TRANSCRIPT
REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT of 1976
March 17 and 18, 1977, Seattle, Wash.
These meetings were sponsored by EPA Region X,
and the proceedings (SW-20p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections
by the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1977
-------
An environmental protection publication (SH-20p) in the solid waste management series.
-------
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
PUBLIC MEETING ON
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
OF 1976
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Taken at Olympic Room - Seattle Center
Seattle, Washington
DATE TAKENs March 17, 1977
REPORTED BY; Simone Elden
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2}
24
25
PANELISTS
Moderator:
Discussion Leader |
DONALD P. DUBOIS
Regional Administrator
EPA Region X
Seattle, Washington
THOMAS F. WILLIAMS, CHIEF
Technical Information and
Communications Branch
Office of Solid Waste
EPA Washington, D.C.
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S • Court Reporters - 633 7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
1' EVENING SESSION
21 8»30 P.M.
—ooOoo—
MR. DOBOIS: The next part of the evening is
a review of the principal provisions of the Resource
7 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
8 To lead our discussion, I would like to
9 introduce at this time Mr. Tom Williams, Chief of the
10 Technical Information and Communications branch office
" of Solid Waste, EPA, Washington, D.C. Tom, we look
12 forward to your comments.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: The purpose of my brief remarks
14 is simply to refresh everyone's memory on the major
15 provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
16 of 1976. I will keep them brief so that most of the time
17 we have together this evening can be used by you in
18 indicating to us how you think the Act ought to be
19 implemented and planned and seeking answers to any
20 questions you may have.
21 My area of specialty is information and public
22 participation with Hen TfinmH'a key staff persons from both
23 the region here and from headquarters who are intimately
24 involved in planning and implementing all of the provi-
23 sions of the Act. In the interest of time and since all
IRWIN Si ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters • 623-7881 • Seattle, Washington .
001
-------
i of you have been provided copies of the Act anti-issues
2 as EPA has identified them so far, I will attempt a
3 provision by provision overview.
4 The aaliant effect is the breadth of this Act.
5 The term "solid waste" is defined in such a broad way
6 that almost anything you can name, except for certain
i wastes covered by the Atomic Energy Act of the 1950'a
s and certain very discrete kinds of waste covered under
9 the Water Pollution Control Act, are covered by this
10 act. It includes nearly 40 mandatory provisions and
11 over half of these have mandatory deadlines intended to
12 enable EPA, the jjtates, local governments, industry and
•?
13 the public to deal with the billions of dollars of
14 residuals which are generated in this nation each year.
15 These pose, as you know, numerous problems in terms of
16 health and environmental effects and on and on.
17 The major purpose of the law is to bring
18 hazardous waste management under^federal and ^tate
19 regulatory controls. EPA is required within 18 months
20 of enactment to define hazardous waste, set standards
21 for their management from cradle to grave and issue
22 guidelines for state programs. The standards go into
^
23 effect six months after their promulgation. Within
24 90 days of identification of the waste, however, persons
25 generating or transporting such material or owning or
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington ,—
OO2.
-------
1 operating a facility for its treatment, storage or
2 disposal must file a notification with EPA or the state,
3 if it has an authorized permit program. In those Abates
4 which choose not to establish regulatory programs which
5 meet federal standards, and we certainly hope that most
6 do or really that all do, federal regulations will apply.
7 Civil and criminal penalties are established for non-
8 compliance.
9 Through a somewhat different set of circum-
10 stances, the Act provides a means of insuring that the
" nation stop wasting and failing to recycle valuable
12 resources of other types and to properly manage and
13 dispose of all the other residual waste which will not
14 follow under the definition of hazardous waste. The
15 Act authorizes federal financial and technical assistance
1 to the jitate, regional and local agencies to strengthen
their overall solid waste programs, including resource
recovery and conservation activities.
1 O
Within six months of enactment EPA must issue
guidelines on the guidelines of regional areas; within
18 months guidelines for jjtate solid waste plans must be
issued. For a state to be eligible for these grants
a solid waste plan must meet minimum criteria. Among
24
them is an inclusion of a requirement that all solid
waste outlined for resource recovery be disposed of in a
1RWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'i Court Reporters 623-7891 - Seettte, Washington
003
-------
1 sanitary land fill or disposed of in some other environ-
2 mental sound manner. The plan must also provide for the
3 closing up or upgrading of existing open dumps. Now,
4 that is a very large order considering the fact that
5 we have tens of thousands of open dumps today and very
6 little environmentally sound practice in any aspects
7 of solid waste management.
8 By October 1977, EPA must publish criteria
9 for identifying open dumps or identifying sanitary land
10 fills and must conduct a national inventory of all open
11 dumps in the following 12 months. The Act mandates that
12 all the dumps throughout the country must be closed or
13 upgraded by 1983 and forbids the creation of new dumps.
14 Since these acts would increase the complexity and
15 certainly the cost of disposing of solid waste, the
16 Act states that EPA must provide technical assistance
17 teams to state and local governments upon request to
•^
18 aid them in meeting the goals and requirements of the Act
19 which will be a large job for all the EPA regions to
20 carry out.
21 While this technical assistance will be made
22 available to assist in all aspects of solid waste
23 management, certainly one of its purposes will be to
24 insure there is an increase in resource conservation and
23 recovery as requirements for land disposal waste become
00-1
-------
i more stringent. As they become more stringent, they
2 become more costly and unless there are really dramatic
3 increases In resource conservation and recovery some
4 of us wonder what we can proceed to do with the waste
5 at the costs that have to be borne.
6 Moreover, wide general authorities conferred
7 by the Act are studies, research, demonstrations,
s information and training activities. Eleven specific
9 studies are required. At the conclusion of each, a
10 report, including legislative recommendations, must be
11 published. Studies are required in many areas. They
12 include, among others, sludge management, source separa-
13 tion, agricultural and mining wastes, actions to reduce
14 waste generation, collection methods and centers for
n recycling, the imposition of disposal charges on products
16 and the problems of acquiring land for solid waste
17 management facilities which are already acute and are
is going to become almost impossibly acute it seems in the
19 next few years.
20 Of great significance we feel is the two-year
21 study to be conducted by the cabinet level, Resource
22 Conservation Committee, chaired by the EPA Administrator.
23 Major national policy issues affecting the economic,
24 social and environmental consequences of resource
25 conservation will be investigated. We think this is quit
__ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S • Court Reporters 623-7S81 - Seattle, Washington .
005
-------
i important, because in the paat the Administrator of
2 EPA has made pronouncements or suggestion* and put out
3 guidelines concerning ways of not producing waste, ways
4 of not using more material and more energy than we now
5 do. As you might imagine, there would be other cabinet
6 members, other departments saying how can you do this.
i The State Department is concerned with foreign trade and
8 the Department of Commerce is concerned with commerce,
9 etc., etc.
10 Now for the first time, this Act says all of
11 these people have to get together with EPA as the
12 chairman of a committee, and it would seem to us, and
>3 if they make an announcement about it, that we ought
14 to cut down on packaging or whatever and that it would
" have some real force behind it. All^federal agencies
16 are required to comply with guidelines and regulations
17 under the Act. Furthermore, all^federal procurement
18 agencies will be required two years after the enactment
>9 to procure items composed of the highest percentage of
20 recovered materials practicable and EPA will supply
21 guidelines for these procuring agencies.
22 No large instruction *nd financing mechanisms
23 or long-term provisions will be included in the Act.
24 Therefore, it is crucial that successful implementation
25 of regional and statewide planning or demonstrations and
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
OOG
-------
1 evaluations of technical assistance and of public under-
2 standing and involvement be achieved.
3 The Act contains an unusually complete array
4 of provisions which could bring about a high degree of
5 public participation. We are employing three major
6 techniques at this time for bringing about public
7 understanding and involvement. The first is to insure
8 that appropriate public meetings such as this in addition
9 to hearings, conferences and workshops are held through-
10 out the country at the proper time in accordance with
11 the unfolding of the Act's major provisions. Over 120
12 such meetings are already contemplated for this very
13 calendar year.
14 The second technique is the use of advisory
15 committees and review groups so that we will get guidance
16 before we have a chance to take an action or a. misaction.
17 The third is a development of educational
18 programs so that the public has a real opportunity of
19 becoming aware of the significance of the technical data
20 base which underpins the Act and of the social and
21 economic issues which emerge from this data base.
22 I cannot withstand or I cannot resist the
23 temptation to make at least one editorial comment, so
2 I shall do so at the risk of being known for what I am.
25 It is this: As you know, not everyone welcomes a new
-------
1 environmental law with open arms and kisses. There are
2 those who would turn back the environmental clock and
3 have us believe our environmental patterns of the past
4 should be continued, they close their eyes and ears to
5 hearing contradictions in their attitudes. They know,
6 however, in open society, it is public opinion which
7 determines national directions and goals. Recently,
8 some of these people have discovered that public concern
9 about energy needs to be turned into an anti-environmenta
10 weapon and they are using it. It is often implied there
11 is something vaguely unamerican in the view we should
12 conserve resources and use science and technology
13 selectively in recycle planning, which this Act and
14 many others like it are really trying to bring about.
15 These counter-environmental revolutions know
16 that ever since the beginning of this decade, the
17 interest and attention of the public are the base on
18 which improved environmental authorities, practices
iy and attitudes have been built. They are betting,
20 however/ that the people are no longer concerned about
21 the forests or plains and mountains of this planet,
22 about the misuse of natural resources, about noise and
23 pollution. They are betting that the public no longer
24 cares to be involved with the provision of technology
25 assessment which has been occuring in our country. They
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington ~
CGG
-------
1 are betting that the ordinary citizen is weary of
2 participation in the tremendous important task of
3 making influencing decisions which in prior decades were
4 expected to be made only by the expert scientist, the
5 expert legislature, the expert lobbyist, the expert
6 bureaucrat, the expert politician. We are betting they
7 are wrong and you are the reason we are betting that way.
8 Now we would like to hear from you about this
9 Act.
10 MR. OUBOIS: Are there any comments from the
11 panel?
12 (No response.)
13 Let's hear from the floor then. Do you have
14 any questions or comments?
15 MS. CAMINIT1; Again, I have not read this
16 bill, but I think you might make a case study. The
17 City of Seattle, as this Act, had revealed to the citizens
18 the consequences of our effort as a resource recovery
19 program. Is this familiar?
20 MR. DCBOIS: Very familiar to Mr. Humber
21 especially.
22 MS. CAMINITI: You see, we don't like this
23 experience duplicated. I just bring it up because it
24 is the one immediately in my mind. The Council voted
23 to spend money to develop an ammonia plant from garbage.
IRWIN t. ASSOCIATES, CSR'» . Court R>port»n . U3-7U1 . Sum*. Wa»n!n«ton
009
-------
i We learned this week we have spent $800,000. That is imor
2 than a dollar for every person who is a resident in this
3 city on the development plans, which now must be abandone
4 and no one seems distressed in City Hall that nearly a
5 million dollars is shot. I can't understand it that
6 nobody is screaming, unless we are so habituated to the
7 messes at City Hall. I must be honest. Actually we
s have superior city government. Really, I mean we do.
9 It is just we don't appreciate it when we are so close
10 to it.
n X always look back to what people can do
12 about these things. I look under Section 4007,
13 Federal Assistance. It really frightens me when I see
14 it is thirty million for 1978 and forty million for 1979
i; I think it is great to have money to make things go. But
16 oh God, when Metro or some of our other levels of
17 government see this, this will be a plunder in what this
is town will spend in legal expenses alone. (Laughter)
19 Let's be realistic. These things have to tie
20 together. I don't mean to take the floor, but I live
21 with this city's practices. Because it is in the public
22 know for so many years now, the City of Seattle has a
23 plan, Westlake Project they call it. It is a scheme
24 to demolish every building or an entire building downtown
25 including the monorail. They didn't even really calculat
[RWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporter! - 623-7881 • SeatMe, Washington -
GiO
-------
i how much solid waste this amounts to, but there are
2 six and seven story buildings down there. When the
3 city sets out to accomplish it, as the Corporation
4 Council says, the city can file a suit where the city
5 will be the plaintiff and all the city residents will
6 be the defendants in order to make this project go.
7 My simple question was "Where are you going to put all
8 of that rubble?" If this city gets theM hands on any
9 part of this fund, they will build their own solid waste
10 place to put this rubble.
11 I tried to plead with certain officials to
12 understand how it is very generous. I said, "You have
13 all the money, we don't? but when you give our city
H officials these funds for their playtime, it is really
!"> oppressive to us. So think ten times before you dole
16 out any of this money, because it can only be a hardship
17 on the people and not accomplish what you would like to
is see done with that money."
19 Thank you.
20 MR. DUBOIS: Any other comments or questions?
21 MR. ELDRED: in the first section, or one of
22 the first sections of the Act, the number is 1003, you
23 make a statement, or it is written "requiring the con-
24 version of existing open dumps to facilities which do not
25 pose a danger to the environment or to health."
. IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623 78B1 Seattle, Washington .
Ci;
-------
1 Could you clear up for me what type of
2 conv«r*iJdaa?«Ee you talking about here and are there any
guidelines?
4 MR. DEGEAI$ That is a good question, because
5 I would like to put it right back to you. The law says
we will define something called an open dump and some-
7
thing called a sanitary land fill by means of existing
8 criteria. Since this law has been enacted Congress
9 has just removed from effectiveness what we have formerly
10 and traditionally known as sanitary land fill and open
" dump. So we are starting over from scratch.
12 Under the guidance of this, we are differen-
13 tiating from open dump and sanitary land fill. Sanitary
14 land fill requires no reasonable probability for its
15 effect on health or environment. We are to develop
16 criteria which will allow an approach of that broad
17 definition which provides for the distinction between
18 the two type of operations, and we are right now in
19 the throes of trying to determine just what those criteria
20 should entail and that is one reason for these meetings,
21 is to seek public input. First, what are the effects
22 or concern and,secondly, what are the adverse effects
23 and what constitutes an adverse effect on the environment
24 So that is the extent of the guidelines or
23 guides that presently exist and we are going to build on
_„ IRWIN A ASSOCIATES, CSR'I - Court Reporters - 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington .
012
-------
i that and if you have any suggestions or input on that
2 process, we will welcome your views.
3 For the record, you can look at Section 4004,
4 which provides the basic charge for development of that
5 criteria and 4005 speaks of what the purposes of what
6 the act of an open dump is with reference to Section
7 4004.
8 MR. LEHMAN: I just would like to amplify
9 something that was just mentioned and I think we would
10 be remiss if we leave the room without it sinking home
n that solid waste is not solid anymore. (Laughter)
12 Congress has redefined it.
13 If you look at the definition of solid waste
14 in the law, you will see that it includes not only
15 solid waste, the traditional municipal waste that I
16 think each one is used to thinking of when they think
17 of garbage, but sludge, liquids, contained gases
is originating from municipal sources, commercial sources,
19 industrial sources, agricultural sources and mining
20 sources .
21 So when we talk about how you define what
22 a land fill is or how can you define what an open dump
(?£$-u(se
23 is, you can't think in terms of only household ape far oncer,
24 but all these other terms of "solid waste" that wo have
25 to deal with.
IRW1N & ASSOCIATES, CSR's . Court Reporters - 621 7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i MR. DUBOIS: Any other comments or suggestions?
2 MS. GAUDITZ: when you will develop the
3 guidelines for the locations of these, will you consider
4 the many experiences that exist in various ways of
5 disposing of waste and the consideration of possibilities
6 of using household waste?
7 I agree with you that chemical waste is a
s different story and we certainly will probably have to
9 have two different systems of waste disposal and common
10 household garbage or whatever you want to call it.
11 I know in the City of Frankfurt they have built a whole
12 new city on top of a pile of rubbish.
13 To answer the lady's question about the
14 Hestlake Project, that might be possible; but are you
15 going to look around nationally and internationally at
16 the many different possibilities of disposing of the
17 non-poisonous and non-chemical waste?
is MR. DEGEAIO Yes. The term "disposal", we
iy talked about developing criteria for differentiating
20 among solid waste disposal. Unless a specific thing is
21 going to be pursued, you have to look back and see what
22 disposal means. The term pertains to land disposition
23 of waste; so the common usage of the terra "disposal"
24 includes many other handling methods of waste, incinera-
25 tion and resource recovery and also land demolition. In
___^_ IRWIN A ASSOCIATES, CSR't - Court Reporters - 423-7*8) . Seat!)*, Washington ——
G14
-------
i this case criteria is going to deal with only land
2 demolition or waste, which is disposal.
3 There is another section that is appropriate
4 and that is "Solid Haste Management Information and
5 Guidelines," which is under Section 1008, which says
6 we will develop guidelines on various solid waste
7 practices, and that can include any kind of practice.
s In fact, there is really no further guidance
9 as to what kinds of practices we address, and that is
10 something else we are seeking input on. Is there a need
n for example, for guidelines right now on making bricks
12 out of flat waste? We are looking for some kind of
13 public guidance and some kind of guidelines so we know
14 in what direction to put our efforts.
n We are looking at what has been done in the
16 past in other countries with specific regard to the use
17 of solid waste and fill land and large development of
is that land. We know it has been done successfully in
19 some cases. We know of other oases where there has been
20 severe problems which have developed. We also know those
21 problems can be mitigated. There is one problem that
22 has become more common recently, and that is the methane
23 gas generation. Stuctures have been later constructed
24 near or on top of former industrial sites and people have
23 been killed frequently and it probably has been abandoned
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7S81 - Seattle. Washington .
-------
> because of that, but we also know, for example, of
2 structures that were built on top of a former disposal
3 site, and that includes some unique engineering concept
4 to allow them to use those buildings without any problem.
5 Yes, we are looking and aware for something
6 that has been done. He are looking through a meeting
7 such as this.- both in the United States and other countri
8 so we are trying to utilize as much as we can.
9 MS. FARLEY: One of the things you are talking
10 about is permit procedures for people who have hazardoun
11 waste disposal systems or something. For instance, I
12 have heard about a person in Seattle who apparently takes
13 hazardous waste from a lot of different companies and he
14 has some ideas about how he can "dispose" of some of it.
15 I think he has some ideas about chemically changing
16 it so it is not toxic or harmful anymore.
17 The Department of Ecology has not decided what
18 he should do in its entirety. So it seems to me like 11:
19 would be more practical and workable and would at least
20 attack part of the problem if your rules and regulations
21 allowed a person like that to dispose of his stuff, step
22 by step. Just because he can't figure out what to do
23 with all of it, I hope you wouldn't let him do with what
24 he can do with do with. (Laughter)
25 So that, you know, you don't prevent a total
.IRWIN i ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle. WashmBton .
-------
1 solution because you let a person have a partial
2 solution and don't prevent him from dealing with part
3 of a problem just because you don't deal with the whole
4 problem. That is kind of a ridiculous approach and I
5 hope you wouldn't take that kind of ridiculous approach,
6 because even though you may not know what to do with all
7 of the stuff yet, you do know what to do with some of it.
8 Let's do with some of it what we can.
9 in resource recovery, having been a member of
10 the committee which also went into this matter for King
11 County and the committee* having recommended a countywide
12 system of resource recovery based on the system we dealt
13 with seemed to be pretty much in favor of a recovery
14 resource system. However, Seattle does not want to
15 cooperate and thereby has a $800,000 tail which didn't
16 work.
17 The point I want to make is when you are
18 allocating the money or when you are deciding who is
19 going to do a resource recovery system, perhaps you can
20 arrange it some way so it will require cooperation among
21 sufficient groups to make the thing work on a regional
22 basis, because the fact was that if Seattle were successfx
23 in its $800,000 study in coming up with something that
24 did work for Seattle, it would have sabotaged the county-
25 wide desire to have a countywide system because Seattle
ipwifti JL ASSnriATES. CSR's Court Reporters «23-7881 Seattle, Washington —
OS
J
r*1
-------
i generates, believe it or not, two-thirds of the garbage
2 in- the county and the county would have enough garbage
3 left to have a resource recovery system.
4 So make sure in your rules and regulations
5 that you have it so that jurisdictions have to cooperate,
6 whether you have one great big regional incinerator or
7 resource recovery plan. We had arguments about that too,
8 whether you should have two or three smaller plants or
9 one great big one for the county; and Seattle agreed it
10 wasn't quite as economical as several small ones, which
ii they didn't end up making anyway.
12 Then I have two comments on citizen partici-
13 pation. I am pleased to hear what you are doing, but
14 having been the chairwoman of a school participation
15 group, we were not the citizens who gave the opinion.
16 we were responsible for developing the program and hearin<
n out the program and finding out what the citizens thought
is Remember, that citizen support does not rely on how much
iy they know; it relies on how they feel.
20 I use the example about taxes. Some people say
21 we have to educate the people about a need for an Income
22 tax. I tried that once and the people don't want to know
23 that much. They don't want to know that much about a lot
24 of things, including garbage; but they are going to vote
25 and we do have a democracy. I don't suppose we are going
IBWIM & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 423-7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i to have a vote on the rules and regulations, but I hope
2 that part of your citizen participation program is to
3 hear how people feel about things and not just education,
4 and I think we need to use a lot of small group input.
5 Also I am happy to hear you are having some
6 citizen advisory groups, but I might also suggest that
7 if you want a citizen advisory group to advise you on
s your citizen participation program that might be a good
9 idea, because one of the toings we found was that — I
10 don't want anybody to get offended, but I don't know how
11 else to say it. We found frequently that engineers and
12 experts had very dull and ordinary voices and sounded
13 like they really didn't know what they were talking
14 about and their voices were in monotone and they used
n a lot of jargon, and one of the things we did as a
is citizen participation group was to listen to the
17 presentations beforehand, and,finally in desperation, we
is began to make them oursslvea. No kidding, it works. The
iy citizens in that group made the presentations at the
20 meetings or else we made sure they got made in the Englis
21 language and not in jargon.
22 Another good thing is for the citizen partici-
23 pation group to have a kind of independent staff so that
24 the staff doesn't seem beholden to the agency and despera
25 for a job, so that there can be some kind of disagreement
. IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 6237881 Seattle, Washington
G
-------
and confrontation and persuasion of the agency maybe by
2 the staff.
3 The other thing is it is nice if you can providi
4 a little bit of mileage for some of the citizens sometimes
5 I really feel badly when being a citizen participant
means you have to leave your jobs for two hours during
the day or you can't be a citizen participant because
8 you work for a living and can't get off the job and only
9 those people who have good jobs can come, only those
10 people who can afford it can come. I have had a fairly
11 strong feeling that there is some money available for
that. I wouldn't mind using 30 million for that.
Another thing that I think you need to do in
14 citizen participation is to give some feedback. Don't
just keep listening to them and then they never hear from
16 you. If you find out what they have done, has made a
17 little bit of a difference or has reinforced something,
18 let them know. The other thing we found was everybody
criticized us because we weren't getting such interesting
20 people at our meetings. So the solid waste people decidei
21 they had to have an absolutely pure scientific random
22 sample selection to find out what people thought about
23 garbage. So we haven't had support money available like
24 thirty thousand or something like that to help do that.
25
study. It is finally being done by the school administra
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
ion
OHO
-------
i by the University of Washington, scientifically selected,
2 and they found out that people were interested in recycling
3 and resource recovery, the same thing we have been hearinu
4 at the meeting.
5 So you don't have to have 5,000 citizens out.
6 if you have one hundred citizens out, you can get one
7 hundred viewpoints. And if you have 5,000 citizens
out, you are going to get 100 viewpoints. People are
9 people, and you don't have to educate the hell out of
10 them. If everybody understood about taxes, they would
still vote against the income tax.
12 MR. DUBOIS: Any questions from the panel?
MR. DEGEAR^: Tom, are you familiar with the
14 reasons; is that EPA or the whole government?
'5 MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the whole government.
16 Senator Ted Kennedy has put together a bill that has been
17 or soon will be introduced in the Senate or Congress
that would authorize all Jfederal agencies — not only
authorize but more than authorize and probably force
20 in some cases federal agencies to use federal money to
21 insure that citizens could participate and pay transpor-
22 tation costs and other costs.
23 Only one agency of the government I think now
24 does that, and that is the Federal Trade Commission.
25 EPA has a study on the way about whether or not we might
I RWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623 7SB 1 Seattle, Washington
-------
1 be able to pay citizen cost. Some of us have been
2 advocating it and have been doing some of it through
3 various ways and means from time to time. The division
4 directors in our program wish there was some way we could
5 do it and we will probably do it by hook or by crook,
6 and probably the latter, because we are quite serious
7 about giving citizens the opportunity to participate
8 I think among the comments that have been
9 made, some were good; in fact, all were good, and I think
10 if I may say so that you may have a little more
11 pessimistic view than I have about what citizens can
12 or cannot understand. I think they understand what they
13 have to understand and they would understand more if
14 government went to a little more trouble to help them
15 understand.
16 These acts are written in such a way to dis-
17 courage one who hasn't had a Ph.8. to really learn about
18 them. We have talked about them and we sleep on them and
19 put them out in various formats and after a few weeks
20 or a month you begin to know what it is all about. That
21 is hardly a proper format for a citizen who is not
22 professionally solid waste management minded. So we do
23 go to a bit of trouble and plan to go to more trouble to
24 simplify many things, and we have done so in the past.
25 1 was very much going to say awhile ago when
ipm/iM JL ASSOCIATES. CSR's Court Reporters 6237881 Seattle, Washington
-------
I '
1 somebody was talking about resource recovery that EPA
2 knows more about solid waste management than anybody
3 else in the world. He have 400 or 500 separate
4 publications available and at least some dozens of those
3 are boiled down from very large complicated studies,
6 which I think most ordinary citizens can understand.
7 So we are quite serious about it.
8 MR. TRUVOCK: I noticed you said the law has
9 the right to use economic methods to recycle. Do you
10 feel this would be justified to use this way to just
11 use garbage or waste? What would be the justifiable
12 use of force/ economic force?
13 Let's see if I understood well. You can
14 use economic levels like some surcharge on a virgin
15 product. When do you feel such action should be
16 justified?
17 MR. HUMBER: The question had to do with a
18 part of the law that calls on EPA to study economic
19 centers to encourage reduction of generation of waste,
20 and the gentleman asked whether such actions would be
2' appropriate.
22 We think they are appropriate now, that there
23 are incentives to conversion of materials vis-a-vis
24 recycling materials; and a lot of tax incentives that
25 the federal government has set up, we feel that should
<2/
IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES, CSR'l Court Reporters - 423-7I31 Seattle, Washington _
CC3
-------
1 be reversed in addition. Reversing it merely says
2 conversions are not acceptable. He think there also
3 ought to be economic incentives to re luce generation
4 of waste in addition to encourage recycling.
5 MR. TRDVOCK: Pardon me. I didn't ask about
6 appropriate or not. What do you feel is justified?
7 MR. HXJMBERs What would justify it?
8 MR. TROVOCK: What do you feel is the intent
9 of the law, such as recycled glass is certainly some-
10 thing viable. So when do you feel it is needed to
11 enforce economically the recycling of glass?
12 MR. HUMBER: You mean on a material basis?
13 MR. TRUVOCKs Yes.
14 MR. HUMBERi If you take one that is probably
'*' not that significant environmentally or resource
16 conservationwise, because glass does not contaminate
17 ground water, but other materials are of shorter supply.
18 ^"H*
For example, aluminum. We import most of the Jbexite
19 that is used that produces aluminum. Our recycling rate
20 of steel is not as high as it could be and there is a
21 tremendous energy saving even in glass, for example, in
22 making glass colored as opposed to making glass of virgin
23 material. For example, the Glass Container Corporation
24 in Connecticut is trying to use as much recycled glass
25 as possible and they have done so and they save two
_ IRWIN a, ASSOCIATES, CSR's . Court Reporters - 623-7M1 - Seattle. Washington
G24
-------
> million dollars in not installing equipment that would
2 be required if they were still using virgin materials.
3 But by using colored, their pollutants have been reduced
4 tremendously, because color takes a lower temperature to
5 melt than virgin material and the kiln life has been
6 extended. That is a big vat they melt the glass in.
7 At one time there was another ingredient in
8 glass that was in short supply and that was a problem
9 to find.
10 MR. TRUVOCKj I don't want to take too much
" time. Basically what you said is the primary factor
12 affecting your use of economic levels to enforce recyclin*
is would then be the production of non-recovery resources.
