TRANSCRIPT

                          Public Meeting
              on the Public Participation Guidelines,
                      Section 7004(b) of the
          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
                  July 1, 1977, Washington, D.C.
                This meeting was sponsored by EPA,
and the proceedings (SW-24p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
      by the official  reporter, with handwritten corrections
                   by the Office of Solid Waste
               U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               1977

-------
                                                           II-l


             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 2

 3                 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES

 4                             OF THE

 5          RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF  1976

 6

 7                                    Room  2409
                                     Environmental Protection Agenc
 8                                    401 M Street, S.W.
                                     Washington, D. C.
 9

10               The public hearing was convened at 9:15  a.m.,

11     pursuant to notice, Mr. Thomas F. Williams, Moderator.

12               APPEARANCES:

13               Mr. Thomas F. Williams
                Office of Solid Waste
14               EPA

15               Mrs. Gerri Wyer
                Office of Solid Waste
16               EPA

17               Mr. Lanier Hickman
                Office of Solid Waste
18               EPA

19

20

21

22

23

24

 25

-------
1
2
3
4

5

6

7
S

9
10

11

12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23
24
25
CONTENT
STATEMENTS OF:
Moderator's opening statement
Mr. David MaDeena
Environmental Defense Fund

Mr. Stephen Birch
Director, Solid Waste Project
S





*

For the National League of Cities
and U.S. Coftference of Mayors
Mr. Donald Ray
Executive Director
Municipal Association of South
Mr. John Yeagley
EPA Region 8

Mr. Paul Keough
Public Affairs Director, Region
Mr. C.L. Jordan
North Central Texas Council of

Miss Adela Awner
National Wildlife Federation
Mr. Mark Sullivan
National Wildlife Federation

Miss Kay Pilcher
Environmental Action Foundation
Solid Waste Project

Mr. Hector Mendiat
Department of Health Resources,








Carolina




1

Governments











Texas





II-1A













PAGE




II-2







11-19













11-22










11-27







11-30







11-34







11-36







11-39







11-41










11-47







11-50

-------
1                           PROCEEDINGS




2               Mr.  Williams.    This  is  the  first  public




3     participation  meeting on the Public Participation Guidelines




4     that are being developed to help implement the Resource




5     Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.




6               I  am Tom Williams, the co-chairperson of the




7     working group  that is developing the guidelines, and I am




8     accompanied  by Mrs. Gerri Wyer, who is my co-chairperson,




9     and by Lanny Hickman, who is the Director of the Management




10     and Information Staff of the Office of Solid Waste, which




11     has the responsibility for developing  these  guidelines and




12     a number of  other things.




13               We will be hearing from Mr.  Hickman later on.




14               First, since the Administrator is  too busy to be




15     here this morning, which seems  .to be the case with many




16     other people,  I'm sorry to say, I thought I'd bring him here




17     in spirit by quoting from some  recent  remarks he made that




18     are very pertinent to why we're holding this public meeting




19     and why we're  developing guidelines.  And I  will be quoting.




20               Mr. Costle said "Public attitudes and practices




21     must be changed. Our historical view of what is waste and




22     what is not  waste must be altered.




23               "It's no accident, therefore, that the Resource




24     Conservation and Recovery Act contains an unusually complete




25    array of provisions which make  public  participation an

-------
                                                          II-3






 1     integral part of the process of planning and implementation




 2     rather than after the thought (add on.




 3               "Genuine public awareness and participation are




 4     essential for a number of reasons, two of which are of




 5     salient importance.




 6               "First, while the public has had first-hand




 7     experience with air and water pollution in their daily




 8     lives, the thousands of hazardous and somewhat less




 9     hazardous open dumps, pits, ponds and lagoons which exist




10     throughout our country leeching their witches'  brew into




11     the ground water and often contributing to surface water




12     and air pollution problems are hardly popular tourist




13     attractions.  And we must make a conscious effort to become




14     aware of them.




15               "Unless the public has a reasonable opportunity




16     to learn about them, the timely implementation of the Resourc




1?     Conservation and Recovery Act will suffer.




18               "Second, the Act is the utter opposite of an




19     add-on.  Government at all levels, industry, and the




20     citizen and consumer must embrace the true significance of




21     its varied provisions and alter their perceptions and their




22     practices accordingly."




23               Thank you, Mr. Costle.




24               Now I'd like you.-to know that within EPA when a




25     guideline or almost anything else finally gets out of the

-------
                                                          II-4






 1    stockade, a lot of people representing a lot of different




 2    interests within EPA as well as without EPA have had their




 3    say in developing these guidelines which we're here to




 4    discuss.  We've had a working group made up of members of




 5    various different components of EPA and we've also had help




 6    through representatives of the divisions of the Office of




 7    Solid Waste who are concerned with implementing the Act,,




 8              And I would like for Gerri Wyer to introduce those




 9    members of the working group and of our divisions who are




10    here today.




11              Mrs. Wyer.  Thank you, Tom.




12              As Tom mentioned, some people were not able to be




13    with us here today and some of our working group members




14    also could not come.




15              We had on the working group from Region 5 Lee




16    Botts, who is in the Public Affairs Office there.  She




17    couldn't come.




18              Marsha Caplin is on the working group.  She's from




19    EPA's Office of Water Program.




2Q              Mr. Terrell Hunt from the Office of Enforcement.




2i    And I 'believe he's also on leave this week because of the




22    holiday weekend.





23              From Region 1 the Public Affairs Director the:re,




24    Mr. Paul Keough.  Paul is here.  Would you stand, Paul?




25              Thank you.

-------
                                                          II-5
                From EPA's Office of Regional and Intergovernmenta




2     Affairs, Claire Matassoni.




3               From the Office of Public Affairs here  in




4     Headquarters, Mr. Leighton Price.




5               And Miss Ellen Robinson has been a consultant




      with Mr. Price* tu— ut) from EPA's Planning and Evaluation




      Office^




                Tim Stanceugj he's coming in a little  late^ho told
                And from our Region  8 dfiice  in Denver, -Johif




11     Yeagley, who is the Solid Waste representative.




12               we also-r-since these guidelines in  Section  7004




13     are to be published and developed by EPA in cooperation




14     with the states, we had Mr. William Bucciarelli, who  is




15     the Director of the Division of Solid Waste for the State




16     of Pennsylvania — and I don't believe is able  to be here




17     either, I'm sorry to sa^fv-beve _the three division




18     representativesffiere that.woro working  with us-.




19               We have Nancy Dunn from Systems Management




20     Division.




21               Hugh Kaufman from Hazardous Waste Management.




22               And we have two from Resource Recovery, Larry




23     McEwen and Susan Mann.




24               Mr. Williams.  Thank you, Gerri.




25               Let me say a word or two about the  fact that

-------
                                                          II-6
 1     we are videotaping this meeting.   I hope it doesn't bother

 2     anyone.  This is not NBC or CBS or ABC.   It's EPA, courtesy
 ,,            S-o-HocjIy,
 "     of Bill -GMali. -'  It is a common practice in EPA to

 4     videotape a press conference and such matters as that here.

 5     We are videotaping this in the hope that if an abbreviated

 6     version of this  meeting can be edited that appears really

 7     interesting and  shows strong public interest and public

 3     participation, we would make it available to all of our

 9     regions who have videotape facilities and perhcips later to

10     the states to encourage interest in the public participjition
          •£•

11     portions of this Act.

12               I don't need to tell most of you, I hope, that

13     public participation is something that unfortunately neither

14     bureaucrats nor  the public seem to be much accustomed to

15     in this city.   So we're going to do what we can to

16     encourage it.

17               If anyone has any real objection to having his

18     picture within the videotape that we're making, we'll be

19     unhappy but we will take you out.

20               I think now before I give you just the final word

21     on the guidelines for the meeting we ought to hear a few

22     remarks from Lanier Hickman who, as the Director of the

23     Management and Information staff of the Office of Solid

24     Waste, is very much involved in all aspects of all the

25     various complex processes that are going on within EPA to

-------
                                                           II-7
 1     implement  all  the  varied  provisions  of  the legislation.


 2               I  would  like  for Lanny to  tell  us a little bit


 3     about  how  the  rest of the war is going, and that is


 4     important  because  these guidelines,  as  we agree they ought


 5     to  be  at the end,  will  be affecting  how everything else is


 6     done under the Act.

                  0.
 7               Ljehny?


 8               Mr.  Hickman.  Thank you, Tom.


 9               RCRA is  somewhat unique in some of its


10     characteristics and provisions.   I say  unique from a


11     standpoint of  comparing it against other  legislation that


12     EPA is responsible for  the implementation of ,WPCA, the


13     Clean  Air  Act, TOSCA and  other new pieces of environmental


14     legislation, the Pesticides Act, referred to, from the


15     Safe Drinking  Water Act.


16               It's different  and unique  from  the standpoint that


17     unlike the Clean Air Act,fwPCA — the  Water Pollution Control


18     Act, the stick aspects  of the law is very, very limited.


19     It's different from those two- Acts,  from  the Water Pollution


20     Control Act, from" the care standpoint because the financial


21     caret  portion  is also somewhat limited.


