-
13              MS. HUNT:   That is true.

14              MR. LOWE:   So the  caution that you advise is

15   well taken.  But there are circumstances  where — I can't

15   think of any towns, offhand  —  but  there  are places where

17   they have source separation of  paper in the  community, and

18   they're still pursuing mixed  waste  recycling facilities,

19   energy recovery facilities, and industry is  interested.

20   We've done some analyses on  the effect  of removing paper

21   and the effect of that on the economics of an energy

22   recovery system, and  we  find  that  the two can coexist,

23   that an energy recovery  system can  be economical even if

24   the paper is removed,  unless  such  a large amount of paper

25   is removed as to make it uneconomical,  but that large an
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CfTY, UTAH 84111
                                 531-1906

-------
 1   amount  is  impractical; we  don't see it happening.   So as

 2   a practical matter,  the  two  can coexist.

 3              MR.  LOWE:  Thank  you very much.

 4              CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:   Let's take  another 10-minute

 5   break and  then  we'll come  back and complete our program.

 6               (Brief  recessl

 7              CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:   Okay.  Let's  move ahead, then

 8   into the State  program section, and I will  call on Bruce

 9   Weddle  again.

jO              MR.  BRUCE WEDDLE:   One of the  clearer messages

II   of  the  Resource Recovery Conservation Act is that State and

12   local government should  play a dominant role in solid waste

U   management.  Each  should play key roles in  administrating

14   both the hazardous waste portion of the legislation, as

,5   well as in the  elimination of open dumps.  The Governor

U   in  consultation with local elected officials is given the

17   flexibility  to  structure a mechanism for  preparing and

18   implementing solid waste plans which should build on

19   existing efforts.  At the  ^federal level the Environmental

20   Protection Agency  will publish guidelines for the identifi-

2)   cation  of  Regions, State plans, and State hazardous waste

22   management programs. I'd  like to concentrate on the

23   nonhazardous waste implications of Subtitle D, if I may,

24   for the rest of my talk, since Fred talked about the hazardo

25   waste planning  provision.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             238 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                              -9*-
 1               Subtitle D requires two sets of guidelines  to

 2    be prepared by EPA,  The first set identifies regions,

 3    while the second identifies what should be in an

 4    acceptable State plan.  The first set, which were required

 5    in Section 4002 ta} in bureaucratic terminology, give the

 6    Administrator six months or until April of this year to

 ^    publish guidelines for the identification of those areas

 8    which have common solid waste problems and are appropriate

 9    units for planning regional solid waste management services,

10               I might step back and state that these regional

II    identification guidelines really entail a three-step

12    process.  The first step belongs to EPA, and that is

13    publishing guidelines for States or Governors to identify

14    regions.  The second step is the actual identification of

15    regions by the Governor in concert with local governments.

16    The third step is the designation of agencies or an agency

17    in each of the identified regions in the second step.  These

18    designated agencies shall be responsible for planning

19    and/or implementation.  The Governor under this step must

20    also identify the State agency which will be responsible

21    for State planning and coordinating local planning and

22    implementation.   During these steps existing multi-function-

23    ing agencies, such as the 208 agency that may exist in  this

24    area,  should be  factored into the selection of both region

25    and the implementing agency.  By that I don't mean to  say
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
 1    that the 208 agency should be the agency responsible for

 2    solid waste planning.  It may be.  And minimum linkages

 3    should be established between the designated solid waste

 4    agency and the 208 agency that may exist in an area

 5               The second set of guidelines required in this

 5    section shall spell out what shall be an acceptable State

 7    plan.  Again, these guidelines will be developed over the

     next 18 months in concert with State and local officials.

     Minimum requirements for the approval of State plans include

     the identification of those agencies selected for regional

     implementation and regional planning.  Plans shall prohibit

12    the establishment of all new open dumps within the State

     and require that all solid wastes shall be either utilized

14    for resource recovery or disposed of by sanitary landfilling

     The plans shall provide for closing or upgrading

     of all existing dumps within the State within a period  of

     five years.  The plan shall provide for the establishment

     of such State regulatory powers as may be necessary to

19    implement that plan.  And the State shall provide that  no

20    local government shall be prohibited either under State or

     local law from entering into long-term contracts for the

22    supply of solid waste resource recovery facilities.

23                I'd like  to step back a minute in my prepared

24    talk and talk a little bit about budgets.  We touched upon

25    it  several  times today, and  I don't want  to dwell on it.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
 I    The point I'd like to make here is the rest of my speech

 2    will have some good news and some bad news, and it will be

 3    different for those who view it.  Some people will view

 4    the funding levels that will be authorized or asked of

 5    Congress as being too high, and others will see them as

 5    being too low.  I urge you to write the Regional

 7    Administrator in Denver if you have any complaints or

 8    suggestions on the funding levels or the content of any-
                                      i
 9    thing you've heard today.  I think it's not enough to

,0    stand up and make a comment today.  We will consider those

II    comments.  But the impact of a letter from anyone who feels

12    strongly about a certain issue will be far greater than

13    what you say when you stand today.  So I urge each of you

M    to write the Regional Administrator.  Or other channels

15    may be appropriate.  You may decide to write the Adminis-

jg    trator of EPA or perhaps even your local Congressmen.

17    I think that correspondence of this type should be

lg    encouraged to the appropriate individuals.  Okay.

19               As you can see, the authorized levels for

2o    State planning and implementations for FY '18 are $30 mil-

2j    lion and for PY '79 are $40 million.  These moneys shall

22    be allocated using a population formula with no State

23    receiving less than one-half of one percent of the total

24    amount appropriated by Congress.  The funds which may be

25    available for local use shall be distributed by the
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1904

-------
                                                               too
 1   Governor of each State.  Okay.

 2              To bring you up to date on the latest status of

 3   potential funding under these sections, the Administration

 4   budget submission for both Subtitle D and Subtitle C,

 5   hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste, State planning

 5   and local planning, and implementation is $12 million.

 7   This money, if appropriated at that level or a higher

 8   level, will be distributed by the population formula which

 9   will be established by our office.  An additional $5

,0   million will be requested by the Administration under the

II   208 residual planning parts of the Federal Air Pollution

,2   Control Act.  So that there is a total of $17 million in

13   return Administration submission to Congress.  These

I4   numbers may go up or down depending upon the Appropriation

,s   Committee hearings.

I6              Section 4008 Cal £2} authorizes $15 million for

,7   fiscal years '78 and  '79 for State and local government

18   implementation of programs to provide for resource recovery

19   planning, hazardous waste planning, and nonhazardous waste

20   planning at the local level.  This assistance includes

2|   facility planning and feasibility studies, consultant fees,

22   surveys and analyses of market needs, technology assessments

2j   legal expenses, construction feasibility studies, and on

24   and on and on.   However, this assistance does not include

25   the construction or acquisition of any land.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                                /o/
  1               Unfortunately,  under the — Well, maybe I should

  2    step back again and state  that the authorization level for

  3    FY  '78  is about $180 million.   I think it is clear that

  4    neither Congress nor the Administration is going to

  5    appropriate at that level.  This will require the agency

  6    to  prioritize the spending of  such funds.  Such priority,

  7    as  we see it today — and  I encourage your comments to me

  8    now on  the priorities — would place higher priority for

  9    State planning for both hazardous waste and nonhazardous

 10    waste and resource recovery than it would for local

 U    planning.  So that,  based  on the moneys appropriated, we

 12    may or  may not get to distributing funds to the local

 13    levels  identified in 4002 CaJ Regional Planning Guidelines.