14 Am 1 right?
15 MR. HUMBER: I didn't mean to say that. There
16 are several dimensions. One is protection of renewable
17 resources, another is energy consumption, another is
18 water pollution and another is air pollution and another
19 is consumption of water. There are about five or six
20 dimensions we have looked at and we looked at them for
21 about six kinds of materials, including steel, glass,
22 aluminum and rubber; and in each case where the manu-
23 factoring or production process uses recycled materials
24 the conclusions are lower, the energy consumption is
25 lower. It is of benefit in many dimensions, but not just
IRWIN fr ASSOCIATES, CSR'i - Court RftportBrs 423-7881 - Seattle, Washington .
-------
i environmental benefits. There are energies and resources
2 and air pollution and water pollution methods.
3 MR. TRUVOCK: I would be afraid to make that
4 very statement you just made.
5 MB. BOMBER: I ant not at all afraid to make
6 it. There has been a considerable study, at least two
7 studies and if not three on the same analysis. As we
publish them in the reports to Congress three years ago
9 I have not heard anybody from industry speak against
10 them; so I think they are fairly accurate.
e
-------
1 the decision.
2 MS. GAUDITZ: The recycling will be involved
3 in that Act. I suspect you probably will have to be
4 fairly specific about the collection of the various
5 wastes. As you say, for instance, glass is one item;
6 but can we go back to the manufacturer? Paper is
7 another one and aluminum is another one; but if you
8 have to depend on the large number of people bringing
9 waste back to you, it is all one big mess.
10 Maybe we will have to provide people with the
11 incentive to keep this apart and have maybe five little
12 bags instead of one big compacted something. I don't
13 know whether people are enough of a user of some of the
14 materials that are desirable to recycle for whatever
15 reason. ,/ \.ge,"-
16 MR. DBQK&Kt There are two approaches to
17 recycling materials. The first would require that the
18 homeowner, apartment dweller, separate the waste into
19 three or four categories. A lot of cities are separating
20 waste into garbage and newspapers and there are fewer who
21 separate newspapers, glass and metal and garbage, which
22 is four separate things. I know a couple of systems we
23 are involved in in Massachusetts where people do do that
24 and they reduced the waste that requires disposal by
25 just separating in the bouse by 35 percent. That is very
___ jRWIN * ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters • 623-7M1 - Seattle, Washington __—
GC~ r"?
'«.!
-------
i significant.
2 The other approach is to send everything to
3 a large separating factoiyor disposal process where
4 all of these things go on chemically &^J mechanically,
5 and there are chemical and mechanical ways to separate
6 some of the components; but, of course, they are not
7 as few as if they were separated at home.
s MS. GAUDITZ: The housewife might not know
9 how to separate magnetic elements from non-magnetic
10 elements. You probably can't get away from a plant that
11 will do this. , >^
12 MR. BfiGEAR: Probably not.
13 MS. GAUDITZ: I hope you put some of the
14 responsibility on the homeowner.
15 MR. BBGRfcRf We have got about half of our
is effort in helping people set up home separating systems.
17 There are quite a few in the East and quite a few in
is California.
19 MS. PARLEY: One of the things we found are tha
20 people were quite interested in recycling to the extent
21 they were willing to taJte things to a recycling center.
22 The problem that we found in the recycling centers that
23 were in existence was they were not too well managed and
24 they were not dependable enough. They would be there one
25 week and not the next week. One of the things was that
IRWIN &, ASSOCIATE$, CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i the solid waste management in the community should
2 institute early on some way to have some way of
3 arranging for where recycling centers could be and make
4 contact with the community.
5 The problem is where is the saarket and that
6 was kind of a stumbling block, but it seems if there was
7 some way that EPA or the rules and regulations could
s help the original agency do this kind of recycling
9 center coordination, that is really what we need so
10 that maybe there could be sonebody to run a schedule.
11 Maybe Boyscout Troop 6E3 could have a division for six
12 months and then some other group could take over and
13 help them coordinate all of that; so the recycling centers
14 get located fairly well disbursed within the community
15 and a lot of people have said they will take those things
16 to those centers.
17 MR. HUMBER: That is one approach, but the
is other approach I was just speaking of was that of the
19 city picking up the waste. They might have one truck
20 pick up mixed waste and another one, for example, has
21 three separate, different compartments.
22 MS. FARLEY: What does that do to the collection
2'. costs?
24 MR. HUMBER: It reduces the collection and
25 disposal costs.
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES. CSR'» • Court Reporters - 623 7681 Seattle, Wastimjton
or. 3
-------
1 MS. FARLEY: Is that feasible?
2 MR. HUMBER: It is feasible. A lot more waste
3 is separated by that approach than having to go through
4 recycling centers and clearly going to a recycling center
5 you know the transportation pattern consumes a lot more
6 energy, including a lot more energy than the value of
7 material that is recycled. That has been the case.
8 You might spend twenty cents on gasoline to
9 take 50 cents of materials and do some pollution to the
10 air just driving your car, whereas if the system operates
11 under the city collection, as it does its normal
12 garbage collection, there are a lot of benefits and
13 it can be economically feasible.
14 MS. PARLEY: The garbage people all seem to
15 feel that would really increase their cost. That is
16 what they told us and I believe them.
17 MR. DUBOIS: Any other questions or comments?
18 Ms. GAUDlTZs Is it considered that industry
19 will eventually be held responsible for its own waste?
20 In other words, if a paper manufacturer manufactures
21 paper, he will have to develop ways and means to get
22 rid of it, or, again, will we have to let the government
23 do it with whatever sanitary or unsanitary land fill or
24 open dumping or whatever; but there is a let of waste
25 being generated in non-used products, etc., and, of cours^,
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 622 788} - Seattle, Washington
030
-------
1 the city government and the manufacturer should know
2 best what to do with it.
3 MR. LEHMAN: Let me try to attack that problem.
4 I think we really have thrown in two different kinds of
5 waste. It is a byproduct of manufacturing process
itself and if those wastes are considered hazardous
under the new law, then it is very definitely the
0
responsibility of the manufacturing agent. In the
9 terminology of the law he is called the generator.
10 MS. GADDITZ: You can't let them into the
air and you can't dump them into the water.
12 MR. LEHMAN: This is the first time byproducts
13 have been disposed of on the land by the federal
14
government. They have more certain cases that have
been regulated by the tr£ate government, but not all
16
cases. So it will be the responsibility of the generator
for those wastes that are determined to be hazardous for
the byproduct.
What you are talking about also, I think, is
while consumer products contain toxins or hazardous
chemicals, how are we going to deal with that. Someone
mentioned that earlier in the evening, the time between
the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource
24
Conservation and Recovery Act, because TSCA has powers
that this act doesn't have and vice-versa.
. IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7M1 Seattle, wuhtiiglon -
001
-------
i Under T3CA the actual product itself can be
2 required to have a disposal label on it. That is unique
3 in TSCA. This is not found in this act. On the other
4 hand, TSCA doesn't say much about how the disposal is
5 to be done, whereas that is what this act is all about.
6 So there is a good tie between these two acts.
7 In the case of chemical disposal, that can be
s required to be labeled TSCA and required to be taken to
9 a permitted disposal site that is permitted under this
10 law. So we are working on that now to see how we can
n tie that all together.
V/i/j/a.»i.si
12 MR. DPBOIfri X would like to supplement John's
13 remarks. I think at the outset there is something we
u didn't make clear enough and isn't generally understood
15 well enough by most people.
16 The great significance of this act is potentialljy
n it will allow for the first time in our history that
ts we protect the third medium, we protect the air and the
19 water and now we are going to protect the land and all of
20 it means we are going to protect ourselves, because the
21 air and water problems became apparent to people at least
22 in the '60s. You would go down somewhere to go fishing
23 or swimming and you found the water so foul that you
24 wouldn't believe it or you would sit in your backyard in
2' the city or in the country somewhere and breathe air so
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'J - Court Report.rj - U3-7I81 - SMttlt, Washlnoton
-------
1 foul that you knew there was a problem.
2 There is just as much a problem today with
3 the land as there was in the '60's with the air and water
4 There are tens of thousands of noxious pits, ponds/
5 lagoons, open dumps, industrial disposal sites, and so
6 on all over the place. Walk out in the woods almost
7 any place, including the beautiful State of Washington
8 and there they are. They don't come up and hit you in
9 the nose or get .in your way when you want to go swimming
10 the way that air and water pollution problems have, but
11 the problem is just as bad and in some ways it is worse.
12 Ironically, in addition to that, in our attempt to
13 control air and water pollution, the more successful they
14 have been, the more they have led to disposal of noxious
15
waste on the land which then seeps back into the ground
16 water or makes its way into the air and so on.
17 This Act has tremendous far-reaching compli-
18 cations and without it you can control air and water
19 poBition until hell freezes over and you would have the
20 same stuff going back into the air and the water and is
21 being polkited. So, it is closing a loop, so to speak,
22 on what we have done with the environment.
23 I saw a presentation given by a contractor
a week or so with John and it was very impressive. Even
I who have worked in this business for so many years now
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - court Reporters - 623-7B81 - Seattle, Washington
-------
> couldn't believe the slides that I saw. This was
2 happening all across the country. He went out and got
3 the states' permission in each case and went around and
4 just did some testing and boring to find out where the
5 disposal sites were, all kinds of random sites that were
6 forgotten about. You see a beautiful blue pool out in
7 the middle of the woods somewhere when you are hunting
8 and if yju stick your foot in, you lose your toes. There
9 are things like that all over the place. Nobody knows
10 about them. Sometimes they are recorded and sometimes
11 they are not.
12 Correct me if I am wrong, John, about 48 out
'3 of 50 investigated were reaching into the ground water
14 and 50 percent of the water that we drink now comes from
15 ground water.
16 At any rate, I think this Act addresses a far
17 bigger problem than people know, simply because it doesn'
18 come up and hit you the way water pollition does,' it is
iy there and it is a threat to all of us.
20 MS. GAUDITZ: I spoke up earlier asking for
21 care, caution and consideration when it comes to
22 implementing the TSCA, but I have to admit I am whole-
23 heartedly about RCRA because it is a tremendous problem
24 where millions and billions of people create waste every
25 day. It is something we are so spoiled and cold-blooded
_ IRWIN & ASSOCU
-------
i about that we generate all the waste.
2 I come from a country where during the war
3 we took our brown bag to the store until they had so
4 many of them they wouldn't give us anymore and it worked
5 all right. It can be done. I don't have to have every
6 little piece of candy wrapped separately and all of
7 that. It is high time somebody stepped in and did some-
8 thing about it.
9 Of course, I have to admit on the other hand
10 it probably is going to have an impact on industry. In
11 this case I think it probably will create as many new
12 jobs as they might lose if the packaging industry has
13 sites, for instance; but, anyway, I feel that is a very
14 badly needed act. ^
15 MR. COATES: On those eloquent remarks, is
16 there anyone who would like to make last comments or
17 should we wander off into the celebration of Saint
18 Patrick's Day.
19 MR. ELDRED: Just one last question about
20 sludge. What guidelines are we going to be using about
21 the application of sludge?
22 MR. DEGEART That is an issue of grave concern.
23 Criteria to be developed will have to address that
24 practice. It is not to say that landsliding sludge will
23 be a government process. That is to say the criteria
c::
-------
i will have to address itself to the practice in terms of
2 delineating or eliminating it. The environment and
3 health effects are not to be tolerated and so we are
4 going to be addressing that practice through the criteria
5 and mostly we will be developing guidelines on that
6 specific process.
7 As I said before, the guidelines section of
8 the Act does not specify what packages we will be
9 developing. We will be doing guidelines. There is a
10 heck of a lot of sludge generated; so that is our second
11 priority as of now.
12 MR. EVERT: I'm sure you guys are pretty much
13 aware of all the guidelines written so far on sludge.
Wi/ha^
14 MR. BOBOrSt We have at least two schools of
15 thought about sludge in the EPA. We have the sludge
16 lovers and the sludge haters.
17 MR. DEGEARs We are working with the Water
is Program office of the EPA in that area also with the
19 USDA.
20 MR. ELDRED: Have you checked particular
21 states as to what they have been doing?
22 MR. DEGEAR*: Yes.
23 MR. ELDRED; I do know from working with the
24 State of Illinois, we have to go with an extensive set
25 of guidelines.
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington -
CCG
-------
i MR. DEGEAR: I am familiar that there was a
2 survey of the states set down this last year.
^5^
3 MR. ELDRED: I was just anxious to hear that
4 you had come up with a set of those guidelines.
5 MR. LEHMAN: Not only are there sludge lovers
6 and haters, but there is sludge and there is sludge. I
7 just wanted to point out that it is not completely
s accurate to say "sludge", and what I think you mean is
9 sludge from municipal waste water treatment, like sewer
10 sludge. There are a lot of other types of sludge in
11 this world, industrial sludge and so on, that also,
12 in some cases, are applied to the land in certain ways.
u And if there is sludge there deemed to be hazardous,
14 then they will fall under a direct regulatory program
n under this law as opposed to a guideline program for the
16 non-hazardous sludge.
n so it is quite possible there will be some
is sludges, possibly even municipal sludges, depending on
19 what goes into them, that will be subject to the regulatory
20 provisions; and there will be other types of sludges that
21 will be part of the guideline provisions.
22 MR. PEIGNERs I am Ken Feigner of EPA. I would
23 like to make an indication of what is on the horizon. As
24 our agency goes through this process of developing and
25 promulgating rules and regulations, there will be first
. IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES. CSR'J • Court Reporter] . 6J3-7I81 . Seattle, Washington .
CC7
-------
1 an advance notice which appears in the Federal Register.
2 Following that, after your comments, there will be a
3 proposed regulation and finally a final regulation.
4 In each publication, if you are on the
5 mailing list, you will receive a notice to the fact
6 that that particular thing was published. You won't
7 receive a copy of it, but you will receive the fact
8 that it was published on such and such a date in the
9 Federal Register and what it was that was published.
10 So, if you are interested in it, you can 90 to your
11 public library or your Federal^Register and get a copy
12 of it. That is, this region only.
13 Whatever happens in the Federal Register will
14 give you the name and address of a contact in Washington,
15 D.C., so that if you have a comment, you can write
16 directly. This should keep you alert of the process
17 the agency goes to in its ruling.
18 MR. DUBOISt On behalf of all the inarticulate
19 engineers, we want to thank you and thank you very much
20 for sharing your time with us and we appreciate your
21
comments tonight. Thank you for coming.
22 (Whereupon, at 10:00 p.m.
the proceeding was conclude^.)
24
25
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES. CSR't - Court Reporters - M3-78B1 • Seattle, Washington .
•,, J
-------
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
PUBLIC MEETING ON
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
OF 1976
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Taken at Olympic Room - Seattle Center
Seattle, Washington
CUTE TAKEN: March 18, 1977
DEPORTED BY: Sinone Elden and Kim Otis
ceo
-------
PANELISTS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2}
24
25
Program Moderators:
Panelists and
Discussion Leaders*
DONALD P. DOBOIS
Regional Administrator
EPA Region X
Seattle, Washington
DOUGLAS C. HANSEN, DIRECTOR
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
EPA Region X
Seattle, Washington
THOMAS P. WILLIAMS, CHIEF
Technical Information and
Communications Branch
Office of Solid Haste
EPA
Washington, D.C.
JOHN P. LEHMAN, DIRECTOR
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
EPA
Washington, D.C.
TRUETT DE GEARS, CHIEF
Land Protection Branch
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
EPA
Washington, D.C.
J. NICHOLAS HUMBER, DIRECTOR
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste
EPA
Washington, D.C.
.IRWIN a, ASSOCIATES. CSR'j Court Reporters 4237881 Seattle, WMhington .
c-:o
-------
1 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON: FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1977
2 8:45 A.M.
3 —ooOoO—
4 MR. DUBOIS: Good morning, ladies and
5 gentlemen. My name is Don Dubois. I am Regional
6 Administrator for EPA here in Region 10 in Seattle. I
7 would like to welcome you to this public meeting to
8 discuss the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
9 This is one of three meetings we held yesterday, last
10 night and today to discuss the Toxic Substances Control
11 Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
12 These meetings here in Seattle are termed a
13 part of a series of meetings being held throughout the
14 country to discuss these two new pieces of federal
15 legislation. The basic purpose of these meetings is to
16 inform you of the provisions of these new laws and
n secondly to obtain your views on how we should go about
is implementing them. I think the latter part is meaning
19 to be the more valuable one to us. For example, the
20 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is a very
21 significant piece of legislation, very far reaching. It
22 affects other federal agencies, state agencies, local
23 government, industry and private citizens. There is
24 considerable latitude in the Act as to how we proceed
25 to implement it. Therefore, your views can really
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES. CSR'S - Court R>porttr> . M3-78J1 - Srattll, WMhlngton
-------
i count if you come forward with them and tell us how you
2 would like us to proceed. We feel in EPA that we have
3 an excellent background of technical expertise and
4 experience in implementing programs like this new
5 Recource Conservation and Recovery Act, but we certainly
6 do not claim to have a lock on all of the knowledge and
7 particularly the very practical down to earth local
a kinds of situations that I'm sure you can help us with
9 most.
10 Briefly about the Resource Conservation and
11 Recovery Act, it became law in October 1976. It was
12 built upon jfederal legislation first passed in 1965,
13 but the new Act is really a very major expansion over
14 the previous federal solid waste programs. It has been
&
n characterized by some as a law that sort of closes the
16 loop in the environmental business. We have had strong
17 Jfederal legislation to control air pollution and to
is control water pollution. The result of those strong
19 laws has been, I think, a marked reduction in air
20 pollutants and pollutants discharged from water; but
21 what we have taken out of the air or taken out of the
22 water we tended to put on the land and not always in
23 the best manner that one could desire for the disposal
24 of these residual wastes.
25 The basic objectives of the Resource
.IRWIH i ASSOCIA
r -o
V- i,V
-------
i Conservation and Recovery Act are to protect health,
2 protect the environment and to conserve resources.
3 Some of the provisions I will touch on very briefly
4 are considerably expanded technical and financial
5 assistance phasing out over open dumps over a period of
time, regulations of hazardous wastes from cradle to
grave, as they say, and many other provisions. It is
definitely a partnership kind of piece of legislation,
9 federal and jtate and local and with major provisions
10 for citizen input throughout the whole process.
11 The presentations from my colleagues here
12 give you more detail on what is contained in the Act
13 and how we are proceeding to this point? but you will
certainly be able to aee we don't have all the answers
15 at this point, things like definitions of terms. That
may sound a little bit mundane, but it can be exceedingl
important how we define what the term is in the Act.
18 Procedures, how we are going to proceed, the need for
various kinds of studies and various applications that
can be taken to solving a problem or addressing a
specific section in the Act, what kinds of delegations
we are going to make to whom and so forth; all are very
much open to question at this point and the kind of
24 things I think you can help us with in a very material
25 and real positive sort of way.
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters - 623-7B81 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i We are going to listen. I am not, because I
2 have to catch an airplane here shortly, but we do have
3 a court reporter who is recording all of this. Most of
4 the panel will be here throughout the day^both from our
5 headquarters and from our regional office,and we will
6 listenjand we will consider your views and I think in
7 doing so we are going to end up with a better program
8 as a result of it. So I do wish you well throughout
9 the day and hope you will give us your feedback, with
10 that I will introduce the Director of our EPA Region 10
11 Division of Air and Hazardous Materials, Doug Hansen.
12 MR. HANSEN: Thank you, very much Don. First
13 of all I think we best get some of the housekeeping
14 details behind us and I would like to make just a few
15 announcements.
16 (Whereupon, a discussion was
had off the record.)
17
is MR. HANSEN: As Don mentioned we do have a
19 court reporter here and I would like to introduce Simone
20 Elden and if any of you want transcripts of the
21 proceedings, you are welcome to order them from her
22 firm. You can sign up over at the desk and we will see
23 that they get your order or you can place your order
24 directly with Mrs. Elden or the young lady who will be
2; taking the notes this afternoon. It is my understanding
. IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR'l • Court Reporter! . 6J3-7B81 • Snttle, Washington .
-------
i and yet I haven't been able to confirm this, that the
2 cost is about 50$ a page.
3 Before I get to the point of introducing our
4 panel I would like to emphasize the point that Don made
5 that some of you may be mystified. We had a similar
6 meeting yesterday on toxic substances and a number of
7 you were at that meeting. Some folks expressed concern.
8 They said the damn guys don't know what they are doing,
9 they don't have their regulations yet. That is the very
10 purpose of this meeting. The very purpose is to explain
11 to you the law that congress passed in the closing days
12 of the 94th session and then tell you what we have been
13 doing in the short time frane we have to do it. Where
u we have some positive thoughts we are going to express
15 those to you and give you a chance to rebut them and
16 say you think we are going in the wrong direction, but
17 by the same token we will be asking for your help and
is input in a number of areas where we just don't have
19 solid thoughts on how we should proceed at the present
20 time, but by holding public meetings at this time
21 throughout the country we hope to get that type of
22 information.
23 I might point out as you signed up coming
24 into the meeting we are keeping your names and addresses
25
IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES, C5R'» Court Reporter! - «3-788\ . SMttK, Washington
-------
i and establishing them as a mailing list so we can
2 forward to you information on further developments,
3 whereas we won't be sending you copies of the Federal
4 Register; but when important discussions pertaining to
5 the law are in the Federal Register, we will summarize
6 these and get out notification to each of you who are
7 on the mailing list. Again, a number of you signed up
8 to make statements today. If you have written state-
9 ments, I know the court reporter would certainly
10 appreciate getting those; it makes her life a lot easier
if and we would appreciate having them. However, if you
12 don't have prepared statements, please feel free to
13 come up and raise your hand and ask to talk at any time
14 and we will come back to you time and time again asking
15 if you have any other thoughts or ideas; and I think any
16 thoughts you have at all on the subject are all helpful
17 and we learn from these meetings and hopefully you will
is learn more about what we are up to. You will have 30
19 days after this meeting to submit any written statements
20 you desire to our regional office in Seattle.
21 I think another very important thing about
22 our meeting today is we have the very key people in the
23 nation who are going to be the ones responsible for
24 drafting the final regulations. They are going to be
25 able to hear your comments and remarks and we divided
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington .
-------
i the subjects up into various topics which you will be
2 interested in and as each person makes his presentation,
3 10 or 15 minutes, he will then open it up to questions
4 on that topic; and feel free to ask anything at all you
5 have in mind and once we have used up your energies and
6 ours on that subject we will proceed to the next topic.
7 Before we call on individuals I would like to
s introduce those at the head table. First of all on my
9 far left we have Phil Clark, who is the Director of
10 Solid Waate Management for the Department of Ecology of
11 the State of Washington. A real important part of the
12 legislation is the participation of the states, the
-=^
cooperation with the states, and hopefully they will be
~^~
able to take over most of the program.
15 Then next to Phil we have John Lehman, who is
the Director of our Hazardous Waste Management Division
in Washington, D.C., in charge of the program for the
entire country. He is very knowledgeable on the subject
and is going to be able to answer most of your questions
20 I hope, or at least if he can't he is going to ask you
21 what you think.
22 Then next toward me is Tom Williams, whom 1
have known for a number of years. He has had long
24 experience in the environmental field and Tom is Chief
25 of the Technical Information and CommunicationsBranch
IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES, CSR's court Reporters - 623-7B81 • Seattle, Washington
-------
in^Solid Waste in Washington, D.C. and quite an
2 environmentalist in his own right and very knowledgeable
3 in a lot of other subjects and we might get some of his
4 wisdom on his other subjects today.
5 Then next to Tom we have Toby Hegdahl, who is
Chief of our Solid Waste Disposal in the region here in
Seattle, who will serve your needs from a regional
standpoint.
9 Two of our panel members are not here yet and
10 we will introduce them as they come. With that we are
11 ready for topic number one, which is manpower development/
12 public information and public participation; and we
13 turn this section of the program over to Mr. Tom
14 Williams.
15 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Doug. Ladies and
16 gentlemen, I think the reason that the public
17 participation and public information provisions of this
law are so important is that in general the impact of
mismanaging residuals on the public, on public health
20 and on environment is not really widely enough appreciated.
21 I have boon asked to point out that this
22 particular Act, as Mr. Dubois said, actually is intended
23 to close the circle, and by that we mean we have good
24 ^federal, jjtate and local movement against air and water
25 pollution begun more than a decade ago, almost two
_ tftWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623-78B1 - Seattle, Washington .
G-13
-------
i decades, but we have been very negligent as a nation
2 about what happens to the disposal on land and, as a
3 matter of fact, one of the primary reasons for this Act
4 is that our successors in controlling air and water
5 pollution have contributed significantly to the solid
6 waste management problem, particularly in the area of
7 hazardous waste. We have taken a lot of sludge and
s pollutants in other forms frora the air and from the
9 water and for the most part we have placed them back
10 into holding ponds, pits, lagoons, inadequate and
11 sanitary land fills, et cetera, with the result we have
12 to some extent been deluding ourselves, because a
13 portion of what we have taken out of the streams and
14 out of the air is getting back via the ground water and
15 our food supplies or whatever.
16 Yet this particular problem doesn't remind the
17 ordinary citizen, and we are all that, as directly of
18 its presence as do air and water pollution. If you want
'9 to go to a lot of trouble in this jj:ate or any other
20 country you can just take a hike through the woods or
21 fields and you will find there are tens of thousands of
22 small random disposal sites in this country that are
23 being used sometimes under state surveyance and sometime^
~&-
24 not to dispose of all kinds of toxics, explosives,
25 corrosives and otherwise undesirable pollutants in the
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES. CSR'S Court Reporters • 623-mi - S»»ttl», Washington _—. .
CO
-------
i form of liquid sludge and so on, which John Lehman can
2 talk about and will talk about at great depth later on.
3 Anyway, if it is a kind of problem that the
4 public isn't directly reminded of, then it is extremely
5 important that public participation and public
6 information be carried out. Otherwise there won't be
7 proper support, particularly because the Act doesn't
« have the large carrot that, let's say, the water act
9 has that we as tax payers are financing the construction
10 of thousands of sewage treatment plants to take care of
11 at least half the problem. There is not that kind of
12 financing in this Act and so we have to get behind it
13 and do things in a more unified way.
14 it has more than a simple provision calling
15 on the Administrator to insure there is public
16 participation. It also has other provisions that make
17 it clear that Congress understand that it is really
is impossible for the public to participate unless the
iy government at first produces valid scientific and
20 technical data and then produces this data, at least
21 part of it,in such a way that the public can have real
22 access to it. Washington is pretty darn good at
23 producing millions of tons of paper each year. That is
24 one reason why we have a continuing solid waste program;
25 but who can use the paper, who can understand it is
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters • 623-7881 Seattle, Weshlngton
-------
i quite another matter and while large corporations may
2 well be able to afford the expertise that it takes to
3 receive a bunch of computer printouts and understand
4 what is meant, that isn't true of the ordinary voter
5 who is supposed to have as much right making these
6 decisions as anybody else. So we are going to continue
7 to go to a good deal of trouble to try to convince and
8 assimilate and arrange our information into formats that
9 people can have access to.
10 In Section 803 of the Act the Administrator
11 of EPA is required to develop, collect, evaluate and
12 coordinate information of the nine key elements which
13 are crucial to carry out the Act's purposes. He is
14 also to develop and promote public education programs
15 to promote citizen understanding. That makes it quite
16 clear to us all the information called for is not to be
17 developed for the exclusive use of those who for one
is reason or another way consider themselves experts in
iy the field. Moreover, he is asked to coordinate his
20 actions and cooperate to the maximum extent possible
21 with state and local authorities and to establish and
^
22 maintain a central reference library for virtually all
23 of the kinds of information involved in solid waste
24 management by the use of state and local governments,
25 industry and the public.
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623 78B1 Seattle, Washington
-------
i To insure that the public participation
2 program does not become lopsided we felt it was neceasarjy
3 to identify major categories of interest groups who
4 represent the public at large. Under our Act we regard
5 these to include consumer, environmental and neighbor-
6 hood groups, trade manufacturing and labor representatives,
7 public health, welfare and professional societies and
s governmental and university associations. This spectrum
9 of categories of representative groups will be altered
10 if necessary if ws implement the Act. What this really
11 means is most of the public meetings that we will hold
12 will be attended hopefully by people from these various
13 organizations. There will be a few workshops now and
14 then that will be carried out with representatives of
i' a narrower scope of interest groups for one purpose or
16 another, but on the whole we will be able to assure
n Congress and the Administrator at the end of any given
is year that the full spectrum of interest groups in the
iy public have had the opportunity to comment on our
20 implementation plans before they are actually put into
21 effect.