22               A  good deal of  consideration  was given by the


23     Congress over  a period  of, oh, four  years, enough hearings


24      and reports  probably to fill this room, on what makes sense


25     for a  Federal  piece of  legislation.   Given both the Agency's

-------
                                                          11-8







      viewpoint and the Congress1  viewpoint that the real




 2     responsibility for solid waste management is, first, with




 3     local goverrment, in guidance and support of safe




 4     government,  and not a Federal responsibility..   Yet both the




 5     Agency and the Congress recognize that there is a need for




 6     certain Federal involvement because there are conditions




 7     that override local territorial bounds and state




      territorial bounds.  And there are demands at the spate and




 9     local level that _state and local government are not




10     capable or able to produce within their own resources.




11               So RCRA is structured somewhat strangely because




12     of that, in my view.  It's structured differently because




13     it doesn't include strong regulatory functions by the




14     Federal Government, and it doesn't include strong financial




15     assistance from the Federal Government.




16               This is why the public participation parts of the




17     Act are so important because it allows us as a solid waste




18     management community—and I mean the people who are picking




19     it up and making it go away; the people who are generating




      it; and the people who try to figure out a better way to do




      it, all that community—to have to develop a high level of




22     awareness and commitment to wanting to do a better job




      because we're being asked to do it ourselves without the;




24     Federal stick or the Federal carrot.




0,               So RCRA is structured along that basic

-------
                                                           II-9






 1      philosophy.   It has  principally three objectives:   One is




 2      to  see  that  the improper land disposal practices that all




 3      of  our  country follows  is eliminated over a period of some




 4      five  years.




 5                The law makes it very clear that by the end of




 6      1983  the practice of open dumping as we now know it is to




 7      disappear.   And yet  the law in its uniqueness does not




 8      require a large Federal regulatory program to make that




 9      occur.




10                It asks the public to become aware of the




11      problem, and the j_tate government to assume a major




12      responsibility in helping local government and industry




13      change  their disposal practices.




14                The law also recognizes that there is a unique




15      amount  of our waste  stream which offer particular hazards




16      to  the  quality of our lives and the quality of our




17      environment,and does place on EPA the burden of assuming




18      a regulatory program if state government cannot take on that




19      responsibility.  But here again, the law is structured in




2o      such  a  way as to give the state government every




2i      opportunity  that they can have to assume the regulatory




22  i    function of  hazardous waste management, and provides some




23      very  specific financial assistance for that.




24                And the last objective of them all relates to that




95      nebulous bird called resource conservation.

-------
                                                          11-10



                A goal that all of us believe makes  sense, but a.

 <\
      goal that none of us know how to achieve because of the


      complexities of our institutional  arrangements  in  this


      country which make it very difficult to change  the


      affluent-effluent attitude of America to a  saving  attitude


      that we had, maybe our  forefathers, three or four


      generations had.


                But the long-term purpose of the  law is  to provide


 9    a mechanism for resource conservation to be equal—eager and


10    willing partner—in the total solid waste management


11    picture of our country.


12              And it appreciates the fact that  that is a long-


"    term goal because of the institutional problems we have.


14              So where are  we now in implementing  this law


15    which was passed in October of  1976?


                Most of the firianical promises of the law don't


      begin until fiscal year 78, which  is October  1 of  1977.


18    But EPA, because of the fact that  there are some very,very


19    stringent calendar demands in the  law, began  immediately


20    after that law was signed by the President  to  start to


21    implement most of the functions of record.


22              We went through a major  replanning  and


23    reprogramming exercise  within EPA  to redirect  our  resources,


24    those resources that we had.  They're limited,  but every


25    bureaucrat never has enough budget.  So when  I say

-------
                                                          11-11
      "limited" that's perhaps from a bureaucratic standpoint

 o
      but probably from a realistic standpoint

 o
      budget to do the job right now.


 4               But we took what we had—the Agency gave us more—


 5     and we redirected our efforts to start implementing RCRA.


                Now if you've read the law or if you've read a


      synopsis of the law you know that there are certain


      requirements in the hazardous waste provisions of the law,


      and in the land disposal and state program development


      provisions of the law that say by a certain date things have


*     got to be done, and that's the issuance of regulations

in
      and guidelines.

13
                There are some eight to ten regulations under the


14     Hazardous Waste subtitle that have to be promulgated and


15     out by 18 months after the Act passed.  That's April, '78.


*               There's a requirement that we must issue


1     criteria of what is an open dump and a sanitary landfill,


      and that has to be out by October of this year.


19               And there's a requirement for other things that


20     had to be out.


21               Public participation guidelines do not have a


22     mandated time when they iiad-to be issued.  But we think that


23     if indeed there is going to be the sort of local public


24     involvement in implementing this law that's necessary, these


 25     guidelines have to be on the street at the same time we

-------
                                                          11-12
      first start to flow money to state and local government

 o
      under the new authorities, so that the public can

 3
      participate and support the decisions--the hard decisions--


      tnat state and local government will have to make in order


      to find the resources, both manpower-wise and dollar-wise,

 C
      to implement this law.


                So we are proceeding; we are underway.  You've


      seen the first fruits of Section 7004.  The first two


 9     six-months requirements:  the guidelines for regional


*     identification of solid waste management regions; and the


11     first report to the Congress from the Resource Conservation


      Committee.  Both are due in six months and they have been


13     issued.


14               if you don't have copies and you want copies,


15     you can get them from us.


                The land disposal criteria, the open dump sanitary


      landfill criteria is in draft and have been circulated


      widely in the country for review and is under development.


19     We are optimistic that we will make that 12-month deadline,


20     at least in an interim if not a final form.


21               All the hazardous waste regulations are under


22     the belt.  We are underway.


23               in the midst of all that we've done our planning


24     for  "78 and we're anxiously awaiting whatever money comes

                          3y- p ^
25     to us in  '78 then £jum Lhtt% RCRA.  It won't be as much as

-------
                                                           11-13




      was authorized,but  that's  not  uncommon.   Very seldom do you


      see appropriations  that ,riever  reach the  level of  the


      authorization  on  a  piece of  legislation.


                We asked  for full, but we do have to keep in mind


 5    that  you're not the only people  asking for part of the


 6    Federal  dollar.   And so we're  not going  to get all that we


      want.  No one  else  does either,  even the people who make


      B-l bombers.


 9              So you  have to look  at this thing in a  realistic


 10    viewpoint that solid waste management, while it's important


      to us, may not be the most pressing interest to somebody


 12    else.  I can't understand  why, but it isn't.  But it is a


      recognized problem  and it  is a recognized problem that's


 14    getting, hopefully, now the  right type of attention.


                We anticipate that the states  under the authority


      of subtitle C  and D will be  fully underway with their part


      of the responsibilities by the end of fiscal year 78.


 18              Our  intent is to provide everything we  can to


 19    ^s£ate and local governments and allow them to assume the


 20    responsibilities  of  RCR&  because that's the way RCRA is


 21    built.   It's built  to try  to get maximum participation by


 22    _j»tate and local government?  And our guidelines are designed

      se>
23     jttiat  the public has a right  to participate in that state


24     and local assumption of RCRA.  These guidelines are unique.


25    They're  tied together with the grant regs which we had a

-------
                                                                    I


                                                          11-14




      public meeting on yesterday, and they will be tied in with

 2
      our state planning guidelines, both for the hazardous and


      the nonhazarclous portions of the law.


                So we're very optimistic where we are right now,


      but we're really through only the easy part.  The real tough


      part is the next fiscal year.


                How well we are honestly achieving implementing


      RCRA will be how well we are and where we are by the end of


      fiscal year 78.


                We are going to continue to have a variety of


      public participation activities.  This year alone we have


12    over a hundred meetings scheduled to talk to the public


13    about RCRA, to talk to the public about what we're doing and


      where we are in our work.


15              We appreciate .everyone ^ho ia hero for coming.


1s    I hope that you're vocal in your comments on the public


      participation guidelines, and critical where you think we're


      wrong and laudatory where you know we are right.


19              Tom Williams has a thick skin.  He's an old


20    bureaucrat that's made it.  And a hard head.  And we'll be


21    very happy to receive all comments.   We welcome them, and


22    we encourage them.  And don't be shy.  Get right up to the


23    mikes, and we're ready for it, and give us whatever it is


24    that you think we need to know.  Because your participation


25    in developing this guideline is important and it's sort of

-------
                                                          11-15
 *     a foundation for the whole public participation  effort  that


 •*     RCRA intends to have occur and we intend to  see  it does


 3     occur .


 4               And thank you for coming.


 5               Mr. Williams.  Thank you, Lanny.


 6               I'm sure you've all read the guidelines.  But just


 7     to refresh your minds about them and what we have done,  I


 8     will make a few very, very brief comments on the


 9     guidelines.


10               First, we will incorporate whatever we learn


11     today with the information we receive  from  300  copies


12     that we have sent out for informal review.   The  working


13     group will examine all that material and produce a new


14     draft which we hope to have in the Federal Register by


15     midAugust, maybe by the end of July if some  have their  way.