 14    In  fact,  I think under the current Administration request

 15    there will be little funds available beyond State planning.

 16               My final  slide  deals with Section 4009, which

 17    is  probably a subject that's near and dear to the heart

 18    of  each of you here.  It includes money to rural coiranuni-

 19    ties  in the amounts  of $25 million for FY '78 and another

20    twenty-five for FY '79 and shall take the form of grants

21    to  States to assist  communities with populations of 5,000

22    or  less and counties with  populations of 10,000 or less or

23    counties  having less than  20 people per square mile.  The

24    important part of this community systems program is that

25    it  does include money for  the  purchase of equipment.  And
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531-1906

-------
                                                               fOiL.
     that's  something we've been hearing at many of the Regional

     presentations is that equipment money is needed at the

     local level.

                I  would be less than honest with you if I led

     you down the  path to think there would be much money in

     this area.   I think that communities should not plan on

 7    receiving funding under this section in FY "78 and perhaps

 8    not in FY '79, since there is little likelihood there will

     be sufficient funds appropriated to get to this section of

...    the legislation.  That's not good news, and I would

 .    encourage any comments you have on that.  Rather than

     elaborate any further on this section of the law, I

     would like to entertain any questions that you might have.

                MR. LOWE:  I was asked a question by the Utah

.-    Department of Transportation representative concerning when

,,    a highway is built and material is removed from the earth
ID
 _    to make way for the highway, is that material, is the

)g    waste material from that exercise covered under this law?

 „    I would consider it construction debris.  He was afraid it

     would be considered mining waste.

                MR. WEDDLE:  Well, I really can't answer that

„    question because T don't know.

                MR. LOWE:  The other aspect was when a highway  i

     being repaired and a layer of asphalt  is removed and

 -e   stockpiled somewhere, does that come under the purview of  t
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
    Act?  His concern was that if it does, then that's going

    to place a hardship on his agency, and in terras of

    protecting the environment, it is good to have that

    hardship on that agency, but it also would be wise for

    the federal government and the State Solid Waste agency to

    recognize that hardship and to allow a sufficient amount of

    time for that transportation department to deal with the

    problem.

               MR. WEDDLE:  That's a good question.  That's

    something I'll bring back with me for consideration.

               Val?

               MR. GREY:  Looking up the definition of "solid

    wastes", it does include the type of material that is

    generated from community activities.  By that I don't know
community activity or not, but there's nothing  specific

here about construction waste, though, and  that's  the  area

generally that that type of waste would be  categorized under

But it is hard to say.

           MR. WEDDLE:  I would like  to make  another state-

ment before we get into the --

           MR. LEHR:  Wait a  second.  There is  one more

question.

           MR. W. ROBERT RICHARDS:  Bob Richards again.

I accept your comment that 25 million isn't much.  How much
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                               f04-
     do you expect to get appropriated and how will you spend

     it?

                MR. WEDDLE:  Is that rural?

                MR. RICHARDS:  Yes, rural, right now.

                MR. WEDDLE:  That's a tough question.  To be

     honest with you, I would be surprised if there is anything

 7   appropriated under that section.  We, as an agency, will

 8   probably testify to the need to develop strong State

     programs as a first step in implementing this legislation,

     both in the hazardous waste area and the nonhazardous waste

     area.  Further, I have a personal problem with authorizing

     a minimum amount of money under this section, and that

     would be — let's assume we authorized or appropriated

J4   $2 million.  $2 million won't go far at all, and I would

„   suspect that many, many communities would wait and, rather

     than implementing something today, would wait in hopes

     of receiving some of the $2 million.  And that, taking a

     look at the nation as a whole, we may be further behind

     by appropriating a small amount of money under this section

20   than we would be if we appropriated none.  Of course, I

2,   guess,  in my own opinion here, I would like to appropriate

22   more money under this section, but of course I am bound by

     other persons, since it affects our program.  This is

24   something that you should write your Regional Administrator

25   about your concerns.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531 1906

-------
  1              I would like to raise another issue, and that is

  2   that just because there is no money under this gection

  3   doesn't mean nothing can happen.  We will be able to

  4   provide some technical assistance in this area, which may

  5   not solve your problems but can be helpful.  But more

  6   directly than that,  I think the way the criteria are writ-

  7   ten under Section 4004 will greatly impact the rural

  8   communities' ability to comply with the legislation.  If

  9   different criteria were established for isolated communi-

 10   ties for landfilling, I think it may make it easier for

 II   those communities to comply with this legislation.  And that

 12   certainly would be an area that you could write Jack Green

 13   in Denver about changing the criteria,  having classifica-

 14   tions of criteria based on the size of  the community.

 15              MR.  LEHR:  It's simply too early to tell anything

 16   about how much money will be appropriated.  We in Region VII]

 17   will try to get as much, naturally, as  possible.  There are

 18   Regional procedures, and we will keep you advised.  We will

 19   Keep the States in Region VIII advised  of what happens as

20   we learn about it.  Right now nobody knows,

21              MR.  WEDDLE:   I didn't want to sound too negative,

22   but on the other hand,  I didn't want to mislead you, either.

23   The purpose of  this  dialogue is to communicate what's going

24   on in Washington and to hear what's going on in the real

25   world.   I would be less than honest if  I led you down the
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
     path that you could plan to get some of this money, because

 2    I don't think the likelihood is all that bright for rural

 3    communities at this time.  Now that may change as soon as

 4    the appropriation hearings are held, or it may change

     next year, but currently it is not a part of the picture.

 6               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Let me ask you a question

 7    relative to that:  Who has made that decision that the

 8    rural community program would not be funded?

 9               MR. WEDDLE:  I think it's a joint decision.

     I think EPA has to bear part of the responsibility for that.

     There's $180 million authorized for the next fiscal year

12    and we had to prepare a prioritized list of how we would

     spend that money.  The legislature requires that we must

     do certain things; it requires we must develop criteria

     for hazardous waste; we must establish a permanent program;

     we must define hazardous waste; we must develop criteria

     for State planning; we must do a lot of things, and all of

     those things cost quite a bit of money, and rural assistance

19    is something that is not a must.  We're not mandated to do

20    it, so right at the top it's a lower priority because it's

2)    not the law that we have to spend that money.  Beyond that,

22    EPA headquarters, anyway, feels that the priorities of

23    this legislation are closing of open dumps and the estab-

24    lishment of a hazardous waste management program, arid those

25    are State functions or State responsibilities to begin with.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
 I   And in prioritizing leftover money after the mandated



     portions of the legislation, we had to give higher



 ,   priority to those things.  Of course, that's our current



     thinking and it can be swayed by comments from you to the



     Regional Office, which will be passed, then, on to us.



     That's why I am pleading with you, almost, to write to the



     Regional Office.  Because that's one of the main ways we



     change our thinking if it is going to change.
 o


                CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  I would like to place a



     considerable amount of emphasis on that last point that this



     is not a decision that's cast in bronze, and we would very



     much appreciate hearing from you.



                Bruce has mentioned that on the high priority



     list is closing open dumps.  One of the mechanisms built



     into the Act to do that is rural assistance.  So there is



.,   some continuity that doesn't exactly follow there in my
16


     mind.  And I am sure for those of you who are rural



...   community representatives, you can appreciate that.



                A VOICE:  Say that again, please.



                CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Well, my point there was that



     the Act has as a major priority to close open dumps, and



,,   one of the mechanisms to achieve closure in the rural



     community is rural community assistance.  We have not



..   stricken the requirement to close the dumps, only the



«   mechanism, if you want to think of it that way.  There
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                                531 1906

-------
                                                               to?
                                                             ^tftt
 \    are other mechanisms.  I don't mean to make that real cut



 2    and dried, black and white.  On the other hand, I think



 3    for a rural community it is a very serious issue to



 4    eliminate the funding potential, at least initially.



 5               MR. GREY:  I'd like to add something more on



 6    this budget process that nobody has mentioned, but it's



 7    going to become a very important factor.  President Carter



 g    is committed to zero base budgeting.  I don't know how



 9    many of you realize what that really means, but zero base



JO    budgeting essentially means that every program under RCRA



II    is competing with every other program within RCRA, and



12    RCRA as a program is competing with every other environ-



13    mental program, and every environmental program is



14    competing with every federal program.  Zero base budgeting



15    means that every year we start from the zero base looking


16    at each and every program and the funding for that program



J7    and comparing what our priorities are.  Now, traditionally



18    within EPA the solid waste program has not enjoyed the



19    highest priorities.  Rightfully or wrongfully, that's a



20    fact of life.  I do not predict that it will remain quite



21    so low, but there are many programs that are now low within



22    RCRA itself that will probably remain low and very low



2J    within the agency as a whole.  Now, that's something to



24    bear in mind.  Now, it's true that we may link up lesser



25    priority things with higher priority and maybe in our
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING


                             238 JUDGE BUILDING

                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111

                                 531 1906

-------
  I    program presentation work in the future we may be able to

  7    raise priorities by manipulation or association.  But

  3    ultimately the test will have to be applied to every

  4    program and the federal government is not going to be

  5    able to support everything.

  6               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   I think that is a point well

  7    made.

  g               MR.  LEHR:   There's never enough money to do

  9    everything.

 ,0               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   If it is a concern, let it

 II    be  Known.   That will add emphasis to priority listings.

 12               Roger,  you indicated that you wanted to make

 13    a statement at this point.  Do you?

 14               MR.  ROGER STEAD:   Roger Stead.  I think some of

 15    the problems that  South Dakota finds itself in is due to

 )6    the fact that the  State took  a leaf home and did not go

 17    to  the  local communities as  perhaps they should have for

 18    comprehensive planning, and  that's what our plaintiffs are

 19    crying  out for,  that they want to have this money so that

20    they can plan for  their communities and express their needs

2]    and I think you  really struck home; if they want to close

22    the dumps,  you have to give  the money to the local

23    communities.  I  don't know how you can get around it.

24               MR. WEDDLE:   The  comment was just made that the

25    States  have a lot  of  latitude in how they use the money.

      I guess  I  can emphasize that  somewhat.  South Dakota is
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             328 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                531 1906

-------
                                                             -iil
 1    a fairly sparsely populated State.  I suspect that in the

 2    population allocation formula, they would end up with

 3    somewhere between 60,000, 100,000 dollars if Congress

 4    appropriated the 12 million.  That's not a lot of money  to

 5    establish a hazardous waste management program, look at

 6    resource recovery, close open dumps, or develop a State

 7    plan.  It doesn't go far.

 8               MR. LOWE:  I am not saying it goes very far.  I

 9    am saying you can decide how you want to spend it.

10               MR. WEDDLE:  Right, within the guidelines

II    established under 4002fbl.  However, the previous slide

12    under 4002(bl, I believe any of the grantees under that

13    section have to comply with the guidelines promulgated

14    tinder 1008.  So —

15               MR. STEAD:  If the guidelines say that the State

16    taR.es the lead role, I don't know how you can distribute

17    all the money all the same.  On page 22  —

18               MR. WEDDLE:  I don't really know what to  say.  I

19    recognize that the problems of rural states and rural

20    communities really aren't adequately addressed  in this

21    legislation, although there is provision for them.   I  just

22    can't be that hopeful right now.  I wish I could.  And  the

23    only way that's going to happen is  if you write to EPA.

24    Perhaps, you know, the squeaky wheel gets  the money.

25               MR. LOWE:  The State can take the lead role
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
                                                            0*2"
 ,   without doing  all  the work  itself,   I've  heard the words

 2   "lead role"  just mean —

 3              MR. LEHR:  You sign  off  on it  in the end.

               MR. LOWE:  Yes,  just supervising and directing

    what's going on.   But you can use none of the money and

    pass it all  through  the books if you want.  I think that's

    part of the  guidelines, interpreted  broadly.  And the States

    will be able to come back with  their plan to do it any way

    they want within the guidelines. I think our tendency

...   is going to  be flexible and broad,  rather than restrictive

..   and directive.

               MR. LEHR:  Absolutely.

               MR. WEDDLE:  My  guidance to your State would be

j   you have to  achieve  an EPA  approved State plan first,

._   because if you don't do that, you are subjecting every

„   open dump within your State to  citizen suit.  So, no matter

]7   how you develop a  State plan, whether it  is done by your

    office within  the  State or  local level as Bob has suggested,

,9   that should  be highest priority immediately.

2Q              MR. STEAD:  Okay.  In developing your plans,

    I assume the guidelines should  be given a certain deadline

22   by which to  have this plan  in.   And this, again, is where we

    run into trouble when we hurry  up and try and meet a

    deadline, rather than sitting back  and doing comprehensive

25   planning.  I'd like  to see  it more  flexible to allow for
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
 1   differences within the State.

 2              MR. WEDDLE:  I suspect, in fact, I'm almost

 3   positive there would be interim approval of those plans,

 4   and the Regional office will be granting those interim

 5   permits for the full State plan.

 6              MR. LEHR:  Bruce, doesn't the legislation

 7   provide two years after the guidelines are out to develop

 g   a State plan; isn't that the general time frame?

 9              MR. WEDDLE:  I think so.

jO              Jon, do you —

H              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  I believe that's the  case.

j2   I can't really speak real confidently on that.

13              MR. LEHR:  Before we leave the matter of State

14   and local waste management planning, there is a major

15   planning effort going on in all areas of the country  now,

16   well funded under the Water Act,  Section 208.  Most of  you,

17   I think, have heard of it or are  aware of  it.  Major

18   dollars are going into water planning activities which

19   include closely enough growth-related activity to be

20   expected in the county and waste  management, I think.

21   That is going to happen in the Regional planning area.

22   So I think there is a lot of piggybacking  can go on in

23   solid waste planning along with the  208 planning

24   activities utilizing some of that money.   If you have not

25   yet tapped that, I'd explore it.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531 1904

-------
 1              MR. WEDDLE:   We  won't  leave the State of South

 2   Dakota unprotected  with  an  unapproved  plan until you have

 3   developed  such a  plan.   In  a  general way I mean there will

 4   be interim approval.

 5              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Let me just comment on that.

 6   One of the early  discussions  on the Act was that it says

 7   that you can't receive funding until you've got an

 8   approved plan, and  yet we'll  fund you  to write  the plan,

 9   which is kind of  an accounting.   To get around  that, we

10   are going  to accept an interim plan from you, and we've

II   talked about what that interim plan will be,  in order to

12   allow us to begin to  flow money from the actual development

13   of the final plan.  And  we're to  be continuing  that dialogue

14   as to how  we can  get  that interim plan,  what our approval

15   requirements will be.  This is the dialogue that we'll need

16   to be continuing,   I  am  not sure  how much it relates to

17   everyone else here  in the room.   But are there  any other

18   questions  on this particular  area?