22 Section 7004 of the Act states any person
23 may petition the Administrator for the promulgation,
24 amendment or appeal of any regulation under the Act,
25 It says that public participation in the development,
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporter! . 623-7181 • Seattle, Washington
-------
1 revision and enforcement of any regulations, guideline
2 information or program shall be provided for, encouraged
3 and assisted by the Administrator and the states.
4 Further, that the Administrator in cooperation with the
5 states shall develop and publish minimum guidelines for
6 public participation in such processes, which we have
i underway now.
8 Section 7002(a) states that any person may
9 commence a civil action on his own behalf against any
10 other person, including the United States, who is
11 eligible to be in violation of this Act or against the
12 Administrator, if there is alleged a failure by him to
15 perform any required act or duty under the legislation.
14 The many categories which can be used to
15 involve the public in governmental acts fall in our
16 opinion into three major categories. The first of these
17 major categories is to insure that appropriate public
18 meetings, hearings, conferences, workshops and so on are
19 held throughout the country, that they are planned and
20 held in consonance with the unfolding of the Act's
21 given provisions.
22 The second technique is to uae advisory
23 committees and review groups which may meat periodically
24 but which will also be called upon to review and comment
25 upon major programs and regulations, no matter whether
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporttrs • 423-7881 Seattlt, Washington
-------
i a meeting is called for or not. In that way we will
2 insure that we do not publish anything, we don't place
3 anything into written form so that it is irretrievable
4 until in addition to having public meetings, information
5 and education programs and groups representing the
6 public have had a chance to review in detail and in
7 depth our proposed regulations or programs.
8 The third technique, the development of
9 educational programs, is that people have the opportuniti
10 to become aware of the significance of the technical
11 data base and of the various economics, social and
12 political issues which emerge from it. Effective public
13 education programs depend in our opinion on the use of
14 all appropriate communication pools, techniques and
15 media and of course every attempt possible to get the
16 private electronic and print media to pay attention to
17 what the Act calls for.
is 7007(a) authorizes the Administrator of EPA
19 to make grants, also contracts to any eligible
20 organizations or training persons for organizations
21 involving the management, supervision, design, at cetera,
22 of solid waste management facilities over resource
23 recovery facilities or to train instructors. An eligible
24 organization means a state authority, ^tate agency or
25 municipality or educational institution capable of
, IRWIN,8. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washinflton
-------
i effectively carrying out a project.
2 Section 7007 (c) states that the Administrator
3 shall make a complete investigation and study to
4 determine the need for trained personnel and to
5 determine how to best use existing personnel and to
6 reoort the results of this investigation and study to
7 the president and the Congress.
8 That in a nut shell is what the Act calls for
9 in the public information training and participation
10 area.
11 I want to make just one comment before I sit
12 down concerning something that was brought up earlier.
13 You were invited to purchase copies of the transcript
14 if you wanted to, and that is fine with me, but we do
n plan to under contract summarize the results of all the
16 ten public information meetings under this Act that our
17 regions have conducted and we will be happy to make a
is copy of the summary report available free to anyone who
19 wants it. So we will be working with the region and
20 that will be some weeks before that is out, because we
21 have to get all of the transcripts and analyze them,
22 et cetera, et cetera. That will not supplement the
23 transcript of this meeting, it won't have that much to
24 do with this meeting, but it will give you some idea of
25 what seemed to be the public's views as expressed by
. IRWIN 8, ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporter! 423-7M1 . Seattle, Washington .
-------
i groups such as yours on this Act throughout the country.
2 Tom, would you like to hear the statements
3 first and then throw it open for discussion?
4 MR. -WILLIAMS'; I failed to mention to you we
5 will have an official copy of the transcript of this
6 meeting at the EPA Region Library. It is on the llth
7 Floor of the Park Place Building, 1200 - 6th Avenue in
8 Seattle, and you are welcome at any time to come up and
9 go through it.
10 Before we throw the meeting open to general
11 questions there are some persons who have asked to make
12 statements and I think we will hear front those at the
13 present time, and I'm wondering if Dave Miller is here
14 from the Environmental Communications and would like to
i; make a statement.
16 MR. MILLER: First thing I would like to do
17 is say that I have handled a lot of garbage, both the
is organic types when I worked in restaurants and the
19 inorganic types when I had my own hauling and dumping
20 business. I have seen a lot of waste of valuable and
21 needed materials and I'm glad that this Resource
22 Conservation and Recovery Act has been written and
23 passed. In my opinion having read the Act over it is
24 a good law and it is high time that we had it. I
25 personally will do my best to support the objectives of
IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR's court Reporters • 423-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i the Act and also to support you in the EPA who are
2 responsible for enforcing it.
3 I want to speak to the public participation
4 causes and if you folks will turn to the issues hand-
5 out which was in your packet you will see seven question^
6 have been put forth there. In my statement which I
7 have submitted there is a statement, but I have answered
8 all seven of these questions. However, this morning
9 what I would like to do is answer Questions 1, 3, 5 and
10 7. If you have got that hand-out before you, that will
11 mean I don't have to read the question back to you.
12 The first question concerns programs and
** materials. I'm speaking to you as a person who is
14 involved in producing public information and communicatijon.
15 That is my business. I am a free lance writer and
16 photographer, audio-visual producer and general PR
17 type.
18 Programs and materials should be developed in
19 an integrated, cost effective fashion which places
20 emphasis on citizen initiative and stresses the overall
21 financial and quality of life benefits that are realized
22 when sound, consistent solid waste management is
2} practiced. These materials should be developed and
24 designed for multiple use. Where possible, scripts for
25 radio, T.V., slide film and film applications could be
IRWtN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters - 623-7881 . Statltt, Washington „_
-------
i identical. Media materials should be prepared using
2 image and phrase continuity in the way that any good
3 advertising or public relations campaign is run. For
4 example, the current series of ads for Metro Transit
5 here in Seattle utilizes the same pictorial images in
6 the T.V. spots as are used in the ads placed in news-
7 papers. This series of ads kills two birds with one
8 stone, because it keeps talent and camera costs down
9 by using paper mache puppets which communicate in the
10 effective way that cartoon figures do. The educational
11 materials should also include simple questionnaires,
12 quizzes, mail-ins and pamphlets.
13 All these materials should be designed with
14 the intent to motivate specific citizen action and
15 initiative. It seems to me the most positive action to
16 be desired in this program is for people to get together
17 in manageable groups to address their own solid waste
is management needs. Short films which can be used in the
19 field can provide standardized information on ways and
20 means of conserving, reusing and recycling solid wastes.
21 Periodic workshops can train volunteer neighborhood
22 coordinators who can run programs which would use such
23 kind of films. T.V., radio and print announcements can
24 highlight the availability of groups, materials and
25 projects. The tona of the programs and materials should
^IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - court Reporters • 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington
•C -j J
-------
, be imaginative, upbeat, and positive. It seems to me
2 that people should get the idea that resource
3 conservation and recovery is not only a service to the
4 community and to the environment, but has a dollars and
, cents value for them. If you can make solid waste
6 management as attractive as garage sales, then you have
7 got a successful educational and PR program.
8 Question number three. Create citizen
9 committees to address the various needs of the Act and
10 give them actual responsibility. If people have a
,, chance to sit on a panel instead of before one, they
12 will volunteer because of the social prestige and the
13 sense of personal value. Spread these committees around
I4 in a sensible demographic distribution and have them
15 meet regularly in the evenings where the public can
K$ attend, perhaps in homes as well as in school auditorium^
17 and so forth.
1S Question five, which I really like and is in
19 the public participation program that Mr. Williams
20 mentioned. Ideally, public education programs should
21 be presented first so that they can help produce a
22 better informed constituency which will turn out for
23 public meetings and then volunteer to serve on review
24 groups.
25 Question number seven. Here in the state of
IRWIN a. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i Washington there already exists a Model Litter Control
2 Act and a Recycling Information Office which are run
3 through the Department of Ecology. I Imagine that
4 avenues of participation at the Washington State level
5 can be arranged through these related operations. On a
6 more general level I suggest that ^tatea be organized
7 according to county and multi-county regions and that
s interested citizens attend ,jttate sponsored meetings at
9 those levels instead of trying to convene in capitol
10 cities. A toll free phone line, such as we have here
11 in the State of Washington, can be established to the
12 appropriate jrtate government office so that people can
13 call in their thoughts and suggestions. Also, pre-pald
14 mailers can be hung in city busses and in public areaa.
15 It is my feeling that public information and
16 public participation are important enough to deserve
17 staff positions at regional levels. EPA could do a lot
is worse than to spend some of its solid waste disposal
19 money to hire citizen information/participation
20 coordinators in the ten regional offices. I thank you.
21 MR. HANSEN: You have had our public affairs
22 personnel clapping in the back of the room.
23 Tom, would you like to respond to those
24 remarks?
2; MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to say thank you
IRWIN a. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporori • 413-7881 . S«.tll«, Waihlngron
-------
i very much. I'm happy you made the remarks. We will
2 make the most of them back in Washington and I hope in
3 the regions. There has been very little support in
4 general from any point, anybody, on the real significance
5 of public information and participation work in programs
6 such as these. Most of the people who are involved are
7 extremely busy. We never get enough people or enough
8 money to implement an Act, or so it seems, and public
9 information and participation are usually thought of
10 last, if at all. So, Dave Miller, you carried a lot of
11 coals to Newcastle for which I am grateful.
12 MR. HANSEN: The next gentleman who asked to
13 make a statement is Bob Swanson, the Solid Waste
14 Coordinator for the Sierra Club.
15 MR. SWANSON: I am Bob Swanson and I am
16 Coordinator of Solid Waste Management for the Sierra
17 Club and also an active member of the Washington Resourcje
is Conservation, which is a Seattle-based group basically
19 but has some various members throughout the State of
20 Washington that is concerned continuously with solid
21 waste issues at the state level.
22 A little bit of background: jn "Y experience
23 I have been involved with the Sierra Club for the last
24 five years in this regard and with the Washington groups
25 for the last three years. I spent two weekends ago as
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - A23-78BI - Seattle, Washington
-------
part of a national coalition of Solid Waste Management
2 of which I am a member, and intense weekend discussion
3 on various aspects of solid waste management including
the RCRA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976. During an afternoon discussion of this specific
Act we were extremely excited with some of the major
aspects on which I would like to elaborate. We were
very excited about some of the definitions and objective
9 ?s stipulated in Section 103 dealing with source
1° separation. We feel for the longest time source
11 separation has been eliminated from any discussions of
12 massive capital investments for resources for public
facilities. We believe very sincerely that separation
14 is viable and economic and we do believe that within
15 considerations of the state, local and federal levels
16 intense discussions should be involved so that we
17 include separation.
18 We are thus excited about the solid waste
iy facility definition under Section 104, which refers
20 them to a major facility which encompasses a more
21 comprehensive approach to resource conservation and
22 recovery as well as fuel development or energy
23 accumulation.
24 We are also excited then about Section 105,
25 which involves cooperation. We sincerely believe that
I IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters - 623 78B1 Seattle, Washington
-------
i we, representing some conservation movements as well as
2 some very real public concerns, need that kind of
3 cooperative spirit on the part of EPA and other
4 governmental institutions along with consumer oriented
5 grotros. We feel the consumers are becoming much more
6 educated as to what they can do to consume less of
7 resources in our country and to be involved in all
s decision-making processes all the way up and down the
9 scale at local and federal levels to deal comprehensive!^
10 with this type of aspect.
11 In Section 204 of the Act we believe that
12 there is intense need to discuss under the grant
13 proposals such things as tire durability, oil recycling
14 and the aspect of making batteries as such more
15 durable and more long lasting. It is nice to see tire
16 shredders are being discussed, but we have also been
17 learning ir. our research that there is a great aspect
is for making tires much more durable and for the aspect
19 of recycling much more energy as well as oil recycling.
20 We are excited about the aspect of dealing
21 with an 18-month period. We believe very sincerely
22 over the period of the last six years intense study has
23 gone on in EPA and other local, regional and federal
24 levels. As to the aspects of solid waste management we
25 feel 18 months is indeed adequate time duration to
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
r r- -)
v, U J
-------
i implement much of this Act.
2 Vie feel an awful lot of discussions in the
3 other sections of the Act are extremely important,
4 particularly under the 3,000 bracket within the Act.
5 We feel hazardous waste has very long been ignored and
6 we feel that many of strengths within the hazardous
7 waste provisions are extremely good and should be
s implemented and should maintain in it3 present written
9 form.
10 We believe that under Section 7007 when it
11 deals with an eligible organization that there are many
12 eligible organizations within the public sector that
13 ought to be included in this bracket as well. So, in
14 other words, rather than just municipalities or other
15 local and county organizations and jjtate level
16 organizations, we believe that there are numerous groups
17 that might very well be adequately staffed and
is knowledgeable to deal with the problems and should be
19 considered then within the eligible organization
20 definition.
21 We believe when you are discussing special
22 studies under the 8,000 bracket, particularly under
23 8002, that the composition studies and aspects of this
24 particular provision should be extremely adhered to.
23 We believe when someone knows exactly what is a solid
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S • Court Reporters • 623-7811 - Seattle, WMtilngton
-------
i waste stream, the exact poundage, the exact quantity
2 and the consistency and toxicity of the solid waste,
3 it makes it much easier for people to identify the
4 problem and to deal with the problem.
5 w» believe that when you are dealing with a
6 front-end separation as identified in subsection (e) of
7 8002 there ia a real question as to the time bracket.
8 They say the Administrator shall undertake research and
9 studies concerning the compatibility of front-end
10 source separation, but there is no time constraints.
11 I think we believe there should be indeed this 18-month
12 application to this type of study as well.
13 We believe under Section 8003 as alluded to
H earlier in the presentation today that the nine key
15 elements are extremely important and should definitely
16 be left in and should be definitely adhered to, to make
17 sure this Act is implemented. In essence we believe
is this Act is a far reaching and comprehensive approach
19 to dealing with many other problems associated with
20 solid waste management and encourage that all of you
21 help in getting this Act secured and particularly help
22 like we plan on helping to establish budget concerns to
23 encourage much more budget expenditures for the EPA,
24 particularly in the resource conservation and recovery
25 aspects, so they can actively implement this Act.
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters • 423-7881 Seattle, Washington .—.—
-------
i Thank you.
2 MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much.
3 MR. WILLIAMS: I think most of the issues
4 will be taken up by the other speakers at a later time.
5 The only one I would comment on that calls for my
6 specific area is to corrcuent on 7007, the suggestion that
7 eligible organisations be considered beyond official
8 groups, and we do interpret it the way Mr. Swanson
9 suggested. These other questions will be discussed in
10 other parts of the program today.
11 MR. HANSEN- You covered a broad field, Sob,
12 and wo appreciate your remarks. Thank you very much.
13 Next we have Richard Jones who would like to
14 make a statement.
15 MR. JONES: No.
16 MR. HAtJSEN: Mr. Jeffrey Gibbs of USBA.
1
17 MR. GIBBS: No statement.
is MR. HANSEN: Agnes Aldridge of Olympic
is Disposal.
20 (No audible response.)
21 MR. HANSEN: Is Armand Stephanian in here?
22 He said he would like to be on at 9:45.
23 With that I would like to throw open the
24 meeting for any questions at all from the floor or any
25 discussions, any points any of you would like to raise
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7B81 - Seattle, Washfnflton .
CC3
-------
i or any questions you would like to ask at this time of
2 Mr. Williams or any other members of the panel.
3 MR. SWANSON: In relation to my comment about
4 financing I'm just wondering what are your financial
5 constraints. 'Vre you envisioning being able to
6 implement this Act? What kind of financial support do
i you envision? What kind of support would you require
8 to make sure this Act is actually implemented?
9 MR. WILLIAMS: I would say that although the
10 last word has not been written, I don't think, it is
n apparent that we will not get the authorized amounts
12 of financing called for under the Act and the number of
13 people that we will be given at least at this time to
u implement the Act is considerably lower than we frankly
15 thought should be needed, but I think we are going to
16 make a very strong attempt to implement it anyway and,
17 as you know, budgets and personnel allocations are
is something that fluctuate to some extent in accordance
19 with how much active public opinion is expressed. We
20 have had a Ford budget, which was low, and a Carter
21 budget, which was a little higher, and now we are
22 waiting for the Congressional budget which is in the
23 process of being considered now.
24 MR. HANSEN: It is a fact that congress
25 authorized some goodly sums to accomplish the purposes
IRWIN !. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - tu 7M1 - Seattle, vostilnston
-------
1 of the Act, but authorizing it is something other than
2 appropriating it. So, as the gentleman mentioned, we
3 do have to wait and see what Congress is going to
4 appropriate. The Ford administration suggested a very
5 meager budget and the Carter administration has given
6 us some little relief, not much, and it is up to
7 Congress now. So we really don't know where we are
8 heading in that area.
9 Are there any other questions at the present
10 time?
11 MR. MILLER: I am Dave Miller and I am a
12 resident of Seattle and in the public education program.
u I know that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was
14 given critical review by the National Commission on
15 Water Quality, that a public participation cause of
16 that Act received a lot of adverse commenting. In
17 other words, that section of the law had not been
18 adequately prosecuted in the opinion of that Commission.
19 I know from my personal experience down in Region 9
20 that the amount of money made available to do that work
21 was pathetic. It barely even covered production
22 problems for the production materials. So my question
25 is do you know at this moment what kinds of budgetary
24 allotments you are going to be able to make to devote
25 to these sections concerning public participation and
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'i Court Reporters - 423-780) - SM»I», Washington
cca
-------
i information.
2 MR. WILLIAMS: I would aay as a long—term
3 ^federal bureaucrat I am going to get much leas money
4 than I need, which has been the case ever since I can
5 remember. However, our program is a much smaller
6 program than the water program traditionally has been
7 under the budget, I suppose I can safely aay, and we
8 have less money for everything; not only for public
9 participation but for productive assistance work and
10 writing and promulgation and overseeing regulations,
11 et cetera.
12 So I don't think we will ever have as
B potentially good an opportunity as they had in water
i4 participation from a purely financial viewpoint. If I
n xif be forgiven a bit of chauvinism I think we will do
16 better, because for one thing we are insisting that
17 the public participation provision of the Act really be
is connected with the rest of it. I think that wasn't
19 quite true in the water program. The water program was
20 very massive and people who were involved in public
21 participation in my opinion were not intimately enough
22 involved with the bureaucrats who were 3s>ing other
23 things in water. That is not true in solid waste
24 management.
25 For example, this calendar year we are a fairl
IRW1N & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters • 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i small group. You can't even compare the water
2 bureaucracy to the solid waste bureaucracy. We already
3 have programs for this year or planned for this year
4 over 120 public meetings, hearings, workshops in this
5 country to try to get this underway. Mr. Lehman, who
Mz^&eai) k-s
6 is head of the 061 id Waste Management Division, he and
7 his small staff will be engaging in 80 public heatlug IT
s this year in various parts of the country and our
9 desires for a public information program, while I
10 applauded all you have said, we will not be able to
11 do all of the things you recommended we do but we
12 would like to. All I can say is I think in this program
13 there is a better integration, a better general feeling/
14 about the need for public information, support and
15 understanding by the people who are in other aspects of
16 the business than is also the case in^federal education.
17 MR. HANSEN: Are there any other questions or
is comments?
19 MR. IMMERMAN: I am Tim Irrnnerman with the
20 Societe Candy Company in Bellevue. I know this has
21 nothing to do with candy, but I noticed last night in
22 the news and here is a snail article about it, the
23 radiation scare. Apparently there was battery acid
24 leaking onto cartons of depleted uranium fuel in the
25 South Seattle Trucking Company. Officials said depleted
I - 623-7SB1 - Seattle, Washington .
-------
i fuel is harmless unless eaten. The battery acid did
2 not penetrate to the fuel, but even if it had there
3 would have been no health hazard, state and federal
4 officials said.
5 The uranium is extremely heavy and was on its
6 way to the Boeing 747 plant in Everett where it ia used
7 as counterweights in the tail assemblies in jumbo jets.
8 I don't think any of us would have known what the use
9 was for that uranium fuel. There it proves again we
10 have very little information. The public has very littl«
11 information about hazardous waste and they are very
12 scared about atomic plants, they ars very scared about
13 the new addition of new fuels. I think it would be a
H very good thing to emphasize to the public especially
15 in that field, to give more information to it.
16 MR. HANSEN: You might be interested to know
17 that came up while we were in hearinn yesterday and
18 immediately Mr. Cowan, who was our radiation man here,
'Ffidikf-
19 rushed downtown and Mr. Ken-Baker, who is chief of our
20 Waste Management Branch rushed downtown. The s£ate
21 radiation man, Bob Mooney, got out there with his geiger
22 counter. "?he story was reported radioactive waste.
23 They found it was a very low level, no concern at all,
24 of radioactive waste. It was battery acid that was
25 involved.
_ IRWIN 8, ASSOCIATES, CSR's - court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
1 Nevertheless citizens should recognize while
2 we make mistakes and we are not perfect, that as soon
3 as we are ever alerted to a problem of this kind both
4 the ^federal and state and local governments rush in
5 as well as industry and others, but it was a scare and
6 most of our scares around here have been from
7 misinformation. The fact it was radioactive material
a around there scared all of us. We were wondering how
9 they were able to transport it under those conditions.
10 MR. POWELL: fly name is Jerry Powell and I
11 represent the Association of Oregon Recyclers. Thia
12 trade organization includes the major recycling programs
15 in our state.
14 I would urge the consideration of local agencies
15 and local organizations to be the funding parties to
16 implement some of the public information aspects of the
17 new Act in the sense that many of the agencies, planning
is agencies, in the small municipalities are the ones who
19 can best provide the information services that are out-
20 lined within the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
21 of 1976, and our association would urge consideration
22 of those local groups.
23 Our organization also wishes to provide
24 several remarks concerning the public information and
25 public participation segments of the Resource
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'i Court Rtportort 4J3-7M1 . Seattlt, Wlthlngton
-------
i Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
2 Our association applauds the legislative
3 intent of the new bill in terms of its public education
4 and information requirements. The old assumption held
5 by many solid wasto planners of ''out of sight, out of
6 mind1' needs to be collected and disposed. A vast
7 number of citizens in. our state have expressed interest
8 in solid waste issues. Nearly 1,000 attended a recent
9 land fill hearing. The Recycling Information Office
10 of the State Department of Environmental Quality
11 receives over 100 calls per day from citizens requesting
12 information. Citizens are interested in solid waste.
13 We face certain problems. The 1975 state
14 legislature mandated recycling education as part of the
15 graduation competency requirements, but did not
16 allocate the resources to deliver the necessary
n educational services. There is a growing demand for
is these formal services. The agency where I am employed
19 provides a tour a day of our education center and ware-
20 house, but efforts such as these tand to be second-hand,
21 make-shift affairs. The need is not being met.
22 we therefore urge the United States
23 Environmental Protection Agency to develop and fund
24 information and education programs which actively
25 confront our serious solid waste problems. Sound solid
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's • Court Reporters • 623-7881 Seattle, Washington _
i«J
-------
i waste planning requires strong public information
2 programs.
3 MR. HANSKN: I would like to ask once again
4 is Armand Ctephanian in the room? We honored your
5 request, Mr. Stephanian, for 9:45 within a minute or
6 two.
7 With that I think we will proceed right on to
8 the next subject and I suspect we will need all of the
9 time we can got, and that is dealing with hazardous
10 waste. With that I turn over this portion of the progra^n
11 to John Lahnan.
12 MR. LEHMMs!: I wanted to spend just a few
13 moments running through briefly the hazardous waste
14 management process of the new law. I think most of us
15 recognize if you have read the law that these provisions
16 provide a rather significant new departure in the sense
17 that Congress has with this law for the first time given
is the Jrederal government some regulatory power over the
19 land disposal of waste, but only for hazardous waste.
20 Non-hazardous waste is not directly regulated under this
21 law by the^Federal government, but is still the
22 responsibility of jstate and local gover unents.
23 I would like to quickly run through these and
24 just highlight some of the things that I hope will
25 spur your thinking and we will get into a discussion on
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i these points a little later. The first situation in
2 the hazardous waste process is, as you might expect, a
3 definitional section, Section 3001. How are you going
4 to define legally what a hazardous waste is? This
5 regulation is to be promulgated within 18 months and
6 it is to consist of criteria by which the hazardous
7 waste characteristics can be identified. This implies
8 in turn, usually anyway, some type of standardized
9 test and sampling techniques; and then lastly the law
10 requires that a list of hazardous waste be issued.
H Let tne just back up a minute and go through
12 that a little slower. It is clear that definition is
13 very important, because it defines the scope of the
14 entire program. If the definition is construed to be
15 very narrow, then the program impact will be narrow.
16 If it is construed to be quite large, then the impact
17 will be large.
is One fact I wanted to bring out was the
19 rrentleiran mentioned radioactive waste just a moment
20 ago. '"'he law explicitly excludes radioactive waste
21 froiT control under this Act provided that the radio-
22 active materials are covered under the Atomic Energy
23 Act of 195* as amended. There are some radioactive
24 materials that are not covered under the Atomic Energy
25 ?.ct, such things as naturally occurring radium, isotopes
• __—IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters 623-7861 Seattle, Washington
C7V
-------
i that are produced and cyclotrons as opposed to being
2 produced in fissions; things like that. That is rather
3 a minor group compared to the radioactive waste every-
4 one is concerned about in terms of nuclear power
5 production and so on.
6 I just want to make that clear, that this
7 Act doos not address chat subject. That is controlled
8 by a different agency, the IJuclear Regulatory CoTtunissioJi
9 and not by Fv\. We do have some responsibility
10 obviously in eiivironnental standards for radiation in
11 ceneral, but when it cones to the disposal of radio-
12 active waste this law has only very limited applicability
13 As to the characteristics you might give some
14 thought about that, what does that mean. There are
15 various parameters by which you can classify a hazard
16 or a potential hazard. I will just mention a few.
17 Flawmability is obviously one; and then corrosivity
is and explosivity. These are certain of physical
19 properties of materials. More sophisticated, I suppose,
20 are parameters such as toxicity. When I mention
21 toxicity I am really not talking about acute toxicity
22 but chronic toxicity and also carcinogenicity,
23 mutagenicitv and teratogenicity. Also, persistence in
24 the environment is mentioned in the law. So there is
25 a wide range of parameters we are directed to consider
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's . Court Reporters - 623-ritl - Seittu,
-------
i when we are defining a hazardous waste.
2 One other point before I leave this one is
3 the whole point about hazardous waste is being a
4 mixture of materials. I don't want to dwell on that
5 too much, but I want to highlight the fact that as
6 opposed to the Toxic Substances Control Act, for example,
7 • which is primarily a rifle shot, if you will, at a
8 chemical, a specific chemical, or a class of chemicals
9 like PCB's, this law is a broad brush treatment taking
10 into account all hazardous materials. In other words,
11 we are attacking the entire problem all at once as
12 opposed to the taking on of one chemical at a time.
13 Furthermore, the waste we are talking about
14 often contains many, many chemicals at the same time.
15 We are not talking about commodities. We are talking
16 about waste which could be red slime, yellow goo; you
17 name it.
is T.et's go on to the next one. 3002 deals with
19 national standards that apply to the generators of
20 hazardous waste. Here again this is an interesting
21 provision in the sense that first of all it is a
22 national standard, and a national standard can be endorc4d
23 per se. In other words, it does not imply permits or
24 licenses. This is a national standard like a speed
25 limit and certain sanctions are available in the Act for
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623-7B81 - Seattle. Washington
r r •"]
C «' /
-------
i violations of the code as it is written and the same
2 thing applies to some other standards that I will
3 mention in a moment.
4 Also, it does place a certain amount of
5 responsibility on the generator of these wastes and he
6 can ba prosecuted if he does not follow these
7 responsibilities.
8 Again, the regulation is to be promulgated
9 in 18 months. I should mention in all of these the
10 promulgation date is 18 months, but the effective date
11 is 6 months after that or, in other words, 24 months
12 after the law has passed.
13 Some of these topics where these regulations
H are listed there Iff record keeping and reporting,
15 namely the quantities and constituents and disposition
16 of these wastes, labeling of containers, those of you
i
171 who know something about this business know many wastes
is are very minimally labeled or improperly labeled, and
19 this causes a great deal of problems at disposal sites
20 or treatment sites.