16               At any rate, all of this is even preparatory  to


17     putting the guidelines in the Federal Register.  So I


18     emphasize that because it really means that  there's a lot


19     of opportunity for anybody to participate who wants to.


20               Now the main points of the guidelines, or the


21     ones that make them somewhat unique, I hope, are, one thing,

                               d
22     not only EPA but states or any local governments receiving


23     financial assistance of any kind under this  Act  will be


24     required to carry out a public participation program modeled


25     along what is called for in these guidelines if  they

-------
                                                          11-16






 *     prevail in their current format more or less.




 2               They also would call >« for,  not only public




 3     meetings,  conferences and workshop to be held as bhe Act




 4     unfolds, but they would alteo include the formation of




 5     review groups, adhoc committees to review program plans,




 6     and so forth.




 7               And we've also defined in the guidelines, as you've




 8     noticed, what we consider a relatively full spectrum of




 9     public interest groups who want to avoid the kind of public




10     participation that sometimes occurs under other types of




11     legislation or under this type of legislation.  But only one




12     segment of the public, usually from the full right^^




13     spectrum,  has any input into what the Federal agency is




14     doing.




15               It also would include—and this is an important




16     element—the development of basic public educational




17     programs for the public.




18               it is not uncommon, as you know, for only certain




19     experts or certain strongly motivated and well-heeled




20     interest groups to really understand what a given regulation




21     says.  And while computer print-outs may be fine for those;,




22  I   we feel that information has to be boiled down, that the




23     technical  data base has to be understood by everyone—by cLll




24     voters—if we're going to implement and act in a truly




25     democratic fashion.

-------
do—in most^s,tates.   In other words, whatever mechanism
                                                    11-17
                Also all other established mechanisms are laid




      out in the guidelines, the Federal Register for the Federal




      level and similar provisions wherever they occur—and they



 4




 •>    states have to .insure public involvement would have to be




      applied.




 7              And also—and this is the important thing that




 8    Lanny alluded to awhile ago, one of the things he alluded




 9    to—every other regulation or guideline issued by EPA under




      this Act would contain a specific subpart which would




      require them to implement the requirements of this




12    particular guideline.




I3              Okay.  Enough on the guidelines.




14              Now just a couple of final words.




15              We're really hoping—the way we've laid the room




16    out this way—to have a discussion rather than a pure




17    question and answer session.  We will attempt to in some




18    instances, if we can, get persons' questions answered by




19    other people in the room.  As I said earlier, nobody seems




20    to be very much accustomed to public participation in this




21    Republic of ours but we'll try it.




22              If you have a prepared statement and it's long,




23    if you give it to the court reporter it will be included




24    in the official transcript of this meeting.




25              All of you will receive a copy of the official

-------
                                                           11-18






       transcript.




 2               if  you want to give a verbal or an oral




 3     presentation  of  it,  please give me a five-minute summary or




 4     something of  that sort.




 5               Be  sure to speak into a microphone when you talk.




 6     Be  sure  to give  your name and organization for the official




 7     record.




 8               We  plan to be  a,t it until 10:30, and we'll break




 9     for ten  minutes  and  then continue until everybody has had




10     his or her say.




11               I've had two requests from people who cannot




12     stay very long who want  to make official statements for the




13     record.   And  the first one—we'll start the meeting with




14     that,  if you  don't mind—is Mr. David-MaDaews- from the




15     Environmental Defense Fund.




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                            Me
-------
                                                          11-20
 *              If that section were merely precatory with respect




 2    to encouraging public participation, the notice and other




 3    provisions of the guidelines would be adequate.  But




 4    Congress also has required the Administrator and the States




 5    to assist as well as to encourage public participation.




 6              The best way of providing this assistcince would




 7    be to include a reimbursement provision in the guidelines.




 8    Merely providing technical assistance and information does




 9    not go far enough.




10              it is true that no appropriations have been made




11    under this section of the Act.  However, the Comptroller




12    General in a May 10, 1976 letter to Congressman John E. Moss




13    stated his conclusion that EPA needs no additional




14    authority to provide funds for public participation.




15              There can be no doubt that a wide range of views




16    presented before an administrative proceeding will provide




17    the  opportunity for better decision-making and will be




18    helpful in restoring public confidence in the decision-making




19    process.




20              EOF, therefore, urges that a reimbursement




21    provision for public participation be included in these




22    guidelines.




23              EDP is also concerned that in some areas the




24    guidelines are so vague or imprecise that states already




25    reluctant to encourage public participation may not act at

-------
                                                           11-21






 1     all.




 2               Examples of this include an absence of  standards




 3     as to what constitutes adequate public participation in




      terms of funding or other assistance provided,  too much




      discretion given in approving actions taken without




      adequate public participation, and the lack of  a  general




      presumption in favor of holding hearings.




 8               Without stronger guidelines the  requirements of




 9     Section 7004(b) cannot be met.




10               Thank you for giving us an opportunity  to  present




11     our views.




12               Mr. Williams.  Thank you, Mr.




13               All right.  Do you have to leave early, too, sir?




14               Are you the gentleman from the Conference  of




15     Mayors?  Steve J&rCnT  Do you have to leave early, Steve?




16               Mr. fci&E&V5 Yes, I'm afraid I do.
I7              Mr. Williams.  Okay.  Mr. Steve ja.ii.-eh of  the  League



18    of Cities.




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
 1                   STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN -&IRCH
                                                          11-22
 „                      -
 *               Mr. Bircir.  Thank you, Mr. Williams.

 ,                                Sueft
 °               My name is Steve Siren and I'm Director of the


      Solid Waste Project for the National League of Cities and


      U.S. Conference of Mayors.


                I would like to read a short prepared statement


      that we have put together.


 8               The statement reflects, in part, a discussion


 9     that we had last week with a task force of nationally


10     recognized solid waste public officials at the municipal


11     level as well as our own reaction based on contacts with


12     other officials around the country.


13               The National League of Cities and U.S. Conference


14     of Mayors appreciates this opportunity to comment on the


15     Public Participation Guidelines of  the Resource Conservation


16     and Recovery Act of 1976  (RCRA) .


17               In general, we commend  the EPA Office of Solid


18     Waste for its emphasis on, and commitment to, the public


19     participation provisions of the new Act.


20               To date, we feel that EPA has been open and


21     forthright in seeking out and incorporating comments from


22     different groups and interests in developing the RCRA


23     guidelines.


24               However, several aspects  of the proposed


25     participation guidelines require  clarification and/or change

-------
                                                          11-23







 1     if the law is to be smoothly and effectively implemented.




 2               The following comments are, in part, drawn from a




 3     discussion of the public participation guidelines at a meet-




 4     ing of the NLC/USCM Solid Waste Task Force held last




 5     Thursday in Washington.




 6               First, the guidelines are both ambitious in their




 7     objectives and vague in their criteria and standards.  This




 8     leaves state and local governments without a clear sense of




 9     what constitutes a minimum program of public participation.




10               A_s_tate or community may make a good faith effort




11     to comply with the guidelines, yet still be subject to




12     citizen suits.




13               Although we recognize that there is no easy




14     solution to this problem, we recommend hat more explicit




15     attention be given to the reasonable capabilities of




16     governmental bodies to perform these tasks.




17               Account should be taken of the administrative and




18     financial burden these guidelines will impose on states and




19     localities.




20               Accordingly, the League and Conference recommend




2i     that more attention be given in the guidelines to the role




22     of existing institutions and procedures in involving the




23     public.




24               State municipal leagues are a good example of an




25     underused linkage mechanism for facilitating state and local

-------
                                                          11-24
      government communication and cooperation.




                Other types of coalition and clearinghouse




      organizations can be also brought into the participation




      process without placing undue strain on the system.




                The general point to be made is that the conceipt




      of public participation can quickly get out of hand, and




      can subject_state and local governments to endless




      litigation, if reasonable minimum levels of participation in




      the program are not made more explicit.




                Second, for all the openness of the proposed




11     process, and for all the records that are to be kept, there




12     is no provision for assuring that the comments received are




 *     incorporated into the decisions and policies that are




14     adopted.




15               The role of public participation, in implementing




      RCRA, if it is to be given this much emphasis, should be




      more than an exercise in testimony gathering.  It should also




18     have a direct and demonstratable impact on the policies that




19     are chosen.




20               Some type of mechanism should therefore be




21     included in the guidelines to assure that the information




22  |   received through the participation process is synthesized




23     into policy recommendations which are given serious




24     attention by state and local decision makers.




25  i             Third, and finally, several specific sections of

-------
                                                          11-25
      the  guidelines  could usefully be clarified.

                For example,  in Section 249.6,  local governments


 "*     have no  role  in reviewing and evaluating  the summary of


 4     public participation.

                What  recourse do local governments have if they


      question the  regional or ^state Administrator ' s decision on


      the  adequacy  of participation?


                A review committee composed of  federal, state,
                                              "^       ~=z~

      local and private sector representatives  might be more


      appropriate for this purpose.