19              I have an  indication,  then,  here from Joan Ogden.

20   I believe  I am saying the name correctly.   She'd like to

21    make a statement  on this general  subject.

22              MS. JOAN OGDEN:  I am  Joan  Ogden and represent

23   the West Valley Multi-Community Committee.   I'd like to

24   make a statement,

25              First  of all, I  think  that  it was  a  good idea
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             238 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
     for Noah to start all over again.  Things get very confusing

 2    don't they.

 3               The Salt Lake County is proposing the establish-

 4    ment of a sanitary landfill at one of seven proposed sites,

 5    all of which are located adjacent to the east slopes of the

     Oquirrh mountain range, from 5400 South to 11800 South.

 7               WHEREAS, the West Valley Multi-Community

 g    Committee has been formed representing the communities of

     Magna, Kearns, Hunter, Copperton, Granger, Lark, and

     Herriman to oppose the establishment of a sanitary

     landfill at any point adjacent to the east side of the

.,    Oquirrh Mountains from Herriman, north to and including

.,    Magna, now and in the future.

                WHEREAS, all of the seven sites are subject to

.r    the watershed of the Oquirrh Mountains, and the rapidly

     growing community of Magna is totally dependent on the

     water flow coming from the Oquirrh Mountains with over

     3,000 connections providing water for 12,000 users.

,9    THEREFORE BE IT KNOWN THAT there can be no assurance that

20    contaminants from landfills will not leach into the water

     supply and create serious health problems.

22               WHEREAS, the access routes to any of the sites

     in the Oquirrh Mountains are the main roads through the

     center of Magna, Kearns, Hunter, and Granger, and these

25    roads have been designated as hazardous routes  in a
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING

-------
 j    statewide  study by the Utah State  PTA in 1977.   THEREFORE


     BE  IT KNOWN THAT a landfill for the entire Salt Lake County


     will  create an unforeseeable increase in private and


     commercial traffic along these hazardous routes, and


     create an  extremely dangerous threat to the children,  senior


     citizens,  and all other pedestrians along these routes,
 o

     and THEREFORE,  is not in the best  interest of the citizens


     of  these communities.
 8

                WHEREAS, there are past records of serious


     earthquakes in Magna and flash floods in the canyon areas


     south of Magna, washing out entire bridges.  THEREFORE


     a landfill at any of the sites in  the Oquirrh Mountains


     would pose a threat of contamination to the water supply


     and wells  and health conditions, were future geologic


     and natural hazards or acts of God to occur in the


     unforeseeable future.
16

                WHEREAS, sites numbers 7 and 2 are located less


     than  two and two-thirds miles directly southwest of present


     and proposed housing developments  on the southwest perimeter


     of  Hunter  and less than two and one-half miles directly


     east  of housing developments on the east perimeter of


     Kearns, and sites numbers 1, 6, 5, and 4 are located from


     one-Half to two miles from the perimeter of Copperton


     and Lark,  and the Housing and Urban Development through  the


„    Community  Development Block Grants Program has allocated
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                                                               //<&
                                                             -ttr
 1   thousands of dollars to upgrade and rehabilitate Kearns,



 2   Magna, and Copperton.  THEREFORE,a landfill located  in the



 3   Oquirrh Mountains would create a lowering of property values



 4   become an aesthetic blight and a general nuisance,



 5   downgrading the communities located nearby.



 6              WHEREAS, a sanitary landfill located in the



 7   Oquirrh Mountains would create environmental havoc and



 8   threaten the natural wildlife in the canyons of the  Oquirrh



 9   Mountains and destroy the natural pristine beauty of these



10   mountains.



I]              WHEREAS, Salt Lake County is anticipated  to



J2   generate 836,700 tons or 1,653,400,000 pounds of garbage



13   or solid waste per year by the year 1990.  NOW THEREFORE,



14   these solid wastes, including hazardous wastes, raw



15   sewage, and demolition materials would be designated as



lg   landfill in one or possibly eventually all of the seven



17   proposed sites.



18              THEREFORE BE IT KNOWN that we approach the



19   Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Government



20   to accept this petition of opposition to the establishment



21   of a sanitary landfill at any location along and adjacent



22   to the east side of the Oquirrh Mountains from Herriman,



23   north to and including Magna, now or in the future and to



24   guarantee that protection will be given to prevent any



25   future landfill sites from being located in the Oquirrh
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

-------
                                                              -ttv
 I    Mountains.

 2               THEREFORE BE  IT KNOWN  THAT  we  are  asking for

 3    and encouraging the establishment of a total  resource recovejry

 4    program in the near future in Salt Lake County with

 5    opportunity for financial assistance if necessary,  as well

 6    as technical assistance, if necessary,

 7               THEREFORE BE  IT KNOWN  THAT  this  committee

 8    extends our support to Public Law 94-580.

 9               I'd like to make a comment  here.   These  facts

10    and opposition and our recommendations are  being  bound

II    for future reference, and we should like  to send  a  copy

12    of these facts to submit them to  you folks, which would be

13    within the next few weeks, as soon as  we  get  them bound.

14    And do we send them to you, Mr. Yeagley?

15               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Yes.

16               MS. OGDEN:  And then the Salt  Lake County

17    Commission is declining a public  hearing  on this  issue,

18    and at this time they agreed to hear a small  group  of us

19    concerning this problem, but we feel when there are so

20    many people and communities involved that we  have a right

21    to be heard, and the communities  have  a right to  be heard.

22    Am I wrong in assuming this and what can  you  suggest we  do?

23               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Let me just initially say

24    that I am not certain that this forum  is  the  proper place

25    for this kind of a discussion.  And our purpose is  to gather
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 531 1906

-------
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
  input for the implementation of this Act.  But in direct
  response to your question,  the Environmental Protection

  Agency does not directly involve itself in this type of

  a situation, which I would consider to be a local issue.

  And I would suggest that the State Solid Waste Program has

the responsibility for the review and approval of design and

  operating plants for disposal sites within the State, and

  in that the approval lies at that level that they should be

  the individuals you should talk. to.  EPA does not have

  authority that allows us to approve, disapprove, or

  whatever, of a particular site in a local situation.  Rela-

  tive to resource recovery in the Salt Lake Valley, we are

  very much in support of that and we would like to see it
  proceed and have had discussions with Dr. Eckhoff, who has

  the 208 program in the Salt Lake County, and we would
  hopefully be able to offer whatever assistance/ be it
  technical assistance or possibly financial assistance,

  assuming dollars are available and priority is such  that we
  are able to do that.  But I think that  is the extent of

  comment I woud like to make to that regard.
             MS. OGDEN:  What we wanted to do was bring this

  to your attention because there have been very serious

  threats here.  And if the EPA  — for example, in  the

  Teton Dam disaster up there they did not listen to the

  people.  And the rest is history.  And  this is what  we're
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             22B JUDGE BUILDING

-------
1   pleading for, that you are aware of  the  situation,  because

2   it isn't just a private group  that's involved  here;  there

3   are thousands of people that are involved,  and realizing

4   the problem perhaps may even help  you in your  resource

5   recovery fight, whatever.

6              Thank you.

7              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   Thank  you  very much.

8              Now I'd like to call on the representative of

9   the Soil Conservation Service, who would also  like  to
10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
make a statement.