21 The last item there is probably the most
22 significant one in the whole business, and that requires
23 the generator to initiate a manifest, and this manifest
24 again would list quantities and constituents and the
25 intended dispositions; but what it really boils down to
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters M3.788I Seattle, washlncfon
-------
i is that this manifest is a management tool. Its
2 purpose is to control and trap these wastes from the
3 time they are generated through the transport phase
4 until they actually arrive at a permanent facility.
5 Manv states, or I should say some states, already have
^^_ ^r
6 such manifest systems in operation. The State of
7 California is one and Texas is another.
s One of the issues we face now is whether or
9 not we should require that these manifest systems be
10 uniform on a national basis or whether each state should
r=F
11 be allowed to have their own system, and the reason
12 that is very important is that unlike municipal «raste
13 these hazardous wastes, which can be liquid or sludge
H or solids, can be and often are transported long
15 distances, including across state boundaries. There are
16 some in the west where the states are quite large in
17 area that is not as much of a situation as in the east,
i8 but it is not uncommon for waste to transit ten state
is boundaries on the way from a generator to a disposal
20 site in the east, for example, and that can cause
21 substantial problems if the manifest tracking system is
22 not to some degree uniform.
23 Another point on that is that we are talking
24 about hundreds of thousands of transactions each year.
25 Every waste shipment from every hazardous waste generate
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington
073
-------
i is going to be trapped and the only feasible way we can
2 think of to do this is the use of computer systems to do
3 some of the tracking; and if the manifest form, which
4 is the basic tool, is not uniform nationally, that is
5 going to cause some real problems when it comes to
6 try to computerize all of this information.
7 Section 3003, again a national standard, the
a same as the other one, again an 18-month promulgation
9 date effective at month 24. Here again Congress is now
10 laying some responsibilities on the transporter of
11 these wastes. You may know there are a number of people
«. v
12 who have rather fly-by-night operations in this business
i} They will back into a loading dock of a manufacturer and
14 say "Well, I will take your waste for so many dollars
15 per ton" and away they go and no one ever sees them
16 again; and that is precisely what we are trying to avoid
17 here because no one knows where those wastes go. I can
is tell you where some of them go. They go to very bad
19 places.
20 So this is part of this transport control
21 network, to put some constraints on the transporters
22 themselves. They will be required to comply with this
23 manifest system. Basically the manifest system will do
24 the following: it will say "I, Generator A verify such
25 and such wastes are here and I'm turning these wastes
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'» Court Reporters - 623-7881 Seattle, W«»hlr,<|ton .
CGO
-------
i over to Transporter B and it is my intention that he
2 take them to Disposal Facility C". If the transporter
3 does not take them to Disposal Facility C like he is
4 supposed to, he is then subject to sanctions.
5 That sounded a little negative about the
6 transporter. I should say most people in the transport
7 business that I have talked to are very much in favor
s of these standards, because they are hurt. The
9 reputable people are hurt by the fly by night operators.
10 They would like to see them forced out of business. The
11 other DOT regulation item there refers to the fact that
12 the law requires us — whatever EPA does in its
13 transport regulations, and that is worth commenting on
H itself, to my knowledge this is one of the few times
n that Congress has given EPA some jurisdiction over
16 transport-regulated regulations. Almost without
17 exception these regulations are promulgated by the
is Department of Transportation and not by EPA. So they
!9 wanted to make sure we coordinated these regulations
20 and made them consistent with existing DOT regulations,
21 and we are doing that. As a matter of fact our working
22 group in Washington on this particular regulation —
23 there is an employee of the Department of Transportation
24 who is a member of that working group. So we are trying
25 to get coordination really from the ground floor.
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'i - Court Reporters - 623-78B1 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i Section 3004 deals again with national
2 standards. This is the third set of national standards,
3 namely for tho owners' and operators' treatment, storaige
4 and disposal facilities for hazardous waste; again an
5 18-month deadline and again going into effect in 24
6 months. Of all of the mandates in the law this one isi
7 probably the most comprehensive in the sense that if
a you read Section 3004, you will see that Congress sayst
9 the regulations must include this and this and this and
10 the list goes on and includes those that are listed
11 there. Record keeping, reporting, compliance with the
12 manifest system, regulations respecting monitoring and
13 inspection, performance standards basically for the
u facilities, the location. The design and construction
15 of these facilities are to be addressed and the
16 maintenance and operation of the facilities are to be
17 addressed and the contingency plans and ownership
18 requ irements.
19 Now, what do we mean by ownership requirements?
20 What we are talking about there is to avoid some of the
21 problems we have had in the past where people will go
22 into business to accept these wastes that are toxic or
23 hazardous for a fee and stack them up somewhere or pile
24 them in a back yard or somewhere and walk away and
25 therefore leave a mess for somebody, usually a state
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Coyrt Reporters «3 788) - Seattle, Washington .
r - --,
V. '„ ,"„
-------
i or local or federal government, to clean up. So we
2 want to avoid that in the future so that ownership
3 requirements will probably take the forn of insurance
4 requirements, performance bonding, site closure plans,
5 long time care provisions; because once you put these
6 materials into the ground, there is still some tear and
7 maintenance required on into the future.
s Let me back up a minute to the words
9 "performance standards" there. These are key words,
10 because the Water Pollution Control Act for example
n says it is based on technology—based standards, the
12 best available technology, the best practical technology
13 and so on. In this law the words "performance standards
i4 are used and not technology standards. So we are
15 contemplating what that means and we would appreciate
16 your comments on that. For example a performance
17 standard in the area of water pollution control might
is deal with the potential impact on ground water as well
19 as surface water as well as the air and possibly even
20 noise standards would be appropriate here, but if we
21 are talking about ground water performance standards
22 what are we talking about? Are we talking about no
23 discharge, non-degradation, equivalent to or not exceeding
24 the drinking water standards? or if none of the above
25 then what? So these are very, very complicated issues
IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES. CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
CG
CO
-------
i and we again solicit your comments.
2 From here on out they are not national
3 standards anymore. Section 3005 deals with permits and
4 I want to call your attention to the fact that permita
5 are required only for facilities under this Act.
6 Transporters do not require permits. Generators do not
7 require permits. Only those who are in some way
s treating, storing or disposing of waste do require
9 permits. Again, the requirements are due in 18 monthn
10 and go into effect in 24 months. I might point out
11 at that point it is illegal to dispose of hazardous
12 waste except at a perraitted facility. I will go back
13 to that in a minute, because it has some implications.
14 We are working on what are the requirements
15 of the permit, but obviously it would have to include
16 keeping track of what kinds of wastes come to the
17 facilities and what is the disposition made with those
is wastes. Another aspect of this is that it applies to
19 storage as well as treatment and disposal, and that ia
20 a sticky wick too because many people say to us "Well,
21 that pile I have over there in the back is not disposal.
C, ^Jef
22 That is under stor^»«rt, because I'm going to use it
23 sometime later". Hell, it might be 20 years and it in
24 still there to use. So that is sticky too. How do you
25 define the definition between storage and disposal?
j „_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Coyrt Reporters • 623-7BB1 - Seattle, Washington
CG-1
-------
i Also note there is a possibility for an
2 interim permit and basically what Congress was doing,
3 and I think it was based on the experience of the
4 water pollution control law where everything came to a
5 grinding halt while everyone tried to get a permit
6 processed. So they said: Okay. Let's avoid that.
7 Those people that are in business as of the date this
s law was enacted, namely October 21, 1976, and those
9 that have notified EPA or the state that they are in
10 such a business and they have furthermore applied for
11 a permit, those are the three conditions which
12 automatically give them an interim permit to continue
13 operation. So we don't put a plug In the bottle, so
14 to speak. Even if the practices are not what we would
n like, at least you have some facilities that continue
16 to be open and continue to accept some waste; and then
17 as a result of the permit process we intend to upgrade
is these facilities to where they should be.
19 There is one point I would like to bring out.
20 This is a major issue and perhaps we could spend some
21 time talking about it, and that is almost without
22 exception citizens are adamantly opposed to any kind of
23 solid waste facilities and especially the hazardous
24 waste facilities. They say "Put it anywhere but here".
25 Now, our intention is that with the new law here with
- IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'i - Court R«porlers 423-7H1 - S»ttl>, Washington .
-------
_ _ l
i stringent standards on facilities and to get a permit,
2 that when a facility does have a permit it could be
3 viewed as being a positive endorsement or certification
4 of that facility. That is, the government has reviewed
5 all of the required dates and has come to the judgment
6 the way it is proposed to handle hazardous waste at
7 that facility is acceptable to the public health and
8 the environment; and we are hoping that process will
9 begin to change the public's attitudes about hazardous
10 waste disposal facilities or for that matter solid
11 waste disposal in general; but that is certainly of
12 great concern to us, because if we put these regulations
13 into force two years from now or less than two years
14 and we begin to force generators to send these wastes
15 to permitted facilities and the citizens oppose the
16 establishment of our new facilities, we have a chicken
17 and egg proposition and something has to give.
18 Let's move on to Section 3006. This is
19 authorized state hazard waste programs. These are
20 guidelines and not regulations. The idea here was very
21 strongly implied. The Congressional intent was that
22 the states run this program and not the Feds. The
23 whole concept was that the Feds set the uniform national
24 standards they are talking about but that the ^£ates pic
25 up the permitting functions and the enforcement function^
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623 7B8) Seattle, Washington .
-------
i They know best, they know the local processes. Congress
2 stopped short of requiring the _sjtates to take on this
3 program, however. They said ''Any jitate that wishes to
4 may take on the program" and they provided two different
5 levels of authorization for the state programs, the
first being a full authorization. The requirements for
that are that the ^state program be equivalent to the
federal program and be consistent with other _state
9 programs and provide adequate enforcement for the
10 provisions of the subtoxics. What does equivalent mean
and what does consistent mean? Those are two big issues.
12 Again your thoughts on that would be very much appreciated.
13 For example, some states in the east have
non-importation laws. In other words, they ban the
importation of waste from out of_state into their
16 Is that a consistent policy? In other words, the
17 requirement is that the state programs be consistent
18 with other^tate programs. Is the existence of an
19 importation ban or a non-importation policy consistent
20 with other state programs. We tend to think not. Then
21 there is a second possibility and that calls for interim
22 authorizations on a two-year basis. In other words,
23 the idea is if you are not completely up to snuff to
24 get a full authorization', then we will provide for an
25 interim authorization for a two-year period starting
IRWIN a. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623-7B81 - Seattle, Washington
CC7
-------
i July 1978 and running into the 80'a to provide the
2 states an opportunity to get standard and move up to a
^
3 fully authorized program; and the only distinction in
4 the law between a fully authorized program and an
5 interim authorization is that instead of being equivalen
6 to a particular program, it has got to be substantially
7 equivalent to the^federal program. So anyone who has
8 thoughts how to define equivalent and furthermore how
9 to define substantially equivalent, we would be glad to
10 hear that because basically that is what we have to do
11 in the next 18 months.
12 Next we have Section 3010, which calls for
13 a notification procedure. This part of the law is
14 often overlooked by people skimming through the law,
15 but it is there and it is a very important provision.
16 In other words, within 90 days after the definition of.
17 a hazardous waste is finally promulgated in the Federal
18 Register, within 90 days after that point any person
19 who generates, transports, treats, stores or disposes
20 of a hazardous waste is required by law to notify EPA,,
21 and it should say also the_s£ate if the ^tate has an
22 authorized program, of the fact they are doing that.
23 Now, that is basically a registration program so that
24 everyone who is playing this game gets on the books.
25 That is all it is. It is a one-shot deal during a 90-da|y
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'l • Court Reporters - 623-7861 - Seattle, Washington —_
ceo
-------
i period; but bear in mind now we are talking about tens
2 of thousands of individual companies, perhaps municipal
3 facilities and so on, that will have to be part of this
4 registration program. So here again we are very much
5 concerned about the enormity of this notification
6 process. We feel it must be done under a rather unifonr
7 procedure so that it can be computerized; otherwise it
8 just gets swamped.
9 The last section in the hazardous waste sub-
10 titled (c) deals with financial assistance to states.
-?f^
11 There is a grant program authorized explicitly for
12 assistance to jttates to develop and implement their
13 hazardous waste management programs. It is sort of a
14 carrot approach, if you will. I mentioned earlier that
15 Congress stopped short of requiring states to have a
16 program. So they are still using the stick they used
17 and saying "Here is some money to cover if you are in
is the process of developing your own program".
19 The allocation of these funds should they be
20 appropriated — I might point out there is no
21 appropriation. There is an authorization, but no
22 appropriation for these funds. It is zero so far; but
23 should they be appropriated they will be allocated in a
24 different manner than the other funds that are allocated
25 within the Act, because there is formula specified in thi
IRWIN t. ASSOCIATES, CSR'» - Court Reporl.n - 6H-78I1 - Se»ltl«, Washington .
-------
i law that says that the allocation must be based on the
2 amounts of hazardous waste that are generated within
31 each state and the exposure to the public from those
4 wastes. So that is a very difficult thing to
5 characterize and so we are looking for circuits for
6 that type of allocation. Clearly, some jstates have a
7 bigger problem than other jstates do. So this will not
8 be based totally on population, although that is one
9 theory obviously.
10 I would like to open a discussion at this
11 point.
12 MR. HANSEN: That was certainly a broad
13 coverage. I'm sure there are some burning questions
14 especially in the minds of industrial members who aret
15 here.
16 First of all, I would like to give those an
17 opportunity who signed up to make statements and again
is ask that you go to one of the microphones either on the
i9 aisle or on the side and identify yourself by name and
20 your affiliation: and if you do have copies of your
21 statements, the reporter will certainly appreciate them.
22 First I would like to ask if Mr. Jack Peabody
23 from Chem Nuclear Systems is here now and would like to
24 make a statement.
25 MR. PEABODY: I am Jack Peabody of Chem Nuclea|r
_^_ (RWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters - 433 788) Seattle, Washington
-------
i Systems. Chem Nuclear Systems is a Washington based
2 operation. Presently we are operating the only hazardous
3 waste and chemical treatment and disposal area and we
4 are licensed by the State of Oregon. Our site is
5 located up noar Arlington and we are serving the entire
6 area.
7 We concur with the requirement for a complete
8 list as described in Section 3001 of the Act to identify
9 the criteria for hazardous waste.
10 (The remaining portion of Mr. Peabody's
11 remarks is inaudible.)
12 MR. HANSEN: Mr. Peabody, they can't hear you.
13 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Peabody mentioned a need for
14 concentration standards. That is one option, to define
15 hazardous is the basis of the constituents of a waste
16 and then specify a concentration limit or some value
17 over which the waste can be hazardous. That is one way
is to do it. Another way to do it is to define the criteri|a
19 based on the waste itself in the sense, for example,
20 in toxicity you don't try to find out what the toxicity
21 is of the constituents but you base first the toxicity
22 on the waste itself. If you have a rat test, for
23 example, perhaps you administer the waste directly and
24 if the waste fails some toxicity test, then it is a
25 hazardous waste.
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i In other words, that avoids the concentration
2 argument to some extent in the way that you are not
3 singling out individual chemical constituents, but
4 rather basing your criteria on the characteristics of
5 the waste as it is at that moment. So that is one
6 option we are considering right now. I just want to
7 state that much.
8 The second point I wanted to comment on was
9 you mentioned the need for flexibility in the performance
10 standards in the sense that companies differ from region
11 to region within the country, and we certainly do
12 recognize that point and will be taking that into
i} account.
14 MR. WEST: Those of us in the business waited
15 a long time for this legislation. I am Ron West with
16 Chemical Processors. Our business is the treatment,
17 processing and disposal through Arlington of what we
is would potentially call hazardous waste. We are dealing
19 witui solvents and oils and water borne chemicals and
20 heavy metals.
21 One of the concerns I have under this Act is
22 the definition of hazardous waste. As you remarked we
23 can make it as broad or as narrow as possible. The
24 other concern comes into the manifesting if we use the
25 definition of useless' and discarded, because a
___ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporter* 623-7881 • Seattle, Washington
-------
1 manufacturer or generator of hazardous waste, what we
2 may defin-o as hazardous waste, may find an economic
3 value for that waste. When he does, he then steps
4 outside of the useless and discarded definition and
5 moves the waste down the waste stream. He will be
6 jumping in and out of this activity until chaos into
7 the program. The second concern I have regards the
8 economics of land fill disposal versus recovery. If we
9 take on and allow the waste to go into land fill, it is
10 irretrievably lost. There is a tremendous potential
11 for recovery of materials from the waste stream,
12 particularly in the area of heavy metals, solvents, oils;
13 and it is important that strong emphasis be given to
14 recovery as opposed to land fill disposal.
n Third, and this is an area a recycler of waste
i
-------
i were modified and giving the same performance, we have
2 a ready market that we could serve. The types of
3 materials we deal with that we feel should be made part
4 of the hazardous wastrs regulations are solvents, oils,
5 netrolouia oils, solutions containing heavy raetals,
6 acids and toxics. There is good potential for recycling
7 in all of these materials.
8 Two things came up this morning. One was
9 performance bonding and insurance raquiraments. It will
10 ba vital to us that EPA educate the insurance industry
u of the nature of our business. This is a new activity.
12 We are going to have serious problems if your bonding
13 and insurance requirements are too high and the insurant
14 industry is not familiar with the nature of the activity
15 in obtaining the type of insurance that your federal
16 agencies require. We would suggest for companies of our
17 type that you seek the assistance of the Small Business
is Administration in this type of program.
19 Whan it comes to your registration program we
20 as a company, and I know that those of us involved in
21 the transportation process of hazardous waste as an
22 industry, will be delighted to help. Don't hesitate to
23 call on us. I think we know where all the bodies are
24 buried.
25 MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much. John, would
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-76S1 Seattle, Washington
-------
i you like to comment?
2 MR. LEHMAN: A number of important points
3 were raised bv Mr. West. I guess I will work backwards
4 through some of your remarks. The suggestion about
5 coordinating with the Small Business Administration is
6 a good one. Many of the people that are in this
7 hazardous waste business right now are small business.
8 It is a very interesting industry in the sense it is a
9 mixture between small businesses and very large businesses
10 anc'. there doesn't seen", to bo anything in between. In
11 other words, sone of the facilities are owned by very
12 large companies and others are small operations, but
13 that is a good suggestion.
14 As far as the insurance aspect goes and the
15 lack of knowledge by the insurance industry about this
16 whole subject, we are very much aware of that. We have
17 had a number of discussions with the insurance industry
is spokesmen. It is a brand new ball game for them. Like
19 most people in the financial world, when they are faced
20 with a highly uncertain situation, they tend to
21 escalate their rate structure out of sight because
22 there is no actuarial experience with this sort of thing];
23 an 5 wa are very much concerned as you are about that
24 aspect and it will be taken into account.
25 On the issue of federal specifications barring
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES. CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7B81 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i the sale of recovered materials, there is another part
2 of this Act which deals with that to some degree,
3 Section C004 I think it is, which deals with each
4 fpderal agency is required to view their government
5 specifications with an eye towards opening them up to
6 accopt more recovered material; and that is not only
7 going on in this Act but also under another Act and we
a are working with the Department of Defense to relax
9 the specifications on re-refined oil so we can begin to
10 use lube oil over again. DOT is one of the major users
11 of lube oil.
12 As far as the points you made about recovery
13 as opposed to land disposal, that is a very important
H issue. We have certainly made our position clear I
15 believe in the sense even before this Act was passed we
16 published an EPA policy statement on hazardous waste
17 management in the Federal Register last August and said
is basically that our druthers are that any time you can
19 you recover the useful values of materials of waste
20 before you proceed to either treat or land fill.
21 It is one thing to write a policy and another
22 thing to write a regulation. Congress does not really
23 give us the power to regulate the recovery of these
24 materials, which I think is considered more in the
25 economic spirit than in the environmental spirit. That
. IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR's - court ReporUn - «3 7«8! - Seatllt, Waihlngton .
CS.3
-------
i does not mean to say that these regulations will not
2 have a significant impact perhaps indirectly on the
3 recovery of materials. Long term care including
4 ownership requirements and including record keeping and
5 monitoring is going to drive the price of land disposal
6 up to where it should ba and will tilt the economic
7 balance more towards recovery in our view. Beyond that,
8 in other words, a direct sanction against land disposal
9 of certain materials is also possible. As we develop
10 these regulations we may come to that for certain
11 materials, but they should not be put into the ground.
12 So that is my response to that.
«*
13 MR. HANSEtl: We have now Mr. Gar^f J.
14 Nieuwenhuis. He is president of Western Processing
n Company and he would like to make a statement.
16 MR. NIEUWENHUIS: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.
17 I am narmt J. Niouwenhuis, president of the Western
is Processing Company. I have been in the business for
19 20 years processing chemicals and hazardous waste.
20 Most of our business is reclamation. We waste about
21 500,000 gallons of hazardous liquids a year and about
22 5,000 tons of solids.
23 I want to express my objection to Section 3004
24 of this Act. I think that is the wrong way to do. When
25 we are disposing of hazardous waste in the soil, in the
_ IRWIN a. ASSOCIATES, CSR's court Reporters - 623 7181 - Seittle, Washington .
-------
! event it would disappear that would be wrong, of course;
2 but if it doesn't disappear, then 500 years from now it
3 will atill be there as a monument and testimony of the
4 way the 19th Century disposed of their hazardous waste.
5 I think all the hazardous waste should be rendered
6 harmless first and then disposed of. That is nothing
7 new. They do it all over Europe. I have been to
8 Europe several times. For instance, in Denmark there
9 is a plant that handles 500,000 tons of toxic and
10 hazardous waste together with 80,000 drums to be burned
11 in the incinerator at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit for four
12 seconds. We have the plants here in King County, which
13 EPA may not know, to install a hazardous waste
!4 incinerator of that magnitude, duplicating the one in
15 Denmark, and several of you gentlemen have an invitation
1,5 for the meeting next Monday in the King County Courthous a
17 By the way, that meeting is cancelled because I have to
is leave this afternoon for Europe.
iy In our opinion the hazardous waste should be
20 rendered harmless first and then disposed of, and that
21 we can do. We know the technology and it can be done,,
22 There is something else to it too, the
23 question of economics. I have always maintained that
24 if some product cost 10$ a pound to make it, but it
25 costs a dollar a pound to dispose of the waste, that the
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
L w 'v.
-------
i product then costs SI.10. "No" says the manufacturer.
2 He says, "At that price we can sell it and so we have
3 to make it for IOC and the government should pick up
4 the dollar to dispose of the waste" I think that is
5 wrong. If you can't sell it for that price, then don't
6 make it and that part of the one dollar for disposal
7 should include monitoring it and perpetuity, because
s you are putting a hole in the ground and you say you
9 don't monitor it, but after 10 or 30 or 50 years that
10 company goes out of business but. the government still
11 has to monitor what they put down there. I think you
12 should put that burden on the tax payer.
13 I think that is what I wanted to say.
14 MR. HANSEN: There are a lot of wise words in
15 the short statement you made and we certainly appreciate
16 it.
17 Would you like to offer a comment?
is MR. LEHMAN: I can certainly appreciate Mr.
19 Nieuwenhuis' position about the desirability of renderinjg
20 of waste harmless before you can put it into the land.
21 As I said before, that is our druthers too in the sense
22 of what our potential is. Here again, however, I think
23 it is clear to us that 90 percent of all potentially
24 hazardous waste we know about is going to land fill and
25 only about 4 percent is being recovered in any substantial
IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters 623-7881 Se«ttl«, Washington
-------
i way. I would certainly like to see that ratio
2 significantly changed. However, I still think after
} viewing it in all of its ramifications that there still
4 will have to be land disposal facilities for some
5 hazardous waste. In other words, we don't know how to
6 treat everything yet, at least to my knowledge. Maybe
7 we can comment on that.
8 There will still be the need for some land
9 disposal facilities. I think we cannot ignore that
10 fact, but it is pretty clear to me. As mentioned before
11 this regulatory procedure will tend to rectify some of
12 that economic balance that you mentioned, except that
13 the true cost of disposal is not going to fall back on
14 the generator's shoulders.
15 MR. HANSEN: Is there anyone else who would
16 like to make a statement before we open it for questions
17 MS. HOHL: I am Joan Hohl. I'm not representiig
is anybody. I just want to say that I hope that eventually
19 the scope of this Act will be broadened to include all
20 high and low level radioactive waste.
21 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been
22 responsible for handling these wastes and I don't think
23 they have done a very good job. I think the Commission
24 who is responsible for issuing permits and regulating
25 the safety aspects of hazardous waste is too narrow.
_IRWIN ft, ASSOCIATES, CSR's court Reporters 623-7881 • Seattle, Washington .
ICO
-------
i They are only regulating one industry and I hope
2 eventually they will be reorganized out of existence.
3 So I hope that Act will include all radioactive waste.
4 MR. HANSETl: I'm sure that will take an act
5 of Congress, but we appreciate your statement and it
6 will be in the record.
7 MR. MEANS: My name is Bob Means and I'm with
a Bouillon, Christofferson & Schairer. I would like to
9 make a statement that I feel will be a little bit
10 different and I don't need a microphone. I would like
n to object strongly for all of us at this 500 a page
12 price for the proceedings. It certainly doesn't cost
13 more than a fraction of that to produce the proceedings.
14 It makes the cost of the copy of the proceedings most
15 exorbitant and certainly raises some serious questions.
16 MR. HANSEN: Sir, are you talking about
17 private industry? I have to point out this is not a
is government operation. We contracted to have the record
19 taken and we will have a copy in our library in Seattle
20 in the regional office available for everybody. As Mr.
21 Williams mentioned this morning, they are going to
22 condense the statement somewhat and will make that
23 available to everyone.
24 I'm not sure what the copyright laws are,
25 whether we can make copies of our copy that we have in
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's court Reporters 623-7681 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i the library and furnish it to you if you want a copy.
2 I would have to talk to our general counsel and lawyers.
3 I made a few real booboo's in my time, but it is
4 usually when I am trying to deal with private enterprise
5 I have been in government too damn long So I would
6 just point out it is not the government that is charging
7 it; it is the firm we have contracted to take the
s statements.
9 Do you understand that part of it? And do
10 you still object? I object to the price of coffee too,
n to be frank with you.
12 MR. MEANS: I would suggest that somebody
13 is going to ask a question whether this was corapetitivel
,4 bid.
15 MR. HANSEN: That young lady in front of you,
& i
16 /£erry Wyer, Mr. Williams' assistant, can comment on
n that.
is MS. WYER: We had planned on making copies
19 available to all of the attendees, but I don't know the
20 policy with the contract you have arranged with the
21 reporter. That is probably something we should maybe
22 discuss; but in all of our other meetings that we have
23 had around the country, and this is the ninth one and
24 we have one more next week in Chicago, we had planned on
25 printing copies of the transcripts and making them
. IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 423-7881 Seattle, Washington .
1C2
-------
, available to all attendees. Again, we will have to
2 have some discussion, I suppose, with the individual
} who this region contracted with for the transcript.
4 MR. HANSEN: Mr. Means, let me see if there
is anybody from our own organization in this room who
knows more about this subject than I do. Ken Feigner,
can you tell me who contracted or what the facts are?
I only know what was written on a piece of paper and,
9 hell, I wish I had never mentioned it. I think
10 yesterday it wa.«s slid "at a nominal fee" and I should
n have stuck to that.
12 MR. FEIGNER: We are free to make add'.tional
13 copies, which is what j&rYf is planning to do at head-
14 quarters if it is alright with the reporter we contracted
15 with.
MR. HANSEN: Mr. Means, I will personally sec
i7 that you get a copy, sir, and you cut through a lot of
18 red tape and God bless you. With that I guess we are
ready for questions.
20 MR. MILLER: I wanted to speak in support of
21 Miss Hohl's remarks. There is a lot of confusion
22 amongst the public concerning the nature of waste produced
23 by power generating plants and, after all, mostly people
24 don't have a sufficient technical knowledge or access to
25 the process to determine for themselves. However, it
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters - 623 7881 Seattle, Washington _
-------
i has been mentioned in today's proceedings that the
2 applicable law was written in 1954. Is that correct?
3 MR. LEHMAN: The original Atomic Energy Act
4 was written in 1954.