11               In  Section 249. 7 (b) , how are "significant,

12     controversial,  or complex matters" to be  defined, and who


13     defines  them?


14               Again, a clarification of the definition and the


15     process  would be helpful and might avoid  later delays and


      prolonged litigation.

                In  sum, the League of Cities and Conference of


18     Mayors supports the objectives of the public participation

19     guidelines, but recommends that greater attention be given


20     to:


21               (1)   Established procedures and mechanisms at the


22                   _s_tate and local level that will keep the


23                    administrative costs of the program within


24                    reason;


25  j             (2)   The way in which the information received from

-------
                                                           11-26
                     such participation is going to be used;  and,




 2               (3)   A more explicit and well defined role  for




 3                    local governments in the evaluation  of the




 *                    participation process.




 5               Thank you very much.




 6               Mr.  Williams.  Thank you, Mr.




 7               Okay,it's wide open.  Does anybody have anything




      to say?




 9               Yes, sir.




10




11




12




13





14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




21




25

-------
                                                          11-27






 1                   STATEMENT OP MR. DONALD RAY




 2               Mr. Ray.  Mr. Chairman, I'm Don Ray and I'm




      Executive Director of the Municipal Association of South




 4     Carolina.




 5               I would like, first of all, to associate myself




      with the remarks made by Mr. -Birch in his statement with




 7     respect to the National League of Cities.




 8               The Municipal Association of South Carolina is a




 9     very active member of the National League of Cities.  I




10     would like to strongly underscore and urge EPA to develop




11     a one on one working relationship with the various state




12     leagues throughout the United States.  I believe there are




      47 or 48 state leagues.




14               And just to give you an example in South




15     Carolina, we represent 263 municipalities.  We estimate that




16     200 of those municipalities are engaged daily in the




      collection and disposal of solid waste.




18               They have some serious concerns about these.  And




19     we've got one heck of an educational problem or process on




20     our hands as state leagues to make sure that they understand




21     what their responsibilities are with respect to implementing




22     the provisions of this Act.




23               And I think it's a very natural linkage that you




24     develop.  Send the information out through the state




25     leagues.

-------
                                                          11-28
                I  believe  the  National  Association of  Counties  •—

 2
      and in each  jtate you'd  find that there  are  county

 o
      organizations similar  to ours.  And  these  are the people


      that have daily working  relationships  and  contact with


      municipal officials.   And I think it would be very  helpful


      to us.


                We, as an  association,  accept  the  responsebilit/


 "     that we have to educate  our people on  what tht, provisions


      of the Act are, what the impact of the Act is, because they


      are the final implementors of this Act in  terms  of  what it


      would mean.


                And we would urge strongly that  you--with copies

1O
      of the guidelines; sometime we don't get them on time--


'"*     develop a working relationship through the state leagues.


                Thank you  very much.


                Mr. Williams.   Thank you,  sir.


                Mr. Ray.  I  would also  like  to offer this one


      other comment for what it's worth of what  we're  trying to do


      in South Carolina.


20               Earlier when this Act came out a number  of local


21     officials, both city and county,  got together and  met with


22     the Governor.  The Governor of South Carolina has  created


23     an ad hoc committee composed of county officials,


24     municipal officials, Health Department officials,  and we're


25     going to add some business officials who would probably be

-------
                                                           11-29







       in  terms  of  being involved in the hazardous waste area.  And




       we're  trying to,  as best we can,  understand this Act, and




       have been given the mission of trying to give some viable




       options to the Governor with respect to his decisions.  I




       hope it works.




 8               Mr.  Williams.  Thank you.   We do, too.




 7               Mr.  Yeagley.   Tom, while someone else is coming




       to  the mike  I'd like to just reinforce what he said.




 9               Mr.  Williams.  Identify yourself, please.




10               Mr.  Yeagley.   Okay.



11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                      Jort

 1                   STATEMENT OF MR . .jeiW YEAGLEY
                                                          11-30
 .                              30N
 *               Mr. Yeagley.  -Jeten Yeagley, with the EPA  Region  8.


                Just as a reinforcement of what this fellow  has


      said, we, in Denver, Region 8, have made a very definite


 5     attempt to contact the League of Cities and the Association


 S     of Counties in our six states, and have been supplying  them


 t     with drafts of information and so on, and have been able to


 8     develop what I think is  a very good relationship with  those


 9     people, and, in turn, foster their relationship with the


10     state solid waste agencies.   And it's worked out very well


tl     for us and I think it will continue to work out well.


12               And I just bring that up as support for what you


13     said there.


14               Mr. Williams.  Thank you.


15               Does anyone have anything to say about what  has;


16     been said or about what  has not been said?


17               Mr. Ray.  Would you want to comment to some  of


18     the statements that the  National League of Cities made wd th


19     respect to their  statements about the sort of things like;


20     these variants could be  very ambiguous in certain areas or


21     the lack of specifics in certain areas.


22               Would you want to comment with respect to that?


23               Mr. Williams.  I'll take any comment  I can get


24     from anybody en any subject.


25               Mr. Ray.  My question was would you weint  to

-------
                                                           11-31
      comment  from  the  standpoint  of  it, what was  just  said?


                Mr. Williams.  Would  I want  to  comment, me?


 3               Mr. Ray.  Yes.


 4               Mr. Williams.  And comment on the  allegation?


                Mr. Ray.  That's not  an allegation.   I  think a


      comment  and observation may  be  a better term.


                Mr. Williams.  On  the assertion that  the


      guidelines are vague?  Is that  what you mean?


 9               Mr. Ray.  Yes, sir, his statement.


10               Mr. Williams.  I would agree that  they're  vague.


11     And where the working  group, of which  I'm a  member,  will


12     attempt  to try to see  if we  can make them less  vague.


13               But I think  part of what we  wrestled  with  in


14     putting  these together is that  it's very  difficult to be


      too specific  or really specific about  what you  mean


      precisely by  public participation when you don't  have any


17     good  idea of  what the  resources are.


                What we're saying  is  that — we're saying, in


19     effect,  I think that there's no way to set up a watchdog,


20     no way to set up  a perfect system whereby everything can be


21     perfectly evaluated.   But we're talking about an


22     institutionalization of the  idea of public participation.


23     We're talking about what we  mean by that.


24               Let me  say in that regard that  most public

                                             JMjn 0_ |, -ty
25     participation is  an empty exercise in  vainality/and  it's not

-------
                                                          11-32
      part of anything.  The public participation under this Act

 o
      so far in EPA has been for real.  We put out a preliminary

 o
      plan before we develop guidelines.  And our technocrats


 4     and our bureaucrats are running about the country doing


      their work and going to a lot more trouble to hold meetings


      and let others know what they're doing than they might have


      otherwise.  And then most people do who work for any level


      of government.


 9               But what we've done is to say unless -- what


10     we've attempted to do is to say all right, if states or
                                                   ^

11     local governments are going to get financial assistance


12     under this Act for other things, they have a right to


      request it for public participation.  And we have a right to


14     say yes, if you do so and so to bring about public


15     participation, that's a fundable part of your application.


16               I think that's a far step forward.


                But you're wanting to know how someone in EPA is


      going to precisely evaluate that is a good question.


19               We'll have to work it out.  I don't know.  But


20     it's not going to be something that can necessarily be


21     spelled out totally in this guideline.  It will have to be


22     perhaps in other guidelines.When the people who are


23     evaluating whether or not a given application,  a given


24     state program, or regional program promulgated  by a state,


 25    by a government, is acceptable for financial assistance,  the

-------
                                                          11-33
      people who  are  evaluting that will have to be evaluating

 o
      whether or  not  they have the proper element to public

 g
      participation.


                But I dare say I don't personally know how to


 "    quantify  some of those things.


 6


 7


 3


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25

-------
                                                          11-34




 1                    STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL KEOUGH

 n
                Mr. Keough.  My name is Paul Keough.  I am


      Public Affairs Director for Region 1, the six New England


 4     states.


 "               And we did wrestle with the problem that the


 6     League did raise.


 7               One of the things that the New England states


 8     expressed to me—and ^ehrf,Yeagley can probably speak for


 9     some of the jstates in his region—is that many of the


      solid waste offices that are to carry out these


      regulations are only one- or two-man operations at best,


12     and they're very understaffed and underfunded.


                And one of the things that the cry that came to


14     us from the jrfcates was try not to be too specific, try not


      to be set up rigid requirements that everyone would have to


      meet, because each state program is different.  Each jitate


      has devoted a different amount of resources to the solid


      waste area.


19               Mr. Bucciarelli, who is from, New Jersey?


20               Mr. Williams.  No, Pennsylvania.


21               Mr. Keough.  Pennsylvania.


22               He also asked us to try and give as much


23     flexibility to the regulations as possible instead of making


21     rigid requirements for each jjtate that would have to be met.