           MR. JAMES DEAN MAXWELL:  Maxwell.   Dean  Maxwell,

representing the Soil Conservation Service.

           Any disturbance of a large  area which  could  be

the case in the establishment of a disposal  site  causes

soil disturbance, and I'm not sure this  law  or this forum

is the place to air this totally, but  I  would  just  like to

mention the fact that whenever large areas of  soil  are

disturbed, there are problems that should be considered.

So in the promululgation of your guidelines, you  may want

to consider addressing  some of these.  I find  only  one  small

place in the law that applies; Section 4005  discusses

upgrading of open dumps.

           But just a few items that you might know could

be considered in your guidelines.  You should  give

consideration to the suitability and the limitation of  those
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                              IIS JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B«lll
                                 531-1906

-------
                                                              fjo
     soils  when you select the site so that hazards where



     ground water and surface water and so on are addressed.


     And provisions for control of erosion from either direct



     rainfall on the site or from tributary flow that may come


     over the site that would cause erosion, that you revegetate


     any area that is disturbed so that the soil would stay in
 6

     place, rather than remove it.  Consider the stockpiling  --



     removal and stockpiling of topsoil at disposal site and
 8

     then replacing that to allow for a better chance of success



     of revegetation following that disturbance.  And to


     consider the effect of water discharge from, well,



     disruption of natural drainage ways so the site does not


     interfere with natural runoff.  One that I feel is very



     important is that you give consideration to preservation


     of any prime agricultural land areas.  Our prime agricul-


     tural  land is being used up in urban development and other
16

     things at a very rapid rate, and it's almost alarming how



     much of that prime land is going out of production.  So
1 o

     we could, as an agency, help identify where those prime



     agricultural areas are and help in the site and disposal


     areas to prevent that loss of that kind.  We also have —



     of course it does not necessarily run into agriculture --



     but there are many unique cultural values other than these



     Rinds of things: marshland has values for wildlife and



     other things.  To give consideration to what the site is.



     I don't see this addressed in the law, but as I say,
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING

                            228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
 1    it may be the ninety-two five hundred is a costly item,

 2    some others may be the place that that is taken care of,

 3    at least in the guidelines.  You may want to address these

 4    items.

 5               Thank you.

 6               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Thank you, Dean.  I think

 7    that some of those kinds of materials will be considered

 8    under the land disposal, sanitary landfill criteria

 9    guidelines;  isn't that correct,  Bruce?

10               MR. WEDDLE:  Yes.  Almost everything you mentione<

II    There's a few that I hadn't thought of,  like sites on

I2    cultural land, that I'll bring back with us and give it

13    strong consideration.   But the 1008 guidelines will address

14    almost everything you  pointed out.

15               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Okay.  Yes, ma'am.

15               A VOICE:   If you don't become involved in

17    local issues, how can  you become involved after they become

18    a  blight?

19               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  Anybody want to respond to

20    that?

21               MR.  LOWE:   We do from time to time become

22    involved in local issues,  but there are  a lot of  parties

23    that  have a  responsibility that  should be exercised before

24    ours  and the discussion that was raised  here, I think ought

25    be  discussed first between the citizens  and the elected

     officials.   Now,  if  we can be brought in to provide
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8^111
                                 531 1906

-------
 I    information  in  support of  or  refutation of the claims

 2    made  by either  party,  we would be glad to do that.  We

 3    don't have authority,  though,  to step in and say, "Hold it,

 4    Mr. Ccrunty Commissioner, you have no right to put a

 5    landfill here.   The citizens are right."  We can't act

 6    as referees  in  that kind of  case.  I think if either of

 7    the parties  want some  information about the environmental

 8    impact of what's proposed  or on the possibilities for

 9    resource recovery in that  area, then it would be appropriate

10    for us to step  in and  get  involved.  But I hope I made

11    myself clear.

12              A VOICE:  Are you as responsive to citizen input

U    as you are  to governmental official input?

14              MR.  LOWE:  Give us a try.

15               THE  VOICE:   Thank you.

16              MR.  LOWE:  We have to evaluate each circumstance

17    carefully.   We  tend to be  called in by public officials,

18    elected officials, but we  can assume that they are acting

 19    in support of the majority of their people, even  though

20    we know that certain of their actions may be opposed,

21    but that doesn't say we will support them blindly.  We

 22   would help them to listen to all the supporters,  take all

 23   of their advice into account.

 24              THE  VOICE:  Do you ever  investigate governmental

 25   official claims like, for instance, they do have  the  support

     of their people when in fact they are not  telling the truth?
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                 S31 1906

-------
 1               MR. LEHR:  We pretty much leave that process

 2    up to referenda and the election.

 3               MR. LOWE:  If we are asked the question directly,

 4    we have to respond honestly.  A lot of times we are

 5    involved in a situation and there are things going on

 6    that we don't know about, and even if we look at them, we

 7    don't see them.  I don't know if we can speak in general

 8    terms about that.  You have to ask more specific questions.

 9               THE VOICE:  Okay.  How much clout does the

10    EPA actually have?

II               MR. LOWE:  How much clout does the EPA have?

12               THE VOICE:  How much clout does EPA actually

13    have?

14               MR. LOWE:  Not much.  Not much.  All we have is

15    what's written in the law.  Subtitle C is the only regula-

16    tory program we have.  Everything else requires •— About

17    the only power that we have is a question of influence and

18    only if the locals or state want something from us.  If

19    the State and local governments don't want any of our money,

20    then they don't have to do anything for us.

21               The only thing that applies is our definition of

22    what is to be done, and then they are susceptible to citi-

23    zen's suit.  That's not a very strong law.  That just the

24    underlying premise behind my remarks and Jon's remarks,

25    which is not much for EPA to get itself involved in.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:   Yes,  sir.

                MR.  CLAIR ANDERSON:   Clair  Anderson,  represent-

     ing  Bear  River  City, population about  500  people.   The

     closing of  open dumps:   Well,  out there  I  don't  think we

     can  afford  sanitary  landfill,  and we go  back 30  years where

     we burn our own stuff  in our back yard and take  out the tin

     cans on a dark  night along  a county road.  Now, the  burning,

     I guess,  wouldn't  amount to much,  when the big factories

     would put out enough in  a day  to last  us for 100 years.

.     But  take  it easy on  us,  will you?

                CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:   This  gentleman.

]2              DR.  GARTH R.  MORGAN:   I'm Dr. Garth Morgan,

     Templeton Linke &  Associates.

                It was  mentioned that on October 1st, 1978,

     permits will have  to be  applied for prior  to that time;

.     is that correct?
lo
17              MR.  LINDSEY:   That's under  the  hazardous waste

Jg   provision.   Let me back  up  a minute and  make it  very clear.

     There are 18 months  granted by the Act from October the

     21st, 1976,  for us to come  up  with  standards for what is

 .   and  what  is not a  hazardous waste,  for standards for

     treatment,  storage,  and  disposal facilities,  for performance

„   standards,  of that sort.

                Then within six  months  after  that it  will become

2j   illegal to  dispose of hazardous waste  without a  permit.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111
                                531 1906

-------
  1   That's the way the law reads.

  2              Now, the October  21, 1978,  figure  assumes  that

  3   the 18 months will be met to the day instead  of  earlier

  4   or later and that the six months will  then ensue after

  5   that, you see; so that makes a two-year period.   Okay.

  6   Is that clear?

  7              DR. MORGAN:  We do not have that hazardous list

  8   yet?