5 MR. MILLER: I would like to bring the
6 attention of EPA to this and no doubt everybody else
7 has as well. However, somebody who is an inimpeachable
a authority is going to have to address the issue of
9 whether or not waste produced by power generating
10 plants are dangerous to human health or not; and if
11 they are, it seems to me it is immoral to ask or
12 implicitly require the American people to finance and
13 use sources of power which are able to cause irrevocable
14 damage to their health and the health of the future
15 generation.
16 MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much.
17 MR. WEST: What is the case current thinking
is on this issue of economics in the definition of waste,
19 the uses and discarded definition?
20 What I am saying is I am in the business of
21 reclaiming solids. If the solid is crappy, I'm going
22 to charge you to take it. If it doesn't have a lot of
23 contaminants in it, I'm going to pay you. In the one
24 case we use the term ''useless and discarded" and then
25 we apply the economic bid for definition that I charge
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i you to take your waste, it is now useless and discarded;
2 but if I pay you to take your waste it is not useless
3 and discarded, it has value, which you'll be manifesting
4 on the one hand and not manifesting on the other hand.
5 MR. LEHMAN: I think our consideration here
6 is essentially what the impact on the public health
7 and environment is. Even though a waste is going to be
8 recovered, if there is some potential for the waste to
9 get loose and cause some problem then we would probably
10 require it to become part of the manifest system and so
11 forth.
12 MR. WEST: My comment is I very strongly urge
13 EPA to do so, because if you don't you will find the
14 waste bouncing in and out and you will lose your contro|l
15 MR. LOCEYR: I am Art Loceyr. I have a
16 couple of questions. I notice you had 18 months as your
17 deadline for regulations. Is EPA going to meet that?
18 Also, you said after the lists are out the
19 generators, transporters, storage and disposal people
20 have 90 days in which to register. I represent
21 agriculture and it appears quite a few of our growers
22 will file the register as generators of hazardous
25 waste, i.e., pesticides.
24 MR. LEHMAN: You raised two interesting points
25 How are we going to meet the deadlines? Let me say
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's • Court Reporters 623-7081 Seattle, Washington
-------
i this: It is our intention to meet the deadlines. We
2 are planning to do it. There are problems partly due
3 to resource constraints and partly due to the type of
4 deadlines and so on. We are certainly not guaranteeing
5 we are going to meet the deadlines. If we do meet the
6 deadlines, as you pointed out, it will be probably the
7 first time in history we ever have. That is not a true
s statement, because I'm sure some have, but not in all
9 respects. Let me let that go by saying it is our
10 intention to and we are trying to, to the best of our
11 ability. At this point as we still have 13 months to
12 go I am fairly safe in saying we are probably going to
i} try. Maybe in 18 months from now we will talk about it
14 again.
15 I might say that one of the strategies, if you
16 will, of meeting this deadline is the fact that we are
17 having meetings like this. We are taking the time to
is have these meetings now so that hopefully we can avoid
19 long drawn-out bitter acrimonious discussions of issues
20 after we have proposed a regulation and before they go
21 final, because that has been the point and if we can get
22 everything straightened out before we pass the regulatioji
23 in the first place hopefully it will zoom through withou
24 further delay.
25 On your second point about generators, who is
_ IRWIN 6, ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 423 78B1 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i going to be the generator, that is an isaue that we are
2 wrestling with right now. I would certainly appreciate
3 any comments we might have then as to what the impact
4 on farmers, for example, might be if they are required
5 to be generators. The law is silent on the issue of
6 accepting people from the regulation. I think it is
7 within our power to provide exceptions for farmers, for
8 small business, and what about dry cleaners for example.
9 They use some chemicals in their dry cleaning processes.
10 What about service station owners? Waste oil has a lot
11 of anti-metal, for example, and if it is a part of the
12 definition of waste. These are very sticky questions
13 that we are wrestling with right now; so I would certainly
14 appreciate any comment. We are aware of the problem.
15 MR. HAMMETT: I'm speaking for myself. Most
16 of the discussions so far has been about industrial
17 waste, but I'm sure you all appreciate there are other
is types of wastes which are hazardous. I assume then
19 these would also have to be manifested. Is that being
20 considered?
21 MR. LEKMAN: Yes, it is being considered.
22 That is one of the parameters I neglected to mention
23 in briefly running through the Act, but the ethiological
24 bureau-related question of waste is one of the
25 parameters we are contemplating as one of the
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES. CSR's Court Reporters - 623-7B81 . Seattle, Washington
or
-------
i characteristics of average waste. So it probably will
2 mean that certain hospitals and laboratories will
3 become generators in the sense of this law.
4 M3. KIMBERLY: I am John R. Kimberly of
5 Resource Recovery Corporation. Do I understand you to
6 say that you are considering having to test the actual
7 waste on rats or other kinds of life as opposed to
s testing the components?
9 MR. LEHMAN: That is one of the options being
10 considered right now. It has not been decided to do
11 that, but that is one of the options.
12 MR. KIMBERLY: In that case I would like to
13 go on the record as being strongly opposed to it,
14 because I think that the overall concept of this Act in
15 to control the disposal of waste products and if a
16 little plating shop would have a waste this month,
17 they may have used more of one kind of chemicals than
is they did the last month and so this month's chemical
19 waste is going to be slightly different than it was laat
20 month and if they would have to go through the process
21 of getting laboratory animals and testing out waste
22 each month and each week, it is completely unworkable.
23 So I would like to recommend that you not consider that
24 as a very good possibility.
25 MR. LEHMAN: Your remarks are very well taken.
IRWIN ft. ASSOCIATES, CSR'a - Court Reporters • 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i We are aware of some of the problems that you have just
2 elaborated. I should point out that a generator doesn't
3 have to do any testing at all to declare his waste
4 hazardous. If he feels they are or they should be
5 treated in such a fashion, he can just arbitrarily say
6 "That is a hazardous waste" and start reporting it as
7 such without doing any testing whatsoever.
s The whole question of what kind of tests will
9 be required or if testa will be required and how often
10 and what the economic impact would be is still a very
11 open question. If anyone has knowledge of tests of
12 this type that are cheaper than the ones currently in
13 use or would be surrogates for other tests, we would
14 be certainly interested in learning about those.
15 MR. HANSEN: I hope no one in the room gets
16 the idea we are over-confident about how these problems
17 are going to be solved. We certainly need help and I
is think some real help has come forth already.
19 MR. MEANS: This may be a little more to the
20 point on the subject. First of all, I would like to
21 aak are you required by the Act aa it is written now
22 to attempt to implement the whole thing with regard to
23 all of the materials defined as hazardous waste all at
24 the same target date.
25 MR. LEHMAN: That is also an open question.
.—__ tRWIN ft. ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters . 623 78B] - Seattle, Weshlngton
-* r
-L'w
-------
i That is one of the issues that again we would like to
2 get comments on. It is one of the options we have
3 considered and are considering, a phased-in approach.
4 For example, we don't know enough about X to really say
5 whether it is or isn't, but that should not stop the
6 rest of us from going forward, and we will pick that up
7 later.
s These are kinds of thoughts that are going
9 through our minds now. So that is under consideration,
10 to use a phased-in approach. Also, I think that has
ii dangers in the sense that we have become very aware of
12 industry's problem with having to deal with a moving
ii target.
14 So we are sensitive to that also, that we
15 want to make sure everyone understands what we are up
16 to and if we do phase something in that it will probably
17 be under the condition of advance notice. We fully
is intend to do this at a certain tine so that we can
19 describe what our scope is and perhaps not implement
20 it all at once.
21 MR. MEA1IS: It seems to me that the mechanism
22 involved, the paperwork involved, the personnel involved
23 and the education involved in accomplishing all of this
24 and defining the sources setting up the manifest for the
25 transportation and the permits in defining what people
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i can and cannot handle and how they are going to do It
2 is going to be priraarilv exceedingly cumbersome and
3 for people who are in business and are going to try to
4 stay in business exceedingly expensive; and if it could
5 be evolved with phases you suggest and perhaps taking
6 the items which are of greatest concern, of greatest
7 public exposure and also greatest hazard and setting
8 those things up and getting experience with them first
9 and then moving into those that are of less concern,
10 and usually those of less concern will be those in much
11 greater quantity, and meeting with smaller organizations
12 and smaller businesses, that it would go smoothly and
13 the regulations that are really for the little people
14 would be based on the experience we get from the bigger
15 things and would make it a lot easier to accomplish this
16 overall transition to get everything under control.
17 MR. WARD: I am George Ward of Portland. I
is have just a couple of easy ones, I believe.
19 Can you elaborate a little bit more clearly
20 on this 90-day requirement in Section 3010 and compare
21 it to yesterday's pre-market notification. I didn't
22 clearly understand. Is this 90 days after you do it or
23 90 days before you do it?
24 MR. LEHMAN: The 90-day period I referred to
25 begins on the day that EPA publishes in the Federal,
IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters . 623 7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i Register the final definition of what a hazardous
2 waste is under Section 3001. In other words, we
3 certainly couldn't expect people to notify us unless
4 they knew what it was we are talking about. So that
5 is the concept, that it will be after that final
6 promulgation.
7 MR. WARD: Then the other would be, and I
8 recognize you probably don't have guidelines but this
9 would be a recommendation and it goes along with some
10 of the comments of Mr. Nieuwenhuis, for example, and
11 others in avoiding the scrambling of these waste
12 chemicals by forcing them out of, say, one site disposal
13 on a given manufacturer's site. If he has a lagoon that
14 can be updated or meets your high standards, it would
15 seem practical that he would be allowed to keep those
16 on his site and store them for 25 years if it is done
17 safely rather than being mandated into having them and
is mixing them into a violent chemical omelet.
19 There is current legislation in our ji£ate
20 that I think might cover this. It seems like this is
21 just doing what we shouldn't do. So if you could in
22 your considerations look to that and see if it is
23 possible for an industry to establish technology in
24 space and proper environmental chemicals in something
25 that might be a waste could be held in reserve.
. IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES. CSR'S Court Reporters 623-7881 • Seattle, Washington .
-------
i Thirdly I would like to specifically recommend
2 on this matter of insurance that was touched on earlier.
3 That just throws the bondiner company just absolutely in
4 panic and I think if anything in addition would help
5 to cause this recycling and the handling to be more
6 economically correct, there should be some common
7 insurance program, common guidelines. I don't object
s to the insurance companies handling thia, but that
9 throws some of the projects into an impossible range
10 to the extent of even suggesting national insurance
11 unification, because a little company doesn't even know
12 what you are talking about.
13 For example, I tested it on one of our bonding
14 companies to merely put sludge in the ground, and his
15 reaction was "You are going to do what?", and the
16 bonding rates went out of sight and yet with livestock
17 we are putting sludge in the ground right beside where
is it had been treated and they are not bonded. (Laughter.)
19 MS. LEHMAN: I will take the last one first
20 regarding the national insurance program. That again
21 would require a Congressional amendment to this law to
22 do that, because this law does not — are you thinking
23 of something along the lines of the Price-Anderson Act,
24 that merely the guidelines have some good national
25 information if nothing elae.
IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES, CSR'l • Court Reporters - 123-7U1 - SMttle, Washington
-------
i On the other point there is nothing in our
2 thinking nor in the law that precludes a manufacturer
3 or a generator from running his own facility/ whether
4 it be a storage facility or a treatment facility or a
5 land fill facility, provided that, he meets the same
6 standards that everybody else meets.
7 One of the problems is in some states the
^
8 converse is true. In other words, the law applies to
9 public and commercial treatment and disposal facilities,
10 but has an exclusion or an exemption for on-site or
11 generators on-site. We feel that is wrong. That is,
12 the environment doesn't really care where the pollution
13 is coming from, whether inside or outside. As long as
14 we are playing by the same rules, that is our goal.
15 So there is nothing in here that includes what you have
16 suggested.
17 MR. HANSEN: Any other questions?
is MR. GARCIA: I am John Garcia. I have a
19 question in terms once the list has been published and
20 established what the procedures are for updating that
21 list on an economic basis and who has that burden?
22 MR. LEHMAN- That is a good question. The
23 law requires that all of the hazardous waste regulations
24 be revised and updated at a minimum of every three years
25 It doesn't say annually, but every three years.
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's court Reporters 6237881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i Furthermore, in the third part of Section 3001, the
2 first regulation, there is a provision that the governors
3 of each state can petition to add or delete or in some
4 way change the list of hazardous waste at their initiative
5 and then EPA I think has 90 days to either use or reject
6 that petition. So there are mechanisms to change that
7 listing once it has been published, and I suspect it
8 certainly will.
9 The State of California, for example, publishe|d
10 a list like this under their existing program about a
11 year and a half ago and the initial list had something
12 on the order of 250 items on it and they are now in the
13 process of revising and republishing that list and it
'4 now has about 850 items on it. So the list is certainly
15 subject to change, but not annually.
16 MR. HANSEN: Any other questions?
17 ?ia. PEABODY: I would like to see if I under-
18 stood what you told Mr. Kimberly about the testing
19 procedures in terms of concentration. In regard to
20 actual physical testing on an animal, you noted in your
21 comment to Mr. Kimberly if a small generator wants to
22 declare a waste hazard he has the option to declare the
23 waste hazardous. I'm-curious what procedures you would
24 expect the handlers, disposers and regulators to deal
25 with in this.
, IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters 623-7681 Seattle, Washington
-------
i MR. LEHMAN: I think you are raising an
2 interesting point and I am glad to be given the
3 opportunity to clarify it a little bit. There are
4 really two different issues here. One is the issue of
5 whether a waste is hazardous or not from a legal
6 regulatory point of view. The other is what kind of
7 information is required to go on a manifest system,
a what is required to adequately know how to treat and
9 dispose of this material and what does the treater or
10 the disposer have to know about that waste in order to
11 adequately do that. That is a different issue. What
12 we were talking about earlier was yes or no, hazardous
13 or not. The other issue is also going to be addressed
14 under Section 3001 and it will be addressed probably
15 under Section 3002, which describes what is required,
16 and also under Section 3004, which describes the
17 operation of a facility, and it may be that we will
is require that some type of testing of each waste that is
19 accepted be done before the waste is taken.
20 This is common practice in the hazardous waste
21 industry, if for no other reason than self-preservation.
22 They have to know something about the waste that is
23 coming in or else they are going to get themselves blown
24 up or they are going to get their equipment blown up.
25 You know, you are in the business.
IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES, CSR'J • Court Reporters 423-7881 . Seattle, Washington
-------
i MR. PEABODY: Are you putting the burden then
2 on the disposer or the treater as compared to the
3 generator to determine what hazardous material is?
4 MR. LEPMAN: No, that is not the intent.
5 In order to figure out the manifest systen I night point
6 out that in the law itself is the description of what a
7 manifest is. Let me just read that, because it is
s interesting.
9 The generator is responsible for this manifest
10 and the manifest system, and I an reading directly from
11 the law "The term 'manifest1 means the form used for
12 identifying the quantity, composition, and the origin,
13 routing, and destination of hazardous waste during its
14 transportation from the point of generation to the
15 point of disposal, treatment or storage".
16 So the degree to which the imposition ia
17 required to be made for the purpose of the manifest,
is that is the responsibility of the generator. For the
19 purposes of transporting and tracking you may not need
20 to know as much about the waste as you need to know in
21 order to treat and dispose of it. That is a different
22 issue and it is usually, from my experience anyway, in
23 the mutual bylaws between the generator and the treater
24 and the disposer if for no reason other than to attempt
25 to set a price for what the generator has to pay. So
_ IRWIN 8, ASSOCIATES, CSR's • Court Reporters - 623-7981 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i there is a certain decree of overlap.
2 I hope I have clarified that point.
3 MR. HAIISEI7: Any other ruestions?
4 MR. SMITH: I air Jack Smith. The idea and
5 the problem of the moving target has been mentioned
6 this morning. Those of us who work in air and water
7 pollution control are familiar with that question. Our
8 experience has been generally that the moving target is
9 more of a problem with changing standards for a single
10 pollutant or parameter than it is identifying new ones.
11 So I v.'ould like to endorse the application some way of
12 the phased-in approach so that we are not faced, as we
13 have been in other areas, with investing in one good
u feature to deal with a particular problem and then be
15 enforced apparently a short time later to invest again
16 in a different procedure and be presented with the same
17 problem.
is of course, in water prograns this has been
19 accommodated somewhat by the use of 5-year permits,
20 but I would like to see some kind of a related approach
21 here so we don't run into the same problem.
22 MR. HAMSRNr Any other questions or comments?
23 (No audible response.)
24 MR. HANSEN: You have been a very tolerant
25 and very patient audience and I am personally appreciative
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i of having Jack Lehman, out. As I said before, he is
2 the man sitting on top of what I regard as a powder keg,
3 a very hazardous substance; but he is certainly very
4 open-minded and very knowledgeable and we will all be
5 shooting at him when he comes out with this first draft.
6 (Whereupon, at 12:00 noon the
proceeding was concluded.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
iy
20
21
22
23
24
25
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters . 623-7BB) Seattle, Washington
-------
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 IsOO P.M.
3 —ooOoo—
4
5 MR. HANSEN: First of all, I would like to
<> ask that for the record, we show that Mr. Andy Harstad
i did mention that he is concerned about the newspapers
8 reaching, and he gave us an example. The gentleman
9 from Societe1Candy Company mentioned, regarding the
10 radioactive spill, that the newspapers can put out some
11 erroneous information that will reach a million people
12 or more and then they don't print a dolled up story or
'3 an accurate story showing that the facts may have been
14 a little bit different from those originally reported.
15 I think we all recognize that retractions usually
16 don't make news, but I think this is a good point that
17 Mr. Harstad has made. He did ask that the record show it.
18 He also asked that he felt that EPA ought to have something
ly or some way that they could insist that the papers report
20 the true facts and at a later time either force the
21 newspapers to do it or to pay for it.
22 Mr. Harstad, is that essentially what you have
23 in mind?
24 MR. HARSTADs Yes, sir.
25 MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much for your comment|.
IRWIN S, ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 633 7J81 • Seattle, Washington
ICO
-------
i We are going to start out with the topic of
2 land disposal and again, we are very fortunate in having
3 with us the gentleman that is going to have the final
4 responsibility for putting together everybody's thoughts
5 and getting them out in the initial form that EPA believes
6 they should be in, and at that time you will again have
7 an opportunity to review the proposed regulations or
s whatever they might be, or guidelines and comment on them.
9 So, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to
10 introduce to you now Truett DeGeare, who is .chief of
11 the land protection branch of the systems management
12 Division in the jof f ice of £plid waste of EPA in Washingtoi
13 D.C. He will talk to you about the land disposal portion
14 of the law.
15 MR. DE GEARE: Thank you, Doug. Last night we
16 had a brief meeting on this new law and I sympathize with
17 the kind lady who mentioned that she and others often
is have problems with some of the jargon that we use in
19 trying to communicate with the public. So, I would like
20 to mention this for clarification, that RCRA is the
21 acronym that we are using for what is known as the
22 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and you
23 may also hear it referred to as Public Law 94-580.
24 If you have not yet had a chance to look at that
25 law, I suggest you do so. You can obtain copies over on
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i our hand-out table and due to your obvious interest,
2 which is expressed by your presence here, I suggest that
3 it be to your benefit to take a look at that law.
4 With regard to land disposal of solid waste, thei|e
5 are two significant provisions of the Act — more
6 accurately, I should say portions of the Act — which
7 address that topic. One is Subtitle C and the other
s is Subtitle D.
9 Jack Lehman this morning talked quite a bit
10 about the provisions of Subtitle C. I will talk about
11 Subtitle D, which does not include the hazardous wastes
12 which are addressed in Subtitle C. So, with regard with
13 land disposal, nonhazardous solid waste, some of the
u important features of RCRA are significant new definitions
15 a requirement for the Administrator; EPA to promulgate
16 regulations containing criteria for determining which
17 facility shall be classified as sanitary land fills and
is which shall be classified as open dumps. The requirements
19 that our Administrator publish an inventory of all
20 disposal facilities in the United States which are open
21 dumps, and the requirement that the Administrator publish
22 suggested guidelines including a description of levels of
23 performance to protect ground water from leaching.
24 A little later this afternoon I will have to
25 talk with you further about the implications and requirements
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i of the states and local governments.
2 Could I have the slides on now, please?
3 The Resource Conservation Recovery Act, 94-580,
4 RCRA, recognizes open dumps and sanitary land fills as
5 the only two types of solid waste disposal facilities.
6 These facilities will be distinguished by the criteria
7 which we are to promulgate under Section 4004 of the
a Act. RCRA adds some clarity by defining specifically
9 the terms, "disposal" and "solid waste". These are
10 pretty significant definitions. I am going to take the
n time right now just for purposes of our discussion to
12 read those definitions to you, and perhaps later you
13 would like to refer to them again in your copy of the Act.
14 Disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection,
15 spilling, leaking or placing of any solid waste or
16 hazardous waste into or on any land or water, so that
17 such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent
is thereof, may enter the environment, be emitted into the
19 air or discharged into any waters, including ground watera|.
20 The term solid waste means any garbage, refuse,
21 sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment
I
22 plant or air pollution control facility and other
23 discarded materials, including solid liquid, semisolid
24 or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
25 commercial, mining and agricultural operations and some
IRWIN & ASSOC )urt Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington __
-------
i community activities, bat does not include solid or
2 dissolved material in domestic sewage or solid or
3 dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or
4 industrial discharges, which are point sources subject
5 to permits under Section 4002 of the Federal Water
6 Pollution Control Act as amended, or source or by-product
7 material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as
s amended.
9 So, the emphasis I place on these definitions
10 is to reflect their breadth of coverage and disposal
11 covers almost any kind of placement of solid waste on
12 the land, and solid waste which we at one time may have
n considered to be solid is solid, semisolid, liquid,
14 or gaseous.
15 Congress has considerable latitude in defining
16 physical properties. As I said earlier, the statutory
i? definition of sanitary land fill and open dump, referring
is specifically to Section 4004 of the Record, which is calleji
19 "Criteria for Sanitary Land Fills; sanitary land fills
20 required for all disposal."
21 This section requires the Administrator to
22 promulgate regulations containing criteria for determining
23 which facilities shall be classified as open dumps and
24 which shall be classified as sanitary land fills.
25 At a minimum the criteria must provide that a facility
_ IRWIN 8. ASSi
-------
i may be classified as a sanitary land fill and not an
2 open dump only if there is no reasonable probability
3 of adverse effects on health or the environment from
4 disposal of solid waste at such facility.
5 An important aspect of the implementation
6 of this law, then, is further interpretation of the
7 key terms, "reasonable probability" and "adverse effects
s on health or the environment." Development of these
9 criteria will be particularly difficult for ground water
10 protection/ because of the technological uncertainties
u and the general lack of ground water protection policy
12 across the country.
13 Nevertheless, these regulations are due by
M October 21 of this year after consultation with the
15 states notice and publication hearings.
16 Section 4004-B requires each .state plan to
17 prohibit the establishment of open dumps and to contain
is a requirement that all solid waste within thejttate
i? be disposed of in a sanitary land fill, unless it is
20 utilized for resource recovery.
21 Finally, Section 4004-C indicates that the
22 state prohibition on open dumping shall take effect
23 six months after the date of promulgation of criteria
24 or on the date of approval of the state plan, whichever
25 is the later date.
IRWIN b ASSOCIATES, CSR'i - court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington -
-------
i In addition to this _s£ate prohibition on
2 establishment of open dumps, there is a Federal prohibition.
3 Not later than one year after the promulgation of criteria
4 for sanitary land fills and open dumps, the Administrator
5 must publish an inventory of all disposal facilities in
6 the country, which are open dumps.
7 Section 4005 prohibits open dumping when usable
s alternatives are available. If such alternatives are
9 not available, the state plan must establish a time table
10 or schedule for compliance which specifies remedial
11 measures, including specific enforceable actions leading
12 to compliance with the prohibition on open dumping.
'3 That compliance must be attained within a reasonable
14 time period, which is not to exceed five years from the
15 date of publication of the inventory.
16 If a jjtate plan is not being undertaken the
17 citizen suits provision of Section 7002 provides recourse
18 for aggrieved parties.
'" Section 1008, "Solid Waste Management Informatior
20 and Guidelines" requires the Administrator to publish in
21 one year guidelines which provide technical and economic
22 description of the level of performance that can be attained
23 by various solid waste management practices.
24 Areas to be addressed by the guidelines include
25 appropriate methods and degrees of control that provide
.
i.iC'0
-------
i as a minimum for protection of public health and welfare,
2 protection of the quality of ground waters, and surface
3 waters from leachates, protection of the quality of
4 surface waters from runoff through compliance with
5 effluent limitations under the Federal Water Pollution
6 Control Act; protection of ambient air quality through
7 compliance with new source performance standards or
s requirements of air quality implementation plans under
9 the Clean Air Act, as amended; disease and vector control;
10 safety and esthetics.
11 Congress in Section 1008 did not see fit to
12 specify which solid waste management practices are to
13 be addressed by the guidelines or which should be addresse|3
14 first and which should be addressed later, indicating
15 the lower priorities; so, with regard to these guildelines
16 we are seeking your viewpoints and input as to the
n establishment of priorities. To date, we have determined
is from our own viewpoint that land disposal is the predominant
19 practice in the country. Therefore, it is appropriate
20 for us to devote our effort to that area first.
21 j The second area of special concern is waste
22 water treatment plants, sludge, because of the quantity
23 and the fact that is also entered most frequently on
24 land. Therefore, we are going to be developing
25 guidelines to cover that practice. So, if I have further
_ IRW1N & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters 623 7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i suggestions or comments as to prioritization of
2 practices to be covered by these, we would appreciate
3 hearing from you. I would be happy to discuss more
4 informally any comments or suggestions you might have
5 with regard to these provisions of the law.
6 MR. HANSEN: I don't have any information that
7 anybody has a prepared statement to make on the subject.
8 I do think it is kind of important that if any of you
9 have thoughts right now as to those areas which you
10 think should be top priorities for guidelines, it would
11 be well to express them.
12 MR. WARD: I am George Ward from Portland,
13 and I identified myself earlier as a consulting civil
u engineer, which I am. But, in addition to that, having
15 been, I guess, frustrated a bit, trying to get some things
16 done, I was urged by an attorney to form a nonprofit
17 organization called the Land Use Research Institute,
is so in this instance, I am addressing you as a founder
19 and director of that nonprofit organization.
20 To give you a little background, it was prompted
21 by the — and these things relate incidentally to
22 particularly pesticides disposal — but also to the
23 land fill treatment idea, so I asked if I could delay
24 my comments until this session.
25 But, it was frustrated earlier by an attempt to
.IRWIN S. ASSOCIATES, CSR'i Courl Reporters 623-7aftl Seattle, Washington .
-------
i find ways of disposing of organic sludge that fit within
2 Federal and jrfate regulations which were and still are
3 kind of fuzzy, and also within the political mechanism
4 for allowing these things to be disposed of on the land,
5 rather than in the land, and this is one of the messages
6 I would like ask, as you review these standards, I would
7 urge you to consider alternative standards that prohibit
s covering for bacteriological reasons, and I will get to
9 that.
10 Now, as a consulting civil engineer, my major
n effort, which is basically funded by industry or
12 trying to survive in the moving target, I am asked
13 generally to find solutions, giving an example — I had
H kind of a chuckle this morning in the newspaper this
15 problem with Boeing airplanes. Now, in all due respect,
16 if anybody is here from Boeing, I apologize, but if I
17 had an airplane that cost that much, if the damn thing
is was tail heavy, I wouldn't put plutoneum in the tail,
19 I would move the wings back a little bit.
20 Well, this is the approach I would like to take,
21 is to not get all excited. If we have something that
22 looked as a toxic — you could eat the tile off the floor
23 and die, but if you walk on it, it doesn't bother us.
24 So, let's be rational and I have taken a kind of a tail
25 heavy airplane approach on the application of sludges and
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington .
ICO
-------
i have worked my tail off at attempting to get a rational
2 approach to the utilization. Now, I didn't even
3 know this law was coming on until six months ago, but
4 toward a rational conservation and utilization of certain
5 aspects of sludge — in the first case, as a beneficial
6 natural resource, which is proven if it is handled
7 properly.
s Now, if you eat it for breakfast, I wouldn't
9 call it beneficial, but if you put it on the strawberries
10 and eat them, I would call that beneficial. That led
n to the involvement end of what else can you do with
12 land treatment.