25     And I think that was one of the primary reasons that we

-------
                                                          11-35




 1     tried to keep them — tried to give an idea of what public


 2     participation was, and lay down some what we thought were


 3     minimal requirements, although not specifying that every


      state had to carry out every option in there.
     ^^

 5               So that was I think the primary motivating


 6     factor as to why we did not lay down each ^tate shall do


 7     A,  B, C, D,  which would be better from our point of view,


 8     because then we could just review the programs and say, well,


 9     you didn't do such and such, and therefore we're not going


10     to be able to fund your program.


11               But because each state's capabiliity was
                                "•^5—

12     different, that's why we purposely did not make them rigid.


13               And that was the message that we got from the


14    _|_tates.  Now apparently we're getting a different message


15     from some of the other representatives, but the jtates did


16     give us that message, instead of spelling out.  They did not


17     want it spelled out that every step that they would have to


18     do.   They insisted on a little bit of flexibility.


19               Mr. Williams.  Thank you.


20               Yes, sir.


21


22


23


24


25

-------
                                                         11-36







 1                    STATEMENT OF MR. C. L. JORDAN




 *              Mr. Jordan.  My name is C.L. Jordan.  I'm with the




     North Central Texas Council of Governments.




               Very briefly, a little background.




               We've been in the solid waste planning business




     since '71.  We have literally done handsprings, I think, in




     trying to get public participation.  We do real well as far




 8    as getting a state as well as local officials that are




 9    involved in solid waste.  We do relatively well in getting




10    what I would classify perhaps as environmental groups




11    involved.  But getting positive participation, you know,




12    from the lay public is a very, very difficult thing.




13              With the assistance of EPA we completed a very




14    detailed solid waste study in 1974 assisting our  local




15    governments and attempting to implement using the plan as  it




     were as a tool.  And I have been personally involved in two




     major efforts.  In fact, I'm into  a third  right now, of




18    trying to assist the local governments and just requiring  a




19    good old simple answer, but there's not anything  simple




20    about landfill.




21              The participation you get is never positive.  You




22    know, you can get people out of the woodworks when you finall




23    say this is the spot we wanted.  But you never geb any




24    positive thing.




25              You don't get anyone  to  come out and say, well,  you

-------
                                                          11-37






      guys are trying real hard.   You're doing the best job you




      can for the money.   I don't know what that process is.




                As I say, we've tried to do everything possible.




      We get newspapers,  we get TV coverage.




                Recently I was on a program, radio program, for




      the League of Women Voters, which we're active with.  But




      getting positive public participation just has evaded us.




                I would ask though the gentleman from Denver's




 9    comment, I don't think that we want the specific same




10    criteria that we have to meet as far as obtaining public




11    participation.




12              Give us some suggestions.




13              i generally feel that the people in the solid




14    waste industry—and I can only speak for those in the




15    North Texas Council of Government area, including cities




      like the City of Dallas, and Mr. John •*«p*t±'n, who many of you




      may know; Jack Graham, from Fort Worth—we're all interested




18    in doing, I believe, the correct thing as far as waste




19    disposal is concerned.




20              How we go about it, I don't think anyone—I don't




21    think the Federal Government, jstate or local—can really




22    say because we just have not yet accomplished that.




23              So give us some leeway, perhaps some suggestions




24     of things we've tried,that others have tried, so you can make




25    us aware of it.  And let us see if we can apply that to our

-------
                                                          11-38







     own  situation,  because,  as pointed out, even from one side




 2    to the  next,  you have different problems.   Certainly you're




 3    going to have different  problems from one _state to the




     next, so make them as flexible as possible with valid




 5    suggestions for us to consider and try to implement.




 6               Thanks for your time, sir.




 7               Mr. Williams.   Thank you.




                Yes,  ma'am.




 9




10




11




12




13





14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                          11-39    j




 1                    STATEMENT OF MISS ADELA AWNER

 n
 *               Miss Awner.  I'm Adela Awner from the National


 3     Wildlife Federation.


                Our solid waste project—we have an EPA grant—


      just held some workshops in Montana, and I'm sorry that


 6     Mr. MaDtifciil'd isn't here.  One of the things I would have liked!


 17     to have asked him is where some of this money is going to


 8     come from to fund this participation.


                We did help offset the travel expenses of people


      who attended our two workshops, and we also provided a


      lunch at each workshop.  And in Montana you can imagine that


      helping people offset their driving expenses did come to


 "     quite a bit of expense.


14               we did have a very good turnout at our two


      workshops.  It took a lot of effort.  One of the conclusions


      that I have slowly been coming to is it takes a very great


      deal of effort to get people to meetings.  People — most


      people, other than citizen group leaders and environmental


19     group leaders, just are not used to coming to meetings.


20               I think if we really want citizens to participate,


21     we're going to have to start going to these people.  It seems


22     to me it might be more effective in the long run to have a


23     special person on a solid waste staff, a state solid waste


24     staff, someone who is not an enforcer.


25               The people, especially in rural areas, that have

-------
                                                          11-40






 *     a contact with the solid waste office seems to have a




 2     contact with an enforcer, someone that comes to criticize




 3     their landfill or to criticize what they're doing or to




 4     threaten them if they don't do something differently.




 5               It seems that there could be someone who is not




 6     an enforcer but just someone to talk to people, to talk




 7     about what their problems, who would go to the people, not




 8     expecting people to go to him.  This might at least start




 9     the process moving.




10               i think if people know that someone in the capital




11     cares this would be at least a step in the direction.  Maybe




12     once this report is begun then they would start coming to




13     meetings.  But I think this would be a way to start




14     involving some of these people that should be involved and




15     don't come to meetings.




IS               I think that when you do get to them you find




17     that they are interested and concerned.  Most people just




18     don't go to meetings, you have to go to them.  I think




19     that's where we have to start.




20               Mr. Williams.  Thank you.




21               The working group I believe —




22               Mrs. Wyer.  There's another speaker coining up.




23               Mr. Williams.  All right.  Go ahead.




24




25

-------
                                                           11-41
                     STATEMENT OF MR. MARK  SULLIVAN




                Mr. Sullivan.  I'm Mark  Sullivan with  the




 3     National Wildlife Federation,  and  I work  with  Adela,  and




 4     I attended her Montana workshops.  And I'd like  to add




      that we also  conducted workshops in the State  of




 6     Mississippi,  so Montana isn't  in any  way  exclusive because




 7     of the participation  that we got there because we got the




      same identical kind of participation  with the  same




      procedure in  the State of Mississippi.




10               Tom made a  couple of remarks earlier about  how




11     do you get public participation?   The public is  not used to




12     it.




13               I'd have to echo what Adela just said, that




14     public participation  is there  if you  go about  and ask for




15     it.




                When Lanny  was making his remarks  he said that




17     we should laud EPA where they  need it and give them a




      nudge where they need it.




19               As  I looked over these guidelines  I  had a very




20     difficult time trying to find  anything to give EPA a  nudge




21     about.  And if I want on and on about the things in here




22     that I like it might  turn into a love feast.




23               So  I don't  want to go into  any  great detail on




24     that.  We will submit a formal statement, Tom.




25               I would like to point out a couple of  what  I think

-------
                                                          11-42






      are very positive things in these guidelines.




 2               So, for example, just making the statement as they




 3  |   do under policy for the guidelines, conferring with the




 4  i   public after a final Agency decision has been made will not




 5     meet the requirements.




 6               I think that that right there is the basis of




 7     what public participation has been to far too many people




      in the past:  make the decision, and then go out and. have




 9     the public say yes to it.  I think EPA is really biting




10     the bullet when they say this.




                I would, however, echo what was said earlier,




12     repeat—and Adela made the point also—that getting people




13     to the meetings is the important thing.  And if you have to




14     do things like EOF mentioned with reimbursing people,  you




15     find they do come.




16               We had in our workshops in two states over 300




17     people.  I had John Dickenson from the Atlanta office  of




13     EPA just come back from holding public participation




J9     meetings of RCRA.  He came up to me after our Biloxi




      workshop in Mississippi and said "I can't believe  this.  We




      held a public participation meeting in Atlanta for the




„„     entire region"—we have eight states, I think it is—"and




      we had 11 people show up.  And  I come to Biloxi, Mississippi
J.O



      and you have 65 people here.  And we went to Jackson the




      next day and had 80."
i J



                I think  it has to do  with the way you go out and

-------
                                                          11-43
 1     seek that participation.   I think these guidelines get to




 2     the heart of that matter,  that you make it accessible to the




 3     people and you remove the  obstacles wherever you can.




 4               One other point  about if there is something




 5     negative in the guidelines or something missing, I would




 6     also add that you talk about putting together fact sheets,




 7     for example.  I think it's essential that in everything that




 3     is done as far as regulations, guidelines under this Act,




 9     that I'd like to almost see it in print here in the




10     guidelines fewest words with the fewest syllables.   Make it




11     as easy for people to understand as possible, not have to




12     rewrite it so that people  understand it.  When it's written




13     in the first place it doesn't have to be so bureaucratic.




14     And I think this is something we've heard in a lot of these




15     public meetings on RCRA.




16               But aside from that I really can't see -- there




17     will be some points in the guidelines that we'll point out,




18     but I think this is a marvelous commitment on the part of




19     the Agency.