  9              MR. LINDSEY:  No.  That's one of the  18-month

10   requirements.

11              DR. MORGAN:  And then enforcement will begin at

12   that time?

13              MR. LINDSEY:  Then there will be six months  from

14   that time for people to apply for permits.  If they apply

IS   for a permit and if they have already existed as of the

16   time the  Act was passed and if they have notified EPA under

17   Section 3010, then they will be granted an interim permit

18   until such time as the paper work for the regular permit is

19   acted upon.   Okay?

20              All that get a little confusing,  but that's

21   technically the way it is.

22              DR.  MORGAN:   Then the Act itself is wide open;

23   it's  very nebulous as  to who must apply for a permit?

24             MR.  LINDSEY:   Anyone who owns a treatment,

25   storage,  or  disposal facility for  hazardous wastes and  the
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                531-1906

-------
 4

 5

 6

 7



 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
  criteria  for  what  is  or  what is  not a hazardous waste

  and  for facilities will  be  generated within 18 months, so

  that at that  point people will be able to tell exactly.

  I think most  people know now whether they have a facility

  of the nature that's  going  to be involved, perhaps with some
  limits.
             DR.  MORGAN:   That could include every farmer in
  the nation.

            MR.  LINDSEY:   Depending on how we define it.

  That was brought up in,  I guess,  two or three of the other

  meetings, you know, what about the farmer who has a

  pesticide container, for example, or bags, or whatever?  Do

  they become  a generator?  Will they need a permit?  Well,

  generators don't need permits.  Disposers, treaters, and

  storers need permits.  Now, depending on how we define what

  is a disposer,  treater,  or storer, depending on whether or

  not we might perhaps give exemptions or require different

  types of permits or something like that, why, we could, I

  think, do that.  There's some flexibility there on how we

  carry that out.  I was asked, I think in Denver — I am not

  sure whether it was Denver or Richmond or where, because

  we've been around the last few days, but this was brought up

very strongly there — you know, what the impact might be on

  farmers.  That's the kind of information we need:  In other

  words, if a farmer is going to be required to have a permit,
                       ANDERSEN REPORTING
                          22B JUDGE BUILDING
                        SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH BJ111
                              531 1906

-------
 1   what does that do to him?  How much of a problem is that?

 2   What is the cost involved?  On the other hand, from people

 3   who might oppose that, what kind of environmental impact are

 4   we likely to have?  What kinds of problems may exist if we

 5   don't bring these particular materials under control?

 5   That's the kind of information we need in order to make the

 7   decisions we'll have to make on that sort of thing.  And

 3   if you have any thoughts, data, or opinions on that, why,

 9   please make them known either here right now or by letter

ig   or however.

I]              DR. MORGAN:  After these permits are issued,

12   there must be a suit brought as a result of a violation

13   before a fine can be levied.  I was noticing in here that

]4   up to $25,000 is the fine.  That seemed to be awful stiff.

15              MR. LINDSEY:  That's stiff.

16              DR. MORGAN:  That would put anyone out of

17     commission almost immediately, especially in these small

,8   communities.

19              MR. LXNDSEY:  Well, on the other hand, there are

20   a lot of big corporations, you see, and I think that's the

2]    reason why — It's up to $25,000 and it also can be

22   criminal or civil, and it also can include one year in jail,

23   as well, if it's a criminal case, and that's per day of

24   violation.  So it can mount up, you're right; it's a very

25   steep fine.  But how much of a fine would be levied would
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8*111
                                 531 1906

-------
 I    involve  what the  situation was and who was involved and how

 2    big  the  problem was and the courts then would end up

 3    with that.

 4               On the other hand,  the more probable way of

 5    enforcing violations is through the consideration of

 5    revocation  of the permit.   We  don't necessarily have to end

 7    up in a  civil or  a criminal suit.  There's the whole

 g    provision of the  permit system, and if a facility which has

 9    a permit is found then later to be violating conditions of

10    the  permit  or,  on the other hand, is not meeting the

II    standards for those kinds  of facilities, then the permit can

12    Be revoked; and if the permit  is revoked, then it is

]3    illegal  for them  to operate further, they have to close

14    down, cease whatever they  were doing.  Is that clear?

,5               CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:  I think that becomes even

jg    more significant  when you  tie  in the manifest system,

17    which keeps good  track of  where the waste is, realizing

Ig    a transporter has to go to a permanent disposal site.

19               MR.  LINDSEY: Along a similar line to the

20    question which the gentleman presented about the farmers

2|    is the similar problem someone mentioned during one of the

22    breaks,  and I thought it's worth comment because some people

23    might have  some suggestions,

24               What about the  small volumes of potentially

25    hazardous wastes  which enter the municipal waste stream from
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
  1    the  homeowner?   Half  a  can of  paint sludge or half a can

  2    of turpentine or something of  that nature  which may or may

  3    not  be  hazardous but  might be,  or  the ballast from

  4    fluorescent  light fixtures,  et cetera,  which have small

  5    amounts of PCB  in them?  Should we try to  control those

  6    things.  Can we control those  things?  If  we do try, what

  7    mechanisms can  we use or should we just write them off

  8    as something which is essentially  impossible to control,

  9    and  do  we have  problems from the disposal  of these materials

 10    along with municipal  refuse.

 II              This is a  similar area,  I think you can see, and

 12    it's a  difficult problem to control if we  try, and we'd

 13    like to have any opinions anyone might have on that, as

 14    well.

 IS              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   Commissioner?

 16              MR.  YUKUS  INOUYE:   One  question:  I think I am

 17    the  only elected official here now.  In answer to the

 18    question the lady asked,  do you have a proposal to give

 19    your County  Commissioner as to where to go?

20              MS.  JOAN S.  OGDEN:   Yes.

21              (Laughter!

22              MR.  LOWE:  Are they referring to a landfill site?

23              CHAIRMAN YEAGLEY:   I have been  told that several

24    times.

25              MR.  INOUYE:   We elected officials are between the

      rock and the hardtop  all the time.   We  have a group come in
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
 1    and say,  "Well,  don't do that," but "Go here."  And we'll

 2    have another group come here and say, "Go there."  A lot

 3    of times if you can get a concrete suggestion and you have

 4    investigated and that is popular and easy to go, land is

 5    available without any other interference, this can be

 6    helpful.   But to get comment, "Don't put it here; put it

 7    someplace else," where is that someplace else?

 g               MS. OGDEN:  No, but do you ever go just because

 9    you don't have anyplace else to go regardless of wfiat is

10    said?

II               MR. INOUYE:  No.  No.  What I am saying, the

12    people on the east side here say that's the logical place

,3    to go.

14               MS. OGDEN:  How come it's been there for the last

15    30, 40 years?

|6               MR. INOUYE:  Well, I don't know.  This is Salt

17    Lake County.  I am Utah County.  This is the reason I asked

18    that question.  It's a toughy.  Solid waste is everybody

19    wants yoa to pick it up, noboby wants you to put it down.

20               MS. OGDEN:  This is why the whole thing is

21    so important, because we are making ourselves more aware

22    of the problem we all have.  With the EPA and resource

23    recovery and so forth, we can all work hand in glove and

24    solve this problem.  That's all we're asking.

25               MR. INOUYE:  I agree with you.  I agree.
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             226 JUDGE BUILDING
                           SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH B4111
                                 531 1906

-------
 i

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
           CHAIRMAN  YEAGLEY:  Thank you.