13 You notice I use the words"land treatment" rather
i4 than "land disposal." Mr. Newhouse, if he is still
15 around, completely agrees with what I think he meant
16 to say, and I would say it in a different way, which
17 might contradict what he said, but I believe if I
is understood him correctly, we shouldn't put these natural
19 resources that may be consj^ared waste, because of
20 impurities or we shouldn't drop them in a big trench and
21 entomb because what he says is correct, if you make yoursejlf
22 a giant chemical outlet and put it in a trench, void of
23 oxygen, void of bacterial activity, void of mixing
24 temperatures, true they will probably last for thousands
25 of years.
_ IRWIN & ASSOCU
-------
i Now, as a civil engineer with just a
2 tad bit of wheat farmer in me, I have learned that the
3 effect of soil bacteria and biogradation, that can be
4 achieved by someone who doesn't know anything more about
5 it than I do, the results can be truly remarkable and
6 we have proven some of these in sand dune control and
7 degradation research work has worked quite well and then,
s being an ordinary human being, and a little bit of a
9 maverick, a little bit of a rebel, I became a little bit
10 involved in a concept of pesticide residue disposal.
11 That didn't set well with me personally, because it
12 didn't set with mother nature, which we would have been
13 doing.
14 I raised hell about it and I must say — and
n Doug, I have to compliment your organization. It is
16 not easy for me to do, because I am forever opposing
n those guys, but I want to take a minute to compliment
is you, not only now, but then for the attitude of interest
19 and listening in terms of public inp1.'. I have gone
20 to a lot of these national meetings where you are told
21 to sit down, you have to decide which four sections you
22 want to hear, you are told to listen, turn your hearing
23 aid up. This is the first session in my history of
24 going to these in which the public discussion portion
25 far outweighed the Federal input portion, and I compliment
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 6237881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i you. I think it is unique and represents probably a
2 very well established policy, but admitted frustration
3 to getting to the bottom of a very tough problem, but
4 I am willing to learn. So, I thank you for the chance
5 to share my views about bacteriology and airplanes that
6 fly with their tails down. I have been asked to write
7 a prepared statement and I would like to read it.
s This particularly is addressed to the pesticide
9 disposal — it pertains also to the known or probably
10 known biodegradable pesticides or toxic chemicals,
11 a lot of them fit that classification.
12 "The Land Use Research Institute, which is a
13 technically oriented non-profit Oregon corporation would
14 like to take this opportunity to inform the Environmentzil
15 Protection Agency, interested jtate officials and
16 representatives of industry, of its desire to coordinate
17 the establishment of environmentally safe disposal
is procedures for a broad range of industrial waste which,
19 under the jurisdiction of recently adopted federal, regula'
20 tions, are to become known as HAZARDOUS WASTES.
21 "The fundamental process to be confirmed in
22 proposed research shall be the safe and economical
23 utilization of known capabilities of soil microorganisms
24 in bringing about virtually the complete chemical
25 destruction of biodegradable waste streams resulting
1_ IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 6237681 Seattle, Washinflton .
-------
i from the manufacture of complex synthetic chemicals.
2 Special emphasis is to be placed on the development of
3 highly bacteriologically active soils fully contained in
4 sealed cells and capable of achieving degradation,
5 physical filtration, heavy metal precipitation and
6 water dissipation through both solar evaporation and
7 plant evapotranspiration.
8 "Earlier research work conducted by Oregon
9 State University, the University of Florida and Iowa
10 State University clearly establishes the fact that
11 naturally occuring soil bacteria do possess the ability
12 to chemically disassociate certain complex chemical
13 compounds in a safe and practical manner.
14 "It is the intent of the Land Use Research
15 Institute to expand on the results of these previous
16 research projects and to eventually seek the establishmen
17 of much larger 'designed soil disposal lysimeters1
is capable of serving industry for a substantial portion
19 of its synthetic chemical waste disposal needs.
20 "In order to firmly establish the environmental
21 as well as the regulatory acceptance of soil bacterial
22 destruction of certain chemical wastes, the Institute
23 is currently conducting discussions regarding advance
24 research grant funding with the National Science
25 Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i Pacific Northwest Regional Commission. Representatives
2 of each have expressed a 'cautious degree of interest1
3 in various aspects of the concept and it is felt likely at
4 this time that federal funding may be made available
5 for the verification of soil incorporation as an acceptabl
6 waste chemical disposal alternative.
7 "A record has been made by the Institute to
s have all initial field work conducted under the supervisio(n
9 of soil and chemical research scientists from the
10 School of Agriculture at Oregon State University.
11 "As the concept expands and disposal sites
12 in neighboring states are investigated, additional
13 participation by university personnel in each of the
14 states will be solicited."
15 Now, I envision here, because of having gone
16 to Oregon State myself, and the closeness and the
i7 availability of land that they own, that we would do
is research work there, but I can envision out of this
iy could occur a multi-state research effort that would
20 verify this to the extent of perhaps Oregon, Washington,
21 Idaho, maybe Montana, hopefully Alaska. That could
22 engage in a coordinated research to verify that soil can
23 do these things and I apologize to having a solution
24 ahead of the problem, Doug, but maybe it is — I don't
25 know, let's get on with it. So, we believe that the
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters 623 7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i regional should be multi-state — it shouldn't be on
2 a sfate -to-jitate basis, because we represent the multi-
3 state agricultural chemical users concept. So, we
4 have addressed our request to governors of each of
5 those three states.
•=
6 "The ultimate objective shall be to first
7 confirm the regulatory acceptance of the soil degradation
8 concept. The final step will be an effort to establish
9 a large multi-state regional plan capable of locating,
10 and managing if need be, either a single or several
11 strategically located 'chemical disposal soil farms.1"
12 I just kind of picked that up — soil farm is
13 as good a name as I could think of.
14 "In conclusion, the chemical industry is
15 invited to join the Land Use Research Institute in the
16 investigation and hopefully the confirmation of soil
17 incorporatior, as a means of answering at least part of
is its waste chemical disposal needs in a safe and
19 environmentally satisfactory manner.
20 "As stated earlier, the Institute is a non-profii:
21 research organization. Although grant eligible, it is
22 currently supported only by small membership grants
23 by industry. Addition 1 industrial or publicly funded
24 participants are welcome. The supporting membership
25 fee is $1,000 and all funds are tax deductable."
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i I appreciate the chance to say this and I
2 want to again compliment EPA on a complete giant step
3 backwards, which I enjoy, in allowing people to come
4 up here and say what they want to. Thank you.
5 MR. HANSEN: Thank you, Mr. Ward. Would you
6 like to respond to Mr. Ward's statement?
MR. DE GEARE: I think the only response I
s can offer is that these criteria are going to have to
9 address the issue of sludge application to land or the
10 application of solid waste to land in various forms,
11 including what we have known in the past as sanitary
12 land fills.
As far as additional comment, I can't really
address those, except to acknowledge that there is what
is going on currently in the area of land application —
16 solid waste and sludges — and we are looking at that
17 as a possibility.
MR. WARD: If I could just leave one specific
request, that as you develop your criteria, the
20 conventional federal standards, what I would hope that
21 you could do in these specific categories which are
22 involving bacteria in a very capable system, there should
23 be — you understand soil far better than I do — and
24 specifically state this is the soil bacteriological land
25 fill and under no circumstances should be covered, it
. IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters 623-7U1 SXttle, Washington .
1GG
-------
i should be allowed to breathe and live as a sort of kind
2 of living machine, if you would.
3 MR. DE GEARE: We are aware of the fact that
4 the top zone of soil is bacteriologically alive and
5 active, and can perform beneficial functions for us.
6 He are also aware that there are other people who deal
7 more extensively in soils than we. One group that we
8 are working with is the USDA, Soil Conservation Services,
9 especially in the area of waste water treatment and
10 sludge application. I want to thank you for your comment^.
11 MR. HANSEN: Are there any other questions.
12 MR. WEST: Ron West from Chemical Processes.
13 I, too, am concerned that in your efforts to develop,
H to close the open dump concept and move towards the sanitary
15 land fill. Richmond has a very extensive soil farming
16 it has worked out very, very well for them. It has becoiws
17 one of the unique methods of disposing of industry waste
is in that area. It relates to what George is saying and
19 I want to emphasize this, so this doesn't fall through
20 the crack in the writing of the regulations. There is
21 a lot of specialized techniques that are coming along to
22 be looked at and please don't force us all into sanitary
23 land fill, particularly as it involves industrial waste.
24 It may or may not be hazardous. Thank you.
25 MR. DE GEAREs You are not the only people that
.IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters • 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington .
-------
i are concerned about this. I have been to a couple
2 of similar meetings that we have had. These same issues
3 have been brought up, and so we are aware of that
4 concern. Also we are dealino with some new concepts
5 being thrown at us, rather recently, by this law. I
6 want to make it clear that the term sanitary land fill,
7 which is used in this law, in which definition, of which
s we are currently dealing with is not the same definition
9 that we have worked with in the past. In terms of
10 operations, what this law has done essentially is to
11 throw out the former concepts of what one might call
12 a sanitary land fill, and introduce a more oriented
13 definition, whereas the strategy constraint is that
14 something called a sanitary land fill is something which
15 does not provide reasonable opportunity for adverse
16 affects on housing environment.
17 This is not to say that it defines it as something
is where in the trenching system solid waste is spread in
19 small layers, thin layers, and is covered in operating.
20 So, we are dealing with — these criteria we
21 are going to develop are to fulfill that statutory
22 mandate with regard to effects. There are two, 1 guess,
23 approaches that could be taken in developing those
24 criteria. One is developing specific operational criteri^
25 which might address such things as operation with daily
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i covering or land spreading. Another possible approach
2 is to deal in the area of performance only, and the
3 concept of not being concerned with how such a facility
4 is operated, but expressing concern only with the
5 performance.
6 If you have comments aa to which approach makes
7 more sense to you, I would certainly appreciate that.
8 I understand so far we have had comments with regard
9 to if the operational approach was taken, don't restrict
10 it to what we have traditionally known as sanitary land
11 fills. That is what I understand you to be saying.
12 MR. WEST: That is right.
13 MR. DE GEARE: I would like any comments you
u might have with regard to whether we should not take
15 an operation criteria approach, but to go with just
16 performance criteria.
n MR. HANSEN: I would like to just interject —
is I have been quite concerned that it is EPA's policy that
iy you do not put land fills in the wet lands and yet, I
20 think in our states here, that there is a great tendency
21 to give high priority to wet lands — save our
22 agricultural lands — use the wet lands for land fills,
23 and it just seems to me that if you were to come out with
24 a definition of a sanitary land fill as a situation where
25 you would not have — or if there was leachate, it would
.IRWIN 8, ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
1 have to be contained and treated. I don't know how
2 they would ever close out a lot of these so-called
3 dumps, but my real question to you is, if you are going
4 to come up with a criteria for a sanitary land fill,
5 what does a sanitary — do we say everything in a garbago
6 dump or an open dump?
7 MR. DE GEARE: Congress provides really only
8 two disposal facilities; one is a sanitary land fill,
9 something called a sanitary land fill — which is
10 acceptable, by the way — and the other is an open dump,
11 which is obviously unacceptable. It does provide for
12 various categories of sanitary land fills. For example,
13 a category might be something that we currently or in
14 the past have called a sanitary land fill. Another
15 category might be a category of land spreading. Another
16 category might be a category of surface impoundments,
17 just to throw out some possibilities.
18 MR. HANSEN: Thank you. It just seems to me
19 it is very important for you folks in the Northwest to
20 get input into the criteria for land fills. That is
21 why I expressed my concern. Are there any other questions
22 MR. GARCIA: My name is John Garcia, private
23 citizen. I have one question, perhaps another comment.
24 The question first is what about citing of these? Does
25 the legislation address that issue at all?
tRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporter! 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
ilO
-------
i MR. DF GEARS: Only in that it is one area
2 to be addressed by the guidelines that I mentioned.
3 MR. GARCIA: Okay. Well, then, the other
4 suggestion, basically — use the remote sensing for your
5 inventory procedures and for your monitoring, which if
6 you would, there is a number of —
7 MR. HANSEN: Sir, may I ask you a question. I
s am pretty stupid, and you have — when you talk about usii|ig
9 remote sensing for the citing, could you explain?
10 MR. GARCIA: It wasn't directly directed toward
11 the citing; it was directed toward the inventory.
12 MR. HANSEN: Okay, fine.
13 MR. GARCIA: The remote sensing is also
u technology that can be used for citing procedures with
15 an additional amount of information.
16 MR. HANSEN: Are there any other questions?
17 MR. WARD: I would like to make one other
is comparison, if I could, which I think is important.
19 It is again an observation after attending several years
20 of these.
21 About three to four years ago there was a
22 conference in this science center that addressed
23 conservation. I didn't like it then and I certainly
24 don't like it any more now, and I want to compliment
25 both of you, the Agency. Certainly times have changed,
IRWIN ft, ASSOCIATES. CSR's court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i but even if we had sufficient energy, which we don't
2 and won't, this concept of soil degradation is referred
3 to by some of the soil people more knowledgeable than
4 I am as cold and wet burning and it is truly a form of
5 oxidation.
6 Now, under certain conditions I think with
7 enough background, research could be proven successful
8 in breaking down even the solid waste portion you are
9 properly addressing. I don't mean to say that oxidation
10 is wrong. Forced oxidation by energy intensive systems
11 isn't necessarily wrong, but it is costly.
12 It is truly a way to oxidize and break down,
13 and I think it fits in the solid waste.
u MR. HANSEN: I'm afraid I cut you off on the
15 previous statement. You might have wanted —
16 MR. DE GEARE: I want to mention, we have looked
17 at remote sensing, which involved several techniques
18 ranging from an on-site evaluation using either specific
[y site examinations without going to the extreme of wells
20 and examining water itself, and then other techniques sue'
21 as aerial photography, which I think is what you are
22 talking about.
23 we have looked at some of the NASA satellite
24 outputs and we have looked at other outputs in terms of
25 infrared photography, and we found that for our purposes,
__IRWIN t, ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 6237881 Seattle, Washington
-------
, for purposes of such an inventory as we are going to
2 require to undertake, we can't really use anything that
3 could be obtained from satellite imagery.
4 It is a good suggestion, and we can use it
5 to screen sites, perhaps, and later come back and take
6 a closer look. So, I appreciate your comment. We will
7 take another look at that.
8 MR. HANSEN: Are there any other comments?
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I am a consulting
10 geologist and have been involved with solid waste for
11 about five years in Washington and Oregon with regulatory
12 agencies in the view process and then later consulting
13 work. I would just like to talk to Truett a bit, but
!4 I woultf like to make a couple of points at the meeting
15 here. I think when we started all the discussions on
16 solid waste, five years ago we were looking for high
17 and dry sites that we referred to and later with EPA
is funding, a lot of the work was done in Illinois and
19 dilution became the solution for awhile, placing sites
20 in discharge areas, primarily for the ability to monitor,
21 to recover the waste through contingency wells, this
22 sort of thing. Since then, I know that the National
23 Water Well Associates has done a lot of lobbying with
24 concern for ground water protection, and EPA has been
25 involved very heavily in this drinking water act, and
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
1 what not.
2 What I would like to ask for is more site
3 evaluations of land fill sites. I understand — I
4 would also ask for more careful consideration of sites,
5 specifically evaluations by regulatory personnel to
6 think in terns of the reason for the protection as
7 opposed to just stating a rule that no waste shall be
8 placed in water forever, as mentioned earlier in Washington
9 and Oregon, especially Western Washington and Oregon.
10 It doesn't matter where you put the land fill site, you
11 are going to generate a certain amount of leachate and
12 it is going to have some effect.
13 We do have sites that have extension of monitoriijig
14 programs in the Northwest in which, perhaps, your
15 performance guidelines would be a better approach, becausit
16 we are distributing the water.
17 I guess in summary, what I would say is that
18 the regulatory agency I think should have the ability to
19 discern again the reason for the placement of the site
20 and particularly in the particular area, and that the
21 regulatory agency should be staffed with personnel capabl<
22 of evaluating these sorts of ground water impacts. I havo
23 been involved in some similar things in Washington and
24 I would hate to see a blanket regulation that would cut
25 out any of these sites, because I know we have really
. IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES, CSR'S • Court I
-------
i in the Northwest.
2 MR. DE GEARE: The main problem that I am
3 trying to deal on an effect basis only, is not dwelling
4 on operations and monitoring. It is a severe problem
5 in that if you have operational requirements that are
6 perhaps for defects, , you can go out to a site where
7 an operator can tell for himself whether it is conforming
8 and thereby minimizing potential adverse effects.
9 If you really evaluate on the basis of performance,
10 only, it is going to be more extensive and more difficult
11 to monitor, to determine whether those effects are indeed
12 being avoided.
13 That is one concern we have had and we have
u heard other people express concern for.
15 MR. HANSEN: Toby, can you hear us in the
16 back of the room? You are going to have to speak up
17 just a bit. Are there any more questions?
is MR. WARD: I apologize for taking so much time,
19 but I attended a meeting here last week sponsored also
20 by EPA on a somewhat different subject and yet directly
21 related, and I think it might answer Randy's question
22 and comments. It has to do with what I think is a
23 sweeping and a good policy adopted by EPA pertaining to
24 domestic sewage waste.
25 Now, we saw for years millions and millions of
_ tRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters • 623-78*1 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i dollars forced into being spent for municipal sewage
2 treatment plants — that became the blind leading the
3 blind — and it made it almost absolutely fundamentally
4 necessary that if you wanted a permit for funding,
5 EPA funding, you must put it through municipal treating
6 plants.
7 What Randy was saying is that certain soils in
8 certain instances have a carrying capacity that was
9 totally ignored in that federal policy. I am not saying
10 it was wrong; it was done in the right intent at that
11 time, but as the soil scientists began to study this thinj
12 and also the economists, they realized things were
13 monstrously expensive and all they did is put it in the
14 water systems.
n Along comes Public 92-500 and said it is not
16 nice to put it in the water, we can put them someplace
17 else. Then the soil scientists had their day and they
is said, we know of many cases where subsurface sewage
19 disposal works and somehow — through the grace of God —
20 caused the implementation of a just announced EPA policy
21 and it says that on all federally funded sewage work
22 systems from here on out, you must include a cost effect!
23 i analysis of soil in preparation.
24 And if it could be shown it works, you must
25 put it into a municipal sewer. It doesn't say you should
,23 7981 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i it says you must.
2 This can have a profound effect certainly
3 beyond millions, possibly billions of dollars in
4 savings; in a sense, forcing us to translate into
5 massive land fill.
6 It means that — let's go out and logically
7 work — don't destroy there, but depend on them and
8 utilize them for their ability to assimilate the things;
9 keep them out of the water, but land fill the leachate
10 treatment system that runs it back always wrong, and I
11 think we are getting away from that.
12 Now, the sewage problem was handled the same
13 way — don't take the nutrients out. The new law says
H you must put it on the scale if it is cost effective.
15 The same thing applies to solid waste and its cost
16 effective. The clue might be to study the ruling about
17 the sewage works — and most of these, at least a state,
is is funded in its determining the law — I think it
iy should be arranged that if a land fill, if there is
20 federal funding, even if it is in review, if it does
21 not take into account soil carrying capacity, it should.
22 If it doesn't take that into account, hold
23 back the funding.
24 MR. DE GEARE: The problem in that concept is
25 defining what is meant by the term "carefully" when you
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters 623 7881 Seattle, Washington .
147
-------
i say use the soil carefully. Along with promoting that
2 practice of land application, the Agency came up with
3 a policy of establishing three types of ground water
4 classifications with regard to protection when sewage
5 is being applied to the land surface.
6 And the establishment of those three classifications
7 requires that someone make the classification decision an
-------
i policy — I think I am correct, I am not certain here —
2 in most cases, whether or not it is then absolutely,
3 I am not sure, a person to operate a sewage treatment
4 facility and municipally funded must take a short course
5 and be certified to manage the system, at least in the
6 great number of cases. I don't think it is true in
7 terms of land fills, so just to offer you a suggestion,
s there is a lot of these little interfills or little
9 backwoods things, that the land fill operator himself
10 isn't a land fill operator, he is just an operator, but
n he is not truly — he has not had the benefit of having
12 a good training. And that is just a suggestion only,
13 give consideration to a land fill operator certification;
i4 make it mandatory providing a training program to
15 teach a person to do this.
16 It isn't that we wouldn't or couldn't comprehend
17 it; it isn't offered. It isn't mandatory, but it is
18 worth thinking about. A lot of them like to go to school
" and not run a dump.
20 MR. HANSEN: We have ended our time limit for
21 this subject. If there are other questions, we will
22 have more time at the end of the next presentation.
23 We will give you a little vacation now before we bring
24 you back another hour for our next subject.
25 Our next speaker is going to be J. Nicholas Humb^r,
- IRW1N B< ASSOCIATES. CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i who is the Director of the Resource Recovery Division
2 of the Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C. Again,
3 the gentleman is very knowledgeable in the field and
4 is going to talk to us about the subject and also on
5 the technical assistance and then we will listen to
6 your questions.
7 MR. HUMBER: I would like to start off also
s by showing some slides, so could we have the lights
9 dimmed.
10 There are several areas in the Act that contain
n provisions dealing with resource recovery and resource
12 conservation. Our past legislation, the Resource Recovery
13 Act of 1970 legitimizes the act of resource recovery
u for the first time in several legislations.
15 After the legislation, we have really legitimize!
16 what some people have been doing already and that is
17 resource conservation, which is not only recycling waste,
is but reducing the amount of waste generated and reducing
19 consumption of materials.
20 This is a summary of the section and I will
21 talk about each in a little more detail.
22 The first item is federal procurement —-ts-—
23 - Tructt hero — I Lhink-bee4dea — I think we have got
24 a duplicate of these slides and these are an older set
25 of slides — I am sorry, I didn't realize the other slide
iRWtN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 423-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i had been put in, but this is a revised version. I
2 think it is a little clearer than the older version.
3 The initial slides review all the sections
4 of the laws, I would say. There are guidelines for
5 all solid wastes, but they include guidelines for
6 resource recovery and for resource conservation,
7 technical assistance, guidance for development of
s state plans, funds for local and ^tate governments,
9 federal procurement activities, the compliance of^federal
10 agencies with these federal guidelines, special studies
11 and lastly, demonstrations and evaluations.
12 Now, the first activity is misnamed and it
13 is not a name that we selected. It is misnamed both
u because it says resource recovery and resource conservatl
15 which is not adequately descriptive, and secondly, becaus
16 it says panels, and this activity is neither of these.
17 First of all, the technical assistance and
is activity will include as it has in the past all solid
19 waste management activities that are involved in the
20 Office of Solid Waste in Washington and in the region.
21 So, it includes collection, disposal and also technical
22 assistance and hazardous waste management.
23 Now, the term panels — we are going to select
24 people, or people will be appointed to panels that will
25 be advising state and local governments throughout the
IRWIN a, ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i country. That is not really the case. For example, what
2 we would be doing, if we were serving, let's say,
3 Portland, Oregon and they had a need for work in source
4 separation, is that we bring together a group of people
5 that would include at least the following: First,
6 citizen groups, including voter groups, environmental
7 groups. We would bring together the local solid waste
s management people, such as the private sector and the
9 public sectors.
10 Secondly, people who would be purchasing these
11 materials. Also, possibly, if the financing was required
12 somebody who was involved in that aspect, but we try to
13 bring together a full gamut of expertise to solve the
14 problem.
15 One note, the Congress in setting priorities
16 for this activity said that 20 percent of the general
17 authorization for this bill shall be spent on technical
is assistance.
19 Now, this has to do with our state activities.
20 We will be providing funds for js$ates and reviewing
21 plans that they produce. This section of the law says
22 that the plans must reflect resource recovery and resourc
23 conservation activities. It also must present a summary
24 of review of existing and new markets for recovered
25 materials.
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporttrs - 623-7881 • Stattlt. Washington .
-------
i The one important point here, the legislation
2 requires that ^state plane remove any legal obstacles
3 to long term contracts. For example, in some states
4 there are prohibitions preventing cities from entering
5 20-year contracts. Somejstate laws say that cities
6 may contract either up to five years or for the length
i of the administration, whatever particular administration
8 happens to be in the city.
9 Now, this obviously is not sufficient time to
10 finance a multi-million dollar solid waste management
11 facility. So, this requirement that says that if we
12 are to provide funds for states, the state plans must
is include a plan for removing these restrictions.
14 Now, this section defines where we could be
15 getting financial aid. This is for the state local
16 grant activity and the emphasis is on implementation.
17 Our implementation grants are distinguished from planning
is grants, in that they are providing physical grant
19 subsidies for activities that lead to actions, not lead
20 to the plans.
21 In other words, for activities that lead to the
22 financing of a system. We are trying to concentrate on
23 more action-oriented elements. They are not for
24 construction.
25 Now, the jCederal procurement provisions of this
__ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters - 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
law are summarized here and it says that procuring
2 agencies, procuring^federal agencies, which is primarily
3 the Defense Supply Agency, the General Services
4 Administration, procure products with the highest
possible percentage of recycled materials, and this also
6 extends to the purchase of fuels.
7 It requires and encourages federal agencies
in procuring fuels to examine the possibility of using
9 an alternative to their current practice.
10 This provision also applies to the vendors
,, of the federal government.
]2 Now, the special studies provision identified
several studies that are to be completed in order to
J4 advise the Congress in the development of future federal
15 solid waste legislation. These are the two-year
studies. Now, the most prompt one is the establishment
of resource conservation committee and I will talk a bit
is about that more, but that's actually a group, a very
19 comprehensive group of studies.
20 You note here that there is an emphasis on
21 source separation or low technology options. In the
22 last two to three years we have seen the need for addition
23 work on our part in resource recovery systems for smaller
24 communities, either energy recovery systems or source
25 separation systems. These are a continuation of a list
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623.7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i of special studies and these are required to be completed
2 in three years.
3 Back to the major effort in the resource
4 conservation committee. It is distinguished from other
5 committees established by Congress or the president in
6 that it is part of an agency, purposely a blue ribbon
7 committee like this, and are really not a part of the
8 day to day activities of an agency, but are set apart
9 from the agency to possibly report to the White House.
10 This is R working level committee and is composed of
11 the Administrator of EPA, who is the chairman, and there
12 are participants including the Secretaries of Commerce,
13 Treasury, Labor and Interior and the Chairman of the
14 Council of Environmental Quality as well as a representative
15 of OMU
16 These are the major policy areas which this
17 committee will study. The first is effective existing
is policies or resource conservation and recovery.
19 Several have been cited as disincentive. For
20 example., many feel that the depletion is greater than the
21 consumption of recycled resources, because there is more
22 r»eed for recycled materials.
23 Capital gains favor virginal materials in some
24 cases,
25 Thousands include tax credits for each ton of
_ I RWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i material recycled or tax credits on investments and
2 new capital for resource recovery facilities and
3 recycling facilities or lastly, charges on products
4 to reflect the total cost of solid waste collection and
5 disposal.
6 And the third major group is product regulation.
7 This section of the Act, these sections of the Act,
8 call for demonstrations and evaluations. He have had. thi
9 responsibility and authority in the past. Therefore,
10 it is not really very new. The only thing that is new
11 is the element that emphasizes EPA to do evaluative
12 work.
B In other words, we will evaluate systems that
'4 are operating. In the past we tended to put money in
n the construction of demonstration facilities. Because
16 of the scarcity of resources for EPA to do this work,
17 we feel it is more effective use of limited funds to do
is evaluating kinds of activities and in addition, there
19 are quite a few facilities that are being operated with
20 private or municipal funds that could be examined.
21 That concludes my formal comments on the Act.
22 I would like very much to discuss with you your comments
23 and your suggestions.
24 MR. HANSEN; I wonder if we might take some
25 prepared statements from the audience and then turn it
_ IRWIN 8, ASSOCIATES, CSR's court Reporters 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i wide open to you for questions; is that okay?
2 MR. HUMBER: Sure.
3 MR. HANSENi We have one speaker listed,
4 Mr. Arman Stephanian from the Seattle Recycling Project
5 who would like to make a statement.
6 MR. STEPHANIAN: Good afternoon. I was supposed
7 to make a small, some few remarks at a quarter to ten thi
morning, but I waa unable to get away from my research
9 up in the Fremont District.