20               °f course, the second element of this is getting




2i     the funding to do it.  That's going to be an administrative




22     decision I imagine within  the Agency, within the office, but




23     we certainly would support that.




24               The National Wildlife Federation is the nation's




25     largest conservation education organization, and we

-------
                                                          11-44
      sincerely believe in and find it not only important but




      absolutely essential that the public be involved in these




      processes.  And if it requires a monetary commitment on the




      part of the Agency then we think the Agency should do that.




                So thank you for the opportunity to speak today.




 6               Mr. Williams.  Thank you.




 7               I think the working group was very much aware of




 8     the fact that to get the public participation in a nation




 9     of over 200 million people who are encouraged in many ways,




10     particularly through television, to be passive, to not get




11     involved — the day of the town meetings in New England has




12     long passed, and so on — it's a difficult thing to do.




                Just as we have official representative government,




14     in a sense, we have unofficial representative government.




15     The Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, Conference of




16     Mayors, all kinds of trade associations, apeak for millions




17     of people.




18               And so insofar as getting public participation as




19     the state level of government, as the federal level of




20     government is concerned, if you get -- really go through the




21     trouble and really try to make sure that all of the kinds of




22     interest groups and lobbying organizations are represented,




23     you are, in e'ffect, involving the public.  But later on




24     under this Act it's going to be a different matter.  You're




25     going to have to really go out and get to the, directly to

-------
                                                          11-45
 *     the public who are going to be opposing the way things




 2     look every attempt to establish a new landfill site at any




 3     place you try to establish one.




 4               This Act could actually be completely stopped




 5     or or inhibited in implementation by the automatic




 6     opposition to the establishment of landfill sites.




 7               So what is the answer to this?




 8               Well these guidelines we think contain at least




 9     a part of the solution to this, and that is you have to have




10     public information.  Let's face it, the public has been




11     bamboozled for a long time about the sanitary landfill.




12     They haven't ever been very sanitatary; they've been




13     reaching into the ground water since they first began them.




14     A little more aestetic pleasing in an open dump.  But as




15     far as real environmental or potential public health




16     damage is concerned, not much better than an open dump.




17               So it's easy then if you're going to establish a




18     landfill site, even if you mean it for the public to assume




19     you don't mean it, it's easy, too, for any environmentally




20     concerned consumer organization in the town locality or




2i     county to come automatically on their side because it's




22     always been true in the past.  Why isn't it true now?




23     Tremendous emphasis or the tremendous need in the emphasis




24     of the guideline for public information.




 25              People don't know what you mean.  Moreover, people

-------
                                                          11-46
      are not convinced.  And after we have defined the sanitary

 o
      landfill  and the open dump—I hope they're different from

 o
      the way they've been defined in the past—after we have

 A
      defined what hazardous wastes are and put out various


      regulations, it will be up to EPA, I think, first, to put


      out information that people can understand—we  hope to


 7    provide enough of it for states to use, for local governments


      to use—at least that everybody can understand; hopefully,,


      written more or less the way Martha's asked for it, that


      will spread the information around.


*               I don't think there's going to be any simple way


      to do these things.  And there are just many, many reasons

19
      why the public is distrustful of all of us at almost all


      levels of government.  They're distrustful of industry,


      et cetera.  We all know some of the hardened experiences of


      the past eight years which have underscored that sort of


      feeling in our country.


18              And we have a terribly difficult uphill fight to


19    make to attempt to implement this Act in full awareness.


20    And unless there is public awareness, forget it, it will


21    not be implemented.


22              End of editorial, I hope.


23              I would like for somebody else to follow up on


24    this.


25              Yes, ma'am.

-------
                                                           11-47







 1                  STATEMENT OF MISS KAY PILCHER




 2               Miss Pilcher.   My name is Kay Pilcher with




 3     Environmental Action Foundation Solid Waste Project.




                 Basically, I would just like to commend the




       EPA's Office of Solid Waste for the guidelines on public




       participation that we've seen so far.




                 People have spoken here about the vagueness.




       From our perspective, they're pretty specific as far as




       anything I've ever seen regarding public participation  and




10     yet it was a topic we've all decided today.




11               But if you look at some of the minor points,  I




       think there are some very innovative statements made in




       these guidelines.  One,  of course, is having to do with




14      location of sites for public hearings and meetings, that




       accessibility to public transportation would be a factor




16     to consider in locating your meeting place, and that might,




I7     of course, encourage places in more urban areas, you know,




       encourage people to come.




19               If you have problems of being out in a more




20     rural area, then,of course, I would have to support EDF's




21      proposal that some sort of reimbursement situation might




22     be helpful there.




23                The section I  particularly take great joy in




24      reading is 249.4, the Guidelines for Agency Programs.




25               They're pretty much spelled out. A, B, C, D,  E.

-------
                                                           11-48






 1     The  last  section,  "I.  Other Measures,"  is  of  particular




 2     interest  because basically what EPA  is  saying  is  that we




 3     have listed  here what we  see it to be necessary  avenues




 4     to encourage public participation:   hearings,  meetings,




 5     and  notification.




 6                But  don't limit yourself to these.   There are




 7     other ways you can get public  participation.   You know your




 8     people, you  know your area.  So don't limit yourself to




 9     these ways.  And I think  that's important for  them to say




10     that because so often people try  to  follow the letter of




11     the  law and  say, well, we only have  A through  D  to follow




12     so we're  very  limited.  We can't  do  more.   But they're




13     saying you can do  more.   Do as much  as  you can and we can




14     help you.




15                And  we'd just like to give our support  to that.




16                Thank you.




17                Mr.  Williams. Thank  you, Mrs.  Pilcher.




18                Any  dissenting  view?




19                Well, we're going to break before the  official




20     break unless somebody has something  to  say.




21                Very good.  I congratulate the working group for




22     having produced guidelines that is about perfect.




23                Yes, sir.




24                Mr.  Mendiat.  Did you say  you/rare  going to have




25     a break now  or terminate?

-------
                                                            11-49







 1               Mr. Williams.   Well if I don't get any more




 2     comments we're  going to  terminate.




 3               Mr. Mendiat.   I'd like to make a little comment.




 4               Mr. Williams.   All right.




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




 10




 11




 12




 13





 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                          11-50
1                    STATEMENT OF MR. HECTOR MENDIAT




2               Mr. Mendiat.  I'm Hector Mendiat from the




3     Department of Health Resources in Texas.  And we've had




4     quite a bit of experience in public participation over the




5     last couple of years in our solid waste permitting




6     procedures.




7               We do get quite a bit of public participation.




8     In fact, every public hearing that we have we get more and




9     more participation, and mostly is in opposition to solid




10     waste landfills as you mentioned before.




11               But we have a procedure in Texas established by




12     the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act,




13     whereby all proposed rule-making activities, public hearings




14     are publicized at least 30 days ahead of time in the




15     Texas Register which comes out twice a week and receives




16     wide dissemination.




17               And one of the problems we have is the distances




18     in Texas.  We have approximately 5,000 incorporated cities,




19     254 counties, 26 councils of governments, and various




20     quasi-governmental authorities, that all of them are




2i     involved in these solid waste procedures.




22               So the best means of passing out the word is




23     through the Texas Register.  And everyone is given an




24     opportunity to participate in the hearings, submit written




25     comments.  After the hearings we develop a summary of the

-------
                                                           11-51






 1     hearings,  available  to anyone.




 2               And,  as  I  said before,  we get more and more




 3     participation.




 4               In the rule-making procedures, we have a problem




 5     in trying  to establish where we're going to establish the




 6     public  hearing  sites because of  the number of people




 7     involved,  the number of communities.   We try to get as much




 8     of a cross section as possible  and distribute the hearings




 9     across  the state.




10               We're limited by our  funds  and the time




11     available, in most cases, as to  how many hearings we can




12     have or how far we can have them from the head office.




13     We generally try to  get as much  of a  cross section as we




14     can.  And  we've been fortunate  in getting fairly good




15     participation.   Not  as much as  you would expect in a city




16     such as Dallas  where you can have a public hearing, and




17     you might  end up with 50 or 60 people.




18               Other times, depending, of  course, on the matter




19     involved — other  times, we can  go to a much smaller city




2o     and we  have 250 people, depending on  what's being discussed.




2i               But we feel that the  response has been rather




22     satisfactory because we get both opposing and positive




23     views to the action  involved.




24               But what I'm trying to bring forth is that we




25     should  allow a  little flexibility as  I think is contained  in

-------
                                                          11-52
      the present draft.   And I don't want to see too much more


      specific criteria because in our situation it would really


      impose a hardship where we have to follow specific


      guidelines.  We'd like to leave the flexibility to conduct


      hearings as we feel are necessary and where they're


      necessary.


 7              And I think reimbursements in our particular


 8    case, which would be out of the question because of the


 9    distances involved, the number of people involved, and so


10    on.


11              So, in short, I would just like to support the


12    present draft without any further modification.


                Mr. Williams.  Thank you very much.