           Any  other comments? ___

           All  right.   I will take this opportunity to

thank you all for  being here.  We very much appreciate your

input.  We hope that it has been beneficial to you.

           Thank you very much.

      (Whereupon,  at 1:00 o'clock P.M. the  hearing was

     adjourned.)

                             	oOo	
                           ANDERSEN REPORTING
                              228 JUDGE BUILDING
                            SAl-T LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
                                  531 1906

-------
                                                               ISA.
 1                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

 2

 3   STATE OF UTAH          I
                            I
 4   COUNTY OF SALT LAKE    I

 5

 6              I, BARBARA G. ANDERSEN, CSR, a Notary Pxiblic

 7   in and for the State of Utah, do hereby certify that the

 8   foregoing Public Discussion Session of the Resource

 9   Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580, sponsored

10   by the United States Environmental Protection Agency,

11   Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., and the United

12   States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIIE, Denver,

13   Colorado, was taken in stenotype by me commencing at

14   9:00 A.M., Friday, March 4, 1977, at the Hilton Hotel,

IS   150 West Fifth South Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, and

16   that the foregoing pages 3 to 132, inclusive, were

17   transcribed under my direction and supervision and represent

18   a full and correct transcript of the proceedings.

19

20              DATED at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 18th day

21   of March, 1977.

22

23                            	.. .   _    	
                                      G. ANDERSEN, Notary Public
24                            Certified Shorthand Reporter
                              In and for the State of Utah
25
                          ANDERSEN REPORTING
                             228 JUDGE BUILDING

-------
                              DEFENDERS OF THE OUTDOOR HERITAGE
                              Post Office Box 15135
                              Salt Lake City, Utah 81115
                                       SVC -
 AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

   A ma.lor  environmental problem has been recognized and great strides
 are being  taken to address solutions to solid  waste management.   The
 Defenders  of the Outdoor Heritage believes that the initiative provided
 by the national solid waste program,  resulting from the Solid Waste
 Disposal Act of 1965 and the Resource Recovery Act of 1970,  should  not
 be lost.

   The DOH  particularly  laud the elimination of open dumps,  the sponsoring
 of improved  disposal techniques,  action toward resource recovery, generation
 reduction  studies  and the development of training  programs.   The  DOH
 are  concerned  with the  increasing energy needs of  this country and  the
 potential  use  of solid  waste products as fuel  for  power.

   VMle the  DOH agree with the  view of many administration  officials that
 solid waste  is basically a local  problem -  particularly in  the area of
 collection,  storage, and  disposal  of non-hazardous waste - we observe
 that many  problems must vigorously be attacked, directed  and  funded by
 the  federal  government.

   For example,  problems  not local  in  scope  are generation reduction,  resource
 recovery, handling and disposal of hazardous wastes,  demonstration  and
 dissemination  of data on  improved  techniques,  urgent personnel training
 needs for all  levels in the  solid  waste  system, continuing research and
 development  requirements,  funds needed by some  local governments to start
 acceptable solid waste programs.   Federal funds are  needed to organize
 and  execute  these  phases  of  a national  solid waste  program.

  With these programs to work with, the  Solid Waste  Management Committee
will commit  themselves.
ROBERT BATEMAN
PORTLAND, OREGON
CHAIRMAN
JOHN OLSEN,
LAS 'VEGAS, NEVADA
VICE CHAIRMAN
              STANLEY JOHNSON.
              ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO
              ALTERNATE
JACK BRATCHER,
SALT LAKE CUT, UTAH
SECRETARY

-------
                             DEFENDERS OF THE OUTDOOR HERITAGE
                             SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE
                             Post Office Box 15135
                             Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
                                                     SM3-1
BQTT
RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.    197H.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

  Hazardous waste, in its many forms, is not restricted by any man-made
boundaries.  Therefore, the Defenders of the Outdoor Heritage feel that
due to the relatively small supply of hazardous solid waste products
locally, and to the interstate nature of the problem, regulation and
enforcement of standards relating to hazardous solid wastes should be
at the national level.

  Most counties do not have the technical capability to analyze a
particular hazardous waste product to find out if it should be treated
before disposal.  This capability is more apt to be at the state level.
For this reason, the DOH see the actual collection, intrastate transportation
and disposal being rightfully located with the state government and
coupled with this, the necessary enforcement powers,  Wien a large employer
in a county, with a small population, tends to mishandle its hazardous
waste effluent, the county finds it difficult to exercise the proper
enforcement authority,

  A state could provide uniform requirements and the capability to
arbitrate among other level of government (cities, counties, townships)
in carrying out these functions.  The federal government also must
control and enforce the interstate transportation of hazardous wastes and
establish ultimate disposal locations.  At the county level, decisions
on ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes, from manufacturing processes,
for example, are difficult to make as there may be no legal site for
disposal within its boundaries.  For some items perhaps there are only
a few places within the uhited States where materials can be disposed.

  The general feeling of the DOH is that local government's role should
b» minimized in the area of hazardous waste; however, they feel local
government should have the option of adopting regulations which are more
stringent than either federal or state regulations when hazardous solid
waste disposal might impact on local zoning or land use plans.

GENERATION REDUCTION

  Regarding non-hazs«lous solid waste activities, the DOH believes the
federal government must lead the effort to reduce the generation of solid
waste waste, since only at the national level is it possible to control
manufacturers, packaging practices and other causes contributing to
solid waste problems.  It is too large a task to bft handled by local or
state governments.

-------
  The DOH feels that state government should only develop guidelines for
the storage, collection, processing, and disposal of non-hazardous solid
waste.  Many states have issued operational standards whereas performance
standards would be adequate.  The DOH feel such variations as population
and geology throughout the state, mandate that guidelines must be general
enough to fit a variety of circumstances.  The general concenus is that
local government should set operational standards on storage, collection,
transportation, and disposal of non-hazardous solid wastes,

ENFORCEMENT

  Coupled with the problem of regulation is enforcement.  Local government,
of course, must enforce its own standards.  However, to do this, they must
have the power.  If proper enabling authority does not exist, the state
should aid the county in obtaining the authority.  The DOH expresses the
hope that with proper federal support, state government can ease the
restrictions on local governments, such as, the lack of enabling authority,
bonding limitations, and other similar constraints, which enable local
government to provide proper solid waste management.

  The DOH feels that local government should set standards on vehicles and
contract operators to ensure citizen protection.  Such standards should
include mandatory use of devices on vehicles in transit, to prevent trash
from flying off, and controlling the lenght of time garbage is stored before
disposal.  Further, local government should set standards on the level-of
service, and control over serviced areas,

FISCAL INCENTIVES

The DOH discussed various types of fiscal incentives all levels of government
could use to upgrade solid waste activities.  The DOH recommends there should
be a federal grant program but it should be limited to fund local government's
initial acquisition costs of solid waste facilities which exceed their bonding
limitations.  This particularly is needed in rural areas where the cost of
converting from open dumps to sanitary landfills has a severe impact on those
counties with limited tax bases.  Therefore, site acquisition and preparation
costs, purchase of on-site equipment, and in some cases, rolling stock costs
should be augmented by the federal government.

  The establishment of pilot solid waste projects should be initiated by the
federal government, not by local government.

  '•Ihen low interest, long term federal loan programs are established, these
loans should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate new technologies and
breakthroughs.  It was pointed out many counties that took 26 and ho year
loans have been trapped by the original conditions of the loan and now,
ten or fifteen years later, the situation has changed and they are bound
by these original requirements.  Therefore, flexibility is needed.
                         2.