10 i guess we are really, after all, all going in
11 circles. In 1974 I just responded as a private citizen
12 on the resource recovery and gradually I found out that
13 I wasn't alone, and I am not a professional person. I
am sort of a dedicated citizen activist and in terms of
recycling, I saw a connection between what is thrown
16 away and a lot of unemployed labor pools, very young,
17 and when I took the census in 1970, I interviewed over
3,000 people who hadn't filled out their forms properly
and most of those are elderlies. So, I came away terribl
20 impressed and depressed by the enormous amount of people
21 that are over 50 or 55 sitting at home, sort of like this
22 (indicating) and kind of wishing that they weren't, and
so I thought, wouldn't it be marvelous if there were a
way to get the two most unused portions of our society
to work.
IRWIN t. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S Court Reporters - 6J3 78!1 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i So, I have been focusing on the way to develop
2 something that taps the young, anything from 14 up,
3 I suppose, to about 20, and I can't really say what is
4 old, because every year I am working on this, I am gettin<
5 closer and closer to my own category. So, I would just
6 say anybody that wants to, should have the capacity to
7 work for $2.50 an hour or S3.00 an hour in that range,
s 20 to 30 to 40 hours a week, and I think a job category
9 as a recycler is soon to become the final product of
10 all of this search and hunt and effort that I and many
11 others, as I am constantly reminded, are putting our
12 efforts into.
13 So, when I saw your presentation just now, as
u I just came in, I asked Toby and I said, "He is talking
15 about me; that is for me." I don't mean roe personally —
16 that is for the dream I have been pursuing in all this
i? time.
18 Last year in July the City of Seattle won a
iy §45,000 research grant in recycling from the State of
20 Washington through the State Department of Ecology,
21 and we competed for the right to carry out that research
22 project, and we have been doing it in the northern part
23 of the city.
24 So, I would like to look to you now. Half way
25 through this research project some of the things that
. IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S . Court Reporterj 623-7661 - Seattle, WMhlnoton .
150
-------
i seem to become apparent, and I don't know whether you
2 are believers or nonbellevers, so you will forgive me
3 if 1 say things to you that you are already aware of
4 and have plenty of faith in.
5 When we started the bureaucracy -- and what
6 I mean by bureaucracy, I mean the solid waste management •••
7 technological bureaucracy — so that's a mega approach
s to the mega problem. This strategy of government said
9 to me if I could characterize their point of view, the
10 people wouldn't do it, they don't want to do it. If
11 they do it, they will do it briefly as if it were a
12 fad, and what they give you will be dirty and contaminated
13 and not usable, and they will quit, drop away, unless
14 you pay them to do it or cut their bill, you know, their
15 utilities bill 50 percent less or something along that
16 line.
17 So, I called all of that the myths of behavior
is and so what I have done initially is to destroy those
ii> myths about public behavior.
20 I thought I would have to knock on every door
21 in the community and convince, through all the earnestnesz
22 and sincerity at my disposal, I would have to convince
23 every Archie Bunker. You know, I went out and started
24 knocking and calling and I phoned, I found out they
25 didn't want to listen — Walter Cronkheit had gotten
IRWIN 4 ASSOCIATES, CSR'l Court Report.r> - 623 7811 - StatlH, Wxhlngton
-------
i there before I did — and they were already ready. All
2 they were waiting for was for me to say what I wanted
3 and would I come to their door and get it.
4 As soon as I said, yes, they basically said,
5 hold it right there, buddy. If you want it, you've
6 got it, you have got a deal.
7 Now, we have had — tomorrow will be the 25th
8 month in a row that the Fremont District has had a
9 truck go in its southern half and attempt to service
10 approximately 1,000 households.
11 That is a two-year old commitment kept every
12 third Saturday of every month to pick up at those homes
13 and starting last July, we will actually in November —
14 it took us about three months to get the research program
15 cranked out to government specifics. You see, we had
16 been flying by our instincts from '74 in July — two yean
17 of doing it on our own and proving to the bureaucracy tha1
is the people were ready to do it now. It was a question
19 of how efficiently and how economically it could be done.
20 So, having to tell you now that after the seven different
21 test areas in my 1100 test groups, I will give you what
22 you have paid for, a little bit — one of the groups
23 is running 61 and 62 percent participation; another one
24 is running 66, 67 percent; another one is running 43 or
25 4; and the others have come up from the beginning from
IRWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 633-7881 Seattle. Washington
-------
i being in the 20, low twenties now to a low and middle
2 thirties.
3 So, I ant saying to you that I have given seven
4 different types of approaches to seven different test
5 groups, all in the 1100 and we shot dice to determine
6 which houses would be given, which test approach and so
7 neighbor A would be relating to recycling on a different
8 basis than neighbor B.
9 They forced me in effect to create a very
10 insufficient collection system, but nonetheless, through
11 it, all these numbers have come up now halfway through
12 the six months test.
13 I feel fairly confident that these numbers will
inch up, and when we finish in April, technically, and
15 we will continue in May arid June — out of our hearts
16 we have 450 houses turned out of 1100, when you add up
17 all the seven tests over, the average is in the low fortits,
is but don't be misled by the one number which signifies how
you are doing. Don't be misled by the overall average.
20 The overall average is a worthless — you wouldn't
21 give BartStarr seven plays. Well, you can't have an
22 average play in football, so they told me to try seven
23 different plays, so the average overall participation
rate is a useless number, and I caution you to pay little
25 attention to it.
__ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'S court Reporters A23 7BB1 Seattle, Washington —
-------
i The most iriportant number is 61, and that is
2 the result of Plan A. And what is Plan A? I am glad
3 you asked. It is a letter saying we are going to do
4 something for six months, we would like to have these
5 three items nice and clean every month out in front and
6 a reply card alreadystamped to send it back.
7 Then, a postcard to those that said yes to
s say hi, we are coming in three days. That is Plan A.
9 That is all that it took to get over 50 percent
10 participation. I am telling you it is going to be
11 close to 70 when we are done. It is just ridiculous
12 to be afraid of a city-wide appeal for recycling. Thes
13 myths of behavior have been destroyed. I must admit
14 I feel like I am at the leading edge of all this, but it
15 will be public and I am giving you now the thorough
16 underneath ground basis for this kind of an optimism that
17 I am displaying to you today.
is So, the people are ready. We have learned how
19 to catch the fish now. The next problem is, and for this
20 I have to constantly look at my reserved government
21 official, and I just don't know whether I want to put
22 a moustache on him or not — well, let me say, I know
23 I want to, but I will hold back until I see true colors
24 of his money.
25 So, if you want to come clean, come to me green,
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters 623-7881 - Seattle, Washington
-------
i so says the mayor of Fremont District.
2 By the way, I offer in evidence — I am not
3 flashing on you ladies — but, it says Fremont , and arouni
4 the curve over the bridge, the drawbridge, that says,
5 "The district that recycles itself."
6 Do you know in Pioneer Souare that some day
7 Walter Cronkheit on late night television will say,
s "Our closing word will be a special on Seattle, the
9 city that recycles itself." So, I have my dream and I
10 have just kind of included you in on it and halfway throu'
11 my dream or nightmares, as they thought it would be, I
12 have given you some of the facts. It doesn't take much
13 to turn them all on. As long as they know — meaning
14 the home owners — and that is all of you, every one of
15 you that has a kitchen, the hand that runs the garbage
i6 pail rules the energy world. And so, I say this to you
17 as home owners and you know that is one of your qualities
18 along with others, that home owners are basically willing
iy to bring it to the front of the house by the curb at the
20 alleyway; they are willing to come out just so far with
21 it.
22 20 percent are willing to travel up to three
23 miles to get it somewhere, but I am not happy with that.
24 That leaves me with 80 percent to figure out.
25 But, over 80 percent are willing to put it out
IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporten 623-«ai - Seattle, Washington
-------
i front of the house, but that SO percent that is ready
2 and willing to come that far is very exciting to me.
3 Now, I have got them coining that far in two red
4 gunnysacks, one and a half cubic feet and one plastic
5 bag to Veep the paper dry from the rain — that we don't
6 have much of in Seattle — now, I an saying to you that
7 I am nibbling at the uniformity of the container, so I
8 am just at the brink of thinking of container and uniform
9 handling, because I do have a very, very open mind on
10 the labor force. I envision an amputee in an electric
11 wheelchair being the manager of a community based recycling
12 station, because everything is on a flat level over a ramp
13 so I can go to an elderly woman, I can go to a young black
14 girl — if she is able to pack a razor, she is old enough
15 to pack a case of beer — empty, of course — so, what
16 I am trying to design, then, and this is the middle
17 technology speaking out bravely in the face of megamachine|s
is I characterize you, so that I can stand off and bounce
iy off. I need the aggression to keep bubbling — don't I,
20 John — but, I am trying to develop a middle way. That
21 is, a middle technology of small packages, shipping
22 minerals and gaseous forms which are what gas and cans
23 are to me, shipping those minerals in gaseous forms the
24 shortest distance possible before condensing them to
25 be shipped the longer distance in the most economical way
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7881 • Seattle, Washington —.
IC4
-------
i that we now have.
2 I draw from everything I have ever learned about
3 consolidation and time.
4 From this point of view, we have got 30 to 35
5 pounds a month per family in the way of glass, cans
6 and newspapers that the average family produces.
7 The fioures that I am going to be giving you
s now are not in my district or my favorite district. It
9 is a district chosen by a computer where I, as the mayor
10 of Fremont, I am not known and I didn't go to the door
11 and knock. I should add that, too, it was just a letter
12 and postcard and so the numbers that I am giving you now
13 are projectable to every urban core in the United States.
14 So, I give those to you for a useful purpose,
15 I hope. 30, 35 pounds a month worth 50 to 60 cents.
16 So, I say to you that scavenging, which is one of the
17 things you read about when you read about communities
is based on recycling — we had paper rustlers last week
iy for the first time since we started in November. I
20 guess the price of paper went up a couple bucks in the
21 market, I don't know. It would take a man an awful long
22 time to steal enough paper to make it worthwhile, and he
23 would have to steal very slowly at about 16 or 20 pounds
24 every time he stopped his car and exposed his face and
25 went out and did the stealing. He would have to steal
_ IRWIN s. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters . MJ 7881 Sntttt, Wnhlngton .
1C5
-------
i 50 cents per stop and you can see that the system has
2 a built in deaensitizer to scavenging. The system has
3 a built in size quotient of 30 to 35 pounds per stop,
4 and values in — I think the rank down is something like
5 50 percent newspaper; 35 percent glass and about 15 percent
6 cans, and by that I mean, soup cans as well as aluminum
? cans.
We have discovered a lot about processing,
9 but we learn right away that our own basic primitive leve:.
10 with the workbench and three barrels and a kid hand sorting
11 the economic figures, I am not ready to tell you those.
12 I am ready to tell you about the behavior that is out the^e
13 and about the concept of the stream; so, we have a flow
of urban — our thanks to Professor Duncan from Portland
State University. He invented the other plan and I once
16 said we compared bumps, because the apple had fallen on
both of our heads at about the same time.
18 There are only three or four other plans like
this in the country. In the State of Washington, this is
20 the only one that is a home separation pickup. So, I
21 am now — I am developing the energy values in the product
22 and I am waiting for the next funding period. I am
23 waiting for that and I am getting tired, I am getting
24 very tired of going down to Region X office and being
25 told that there is no money for recycling. The other
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR'J - Court Reporter) . 623-7881 S««ttle, W»»hin«ton .
-------
i day I mentioned this Act, and talked about it and
2 some people in the bureaucracy told me, "Don't hold your
3 breath. Most of the money that they are going to come
4 up with is to ship panels of people all around just to
5 talk about it some more."
6 What you have in front of you is kind of a
7 tired but faithful follower and I am looking to you to
s renew my faith in my government, and I want you to
9 come up with some research, which you seem to be ready
10 to do.
11 I guess I should just wind this down for you
12 and tell you that home separation is coming and it will
13 be — it is 25 percent of the average home owner's
14 total monthly garbage is in those three items I told you
15 of, and in the City of Seattle — garbage is 60 percent
16 of all the garbage, so we know then that we have 25
17 percent of 60 and the amount of institutional glass, cans
is and newspapers, I have not yet assessed, but 1 have faith
19 that outside every residence and tavern and every school
20 and factory cafeteria — there must be a lot of something
21 worth my sticking my head in that garbage can for, and
22 believe you me, I will do that. Thank you.
23 MR. HAHSEN: Thank you very much, Arman. That
24 was a very eloquent and interesting discussion.
25 MR. STEPHANIAN: I am not usually a public
_ IRWIN a, ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters • 423-7861 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i speaker.
2 MR. HANSEN: I have seen you on television —
3 you are. Are there any other statements to be made?
f If not, I think we are ready for questions and I would
' like to comment —
6 MR. RUMBKR: It way help you to remain bubbly,
7 to separate the world into "we" and "they" and that may
8 do your own psyche some good. I don't really think
9 that there is such a we and they separation, and you
10 are not — I am pleased to see what you have done, but
11 on the other hand, there are about 200 to 300 communities
12 in this country that are doing similar kinds of things
'3 that are proving that your thesis is correct, and we
14 have been supporting them either through grants or
15 through technical assistance for about the last six or
16 seven years.
17 And in fact, as I said in my presentation,
18 we put an increased effort into source separation activities
19 such as yours, but on the other hand, we would like to
20 see them become self sufficient and not put their hand
21 out for the federal green. We do put out the_federal
22 green for a new approach and if there are new approaches
23 in the work, whether they be big systems or small systems
24 we are interested if we get funding, and that is a
25
real issue right now, but I don't think there is such
.• ,—,
— V 'J
-------
i a dichotomy.
2 I think that to achieve resource conservation
3 in this country, it has got to be a combination of
4 several approaches. We need people. The final solution
5 is not going to be one approach. It is going to be
6 quite a few different ones.
7 MR. HAHSEN: Jerry Powell, you have a statement?
MR. POWELL: I take some points to your question
9 about self sufficiency with recycling and the question
10 is basically, why should recycling become the object only
11 what about land situations we were just talking about in
12 the previous session. We are talking about self sufficiency
13 MR. HUMBER: How do you define self sufficiency.
I asn saying it has to be self sufficient in that it
15 provides collection and disposal and comparative cost.
16 MR. POWELL: That is better clarification from
your initial remark, which one would say recycling should
fly all by itself, but collection won't.
MR. HUMBER: I don't think there is old garbage.
20 MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much. Are there any
21 other questions?
22 MR. WEST: Ron West. I think on the issue of
23 source separation, we have to examine a little history.
24 Back during World War II, there was no problem with
25 source separation because it was the ethic of our country 4~
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington .
-------
i we dropped it as a nation following the war with the
2 exception of the second largest city in the United States,
3 and up until 1959 and'60 the city of L.A. required
4 source separation of every household.
5 Along came Sam Yorty. San said that the guys
6 that are getting all the stuff that you are separating
7 are going to become millionaires at your expense, and
s if I am elected mayor, I am going to stop this crap.
9 You won't have to separate your garbage any more. This
10 was done at a time when the ethics of conservation didn't
11 exist.
12 Since that time, no public official at the
13 municipal level — and that's why we don't have it in
14 this country.
15 MR. HtJMBER: There is a small town on Long Island
16 with a population of 900,000 people that has had a source
17 separation system since I have been aware of source
is separation, which was about 1972.
19 MR. WEST: I think it is great.
20 MR. HUMBER: You are talking about Sam Yorty
21 back in the '50's. That is very nice, but that is not
22 the ethic that exists in all cities now. It might exist
23 in some, but it is not true if you have got a long way to
24 go, but to characterize it as that kind of an attitude —
25 MR. WEST: The reason for my comment on this.
_ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's - Court Reporters • 623-7661 • Seattle, W»nlngton .
170
-------
i when I attended the UCLA seminar last summer, all the
2 alternatives for resource recovery, all of them were comin|g
3 out with fees. They could not compete with the land fill,
4 and when we cot into source separation and had a number of
5 municipal officials there, they would not touch it.
6 They said, "We can't sell? remember Sam Yorty."
7 Remember, I was in Los Angeles, which is in Southern
s California.
9 MR. HUMBER: I know about that episode. I haven"|t
10 taken a poll in L.A. recently.
11 MR. WEST: EPA, keep up the good help in promoting
12 one of the alternatives. That is my comment.
13 MR. HANSEN: Thanks a lot. Are there any other
14 questions or comments to be made. That was kind of
15 exciting and we are ready to —
16 MR. WARD: I was hoping to hear that the
i7 gentleman in Fremont would progress to the advanced
18 technology of the Japanese of handling their sewage in —
19 Ron's point is well taken, but there is an exception to it.
20 When you said — there is a lady commissioner who is doing
21 this now in Chicago in reference to sewage, sludge, and
22 she is scientifically convinced. That city paid millions
23 of dollars to haul 200 miles away. She said this is
24 expensive, so she changed the name. It is the same stuff,
25 she calls it new earth. Now, people line up and buy
IRWIN i ASSOCIATES, CSR's . Court Reporteri . 623 7881 - Seattle, walhlngton
-------
i thousands of tons. They wait in line to haul somebody
2 else's away, to put it on their strawberries or
3 wherever they put it. That is what it takes, I think,
4 to just go ahead and do it if the Commission believes in
5 it, and she just technically says new earth is safe, it
6 is processed, and I agree with you the commissioners or
7 the public bodies in larger cities have not done it.
8 It isn't that they don't have the courage to do it;
9 they probably don't have the information to do it, but
10 I have met that lady and she makes me feel inadequate
11 as hell. She really moves the sludge.
12 MR. HANSEN: Thank you.
13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I want to comment on your
u last remarks, because I just couldn't sit there and let.
15 it go by. I think the crux of your discussion about
16 using sludge ~ I am talking about municipal sewage —
n as a soil conditioner and spreading it is fine, as long
is as you are assuming that it is human waste. The problem
19 is that the input to municipal sewage plants is not always
20 human waste. It contains a lot of industry waste as
21 well, and so we are very concerned about a carte blanche
22 policy that says any kind of sewage sludge is okay for
2} growing crops and so forth, because it is not true that
24 that is so. I don't believe so. It depends on what is
25 in the sludge before you can make that statement.
IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES, CSR's . court Reporters - 6!3 7881 Seattle, Washington .
-------
i MR. WARD: I don't want to leave — I am not
2 aware of that and this is not a sludge seminar. Therefore,
3 I didn't mean to take a lot of time on details, but that
4 is such an important point. I would like to/ if I can,
5 have a half a minute. There is a lot of concern and
6 not only should there be, but there has to be — this
7 is a fascinating world of heavy materials, when they are
8 there they don't constitute a terrible —• it is like the
9 airplane — the damn thing isn't flying straight, so
10 somebody said put plutonium in its tail, supposing it
n drags along and it is a little tail heavy and we take —
12 fix that up, I will put rocks in it so pretty soon it
13 won't fly.
14 Just move the wings back and keep on going.
n MR. HANSEN: It is getting close to sounding
16 like a sludge seminar. Thank you very much for your
n presentation and responding to the input we did get
is from the audience and we now call Truett DeGeare back
19 and go to the last item, which is the state program develo^-
20 ment.
21
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
22
23 MR. HANSEN: I think we are ready to start in
24 again if you don't mind taking your seats, and we will
2; get through this final section.
- IRWIN 8. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters • 623-7881 Seattle, Washington .
173
-------
i MR. DE GEARE: The Resource Conservation
2 and Recovery Act recognizes that the major roles in
3 solid waste management lie with state and local government
4 This is especially evident in Subtitle D. The state
5 may play a key role in eliminating open dumps and also
6 administering a hazardous waste program.
7 Governors in consultation with local elected
a officials can structure and prepare and implement a
9 solid waste plan that builds on existing levels of the
10 sttte and local levels. At the_federal level the
11 Administrator will publish guidelines for identification
12 of regions, _jtate plans and state hazardous waste programs
13 Section 4002-A of RCRA gives the Administrator
14 six months to publish guidelines for the identification
15 of those areas which have common solid waste problems
16 and our appropriate units for planning reserach services.
i? This is the kickoff of a three-step planning process.
is Within six months after publication of these guidelines,
iy the governor of each_state after consulting with local
20 elected officials shall promulgate regulations identifying
21 the ideas of each area within the ^tate, which as a result
22 of urban geographic conditions, markets and other factors
23 is appropriate for carrying out regional solid waste
24 management.
25 The ^sjtate then has another six months to jointly
__^ IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington —-
174
-------
i with appropriate elected officials of general purpose
2 units of the government identify an agency to develop
3 a state plan and identify one or more agencies to
4 implement the plan and identify which solid waste function^
5 will, under the plan, be planned for and carried out by
6 state, by regional or local authorities or & combination
7 of those authorities.
8 When feasible, agencies designated under Section
9 208 of the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act are
10 to be considered for designation.
11 To summarize, the three-step process — first,
12 EPA will produce guidelines for the identification of
13 planning regions; the governors in consultation with
14 local officials will identify the planning regions and
15 thirdly, the governors and local officials will identify
16 the roles of the various agencies involved in the planning]
17 and implementation process.
is Section 4002-B requires the Administrator, after
19 consultation with appropritate federal, state and local
20 authorities, to promulgate regulations containing guidelines,
21 to assist in development and implementation of state and
22 solid waste plans.
23 These guidelines are due in April of 1978.
24 The law provides minimum requirements for
25 approval of^gtate planning of these requirements, including
I
I IRVtfIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 623 7881 Seattle, Washington
- , J
-------
i the identification of the responsibilities and implementin
2 the state plan, the distribution of federal funds to the
3 authorities responsible for development and implementation
4 of the plan, and the means for coordinating regional
5 planning and implementation under the plan.
6 State plans in order to be approved must also
? prohibit the establishment of new open dumps within the
8 state and contain requirements that all solid waste,
9 including solid waste originating in other states, but
10 not including hazardous waste, be utilized for resource
11 recovery or disposed of in sanitary land fills.
12 The plan must also contain a provision for the
13 closing or upgrading of all existing open dumps within
14 the state, pursuant to requirements of Section 4005.
15 Provision for the establishment of state
16 regulatory powers may be necessary to implement the plan;
17 must also be included.
18 The plan must also provide that no local governme
iy within the_s,tate shall be prohibited under ^tate or local
20 law from entering into long term contracts for the supply
21 of solid waste to resource and recovery facilities.
22 And lastly, there must be provision for such
23 resource conservation or recovery and for the disposal
24 of solid waste and sanitary land fills or any combination
25 of practices as may be necessary to use or dispose of
IRWIN 1 ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters • H3-7MJ S««ftl«, W»»Hineton
i£~ SI
.-'0
-------
i solid waste in a wanner that is environmentally sound.
2 The law authorizes assistance to state and local
3 governments in a number of places. Section 4008, A-l,
4 authorizes 30 million dollars for fiscal year 1978 and
' 40 million dollars for fiscal year 1979 for grants to
6 states to be distributed to jstate, local, regional and
7 interstate authorities, carrying out the planning and
8 implementation provisions of the state plan as I just
9 discussed earlier.
1° This money would be distributed on a population
11 basis among the states, except that each state would
j? ^"
12 receive at least one half of one percent of the total
is dollars available.
i4 I am going to talk some more about some funding
15 authorizations provided in the Act, but I want you to
16 bear in mind that there is a distinct difference between
17 authorization levels, which are found in basically
18 legislation, such as this law, and appropriations, which
" will reflect the amount of money that is actually made
20 available after the Act becomes a law.
21 And often we found in history that the appropriati
22 levels do not necessarily relate to the authorization
23 levels found in basic legislation; so, all the funding
24 levels that I am going to be speaking about are simply
25 authorized funding levels, not appropriated money levels.
IRWIN ft, ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters . 623 7801 • Seattle, Washington
177
-------
Section 4008-A-(2)authorizes 15 million dollars
for each of fiscal years 1978 and 1979 for_sjtates,
3 counties, municipalities and intermunicipal agencies
4 and sj:ate anc? local public solid wastes, thoughts for
5 implementation of programs to provide solid waste
6 resource recovery and resource conservation services
and hazardous waste management. Such assistance that
will include assistance for facility planning and
s> feasibility studies, expert consultation surveys and
10 analysis of market needs, marketing of recovery resources
11 technology, legal expenses, construction feasibility
12 studies, source sepa-ation projects and physical or
economic investigations or studies, but this shall not
14 include any other elements of construction or any
n acquisition of land or interest in a land, or any subsidy
for the price of recovery resources.
Agencies assisted under this subsection shall
consider existing solid waste management practices and
facilities as well as facilities proposed for construction
20 So, there are some definite constraints on the money which
21 has been authorized under that section.
22 A couple of other provisions that may be of
23 interest include one called special communities. In this
case there is a relatively low level of funding even
25 authorized. One such special community is to be allowed
IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters 623 7881 - Seattle, Washington
.70
-------
i per state and only one such project per state, and any
^ ^
2 project funded would have to be consistent with the
3 approved state plan.
4 Congress gave some special attention to rural
5 communities. It was especially stated as the attempt
6 to assist them in meeting the open dump closure requirement
7 of Section 4005. Those grants would be given to states
'?•
s and in the special case of these rural communities, the
9 financial assistance could be used for construction,
10 but again, could not be used for land acquisition.
11 There are some criteria provided in the Act which indicate
12 that the rural community to be eligible for this type
13 of assistance would have to be fairly isolated.
M So, then, let me point out that Congress
15 did provide authorization for these types of programs,
16 but they have not appropriated funds yet for these
17 activities and we have no idea just what other appropriation
is might be forthcoming, might be with respect to the
iy authorized levels.
20 MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much, Truett.
21 Jack Ross from the Panhandle Health District I know has
22 been waiting for a long time to make a statement.
23 MR. ROSS: My name is Jack Ross and I am Director
24 of Environmental Health of the Panhandle Health District.
25 First, I would like to say that I am representing
I IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters «3-7881 Seattle, Washington
-------
i the seven health districts in the State of Idaho. In
2 1971 the Idaho legislature set up seven health districts
3 which encompass all of the counties in Idaho, and are
4 responsible for enforcing all local, district and state
5 health regulations and have the powers to make rules
6 and regulations within the respective districts. Each
7 district is comprised of a board of health of seven
8 members appointed by the county commissioners, representing
9 all counties of the district.
10 Various responsibilities have been delegated to
11 the districts by the State Board of Health. One of these
12 responsibilities is planning and enforcing solid waste
13 regulations in the respective districts, with the responsij-
u bility of solid waste management lying with the county
15 commissioners in Idaho. There is a close working
16 relationship between the solid waste section of the
17 state health and welfare and the districts, which
is enables the state and district to have a coordinated
iy program.
20 The Panhandle Health District, in which I work,
21 was fortunate in obtaining a solid waste planning grant
22 directly from EPA. At the beginning of this grant request
23 it was the intentions of the Panhandle Health District
24 to implement the solid waste program as the study progressed.
25 In other words, once we were far enough along into the
IRWIN A. ASSOCIATES, CSR'S - Court Reporters - 623-7861 - Seattle. Washington
-------
i study to see the direction we wanted to go we were then
2 able to start implementing the plan. At the end of
3 the study period we had nearly completed the Implementatio
4 portion. This included closing and covering 55 dumps
5 in the five northern counties of Idaho, and replacing
6 these open dumps with a drop box system in each of the
7 counties. We were also able with the county commissioners
s to establish sanitary land fills at strategic points
9 throughout the district. This also included land fills
10 used jointly by neighboring counties sharing costs.
n It is for these reasons we feel the local Health
12 Districts with a past involvement and expertise and
13 responsibility in solid waste management should be
14 given high priority when selecting regional agencies for
15 solid waste planning and implementation of the Resource/
16 Conservation and Recovery Act through the^state
17 agency.
>8 Basically, what we are saying is the state
iy agencies with the responsibility in solid waste should
20 also be the agencies that do the planning and implementati
21 MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much. Jack, Truett,
22 do you care to comment on Mr. Ross' statement?
23 I think the message came across loud and clear, and I
24 guess we have to be sure your governors know how you
25 feel, too. Are there any other questions or comments?
(RWIN «. ASSOCIATES, CSR's Court Reporters - 4U-78S1 - Seattle, Washington
•4 £M
^.0^
-------
i If not, ladies and gentlemen, the sun is still shining.
2 I want to thank you very much for your patience. I have
3 heard from many sources that you were a great audience.
4 You certainly participated and I know we have gotten a
5 lot of good information from you and we will be considerin
6 it.