14              I think something you said just now about getting

15    a few people to come to  a  meeting in Dallas, and the


16    good numbers to come to a smaller setting, you ascribe it


17    to a topic to be discussed which I guess is a very major


18    item.  But also, as we all know, there's some connection


19    between how many people come and how much trouble you go


20    to to get them to come, which the Wildlife Federation
            •
21    representatives were talking about awhile ago.


22              A long time ago when I worked in HEW in the Air


23    Pollution Program I had a man on my staff whom I would send

                  t
24    out to get people to come to meetings.  And I would tell him


25    how many people I wanted, and what kind, and where and when,

-------
                                                          11-53
      and, by and large, he produced.  It's just a matter of




      effort.   There was nothing illegitimate about it.  It was




      all legitimate.




 4               But, you know, normally a state or the Federal




 •>     agency will put a notice in the Register or put one ad in




      the newspaper somewhere, and then say the public doesn't




      care.  Nobody showed up.




                But if we're doing something important, like




      introducing a new brand of cigarettes or a new beer or a




      new aluminum container for the beer, my God, we spend in




11     our culture millions of dollars to insure that everybody




12     knows about it.  Here it is.  Here, it's important.  And so




13     on.




14               So it's a matter of what the culture thinks is




15     important.




                And I know I talked with one of the representative




17     of one of the major news media in Washington, D.C. about




18     this particular meeting today, and I said "Why don't you




      come over here?  The public participation is so rare in




20     Washington, D.C., you might even write a story about it




21     because if for no other reasons, there's been a meeting in




22     Washington, D.C."




23               And the person said, "Well, my readers wouldn't




24     care about it.  Well, they might, but my editors wouldn't




25     let me print it anyway," and so on.

-------
                                                          11-54
 *               At the same day that I made this call the paper


 2     was full of delicious tidbits about whether Amy Carter went


 3     to school that day or not and won the essay prize; every


 4     gorry detail of a Hanaifi murder trial, about which we all


 5     know enough; we want to know the outcome, and on and on.


 6               So I think we who are serious about public


 7     participation and who work in or out of governments really


 8     have to go to some trouble to make certain that what we


 9     believe in is being sought.


10               Someone mentioned earlier about that the people


11     will come out for something negative, but not to come out


12     and be positive about something.  They're hardly accustomed


13     to coming out at all, I think.  And they come out when they


14     feel threatened.


15               And our public information efforts in this are:a—


16     the general media attention to many important matters—sire


17     so minimal.  And if it's minimal in Washington, I mean it's


18     double minimal in Iowa City or wherever.  Excuse me, Iowa.


19     Then we shouldn't be surprised.  They come out when they feel


20     threatened.  So it's a terribly difficult challenge.


21               And I'd like some more comments.


22               Mrs. Wyer.  Tom, I have one comment.


23               Mr. Williams.  Good.

                                      sWfc
24               Mrs. Wyer.  When Mr. BtH?eh from the League of


25     Cities — I think he gave two or three different points

-------
                                                          11-55
 2    were concerned that there wees no provision in the guidelines




 3    assuring that the comments received were incorporated into




 4    the decisions and policies that are adopted.




 5              Well in the guidelines, in Section 249. 5 (c) , there




 6    is a mechanism for that provision.




 7              It talks about the documentation of the public




 8 I   participation measures shall be maintained, et cetera.  The




 9    documentations will also reflect the measures taken by the




10    Agency regarding substantive public response and comments




11    on the regulations, standards or guidelines.




12              We may have to clarify that somewhat to mean that,




13    but I'm sorry he's gone, but that is provided in these




14    guidelines.  But it may need a little clarification.




15              Mr. Ray.    Mr. Chairman, one comment.




16              I think it would be helpful at these kinds of




17    meetings — and I understand your physical construction of




18    it — these kinds of hearings I think would be helpful  if




19    they could be moved out occasionally into the regions.




20              I know it's easier to come to Washington.  Most




21    everyone is representing, someone who is here , and I think




22    it would be very helpful — and maybe this is our fault that




23    we didn't have some mayors or some people here who are




24     really going to be the final implementors of this, and we




25    would accept that — but I think it might be helpful to see

-------
                                                          11-56
 1     if  some  of  these  kinds  of  meetings  may be moved out into


 2     the regions,  that kind  of  an attempt made to the regions.


 3              Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir,  that's true.


 4              We  did  have an opportunity.   Miss VJyer had an


 5     opportunity last  week or the week before to talk about


 6     public participation guidelines to  a group of mayors and


 7     city managers.


 8              Mrs.  Wyer.  That was at the League of Cities


 9     meeting.


10              Mr.  Williams.  League of  Cities meeting.


11              And I guess of the 120 public meetings, hearings


12  !   and workshops that will have been held under this Act by


13     the end  of  this calendar year, probably 80 percent of them


14     at  least would have been held outside of Washington, D.C.


15     But I agree with  you, absolutely.


16              Anybody else  have anything to say?

   I
17  i            Any working group members or division representa-


18  !   tives have  anything to  say?


19              Going,  going, gone.


20  !            Thank you very much.  We  will take seriously


2i  i   everything  you have said.


22               (Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m. the hearing was


23     concluded.)


24


25  :

-------
                                                                 11-57
      Ih'i Er.v.Li •;, ii-.ontal Defense Fund is a non-profit,  nationwide



or ;-r-.A-'r-t.io;: o'.  scientists, lawyers and economists  working



to pr;>tc.%t i.}i; publ.: c interest.  Riff has supported  the concepl




of tujl pa! lie ipartxcipcutjon in cr_':aiui strati ve proceedings



in f-  verify rf  contexts and .in principle supports- the proposed




gui'lelincs iiinduteci  under section  7004 (b) of the  Resource Con-




sei vr Lio.i cine! Peoovery Act of 197G,



      f;DF ^ oulcl like  to comment primarily on the omission of




any ;>rov\c"j.on i"or the roiiibursenenL of sorr? or all  of the costs



of participation by  individuals and groups.  The  value of




ereoling an adninistrative record  with the widest range of



vicvs  expressed  is clearly recognised in section  7004(b)  of



tiiP Act.   But full public participation in administrative pro-



ceer._nc,s carrier, with it a heavy finnacial burdan.  VJithout




son-3  forr; cf rc-l, .burd^ncnt r.isny i iidivdduals and organizations



w.1.13 be eficcti*'cly  ^rred froiii paiticipati on.



     E1>F  i-jiic-vc;;". Lhor.e ij-aidel ir.^ F.  do not f'i1 ly imp] emcnt the



rcqv'.o'f?~.;",lr of  section 7004 (b) .   If  that section were merely



p"eoc.i ury vit'h respect  to orieour.iqj.ng  public participation, the




not.ic^  aic1  etr;:"  prcvis I.ips 01  l.ho  guidelines  would be adequate,



r-.it,  ':.>:i,:oo,- c I'.o 'I'.IT,  r'Trni-toil ih? /ul'i-iuirtrator and the Stauor,



tc< ^.'j.'.-Jt 11 j '.;cll r»'.  lo o-.ooi.v ii">  j'nMJc ps^' ticii >;, tion .   Th" her, L-

-------

-------
                     Statement by the                        H"59
                National League of Cities
                         and the
                U.S. Conference of Mayors

                       July 1, 1977


     The National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors

appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Public Participation

Guidelines of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976  (RCRA)

In general we commend the EPA Office of Solid Waste for its emphasis on

and commitment to,the public participation provisions of the new Act.

To date, we feel that EPA has been open and forthright in seeking

out and incorporating comments from different groups and interests

in developing the RCRA guidelines.  However, several aspects of the

proposed participation guidelines require clarification and/or

change if the law is to be smoothly and effectively implemented.

     The following comments are in part drawn from a discussion

of the public participation guidelines at a meeting of the NLC/USCM

Solid Waste Task Force held last Thursday in Washington.  A list of

Task Force members is attached for your information.

     First, the guidelines are both ambitious in their objectives

and vague in their criteria and standards.  This leaves state and

local governments without a clear sense of what constitutes a

"minimum" program of public participation.  A state or community

may make a good faith effort to comply with the guidelines, yet still

be subject to citizen suits.  Although we recognize that there is

no easy solution to this problem, we recommend that more explicit

attention be given to the reasonable capabilities of governmental

bodies to perform these tasks.  Account should be taken of the

administrative and financial burden these guidelines will impose

on states and localities.  Accordingly, the League and Conference

-------
                          - 2 -
                                                             11-60
recommend that more attention be given in the guidelines to the
role of existing institutions and procedures in involving the
public.  State municipal leagues are a good example of an underused
linkage mechanism for facilitating state and local government communic
tion and cooperation.  Other types of "coalition" and "clearinghouse"
organizations can be also brought into the participation process
without placing undue strain on the system.  The general point to
be made is that the concept of public participation can quickly get
out of hand, and can subject state and local governments to endless
litigation, if reasonable minimum levels of participation in the
program are not made more explicit.
     Second, for all the openness of the proposed process, and for
all the records that are to be kept, there is no provision for
assuring that the cojnments received are incorporated into the decisions
and policies that are adopted.  The role of public participation.in
implementing P.CRA, if it is to be given this much emphasis, should be
more than an exercise in testimony gathering.  It should also have a
direct and demonstratable impact on the policies that are chosen.
Some type of mechanism should therefore be included in the guidelines
to assure that the information received through the participation
process is synthesized into policy recommendations which are1 given
serious attention by state and local decision-makers.
     Third, and finally,  several specific sections of the guidelines
could usefully be clarified.  For example, in Section 249.6, local
governments have no role in reviewing and evaluating the summary of
public participation.  What recourse do local governments Imve if
they question the Regional or state administrator's decision on the
adequacy of participation?  A review committee composed of federal.