-------
  The federal government should create tax incentives for industry,
by allowing preferential tax treatment for research and development
leading to reduction of products entering the waste stream, and by
accelerating depreciation on capital expense related directly to
solid waste management. Define concern is expressed that unless there
is an incentive, be it positive or negative, industry will not react.

  The DOH feels that when a state establishes procedures for effecting
compliance at the local level, proper enabling legislation must be
enacted which would allow local government the authority to finance
and operate solid waste management programs.

  Finally, local government's major responsibility is to establish
a self-sustaning solid waste management system.  Local governments
should consider charging user fees, the use of other local revenue
sources if user fees are not adequate or any combination thereof.
Also they must promote public acceptance of solid waste programs.

RECYCLING

  The DOH believes the best way to encourage local government and
the citizen to become involved in recycling activities, is the use
of incentives.  Various members cite examples where recycling on a
small scale is successful, but these are usually in areas where a
market exists locally, i. e., a glass plant, a used-oil refinery,
a steel, mill, etc.  However, it is noted that these are usually
isolated cases and unless profitable, this type of recycling will
not be done.

Experimental resource recovery systems now going on in several
locations also were discussed.  The DOH is primarily concerned
that the cost of resource recovery prohibits effective solutions.
The DOH recommends resource recovery systems be examined to consider
the marketability of the end product.  National markets should be
identified and the entire problem should be addressed by the U. S.
Department of Commerce as opposed to the Environmental Protection
Agency.

  The DOH expresses concern over the number of auto hulks in their
cities and counties, and the need for legislation to finance the cost of
disposal and recycling.  The subject of a trust fund for disposal
of costly items was discussed and it is felt that should a trust
fund be established there should be a pass-through from the trust
fund to the local agency responsible for the disposal of the
product,

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
                         3.

-------
   The DOH feels  EPA  should  augment its  research and development
 efforts.   Particular areas  requiring further  study include  the
 controlof leachate and  methane  gas generation,  compaction density
 verus settling rates, the rate  of  leachate  attenuation  of various
 solid waste components,  and the long term environmental effect  of
 material  going into  the  landfill.

   Research and development  should  be directed toward the means  to
 dispose of difficult items, whether through burying, recycling,  or
 partial reprocessing.   Items particularly identified were tires,
 automobiles,  trees and tree stumps, liquid  wastes, oil, sewage,
 sludge, animals  and  animal  by products.

   A  study by EPA,  is needed to  independently  evaluate all solid
 waste demonstration  programs.   Too much advance publicity on  the
 effectiveness of various public and industrially sponsored  programs
 is detrimental to  the overall national effort.   Claims  of great
 performance have caused  local governments to  procure or install
 systems,  due  to  local pressures, before they  are fully  tested,  or
 without understanding that  a system was effective  pnly  in a
 particular geographical  region.  Therefore, the DOH specifically
 urges USSPft to evaluate these systems independentally from  any
 evaluation by the  sponsor of the project.   Also they  feel  a
 need  for  a consumers guide  to coaimerical hardware, from rolling
 stock to  capital equipmont.   Officials want to  know not only what
 this  equipment can do, but  also its limitations, its realistic
 life,  maintenance  probelms,  etc.

 KNEROr CRISIS

   One  problem which  kept surfacing throughout the meetings  is ways
 to encourage and develop economical techniques for using solid waste
 in alleviating the growing energy crisis.   Several experimental
 efforts, now underway, were discussed.  However, the economics
 of these systems have not been proven.

 TRAIHINa NEEDS

  The DOH  recommend  USEPA should augment the  training programs
 at the university  level by developing courses in soli! waste
management and related engineering problems.  The DOH feel that
this would only  occur if supported by federal grants.  Additionally,
efforts should be made by the adrainistratisn  to strengthen other
professional development programs.  It is also noted that several
states sponsor courses in connection with HSEPA or at state
universities which have proven useful.   This effort should be
expanded to the remaining states.  This expanded effort also
 should be directed to instructing managers on training their own
personnel.
                         h.

-------
  The DOH feels USEPA should launch an improved public relations
campaign to train the public to recognize the growing solid waste
problem;  to make all citizens understand that they are part of
the problem; that the problem must be addressed and solved; but
that it will take their cooperation as well as money.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
  This project could not have possible without professional assistance.
The Solid Waste Committee, Defenders of the Outdoors Heritage, would
like to thank each person who knowingly and/or unknowingly who helped
with this project.

  Vfe wish to thank the Solid Vaste Management Office, USEPA, first
as it was they who   aroused our interest in the field.   It was this
Office which has educated us in the field of solid waste  management.

  We wish to thank the solid tsaste management officials in Clark
County, Nevada; Ventura County, California; Los Angeles County,
California; New London County, Connecticut; Kay County, Oklahoma;
Multnomah County, Oregon; Utah County, t%ah; Salt Lake County, Utah;
Weber County, Utah; and last but far from least Ittnta County, Wyoming.
The officials offered both suggestions and comments and without their
time and effort, the DOH could not complete this project.

  Without comments and ideas from the membership, the DOH could not
be.  To these people, the Committee owes the most.

-------
REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS ON RCRA
Meeting
Date
Feb 15,16

Feb 17,18
Feb 23


Feb 23,24


Feb 25

Feb 26

Feb 28,
March 1
March 3

March 4


Mar 8,9


Mar 10,11


Mar 17,18

Mar 21,22


Meeting
Place
Kansas City,
Missouri
Richmond,
New York,
City

Atlanta,
Georgia

Worcester,
Massachusetts
Concord,
New Hampshire
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Denver,
Colorado
Salt Lake City,
Utah

Dallas, Texas


San Francisco,
California

Seattle,
Washington
Chicago,
Illinois


Facility
Hilton Inn Plaza
45th & Main
Colony House
American City
Squire,
52nd & 7th Av
Sheraton-Biltmore
Hotel, 817 W.
Peachtree N.E.
Sheraton-
Lincoln Inn
Ramada Inn

William Penn
Hotel
Main Library
1357 Broadway
Hilton Hotel
150 W. South
Fifth Street
First Int'l Bldg
(29th Floor)
1201 Elm St
Holiday Inn
Union Square
480 Sutler
Seattle Center

O'Hare Holiday
Inn (Kennedy
Expressway)

Time
Evening Feb 15,
morning Feb 16
Evening Feb 17,
Day, 9 am -3 pm
evening 4-7 pm

Evening Feb 23,
8:30 am Feb 24

1 pm

1 pm

Evening Feb 28,
morning Mar 1
8:30 am-
12:30 noon
8:30 am-
12:30 noon

Evening Mar 8,
morning Mar 9

Evening Mar 10,
8 am Mar 11,

Evening Mar 17,
All day Mar 18
Evening Mar 21,
all day Mar 22

Sponsoring
EPA Office
Region VII
(Kansas City)
Region III
Region II
(New York City)

Region IV
(Atlanta)

Region I
(Boston)
Region I
(Boston)
Region III
(Philadelphia)
Region VIII
(Denver)
Region VUI
(Denver)

Region VI
(Dallas)

Region IX
(San Francisco)

Region X
(Seattle)
Region V
(Chicago)

                                      Shelf No. 594

-------
u
z
w
o
H
U
Z
w
    g
    (U
                                         <0
                o-     c-
                              -    E
                              s  c[j\
                                                     2 O u

                                                     |8

-------

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------