7 Thank you very much all of you.
8
(Whereupon, at 3:00 P.M. the
9 proceeding was concluded.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 [
22
23
24
25
. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES, CSR
""C2
-*~ W /W
-------
sfe
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
2420 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98121
telephone (206)285-4441
Statement given by David Miller at the Public Meeting on the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 — March48, 1977 - Seattle Center
************
The first thing I'd like to do is say that I have handled a lot of garbage,
both the organic types when I worked in restaurants, and the inorganic
types -when I had my own hauling and dumping business. I've seen a lot
of waste of valuable and needed materials, and I'm glad that this Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act has been written and passed. It's a good
law, and it's high time that we had it. I personally will do my best to
support the objectives of the Act, and also to support you in the EPA who
are responsible for enforcing it.
My remarks will cover two components of the Act: first, Subtitles
G Sec. 7004(B) and H Sec. 8GG3(E) on public participation and information,
and second, Subtitle C on hazardous waste management.
I will answer the seven questions on public information and public
participation which you posed on your "Issues for Discussion" hand-out.
1. Programs and materials should be developed in an Integrated, cost
effective fashion which places emphasis on citizen initiative and stresses
the over-all financial and quality of life benefits that are realized when
sound, consistent solid waste management is practiced. The materials
should be designed for multiple use. Where possible, scripts for radio,
TV, slide film, and film applications could be identical. Media materials
should be prepared using image and phrase continuity in the way that any
good advertising or public relations campaign is run. For example, the
163
-------
-2-
current series of ads for METRO transit here In Seattle utilizes the same
pictorial images In the TV spots as are used In the ads placed In news-
papers. This series of ads kills two birds with one stone because it keeps
talent and camera costs down by using paper mache puppets which commun-
icate in the effective way that cartoon figures do. The educational materials
should also include simple questionalres, quizzes, mail-ins, and pamphlets.
All these materials should be designed with the intent to motivate
specific citizen action and initiative. The most positive action to be
desired is for people to get together in manageable groups toaaddress
their own solid waste management needs. Short films which can be used
In the field can provide standardized information on ways and means of
conserving, reusing, and recycling solid wastes. Periodic workshops can
train volunteer neighborhood coordinators who can run educational programs
which would use such films. TV, radio, and print announcements can high-
light the availability of groups, materials, and projects. The tone of the
programs and materials should be imaginative, up-beat, and positive.
People should get the idea that resource conservation and recovery is not
only a service to the community and the environment, but has a dollars and
cents value for them. If you can make solid waste management as attractive
as garage sales, then you've got a successful educational and PR program.
2. Get together mailing lists of sanitary districts and garbage companies,
associated government agencies at all levels, business and industries, and
all citizen groups that are likely to have an Interest in solid waste manage-
ment. Send all these contacts a flyer asking them to submit information
that they have available on their interest in solid waste management for
inclusion in the EPA library. Place short notices in papers and on radio
asking the general public to submit the same kind of information. Every-
body who sends in material is credited by name.
3. Create citizen committees to address the various needs of the Act, and
give them actual responsibility. If people have a chance to sit jm « panel
instead of before one, they will volunteer because of the social presige
and the sense of personal value. Spread these committees around in a
184
-------
-3-
senelbla demographic distribution, and have them meet regularity In the
evenings wfasre the public cau attend, perhaps In homes as well as In
school auditoriums, and so forth.
4. Meetings which last for 1 1/2 to 2 hours starting at 7:3C-7:45pm week
nights are best. Agendas should be held to less than ten Items, all of which
are oriented around a common theme. The meetings should be chaired by
one capable person who can hold the meeting to a schedule, and should have
people with expertise on hand to answer questions that come from the floor
concerning agenda Items. Large groups should be avoided whenever possible.
Notification of meetings should go out early enough so that Interested
parties have the opportunity to request time for presentations at the meetings.
Whan a meeting Is large, questions can be written down and picked up by a
staff person, and then answered at an appropriate time In tha meeting.
5. Ideally, public education programs should be presented first so that thsy
can help produce a better Informed constituency which will turn out for
public meetings and then volunteer to serve on review groups.
6. EPA can act as a facilitator to this process by encouraging cooperation
and exchange of information between groups, and by referring call-Ins to
appropriate citizen groups. As mentioned in #2 above, all these groups
should be asked to submit copies of their materials for Inclusion in tha
EPA central referrence library.
7. Here in the State of Washington there already exists a Model Litter
Control Act and a Recycling Information Office which are run through tha
Department of Ecology. I imagine that avenues of participation at the
Washington State level can be arranged through these related operations.
on a more general level, I suggest that states bs organized according to
county and multi-county regions, and that interested citizens attend state
sponsored meetings at those levels Instead of trying to convene In capltol
cities. A toll free phone line can ba established to the appropriate state
government office so that people can call in their thoughts and suggestions.
Also, pre-paid mailers can be hung in city buses and in public places.
1C5
-------
-4-
R is my feeling that public information and public participation are
important enough to deserve staff positions at regional levels. EPA
could do a lot worse than to spend some of its Solid Waste Disposal money
to hire citizen Information/participation coordinators in tha ten regional
offices.
Certainly the decisions as to the safety and acceptability of wastes
created by power generating systems fall within tha province of Subtitle C
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. I might add that the trust of the public is
also placed in the hands of EPA in this regard; there is wide spread
confusion as to tha truth about the nature of nuclear power plant wastes in
particular, and most lay people do not have sufficient technical knowledge
or access to the process to determine that truth for themselves.
Unless it can be demonstrated that both existing and proposed power
generating systems can operate without seriously and irrevocably compro-
mising health due to the hazardous nature of the waste produced by tha
power generating bjLstem, it should be the enforceable policy of the
Administrator of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that such power generating
systems ba prohibited from operation, expansion, and further construction.
It is immoral to ask, or implicitly require, the American people to finance
and use sources of power which are able to cause irrevocable damage to
their health and the health of future generations.
Some will say that tha United States must keep pace with the tech-
nologies being used by other nations. I say that tha United States should
set a sane example, and take a stand for the right to live without baing
diseased by the lesser technologies of our society.
ICG
-------
Western Processing Company, Inc.
Environmental Hygiene Consultants
7215 South 19«th
Kent, Wiihington 98031
(206) UL 2-4350
VOUI IHTIB OF
TFSTTTJY
of
r.fprr T. YTOH'TN'!1'1!?, P
".'estem Processing forparty
Kent, V'ashinptcm
I want to express ry opposition to the disposal of toxic and hazard-
our waste on a durpsite.
Kith the rost careful selection and tinder ideal reolonc should also tahe into account tectopic rove-c-'ts of
the soil (earthrua'-es) r'nch rr>v cnu?e a crsc!" in the pr?s?".t1v per-
fect hotter. \nd if it do=? not rMs-?->r>ear it '--ill ve a tc^-"""
an<'. a ron'ircrt for future renerations "r '^o-'.' people at the e- ' cr t'-e
20th ccntur;/ disposec1 of their hi:ar'!ous v:?ste.
Tt is ry opinion t'^at toxic tnd hanar^ous ^-aste shoiils? Ve rerdere-'
harrless and sr>serucntly be disposed of. If re ^o this, any suitaMe
durpsite vill Jo.
The state of '.'"nshin^ton is presently sett4n<- m a dirrisita rear ''—'.'ord
for disposal and storage of hazardous "aste, prohaMv to !-e operitec5 hy
a private part;/. I refer to the rmy thLOUsantl of drurs that '.'.'ere stored
a couple of years aro in extern ^reT^n. COT-S 80,00" I '-TV™ '-?»r to!-'
ve-^e stored in an a I1 a1, inc li! e area, -here rnthiT* cnuld happen to t%?-.
But the dnirs rusted fror the inside out and finally at the end of last
year, all 30,000 drurs rere bulldozed inder. T>-is >is not necessa^'.
The raterial could have ^een rendered, hornless, hut the ccr^any in nues-
tion did pot vant to pay the prico and su'-senuer.tJv, sO"x?'ody ride a
lot of ronev in covering up a re"=s.
""li* ray not happen in eastern 'as^'n"*on or any other r'ur—site 'nder
supen'ision of the rnvironr«ntal ^rotection \~pncr-', ^ut t''it re"is t'-at
soretir.es rustir." dnirs of tox;c or '* marmot is vaste "ill VT"? to ' ?
repacked. !'oi~ are "ou roin" to ^o t'-at ard i/'o ••••i'l pay CT i1"0 ''V
vill need ronitorin" for centuries. Tr after a nurher cf ysnrs, the
contractor after hivin" -r.dc his rmc" ruits or roes out of Business,
th? fovemrcnt '-:ill ^c holding the '•a".
-------
fiarnt J. Nieni'.'enhuis
Pajre 2
As a second point T want to rention that in ny opinion the ran who
creates toxic or hazardous vaste should pay for the disposal. Tf
a product costs £0.10 and the disposal of the by-product costs *1.00,
then the product actually costs 'H.IO. The ranufacrursr ray say that
at that price he cannot sell the product, and subsequently vants the
government to subsidize the disposal by puttinp \zp disposal sites, pay-
ing for monitoring, etc. But tins cost should not be paid by the
taypayer.
Tn a dunpsite as contemplated >y the state of '"ashinpton, vhich is
supposed to be a stajrinp area for future disposal, the fer>erator of
the toxic or hazardous raste should. *?ay a yearly fee for storage,
raintenance and nonitorir.g of his \-aste and that ray Ve centuries.
Then if he j'oes out of business, t^e taxpayer still has to ^oot the
bill. This is the reason v.-hy no toxic or hazardous vcaste shouV ^e
disposed of but should ^e rendered harrless first an^ then disposed
of."
'''e have the knowledge and the -fi^/s are available %r settir?? uri
such a facility. It is be inn
-------
" COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC MEETING
ON
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
March 18, 1977
I am Jack Peabody with Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Chem-Nuclear is a Washington
corporation and we operate the only chemical and hazardous waste treatment and
disposal site licensed by the State of Oregon. Our site is located near Arlington
Oregon, and we are serving the entire Region 10 area.
In general, we believe the enactment and implementation of Public Law 94-580 will
have beneficial results in the field of hazardous waste control and management for
both this region and the nation. We concur with the requirement for a complete
list as described in Section 3001 of the Act on identification criteria for hazard
wastes. It should be noted, however, that since the danger of a particular materv
is directly related to its concentration, a minimum concentration parameter should
be added to the classification criteria. We believe a clarified definition of
hazardous wastes would promote state acceptance of hazardous waste regulatory
problems. This would resolve the present confusion over which materials and what
levels of concentrations establish a waste as environmentally dangerous. We also
believe that several different classes of hazardous waste disposal facilities woul
be unnecessary.
With the basic criteria established, the federal hazardous waste program can be
effectively implemented; however, EPA should be cognizant of the fact many states
cannot economically support such a program due to the limited amount of waste gene
In those instances, we feel EPA should promote a regional program with interstate
iCSagreements if necessary. It is also important that basic uniform guidelines for
\
manifest'; and waste lahplinn hp ";et forth bv the federal government for hazardous
-------
waste transportation. With a manifest system logging the flow of hazardous waste,
we maintain the only other recordkeeping necessary should fall on the treatment/
disposal facilities reporting the final resting place of the waste.
Finally, in the area of standards for the hazardous waste treatment and/or disposa1
sites, we believe that such operations can be regulated by national uniform code o>
environmental performance standards, adequate monitoring systems, acceptable
•disposal and treatment techniques, recordkeeping practices, insurance, bonding
requirements, and financial responsibility. However, it should be recognized that
sites differ greatly due to climate, geology, and location. Therefore, these
regulations should not dwell on specific facility operations or equipment as long
as the performance is environmentally safe. Furthermore, based on our experience
it is evident that unrealistically stringent federal regulations would have little
bearing on public acceptance of hazardous waste operations or facilities.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1234 S.W. MORRISON STREET • PORTLAND, ORE. 97205 • Telephone (503) 229- 5913
March 23, 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Sirs: Re: S.W. EPA - RCRA
The following comments are submitted to be included in the
meeting transcript of the "Public Meeting on the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976", March 18, 1977 in Seattle, Washington:
1. The State is fearful that we will have to replan and
•V^^iP redo things which have already been done. Provision
j/yfj> must be made for relatively easy "grandfathering in" of
existing successful plans and projects.
2. We are concerned about the process for re-establishing
uufrzl-*) local boundaries and agencies and agreements. Doing
' this may bring to the surface old problems with local
governments which have been somewhat forgotten.
3. The nature of the definitions of "sanitary landfill"
and "open dump" will vastly effect the amount of effort
needed by the states to comply with the law. We strongly
support the concept of "performance criteria" (mandatory)
and "operational guidelines" (non-mandatory), based
upon air and water standards determined by those agencies
with specific standards setting responsibility.
4. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels would be
most effective if they consist of local teams put
together as needed for a specific case or condition,
rather than a national firm or group of firms unfamiliar
with local conditions and which may be distant from
Oregon.
5. Financing projections up to the present time have been
disappointing. It appearr that funding will not be
adequate to meet the added requirements of the act
without further diluting existing program efforts.
RECEIVED
--1 IAR2977
-------
Environmental Protection
Agency
March 23, 1977
Page 2
6. There appears to be very little attraction for states
to assume the hazardous waste portion of the law
without substantial funding assistance. We would hope
that this section be administered completely separate
from Subtitle D of the act such that states can participate
in one portion of the law without being required to
participate in the other.
A. The list of "hazardous wastes" should be kept to a
minimum reasonable number, allowing the states to
add to the list (make more restrictive) as appropriate.
B. Rules should provide for de-classification of
hazardous wastes.
The above comments constitute some of the major concepts
which we feel must be incorporated into the writing of RCRA
criteria and guidelines for successful implementation. We hope
they will be helpful in development of a mutally acceptable
program.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM H. YOUNG
Director
Ernest A. Schmidt, Administrator
Solid Waste Division
RLB:sa
cc: Oregon Operations Office - EPA
cc: Bill Young
iC-2
-------
Dear EPA- I use* this format fop answering questions with s ctioas
lettered arbitrarily A through F. Thank You
,'"' V/ C <-^r~E*~Sargent MD
^ ' (i^\ 17721 Sa. Deininger
Oregon City, Ore. 570^5
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-580)
Issues for Discussion
• The Act Overall
. • Public Information/Public Participation
• Manpower Development
• Hazardous Waste Management
• Land Disposal
• Resource Conservation and Recovery
• State Program Development
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
February 1977
-' r,
-------
Comments on Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
By Ed Sargent, M.D.
There should be a standing panel of "experts;" doctors who are versed in Occup-
ational and Environmental Medicine and Scientists from The Biological, Chemical
and Physical Sciences should be available to meet immediatly in the event of some
urgent issue involving toxic waste. Moreover, they should meet routinely every
year to review and amend existing regulations and add new ones for new problems
arising during the year as pointed out by newly developed substances or new
research data on toxicity.
Section 8004. Full scale demonstration projects will assuredly be needed.
The cost ot the tax payers must be considered, but the problem of waste management
is serious enough to warrent vigorous pursuit of new methods.
Sludge mangement must be high priority on research as well as elimination of
off shore dumping of waste. Furthermore, implementation of the Clivus Multrum (Dry
Human waste disposal method) must be high on the list.
Quantifiable objectives should include deadlines for implementation, as well
as objective guidelines that will be malleable under the committee I suggested.
The committees, state, local and EPA, just as importantly, must be composed of
scientists and others on a rotation two year term basis so that fresh faces
will always be present as well as old faces.
Public health hazards are actually fairly cleaV in terms of solid waste
management. Dumps, whether off shore, or on land, serve as media for pro-
liferation of microorganisms. At the very least, unsightliness not withstanding,
disinfection should be a goal. Other toxic substances, such as household
chemicals (and industrial waste), should, perhaps, be regulated separately.
Little data exists on household chemicals, but more should be added.
Television should be used to pass the word on the importance and severity
of this issue and problem. Local workshops should ultimately be set up,
perhapsi through community colleges. "Solid waste management" sounds rather drole;
so some esU<3p(tion$*or change of title would be needed to stimulate necessary
local interest.
I believe state and local governments should largely carry the ball on this
issue with EPA serving more as a stimulus and information source to get local
governments to act.
Again, I believe local governments should "be employeed to increase public
participation. They can use local resources and media to call attention to
need for paticipation.
I believe testimony before a panel and the public is effective, but easy
written participation should also be available at the meetings and through the
local agencies.
-------
Page 2
1 think all kinds of education should be encouraged and EPA should
cooperate to the fullest extent possible.
Unfortunately our world is too complex and filled with stimuli and
distractious to expect yearly participation in review of standards and
implementations. But I believe one opportunity should be available for
formal public input each year, as well as informal public input all year
round. This should probably occur at the state level with state regulations
being subject to individual change. EPA an act as overseen with its experts
and information.
The states should be responsible for manpower development. Again,
community colleges and high schoold should be ernployeed. Perhaps, EPA should
establish educational guidelines to be used for programs to produce necessary
manpower. Clearly, expertise in chemistry and biology will be necessory to
effectively deal with prvisions of subtitle C, Physicions are one highly
trained group that would potentially be a resource for this are. More basic
personnel, again, can be trained through local institutes. The managerial level
shomld require advanced degrees, MD, MS, or Ph.D; operators should be required to
have at least the equivalent of a community college education.
Hazardous Waste: Waste which has any characteristic alone or together with
other substances with which it may come in contact that will lead to, through
exposure ( direct or indirect ) harm or damage to haraan or animal whether
psychologiacl or physical.
All hazardous wastes must be subject to regulation. All substances
must be tested separartely and together under extended conditions.
Cost to an industry is insignificant.beside cost in temms of Public Health.
Transport should be regulated by state laws and Hear labeling of wastes
with elear explanations must toe mandatory.
The question of hazardous wastes and small businesses is a difficult one;
but sontinued ignoring of toxic waste problems will only lead to a more diffi-
cult and expensive problem later on with the attendant risk of health effects
in the meantime. A firm, uncompromising stand is in many ways preferable to
a wishy washy one and short term trauma is aften to be preferred to long
drawn out tranma. Economic trauma will pass; health consequences are often
lasting.
Insuraance must be mandatory for business. Spilis and disasters are the
liablility of inflaBtry and rapid relief will a&io be industries*responsiblity!
Waste management should simply complement OSHA, air and water qulity standards.
None should be compromised for another!
Peeformance standards of waste disposal should apply to the fenceline,-
as long as there is clearly no hazard outside the fcncleine, direct of indirect.
Of course, rigonous standards will be necessary within the fenceline for the
safety of employees.
Hazardous waste standards should be specifically set by the States with
EPA help.
Waste facility employees should have state certification.
Random monitoring of waste facitlities should be required through a state agency.
Againg, colleges and high schools are great resources.
Different classes of permits will undoubtedly be required for different
situations.
Local panels of say, professors, doctors and public officials should have
public meetings to come wp with ideas. A state level panel should then review local
comments and write guidelines. As I mentioned previously, periodic review will
be necessary with necessary changes in guidelines.
Alternative methods of waste management must be given and local conditicna
wdll determine local fcethods. The state agency will have usual authority of approval
105
-------
Page 3
Sanitary landfill guidelines of course will need provision for special uses
(Resource Utilization Practices ). Howevee, these practices themselves, if
using toxic wastes, will have to meet eertain special stringeit guidelines.
Adverse effects on health or the environment are defined in the Act and
the definition is a good one.
Guidelines should be genereal with local needs to be met by local practices
and again, regulated at the state level.
Location of ladfills must meet stringent state and federal air and water
quality standards. If these are met, certainly, with local agreement, any
site should be OK.
Toxic levels of metal and organic wastes must be well above the standards
set for regulation. These levels shall be determined by private contracts
or through the universities and colleges. Further, use of sludge for any purpose
outside a disposal area must not lead to accumulation to toxic levels of any
substances in the soil of ground water. This may, in fact, eliminate agri-
cultural use of sludge. The same must apply to pastureland. Certainly,
small amounts used over anextended period of time may not lead to toxic
levels.
Sludge management ths a serious problem. Local economy-of-scale systems
will decrease the problem immensely. Huge quantities of centcally located sludge
aid waste is harder to disperse than before it is centralized. On site mana-
gement is a'Jcey and should be encouraged^ Though again, no toxic substances shoul
be allowed in the goound water at toxic or even near toxic concentrations.
Groundwater contamination is not accpetable.
States should inventory all waste disposal, public or private. Staadards
must apply to all waste disposal.
Local schools can use students to maDitor and study local groundwater.
Resource Conservation must be strong and rapid. Mandatory packaging
regulations will he necassary. These will include deposits on all beverage
containers as well as standardization of other packaging so that it may be
recycled and further wasteful packaging is a luxury that we can fto longer
afford. These standards, in and of themselves, will go a long way towards
eliminating the waste problem,
The Resource Conservation Panels should thus focus on standardization of
Resource recovery and recycling with input from private and public sectors.
Basically, all the udeas neceasary to a major reduction of the problem have
been in circulation in Conservation circles for a long time.
The panels should be state level and should give input to an EPA panel
which should also receive public input directly.
Sludge sgould be a major first priority. Any demonstration project with
promise should be feviewed. Incentives should include tax deductions and
credits. Of course, fines will be necassary for offenders. Recycled mate-
rials should somehow be used by industry as well as government so that the
cost of recycling can be spread around.
The problem worsens daily and the states should be made aware of the
problem, kicked out of their state of denial and professed innocence and
get on the ball with their institutions of higher education to implement
recycling and waste management rapidly.
Local government should have primary enforcement responsibility with
a state level ( second level ) appeals board overseeing independently of the
enforcement and regulations panel. Perhaps, the courts could be utilised
so as to prevent the creation of a new mammoth bureaucracy.
-------
STATEMENT BY: Edward P. Sparks,
Director of Procurement & Logistics
Garden State Paper Company, Inc.
Submitted to:
Environmental Protection Agency Public Meeting
To Discuss Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act P.L. 94-580
Seattle, Washington at the Seattle Center
March 17, 1977
My name is Edward Sparks. I am the Director of Procurement
& Logistics for the Garden State Paper Company, the world's
largest consumer of used newspaper for recycling into fresh
newsprint. My company consumes more than 500,000 tons of
old newspaper each year.
A substantial portion of this supply comes to us through con-
tracts with over 40 municipalities having source separation
programs to recover this valuable resource.
I am also a member of the Executive Committee concerned with
Paper Stock Conservation of the American Paper Institute.
This group represents recycling and converting mills, which
consume almost fourteen million tons of waste paper annually.
Garden State's fifteen years in the recovery and recycling of
waste paper on both a national and international basis has
given us a hands-on knowledge and experience of the do's and
don'ts and pitfalls of Resource Recovery. We feel it impor-
tant for the Environmental Protection Agency to draw on the
experiences and expertise of companies such as Garden State
and associations such as the American Paper Institute to a-
chieve a successful implementation of this act.
While we are not looking for a position on your "non-panel",
I am here to offer the assistance and experience of both the
Garden State Paper Company and the Paper Stock Conservation
Committee of the American Paper Institute to The Environmen-
tal Protection Agency; and specifically, District 10 in the
implementation of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act of
1976.
— Y lur
2205 WEST MT VERNON AVENUE.
. UM
MAILING ADDRESS- P O BOX 2364, POMONA. CALIFORNIA 91 766
-------
THE LAND USE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
821 NW Flanders PORTLAND ORtGON 97209 503-2254333
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GEORGE D WARD
Director
DR WILLIAM J BAUER
Vice Director
DAVID W HARPER
Secretory
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS
DR 1HOMAS D HINESLY
Soil Ecologisl
University ol Illinois
WILLIAM BEEMER M D
Pliysicion,
Portlond. Oregon
PUBLIC STATEMENT
to the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
at it's
PUBLIC MEETING ON THE TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL AND THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976.
SEATTLE SCIENCE CENTER, MARCH 17 & 18, 1977
The Land Use Research Institute, which is a technically oriented,
non-profit Oregon corporation would like to take this opportunity to
inform the Environmental Protection Agency, interested state officials
and representatives of industry, of it's desire to coordinate the
establishment of environmentally safe disposal procedures for a broad
range of industrial wastes which, under the jurisdiction of recently
adopted federal regulations, are to become known as HAZARDOUS WASTES.
The fundamental process to be confirmed in proposed research shall
be the safe and economical utilization of known capabilities of soil
f^
microorganisms in bring'about virtually the complete chemical destruction
of biodegradable waste streams resulting from the manufacture of
complex synthetic chemicals. Special emphasis is to be placed on
the development of highly bacteriologically active soils fully contained
in sealed cells and capable of achieving chemical degradation, physical
-------
filtration, heavy metal precipitation and water dissipation through
both solar evaporation and plant evapotranspi ration.
Earlier research work conducted by Oregon State University,
The University of Florida and Iowa State University clearly establishes
the fact that naturally occuring soil bacteria do possess the ability
to chemically disassociate certain complex chemical compounds in a
safe and practical manner.
It is the intent of The Land Use Research Institute to expand on
the results of these previous research projects and to eventually seek
the establishment of much larger "designed soil disposal lysimeters"
capable of serving industry for a substantial portion of it's synthetic
chemical waste disposal needs.
In order to firmly establish the environmental as well as the
regulatory acceptance of soil bacterial destruction of certain chemical
wastes, The Institute is currently conducting discussions regarding
advance research grant funding with the National Science Foundation, the
Environmental Protection Agency and The Pacific Northwest Regional
Commission. Representatives of each have expressed a, "cautious degree
of interest" in various aspects of the concept and it is felt likely
at this time that federal funding may be made available for the varifi-
caton of soil incorporation as an acceptable waste chemical disposal
al ternati ve.
A request has been made by The Institute to have all initial field
work conducted under the supervision of soil and chemical research
scientists from the School of Agriculture at Oregon State University.
iC3
-------
- 3 -
As the concept expands and disposal sites in neighboring states a-e
investigated, additional participation'by university personnel in
each of the states will be solicited.
The ultimate objective shall be to first confirm the regulatory
acceptance of the soil degradation concept. The final step will be an
effort to establish a large, multi-state, regional plan capable of
locating, and managing if need be, either a single or several strate-
gically located "chemical disposal soil farms".
In conclusion, industry is invited to join with The Land Use
Research Institute in the investigation and hopefully the confirmation
of soil incoporation as a means of answering at least part of it's
waste chemical disposal needs in a safe and environmentally satisfactory
manner.
As stated earlier, The Institute is a non-profit, research
organization. Although grant eligable, it is currently supported only
by small membership grants by industry. Additional industrial or
publicly funded participants are welcome. The Supporting Membership fee
is $1,000 and all funds are tax deductable. I shall be happy to answer
any questions and to meet with any interested party following the con-
clusion of this meeting.
Thank you for the opportunity"of delivering this presentation.
George D. Ward, PE
Director
200
-------
'STATE OIF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT
AND WELFARE BoJ.'Sr^o
April 15, 1977
MEMORANDUM
TO: Toby Hegdahl
FROM: F.d Barker
SUBJECT: Written Testimony for the Public Meeting on
RCRA on March 18, 1977
The State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, is in overall
agreement with the new law and realizes that definite improvements
are needed in the field of solid waste management. However, we are
extremely concerned about the low priority of resource conservation
in the new law since at least the resource conservation section
appears to be a token effort on the part of Congress.
We submit these comments in full realization that it is not possible
for EPA to implement a program which has not been authorized by
Congress. However, in view of our strong feelings on this subject,
we are asking that these written comments become a part of the
official minutes of the public meeting.
Unfortunately, almost all solid waste management programs continue to
only seek symptomatic relief to the solid waste problem in the form of
after-the-fact solutions when we should be striving to minimize the
amount of needless solid waste we generate through comprehensive
source reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. We recognize that
this is a very sensitive political issue and is complicated by many
socioeconomic factors. However, we again strongly believe th.it this
type of preventive mechanism will be the only way the enormous solid
waste problem will be solved.
All present data and studies have revealed beyond any doubt that compre-
hensive source reduction, reuse, and recycling programs consei-ve natural
resources in the form of energy and materials far in excess of the after-
the-fact energy recovery type mechanisms which are currently promoted
nationally.
Unfortunately, comprehensive source reduction, reuse, and recycling appear
to only be possible if required by law and the passage of such laws appear
to be almost an impossibility at the present time.
b
br
yal
Shelf No. 597
-------
------- |