-------
                          - 3 -




                                                             11-61



state, local and private sector representatives might be more appropri;




for this purpose.  In Section 249.7  (b)  (on page 11), how are



"significant, controversial, or complex matters" to be defined, and



who defines them?  Again, a clarification of the definition and the



process would be helpful and might avoid later delays and prolonged



litigation.



     In sum, the League of Cities and Conference of Mayors supports




the objectives of the public participation guidelines, but recommends



that greater attention be given to  (1) Established procedures and




mechanisms at the state and local level that will keep the administra-



tive costs of the program within reason, (2) The way in which the




information received from such participation is going to be used,



and (3) A more explicit and well defined role for local governments



in the evaluation of the participation process.



     Thank you very much.

-------
                                                                11-62
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
                                     UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
                        SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE MEMBERS
                           Mayor John Hutchinson
                           Task Force Chairman
                           City Hall
                           Charleston, West Virginia
                           (304)  348-8174
          25330
    Franchot Buhler
    Director
    Florida Resource Recovery Council
    Tallahassee, Florida  32301
    (904)   488-0140

    Mayor Wyeth Chandler
    125 North Main Street
    Memphis, Tennessee  38103
    (901)   528-2800

    Clifford Draeger
    Alderman
    City Hall
    200 East Wells
    City of Milwaukee
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53202
    (414)   278-2221

    Jerry Fairbanks
    Manager, Solid Waste Utility
    Room 606
    Seattle Municipal Building
    Seattle, Washington  98104
    (206)   625-2324

    William F. Farnam
    Director of Public Works
    One Manchester Boulevard
    Inglewood, California  90301
    (213)   649-7330

    Mayor Lee Fellinger
    City Hall
    Ames,  Iowa  50010
    (515)  232-6210
Alan L. Foster
Resource Recovery Coordinator
Denver Regional Council
of Governments
1776 S. Jackson Street
Denver, Colorado  80210
(303)  758-5166

Mayor Harry Kessler
301 Safety Building
Toledo, Ohio 43604
(419)  247-6077

Richard Simmons
City Manager
P.O. Box 3366
West Palm Beach, Florida   33402
(305)  655-6811

Mayor Jack Smith
45 Spring Street
Auburn, Maine  04210
(207)  784-4532

Wayne Sutterfield
Traffic and Transportation
Administration
Department of Streets
1900 Hampton Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri  63139
(314)  647-3.111

Mayor Harold A. Swenson
City Hall
423 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
(717)  255-3043
                  1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington D C. 20006 / 202-293-7300

-------
                                 - 2 -
                                                            11-63
John
Director
Street and Sanitation Services
2721 Municipal Street
Dallas, Texas  75215
(214)  748-9711

Robert M. Wilkinson
Councilman
City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California  90012
(213)  485-3343

-------
                                                                         11-64
                                   ATTENDEES
William M. Amrhein
Attorney at Law
Cutchins, Wallinger, § House
415 Mutual Building
Richmond, Virginia  23219

Adela Awner
EPA Solid Waste Management Project
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.

Nancy Barbe
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, B.C.  20006

Robert S. Becker, A.I.P.
Community Planning
4300 Rohe Road
Syracuse, New York  13215

Francis A. Bizzoco
Sanitary Engineer
HQ, Department of Army  (DAEN-FEU)
Washington, D.C.  20314

Linda Bonney
National Association of Counties
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Stephen Burks
Director, Solid Waste Project
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Luisa P. Cerar/Maria L. Rodguez
Inter-governmental Relations Office
Office of Commonwealth Puerto Rico
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Christine Curiel
Environmental Analyst
Arkansas Power S Light
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas  72203
Weyburn D. Davies
Environmental Engineer
AID-SER/ENGR/ENS
220 W. Cameron Road
Falls Church, Virginia  22046

Russell A. Dawson
Senior Editor
BPI
P.O. Box 1067
818 Roeder Road
Silver Spring, Maryland  209'10

Alfred J. Eggers
National Association of Manufacturers
1776 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

C. H. Engelman
Industrial Chemical Company
American Cyanamid Co.
Berdan Avenue
Wayne, New Jersey  07470

W. T. Fullerton
Parish Engineer
Cuddo Parish Courthouse
Shreveport, Louisiana  71101

Thomas J. Gaye
Assistant Executive Director
The Ferroalloys Association
1612 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

John R. Getchey
Sanitary Engineer
Eastgate Development and
  Transportation Agency
1616 Covington Street
Youngstown, Ohio  44510

Susan T. Gill               «
Research Associate
Division of Legislative Services
The Capitol
P.O. Box 3-AG
Richmond, Virginia  23208

-------
                                                                         11-65
Robert B. Golden
Chief - Sanitation
522 Linnet Circle
Delray Beach, Florida
33444
Isidore Goldman, P.E.
Rober and Company Associates
2250 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida  33409

Karen Gordon
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Edwin A. Hafner
President
Hafner Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 3923 Amity Station
New Haven, Connecticut  06525

Mary Jimmink
Manager, INDA
1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W,
Washington, D.C.  20036

C. L. Jordan
Regional Planner
North Central Texas
  Council of Governments
360 Place
P.O. Drawer COG
1201 N. Watson Road (Hwy. 360)
Arlington, Texas  76011

Jack S. Kendall
Environmental Engineer
Shellfish S Recreational Waters
  Division
South Carolina Department of Health
  and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina  29201

Richard Larsen
Regulatory Liaison
Can Manfacturers Institute
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036
B. Charles Malloy
Environmental Consultant
Jones-Malloy Associates
Central § Lancaster Avenues
Berwyn, Pennsylvania  19312

David Medine
Legal Assistant
Environmental Defense Fund
1525 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Hector H. Mendieta, P.E.
Chief, Facilities Evaluation Branch
Division of Solid Waste Management
Texas Department of Health Resources
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas  78756

Dale Montgomery
Land Planning § Strategy Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois  62702

J. Gregory Muldon
Legislative Research Analyst
National Solid Waste Management
  Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Robert C. Niles, P.E.
Director, Environmental Control
UNIROYAL, Inc.
Oxford Management fj Research Center
Middlebury, Connecticut  06749

John O'Hara, Engineer
Howard County Department of Public Works
3450 Courthouse Drive
Ellicott City, Maryland  21044

Wiley W. Osborne
Engineer
Texas Department of Health Resources
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas  78756

Camilla Ostrowski
Information Specialist
Informatics, Inc. (SWIRS)
600 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland  20852

-------
                                                                         11-66
Kay Pilcher
Environmental Action Foundation
724 Dupont Circle Building
Washington, D.C.  20036

Peter Reynolds
Room 3800
Commerce Department
Washington, D.C.  20230

Ellen Robinson
Public Information Specialist
Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Marissa Roche
Research Associate
Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Avenue,  N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Jeffrey Sama
Environmental Control Specialist
Department of Public Works
Town of Oyster Bay
150 Miller Place
Syosset, New York  11790

David S. Sampson, Attorney
Boasberg, Hewes, Finkelstein, and
  Klores
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006
Elizabeth Tennant
Editor, Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
Dupont Circle Building, Room 724
Washington, D.C.  20036

Hartsill W. Truesdale
Environmental Engineer
Solid Waste Management Division
South Carolina Department of Health
  and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina  29201

Richard Vickers
City of Akron, Planning Department
166 South High Street
Akron, Ohio  44310

Anne Vignovic
Assistant General Counsel
U.S. Brewers Association
1750 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

J. McDonald Wray
Executive Vice President
Municipal Association of
  South Carolina
Suite 200
1213 Lady Street
P.O. Box 11558
Columbia, South Carolina  29211

Jon Yeagley, Chief
Solid Waste Section
EPA Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver Colorado  90232
                                                                      KJl558a
                                                                Shelf No. 627

-------
U
£
W
o
H
U
c/

H  8
2!
b  -a
Z   „
    > r    £ > ^    " "•„
                 U5 D. •

                 3 CO" c
II
    ' OJ
    C CNJ
    o ^
        0> CO
        DC CM \
                01 _ —
w?5
!s£
™ < •»
                                 55
                                  c

                                  ° 2
                                 PS
       S?° •
       .rSo
   S?5 = •*
"  o:^o&
                                                 <0
                    W o irt

                    :|P
2 8<
c S<
                                                                          :5c<,
                                                                        :^<^&

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency




                                     Shelf No. 627

-------